[_ Old Earth _] Assuming ID is true and god is all good...

[Patashu]

The problem with comparing man-made machines, structures, designs and products to what is supposedly the work of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, all knowing all loving all powerful unerring PERFECT god is that in the former case we expect and even allow for error and flaws (because we are infallible, human, and cannot take everything into account) while in the latter case God is a perfect being and would not make something he loves imperfect.

(Also, abiogenesis hypotheses do NOT propose life being the result of undirected random chance, but in fact DIRECTED random chance; directed by the environment present on prebiotic earth or on any similar planet and by the laws of physics themselves)

 

[BobRyan]

Your argument "appears" to look at a painting and then say "this Rembrant painting is complex and astonishing but I set myself up as the judge of the painter and find flaws in his work as compared to Picaso -- why did he make that stroke vs this stroke".

Having THAT KIND of discussion is interesting "at some level -- given that you can not paint at all in this example" -- but it does nothing for the argument "The painter does not exist" or "this was not painted".

Recall that even in the case of genetics -- you find a proteing or enzyme that deactivates a gene then you look to see what happens. That is like taking a massive computer program far beyond your understanding and ripping out a function to "see what happens". The problem is that you don't know all the code paths through that function (what are the error checking mechanism's that override in the case of failure of that one function? how many other redundant systems are there? Is this a trinary dependancy where 3 functions have to be dissabled for the desired effect to happen or not happen?). You have no way to test all the code paths AND you also have no way of knowing that your enzyme ONLY deactivated just that one gene. You end up with a "best guess" that includes things like "I know that specific gene is involved with result-x".

Claiming that you know enough about genetics to determine all possible code paths variations functions and origins -- to the point of critque is gratuitous enough on it's own but the real question is how in the world does this address the "if there is a God that actually MADE everyting and is SEEN by ALL to have done it as Romans 1 says" form of question in the OP you need something "MORE THAN" an argument like "This NON-painter has a complaint about that Rembrant".

objective reasoning is needed if you want to pursue the OP's apparent goal.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Patashu]

Your argument "appears" to look at a painting and then say "this Rembrant painting is complex and astonishing but I set myself up as the judge of the painter and find flaws in his work as compared to Picaso -- why did he make that stroke vs this stroke".

Flawed analogy - Picaso is not assumed to be an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent perfect being.

The question is: why is a perfect God making the beings he supposedly loves infinitely with flaws, errors, imperfections?

Recall that even in the case of genetics -- you find a proteing or enzyme that deactivates a gene then you look to see what happens. That is like taking a massive computer program far beyond your understanding and ripping out a function to "see what happens". The problem is that you don't know all the code paths through that function (what are the error checking mechanism's that override in the case of failure of that one function? how many other redundant systems are there? Is this a trinary dependancy where 3 functions have to be dissabled for the desired effect to happen or not happen?). You have no way to test all the code paths AND you also have no way of knowing that your enzyme ONLY deactivated just that one gene.

Doing such an experiment is enough to know what the effect of taking out that particular section of the genome will do. That's all you need.

 

[Jayls5]

Why are there features in humans and animals that are completely detrimental and painful to their health? There are genes in people's bodies that serve no purpose but to cause cancer later in life. Cancer, mutated limbs, autism, down syndrome, you name it: Why do these things exist?

I'm not trying to be facetious. I honestly consider this to be a significant philosophical problem for a believer in an omnibenevolent God who doesn't subscribe to evolution.

A person finds a room filled with Blue GENE -- then says "Who here claims that this machine is NOT a result of undirected random events? --- if anyone claims that then tell me why this machine just indicated that I should be audited? Why did we have to upgrade the memory last year? Why did I strain my back trying to move the MUX? why?"

In other words -- as interesting as it would be to know all the design criteria and all the fail-over logic -- what difference does it make "Whether you know it all" when the simple question is "IF this thing is really NOT the result of random undirected events".

BLUE Gene though LESS complex than a single cell CAN NOT be considered the "result of undirected random chance" no matter what questions you have about a try-catch loop, or how it behaves when you try to do a memory upgrade with programs still running.

The questions are not designed to address the goal as stated in the OP.

in Christ,

Bob

This has pretty much nothing to do with my original argument.

It doesn't address the premise of an "all good" God just like the following post you made, which someone else pointed out.

 

[BobRyan]

The title of your thread "Assuming ID is true AND God is all good" then you ask about what you consider to be flaws in the infinitely complex system of DNA coding and decoding.

However my argument is as follows --

1. The existence of the infinitely complex DNA/RNA system already proves I.D no matter how you may set yourself up as judge of that system or in any way hoping to catch flaws in it.

2. The question of flaws - must take into account the Christian perpsective that death, disease, predation and starvation begins with the fall of mankind. This is a system breaking down.

Your question then -- for Christians is "why is this infinitely complex system showing signs of breaking down?" --

Are you trying to stick with that as some kind of argument in favor of atheist darwinism or are you saying that Christians did not discover that the fall of mankind brought in decay?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Patashu]

The title of your thread "Assuming ID is true AND God is all good" then you ask about what you consider to be flaws in the infinitely complex system of DNA coding and decoding.

However my argument is as follows --

1. The existence of the infinitely complex DNA/RNA system already proves I.D no matter how you may set yourself up as judge of that system or in any way hoping to catch flaws in it.

Show evidence that is infinitely complex. I see complexity but I don't see infinite levels of it nor do I see it accomplishing any tasks that are impossible with a finite amount of parts or steps.

2. The question of flaws - must take into account the Christian perpsective that death, disease, predation and starvation begins with the fall of mankind. This is a system breaking down.

So perfect omnipotent omnibenevolent God made a system that had the potential to break down. No matter how contrived, you have to ask why he allowed room for this to happen.

 

[BobRyan]

The title of your thread "Assuming ID is true AND God is all good" then you ask about what you consider to be flaws in the infinitely complex system of DNA coding and decoding.

However my argument is as follows --

1. The existence of the infinitely complex DNA/RNA system already proves I.D no matter how you may set yourself up as judge of that system or in any way hoping to catch flaws in it.

Show evidence that is infinitely complex. I see complexity but I don't see infinite levels of it nor do I see it accomplishing any tasks that are impossible with a finite amount of parts or steps.

Take a look at the EASY end of the spectrium. Single celled life forms -- the amoeba for example that you claim "just so happened to pop into existence on it's own" (or "aliens from outer space" as Dawkins suggests)

-- now make one in the lab -- spend whatever cash you like -- just try it "with our technology" --

Cant???

How "surprising".

How "instructive" to the objective unbiased reader.

Game over.

"That was just too easy"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said --

2. The question of flaws - must take into account the Christian perpsective that death, disease, predation and starvation begins with the fall of mankind. This is a system breaking down.

So perfect omnipotent omnibenevolent God made a system that had the potential to break down. No matter how contrived, you have to ask why he allowed room for this to happen.

Again you are wayy outta your league pretending that you "coulda made intelligent life even better if you were God" that is not a very "compelling argument" sir.

In God's case -- perfection involved access to the tree of life -- read Genesis 1-3 note the opposing view to your position here.

So now -- you look at free will - and the death that was predicted if that free-will chose to separate itself from the SOURCE of all life (hint: Life does NOT just "pop up all by itself")

Are you seeing the problem yet?

IF you want to stretch the Evolutionist non-God model of Intelligent Design ( a model that falls way short of creationism) and then re-invent it as ACTUAL Bible Christianity - Bible Creationism - THEN you have to actually look at the model Bible Christianity presents. Don't just go to the Discovery Institute or any other I.D proponants and suppose you found Creationism.

You have to GO to the Creationists themselves AIG is a good example. you have to read the actual Bible for what it says and then understand the opposing position.

All of it.

Then you can try to poke holes in it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Drew]

Why are there features in humans and animals that are completely detrimental and painful to their health? There are genes in people's bodies that serve no purpose but to cause cancer later in life. Cancer, mutated limbs, autism, down syndrome, you name it: Why do these things exist?

I'm not trying to be facetious. I honestly consider this to be a significant philosophical problem for a believer in an omnibenevolent God who doesn't subscribe to evolution.

I did not read of the other posts, so I apologize if I repeat what others have written.

I agree with the assertion that God is "all good", with the important qualification that He is not able to "snap His fingers and do anything He wants to do" - the very commitments He made in creating the Universe mean that even He cannot do strictly anything.

When man "fell" (the story of Adam "eating the fruit, whether literally true or not), the fundamental nature of the Universe was altered. And I mean this in a "physical" sense. I know this sounds glib, but to keep things short, I believe that in order for man to be something other than an extension of God Himself, God created the universe knowing either that man would fall or could fall.

And the very nature of created reality means that if man falls, the very fabric of reality changes. And God has to "fix" this. And He cannot do it by "snapping His fingers".

So, to focus on your question, the fall of man caused the material cosmos to be "damaged" - not because God is lashing out in "punishment" but rather because there is a mysterious causal link between man sinning and nature "getting broken". And so all these genetic problems are not so much "punishment" as they are the manifestation of a "broken" or damaged universe.

As a general statement, I think Christians look at these things with a strictly "moral judgement / judicial" paradigm, where in fact a better paradigm is the "the universe is broken and God is fixing it" paradigm.

 

[Orion]

Drew, it sounds like you're trying to say that "sin" (which is a word we use to describe something on a purely HUMAN level) may have significance outside a purely human/physical world, . . . something along the lines of "that which exists beyond the subatomic", . . . "energies", so to speak, that we have no way of qualifying/quantifying [at our current level of technology], but its presence "fractures a perfect harmonics" that the universe may have had and it converges in to the physical as "modifications to the original", kind of like the affects of radiation on healthy cells. The more "sin", the more "negative harmonics" are introduced, . . .the more chaos and distruptions.

I know this may sound a bit "science fiction", but it was the thought that came to my mind today.

It really doesn't explain the purpose of a "tree of good and evil" being placed in that "perfect creation", though. Its addition seems more like an "input introduced into an experiment". An input, of course, where the outcome would have had to have been known. :-?

 

[BobRyan]

Free will.

Given the fall of Lucifer and no access to Adam and Eve EXCEPT via that one tree. Not much of a test - but a test all the same for free -will intelligent life made sinless and in harmony with it's Creator.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Orion]

Will we have "free will" in Heaven?

 

[Drew]

Drew, it sounds like you're trying to say that "sin" (which is a word we use to describe something on a purely HUMAN level) may have significance outside a purely human/physical world, . . . something along the lines of "that which exists beyond the subatomic", . . . "energies", so to speak, that we have no way of qualifying/quantifying [at our current level of technology], but its presence "fractures a perfect harmonics" that the universe may have had and it converges in to the physical as "modifications to the original", kind of like the affects of radiation on healthy cells. The more "sin", the more "negative harmonics" are introduced, . . .the more chaos and distruptions.

I think you have indeed captured the essence of my position on this. I think the church is a little trapped in a mindset where "sin" is only a "judicial" or moral category. If you look carefully at the writings of Paul, I think you might agree with me that Paul sees sin almost as a real physical power, a real power present in the universe.

I claim the following as an example: Paul argues in Romans, albeit in an indirect manner, that sin (as this kind of "force" or entity) is literally concentrated in national Israel (acting like a "sponge" to soak up this "sin" force) and is then transferred to a single individual - Jesus the Messiah. Sin, cornered in the flesh of Jesus, attacks His flesh and "burns itself out" in the process.

This idea at least puts some "flesh" (no pun intended) on what is otherwise an entirely odd and mysterious notion - how can one man bear the sins of the world.

 

[Orion]

I THINK I see what you're saying, Drew, but we still have a lot of "sin" today, . . . . . . unless you're saying that the act 2,000 years ago (and this affect of the energies of "sin") were/are outside of "space/time" where that act of Jesus is the center focal point drawing this "negative energy" to it backwards and forwards on our time line. . . . . . and since WE view our world in a linear fashion, we are unable to see that Jesus is being crucified right now, at this very moment. The whole of time being compressed into a "singularity", which on our time line is taking place at that moment, some 2,000 years ago.

Now I'm REALLY sounding "sci-fi". :D In a secular story line (not one of a religion, but some other force), it may make a good movie. :wink: