# Bad Design



## duke (Apr 21, 2005)

I have a friend who is constantly on at me that if there is a God then he is a bad designer. He continually asks me why we are designed to need sleep and food etc. Surely such a great designer could have developed a system that does not require sleep and food etc. My friend reason from this that it is unlikely that there is a Designer.

What would be your approach in response to such a position?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 21, 2005)

Shakespeare thought differently:

"What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so." 

--From Hamlet (II, ii, 115-117)


----------



## openairboy (Apr 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by duke_
> I have a friend who is constantly on at me that if there is a God then he is a bad designer. He continually asks me why we are designed to need sleep and food etc. Surely such a great designer could have developed a system that does not require sleep and food etc. My friend reason from this that it is unlikely that there is a Designer.
> 
> What would be your approach in response to such a position?



To me, it is a little like the annoying child (not the curious child) that just keeps saying, "why? why? why?" There is a level of immaturity with this bloak that needs to be dealt with. Cause him to spell out his worldview, including the use of language and why it is meaningful. Then demonstrate the folly of his belief structure. Second, demonstrate that once he recognizes his createdness, which he will hate doing, and repents, then he will love God and his createdness, with all of its different facets. I love a good meal with a nice glass of wine and polish it off with a good nap. Your tag suggests that you aren't in the States, so get your friend over here for Thanksgiving. He will quickly learn to love a good meal, thanking God that he allows us to participate in such rich fare, and he will love to take that late afternoon nap while watching football, American style. Why God has us eat? The proof truly is in the pooding.

openairboy


----------



## Authorised (Apr 21, 2005)

If you extrapolate backwards, this might involve the problem of evil and the creation of the cosmos itself. 

What you guys think of this quotation:


> God knows everything that exists, of course, but not in the sense that they exist prior to or separate from his knowledge and then he comes to know them. Things are neither prior nor external to God. God´s knowledge of things precedes them, and it is precisely what produces them. Whatever exists has existence for the reason that God knows it, and whatever does not exist lacks existence for the very reason that he does not know it. Things truly exist because they exist in God. It is less true to say that God creates the world ex nihilo than to say that God produces it out of its own being"¦All exists in God and of God´s love and knowledge. All is God in a sense, but God also surpasses all totally. God is transcendent as well as immanent. God does not realize or actualize everything he knows. God knows contingencies that he chooses not to actualize. This does not limit God´s power, knowledge, or will. Still, since the divine will, like the divine knowledge, is fixed and immutable as well as dynamic, the cosmos that is actualized and the contingencies that are realized are absolutely fixed. It is logically possible that God could have realized a different cosmos, but only logically and not really, for God´s nature is eternally fixed, so that God´s mind embraces the contingencies eternally and eternally chooses to realize some and not others. It is false to say that God could have created a different cosmos, because "œcould have" implies the impossible contradiction that the immutable will and absolute knowledge of God are mutable and limited. The cosmos is absolutely as it is, and God is absolutely responsible for it.



--Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages pg. 33-4, by Jeffrey Burton Russell (commenting on Dionysus)


[derail]
Sorry to derail the thread, but Andrew, I disagree with your analysis of that Shakespeare passage. At this point Hamlet is feigning madness in front of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, because he knows that they are doing the work of Claudius. 

I think that quotation is actually sarcastic, mainly because of the horrible events that occured before it, enough for Hamlet to exclaim that "Denmark's a prison." 
[/derail]





[Edited on 4-22-2005 by Authorised]


----------



## smallbeans (Apr 22, 2005)

This class of arguments is kind of like the flipside of intelligent design - pointing to inefficiencies and suboptimal design as a way of trying to defuse the design arguments. Of course, we Christians tell a story of redemption in which it wasn't always meant to be this way - God made a much different world before the Fall. I would recommend the Discovery Institute - http://www.discovery.org/ - they have a lot of great resources for people dealing with the scientific counter-arguments to design. I seem to remember seeing something on there about this class of argument.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Authorised_
> [derail]
> Sorry to derail the thread, but Andrew, I disagree with your analysis of that Shakespeare passage. At this point Hamlet is feigning madness in front of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, because he knows that they are doing the work of Claudius.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your input, Aaron. I didn't give much in the way of analysis, but I'll be glad to say a word or two about why I cited Shakespeare and Hamlet. 

It's very easy to interpret Shakespeare in different ways. I wouldn't say that my understanding is the definitive one. But I do think it's too simplistic to dismiss what Hamlet said as mere "sarcasm." _Irony_ what I see in his words given the context. His friends were not the ideal man that Hamlet speaks of, yet that does not diminish the eloquent and profound truth of which he (and Shakespeare) is uttering. His words ought to have cut his friends to the quick with respect to how far short they fall from the glory of man as Hamlet described. Certainly the gulf between man's nobility according to Hamlet and the character of his friends is evident to the audience. But, as I said, the truth of what Hamlet said, remains. 

Certainly, Hamlet is a play in which there is a contrast between words uttered and the true reality beneath. And that is often the case in Shakespeare's dramas. But I think it would too cynical to dismiss idealistic statements by his characters as just sarcasm only. That may be a "glass-is-half-empty" interpretation, and I may be prone to a "glass-is-half-full" perspective on Shakespeare/Hamlet, but be that as it may, Hamlet's words, standing alone, express a profound truth. 

This essay addresses some of my points with respect to Hamlet.

Regardless of Hamlet's or Shakespeare's motivations -- it was not my original intent to address that -- the nobility of man as Hamlet described reflects glory to his Maker. If a prince of Denmark and an English playwright can recognize that -- and who knows whether Shakespeare was a believer or not? -- one who lacks thankfulness to his Maker for the way he is made can use a reminder from the world of men that man is truly a noble creation and with humility and thankfulness glorify God.

More to the point, the Bible says so authoritatively:

Gen. 1.27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen. 1.31a And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

Ps. 139.14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. 

Rom. 9.20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Rev. 4.11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. 

and, the WSC:

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man´s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

and Francis Bacon:

They that deny a God destroy man's nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts by his body; and, if he be not of kin to God by his spirit, his is a base and ignoble creature.

-- Francis Bacon, _Essays--Of Atheism_


----------

