The Argument from Design vs. the Problem of Evil

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Compare and contrast:

The Teleological Argument (the Argument from Design):
We can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us.

One response to the Problem of Evil:
We can't deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the evil we see around us.


So... which one's right? Which wins: teleology or theodicy?

... or do you think the two can be reconciled? If so, how?

 

[LuisDantas]

Theodicy.

If we can't tell anything about the nature of God from what we see, it must follow that there is little or no detectable difference between an existence with that God and one with some other God or no God.

An entity whose existence and nature has no discernible consequences is by definition an hypothetical as opposed to a real entity.

The Teleological so-called argument is entirely aesthetical in nature and has no use except as a testimonial of personal inclinations.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Compare and contrast:

The Teleological Argument (the Argument from Design):
We can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us.

One response to the Problem of Evil:
We can't deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the evil we see around us.

Would you please cite a source that claims that "we can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us"? I've seen many instances where the Teleological Argument has claimed that we can infer god from our environment, but I don't seem to recall the Teleological argument making claims about the necessary nature of god,

 

[Altfish]

Since there is no god, both arguments are irrelevant.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

An entity whose existence and nature has no discernible consequences is by definition an hypothetical as opposed to a real entity.

Your "hypothetical vs real" counterposition is interesting.

Science evolves hypotheses and suggests ways to test them. Some are tentatively validated by such tests. Were proposed hypotheticals such as the Big Bang, or Black Holes, etc., unreal prior to validation?

 

[Pudding]

Compare and contrast:

The Teleological Argument (the Argument from Design):
We can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us.

What they mean by "what we see around us" is refer to the good things, not evil things.

One response to the Problem of Evil:
We can't deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the evil we see around us.

Because they believe evil is not the nature of God.

So... which one's right? Which wins: teleology or theodicy?

... or do you think the two can be reconciled? If so, how?

Yes it can be reconciled.

For example:
They believe they can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the good things they see around them.

Because they believe evil is not the nature of God, so they don't deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the evil they see around them.

Disclaimer:
I'm not "they". I'm just guessing how they would response to the op.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you please cite a source that claims that "we can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us"? I've seen many instances where the Teleological Argument has claimed that we can infer god from our environment, but I don't seem to recall the Teleological argument making claims about the necessary nature of god,

FYI: I didn't use the word "necessary" to describe God.

Here's one version of the teleological argument (Hume's) that attempts to infer not only God's existence but attributes of God from God's purported creation:

Since, therefore, the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed. By this argument a posteriori, and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity, and his similarity to human mind and intelligence.

Design Arguments for the Existence of God | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

There are many other examples out there.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Here's one version of the teleological argument (Hume's) that attempts to infer not only God's existence but attributes of God from God's purported creation: ...

There are many other examples out there.

Thank you. Clearly my understanding of the teleological argument has been - shall we say - humorless.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What they mean by "what we see around us" is refer to the good things, not evil things.

This can undermine the teleological argument, depending on how its formulated.

For instance, the argument from complexity infers a god based on, well, complexity of things in the natural world. If complex evil things don't need God as a creator, why would complex goid things need God as a creator?

Because they believe evil is not the nature of God.

... and by doing so, they assume that things that are not in line with the "nature of God" don't require God as their ultimatr source. If some things don't need God, why does anything need God?

Yes it can be reconciled.

For example:
They believe they can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the good things they see around them.

Because they believe evil is not the nature of God, so they don't deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the evil they see around them.

Disclaimer:
I'm not "they". I'm just guessing how they would response to the op.

I think you're missing a major link in the chain: the part where you connect the existence of a thing (or a set of things, or all things) to God. Once you have that justification, we'd have to ask whether it would apply to things that aren't in line with "God's nature".

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Compare and contrast:

The Teleological Argument (the Argument from Design):
We can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us.

One response to the Problem of Evil:
We can't deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the evil we see around us.


So... which one's right? Which wins: teleology or theodicy?

... or do you think the two can be reconciled? If so, how?

Not to help anyone bridge this inconsistency, but I suppose, from a purely logical perspective, we may be able to deduce conclusions about the nature of god from what we see around us, but not necessarily everything we see around us. Not that anyone making either of those arguments would necessarily apply such a reconciliation.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

If there is a God, then maybe this would be pretty close to what to expect.
Koko the Gorilla’s Important Message About Climate Change

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This can undermine the teleological argument, depending on how its formulated.

No, it cannot - unless, of course, one wished to construct a teleological argument purposely formulated to be vulnerable to the existence of evil, i.e., a straw man.

 

[LuisDantas]

Your "hypothetical vs real" counterposition is interesting.

Science evolves hypotheses and suggests ways to test them. Some are tentatively validated by such tests. Were proposed hypotheticals such as the Big Bang, or Black Holes, etc., unreal prior to validation?

Yes. The whole point of the concepts is that they are to be validated, or else freely disregarded if anyone feels like disregarding them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it cannot - unless, of course, one wished to construct a teleological argument purposely formulated to be vulnerable to the existence of evil, i.e., a straw man.

Do you think "irreducible complexity", as defined by the Intelligent Design movement, was formulated to be vulnerable to the existence of evil?

 

[Pudding]

This can undermine the teleological argument, depending on how its formulated.

For instance, the argument from complexity infers a god based on, well, complexity of things in the natural world.

I cannot understand what do you mean by "a god based on complexity of things in the natural world".

If complex evil things don't need God as a creator, why would complex goid things need God as a creator?

Who say complex evil things don't need God as a creator?

You mean the statement "evil is not the nature of God" must necessarily have the same meaning with the statement "complex evil things don't need God as a creator"?

... and by doing so, they assume that things that are not in line with the "nature of God" don't require God as their ultimatr source. If some things don't need God, why does anything need God?

Assumes God is omnipotent.
Assumes the nature of God is good but not evil.
Assumes God creates everything including evil.
Assumes God says that among those everything, the things which are good should be understand by his follower to be his nature. The things which are evil is not his nature.
Assume it is not necessarily that God's creation must be inline with his nature.

According to the assumption above, it is possible for God to create things which are not inline with his nature.
Therefor the things that are not in line with the "nature of God" do require God as their creator.

According to the assumption, God is omnipotent, this imply he can create things which contain new element which does not found inside himself or his nature, the new element is evil.
So it's possible that the evil doesn't require God's nature as the ultimate source to form their existence.

In another possible explanation, maybe originally God's nature indeed does including evil, as time goes by God manage to overcome it and so God's new nature doesn't include evil anymore.

Just to clarify, i don't have the belief that any assumption mention above is true nor i having the belief that they're false.
I'm discusing about them hypothetically.

You said "If some things don't need God, why does anything need God".

I'm sorry, to put your statement in the context of the assumptions above, i have to modify it, but please be understand i do not imply that my modify version is the only possible interpretation nor that there's no alternative interpretation for your original statement in other explanation.

My modify version will be:
If it's not necessarily for God to use his nature as the source or forming element to create things, why does any other things which form by using God's nature as source, need God to create their existence? Why couldn't they just exist without God create them?

Shorter version will be:
If some things don't need the nature of God as a source to form their existence by God, why does any other things need God to create them so that they can exist? Why couldn't they just exist?

It's non-sequitur.
According to the assumptions above, God can use his nature as a source to create things.
God can also invent new element which is not his nature, as a source to create things.

The reason that some things don't need the nature of God as a source to form their existence by God, doesn't explain why any other things have the abilities to just exist without God create them.

I think you're missing a major link in the chain: the part where you connect the existence of a thing (or a set of things, or all things) to God. Once you have that justification, we'd have to ask whether it would apply to things that aren't in line with "God's nature".

According to the assumptions above, it's possible that the evil don't require God's nature as the ultimate source to form their existence.

 

[Pudding]

Also sometimes i hear some people say that: how can the universe/human just exist itself by blind chance without God create them?

It can be follow by the response that, if God doesn't need anything to create him, why does the first human need anything to create him/her?
if God is always existing without anything to create him, why can't the universe always existing without anything to create it?

The people who make the assumption that God is always existing without anything to create him, and if they wish to convince other people their assumption is true, they then have the burden of proof to provide evidence to support their assumption.

Some evidence/argument i have heard is that we can see the process how shoe, car, tv, watch or baby making by humans, so if these objects have creator, then the universe and the first human must have a creator too.

Although we can't see the process when the creator create the universe and the first human like seeing the tv live show in live, there is Holy Book which wrote the process down, a group of people find many convincing evidence/argument inside the Holy Book and wish to convince everyone to believe the Holy Book. A group of other people find the evidence/argument being presented is unconvincing, and explain why they think so.

So it's like this:
Group A says it's convincing because...
Group B says it's not convincing because...
Repeat...
In this repetition, a group of non-beliver have been convince to believe the Holy Book. A group of believer becomes don't believe the Holy Book.
Some say they are okay to agree to disagree, live and let live.
Some feels bored or irritated or feel the debate becomes meaningless so just drop out of the conversation.
Continue repeat.

So is it convincing that God is always existing without anything to create him?

Group A says it's convincing...
Group B says it's not convincing...
Some people from group A sometimes try to legislate the law in their Holy Book to a country's law.
Some other people from group A and B disagree with theocracy and against the legislation of Holy Book's law.
Some people from group A sometimes use their Holy Book's moral to discriminate or judging some people from group B.
Some people from group B disagree and explain their reason for disagreement.

There're a lot of different interpretations about the Holy Book, which results in a lot of different religion denominations, although they have similarity in interpretations, they also have different interpretations about the Holy Book's law/moral/teaching. Some of them then say anyone who don't follow their interpretations of Holy Book's law/moral/teaching or obey their God, those non-follower will go to hell or being punish when the judgement day comes.
Some of them occasionally call themselves the true believer while call some other believers (who have different interpretation about the Holy Book) as false, misguided believer.
So some of them continue to advise and give warning to non-follower in hopes to convert non-follower to their denomination or religion.

Sometimes some people from group A insult or persecute some people from group B.
In return, sometimes some people from group B insult or persecute(?) back to some people from group A.
Vice and versa.

Sometimes some people from group A insult or persecute some other people from group A and sometimes back and forward, an eye for an eye.
Continue repeat...

Some people say we'll see who'll win in the end, you'll regret if you don't agree with them...

Repeat...

Why all the repetition?
It's because there is Holy Book.
It's because people have different interpretation about Holy Book.

Will the world have more happiness if there is no Holy Book?
I don't know, maybe some people will still find other alternatives to replace the Holy Book, and some people still fighting against some other people over it. Some people may hurt/die in this fight. Just like how people hurt/die in the fight over the Holy Book. Do i mean it's okay for people to hurt/die in the fight over the Holy Book? No, it's not okay. I have no solution for it.
Or maybe those people need to take the lesson in fighting over something, in order for them to learn how to get along with each other.

 

[bobhikes]

Compare and contrast:

The Teleological Argument (the Argument from Design):
We can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us.

One response to the Problem of Evil:
We can't deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the evil we see around us.


So... which one's right? Which wins: teleology or theodicy?

... or do you think the two can be reconciled? If so, how?

I can reconcile them.

We can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us. Look around it is in everything that god exists.

We can't deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the evil we see around us. Evil is not a thing. Evil is a perceived negative action against a thing. God does not perceive actions as we do.

 

[siti]

Here's one version of the teleological argument (Hume's) that attempts to infer not only God's existence but attributes of God from God's purported creation

I think arguments from design are about the weakest of all the arguments for God's existence - but in this case, you have quoted an atheist's (David Hume) formulation of the argument which he purposely set up to facilitate his own refutation of it. I don't think that's a fair way to exemplify the teleological arguments. Paley's "Watchmaker Argument" or Aquinas' Fifth Way would be more representative of the theistic formulations.

In any case, teleological arguments do not generally set out to establish anything about the nature of God just to establish the logical necessity of the existence of an intelligent designer (God) in view of the (apparently intelligently designed) nature of things. Of course all such arguments are roundly refuted by a closer inspection of the nature of things - which is, in a word, evolution - and which is, in turn, also the reason for the existence of "evil".

So there you have it: evolution is at one and the same time the apparently intelligent designer of all apparently intelligently-designed things and the architect of all "evil" - evolution is, therefore, in fact, God!

Do I get the prize for reconciling the weakest argument for theism with the weakest argument for atheism?

 

[David T]

Compare and contrast:

The Teleological Argument (the Argument from Design):
We can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us.

One response to the Problem of Evil:
We can't deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the evil we see around us.


So... which one's right? Which wins: teleology or theodicy?

... or do you think the two can be reconciled? If so, how?

In regards to design, We can deduce any reality we choose to deduce and it will always match precisely how we understand therefore that process alone merely is reductionism in a variety of forms from a car engine to fiction which is then called reality and facts.

In regards to evil, is it evil for the female praying mantis female to eat the male? Seems like it's a dictoral genocide carried out by the women of the praying mantis world oh the evil of it all. Is it evil for the California cobra lilly to eat flies? Whole patches of carnivous plant alligators laying in disguise hiding in the flies blind spot perfectly (designed?) To eat the fly? Oh the evilness of such a (designed?) creature such as that. Is it not evil to each Sunday to gather together and eat Jesus? Oh the evil of it all.

We can (deduce?) From nature that evil is (designed?) Into the car engine we call existence, life itself, and we, as the designed car engine have free will choices to:
1. not eat the male mantis,
2 not eat the flies,
3. to not eat Jesus on Sunday morning!!!

The world is a world of sinners not behaving properly from what I have reductively deduced. it's all Eves fault she introduced reductive deduction into the world, which is reductively deduced by me as being factually real!!!

in a previous life I believed in god i reductively deduced that God exists. In this life I am an atheist, i reductively deduced there is no god, in my next life I will be an agnostic, I will reductively deduce uncertainty to the question. I have all the bases covered through reductive deduction.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Compare and contrast:

The Teleological Argument (the Argument from Design):
We can deduce conclusions about the nature of God from what we see around us.

One response to the Problem of Evil:
We can't deduce conclusions about the nature of God from the evil we see around us.


So... which one's right? Which wins: teleology or theodicy?

... or do you think the two can be reconciled? If so, how?

We can reconcile the two because good wins,