Q&A: Regarding the fact that the world is flawed
Regarding the fact that the world is flawed
Question
The question is being asked independently of the problem of evil, but rather regarding the technical flaws in the world.
If I understood correctly, you argue that the burden of proof is on whoever claims that it is possible to construct a system of different laws of nature and create a more perfect world.
But you already know in advance that such a thing cannot be proven, and even if someone showed a simulation that produces “laws of nature” that would build a much better world than ours,
you would say that it is still not good enough.
I would also argue that in our world it has been proven that it is possible to create perfect things (perfect software, for example), and from that one can infer that any engineer could create a world more perfect than this one; here too you would say that it is not good enough.
I would further argue that intuitively, if there is a great engineer behind the world, the world should have been perfect (or at least better than it is today); you would not accept that either.
So where can one go from here if you want someone to show you something that cannot be shown, and your argument does not really stand the test of falsifiability?
Answer
First of all, everything you wrote is hypothetical. No one has shown a perfect system of laws. The fact that there is no such thing as perfect software at all is probably a fact (Gödel’s theorems, Turing’s halting problem). What matters now is whether the Holy One, blessed be He, can create a logical system that satisfies the conditions of Gödel’s theorem and yet everything that is true within it can also be proven. Clearly not.
As for your actual claim, it is very strange:
First, I did not come to make a scientific claim, and therefore my claim does not need to stand the test of falsifiability. The claim that God exists is also not falsifiable. The claim that only claims that are falsifiable are acceptable is also not falsifiable. Not to mention mathematical claims, which are not falsifiable. So you would reject all of those?
Second, the questioner also does not stand the test of falsifiability. Let him show me a refutation of his assumption in the objection that there is a better system.
And third, he is in the position of raising an objection, whereas I am in the position of offering a resolution. Therefore, it is enough for me to point to a possibility that the objection may not be correct, while he has to show that it is correct in order to raise the objection.
Discussion on Answer
I explained everything.
I do not know Gödel’s theorem beyond having read about it on Wikipedia as a layman.
As for Turing, it is not relevant, because there are programs that work perfectly even without input, and there are programs that know how to handle input they are not supposed to deal with—that is, to inform the user that the input is not relevant.
I know in simple terms that there are programs that work perfectly, without bugs.
At the biological level our world looks as though it is full of things that not even a beginning engineer would implement.
There are several possibilities, at least some of which I can think of:
1. The world is full of things that appear unengineered because it really has no designer.
2. There is a designer, and the things that appear unengineered are the maximum that can be achieved (this is your view).
3. There is a designer; the things that appear unengineered really are like that, but it is intentional. For reasons we cannot understand.
Maybe there are other possibilities. None come to mind.