Intelligent planning – how did it actually happen?
Hello Rabbi.
As you know, you support the claim of intelligent design, meaning that the designer intervened in evolution and directed it in the “right direction.” The question is, how did this actually happen? After all, interfering in evolution every time means breaking the laws of nature. Without external intervention, it is a deterministic process governed by the laws of nature. Since the chance of creating a human tends to zero, according to your method, this should not have happened. Meaning that the designer intervened all the time and broke the laws of nature again and again.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
But Abram the Hebrew wrote!
Could it be that he doesn't know how to read?!
Interesting to hear, and thanks for the correction. And yet:
If the outcome is known in advance, and the system is completely deterministic, why should an intelligent designer be assumed at all? After all, this outcome (a person) is not the realization of a rare thing, but the necessity of reality that was foreseen in advance.
I know that you tend to say that this is an unlikely thing - but it happened. So why is it unlikely? After all, even according to your method, the laws of nature dictate that it will inevitably happen.
Hagai
What forces the laws of nature to be as they are?
Doesn't the fact that the laws of nature are those that allow for developed life, when the chance of choosing such laws of nature is approximately 0, mean that I am demanding?
Just note that the question itself here is not a scientific question but a philosophical question (it is not about evasion as Avram wrote in his blindness). Science cannot offer an answer to such a question at all. Science may be able to say that there are basic laws and constants from which all laws and constants derive, but ultimately we are asked about the basic laws and constants why they are those that allow for life. Science by definition cannot answer this, and therefore it is a philosophical question.
And the fuel
@Yishay: You wrote:
Doesn't the fact that the laws of nature are such that enable evolved life, when the chance of choosing such laws of nature is about 0, mean that I am demanding?
Do you have an argument that shows that indeed the “chance of choosing laws of nature” “that enable evolved life” is “about 0”? I would love to hear one.
@mikyab: You agree, so I would love to hear your opinion too, of course.
Life refines certain types of chemical elements. A slight change in the laws of nature and most chemical elements would not exist. This is called fine tuning.
Richard Swinburne elaborates on this in his book.
Intervention of the planner
Since the chance of reaching a reasonable person is quite slim, isn't it reasonable to assume that he intervened? Or did he not care what the outcome was?
Moshe
On the surface, it's deterministic, and he set the opening conditions.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
