jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (82 posts)

Does 'Murphy's Law' contradict 'Intelligent Design'?

  1. profile image0
    Cromperposted 5 years ago

    Murphy's Law: If something can go wrong, it WILL go wrong.
    Periodically, something will go right against all the odds - then it is called a 'MIRACLE'!
    'Intelligent Design' is the theory that the universe was 'created' by someone/something with 'intelligence'. When I think of the word 'design', I think of all things produced by humans to serve a purpose, without the need to 'hope that nothing goes wrong'.
    'Intelligence' is no more than having the ability to apply logic from memory, or experience.
    So how does 'intelligent design' fit into our understanding of the universe and its origin? With so much randomness in our universe, how can we apply the word 'design' at all?

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That seems like a pretty good argument to make. I will be interested to see replies. smile

    2. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Difference or randomness doesn't prove an intelligent designer wasn't intelligent. Randomness doesn't prove that there wasn't an intelligent designer. Randomness proves that the Intelligent Designer Loves Diversity. As much randomness and surprises as can be.

      People love conformity, sameness, regularity, even keel. Perhaps our designer differs from us in this regard.


      ***Intelligence is the ability to learn.

      1. profile image0
        Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Difference or randomness doesn't prove an intelligent designer wasn't intelligent."
        How can an intelligent designer NOT be intelligent? You're approaching the argument from the wrong direction.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          How so? Please do tell.

          1. profile image0
            Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Because you are assuming the intelligent designer already exists, whereas I am looking for evidence of the intelligent designer's existence.
            ...and I see none.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The proof of existence of a supreme being(God) is in my hub which also has links to the forum debates that go with it.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image62
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No, your hub simply states that God exists because God exists, it is a blatant and soooo obvious fallacy of logic.

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  And again....


                  I'm still waiting on the proof that backs up this claim of yours. If it is soooo obviously flawed.

                  Prove it is flawed. Saying it is flawed proves nothing.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image62
                    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Logical fallacies are there for all to read and understand. If you took the time to understand and NOT use them, your hubs might have some credibility. Unfortunately, they don't pass this very elementary stage of logic.

    3. kess profile image60
      kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What/who is intelligent?
      and what/who isnt?'

      To the fool the wise is just as foolish as the fool is to the wise...

      Which one then is the fool and which is the wise?

      What standard would you use to tell the difference?

      I tell you Truly none is foolish but each lives according to that which they perceive... and each apply their intelligence towards it.

      Now in this world each is his own architect building his own design as he perceive it to be....


      So the question is not whose design is "intelligent" as oppose to those who is not?.... but.....


      What does Each see.......


      I tell you truly The Master Architect design is perfect up to this present moment.

      Have you seen it?

      1. profile image0
        Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        When we talk about 'intelligence' and 'design' we can only treat those words the way they were intended to be used. You cannot claim that we do not understand what our own words mean (that the words are not in human ownership) because the words are indeed human in origin.

        1. kess profile image60
          kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          My friend I am not questioning the meaning of the words themselves, even I used them liberally knowing that there is a common human understanding of them...


          What I point out to you is this... you seek to apply the common understanding of the word "intelligence" into another concept that is "creation"...

          Until now you are unable to fit the two together...this is why you are asking questions...

          Now if you are able to see that within creation there is nothing that lacks intelligence, then you have seen ït through the eyes of the Master designer.

          At that point Murphys law would be irrelevant and you would be answering questions rather than asking them.


          So the question remains ...what do you see?

          1. recommend1 profile image72
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If the whole of creation were intelligently designed then the designer is a total failure.  There are more things out there that work badly than work well, the human being is just one glaring example, all that reasoning ability and yet so completely stupid, all those opportunities to make the world a beautiful place and none of them taken.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Creating absolute perfection, in every being, in every circumstance, in every possibility of existence is your definition of being a successful designer?


              Then which is perfect, Vanilla or Chocolate ice cream? Which ever one you don't choose, is that an example of something that works badly?

              1. profile image0
                Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Ice cream is a human creation - not that of a designer of the universe.

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Got proof?

                  Can you prove that cars that come off of an automated assembly line aren't the creations of the 'Human' that created that automated assembly line? hmm


                  Humanity 'may have' been created by aliens. It is possible that humanities DNA was placed on this planet by an alien race (created by God). It is possible that they did exactly what we do when we use the automated assembly line to create a car.

                  Understanding Evolution is understanding HOW God created.

                  Science is the discovery of How God did, some of what God does.

              2. recommend1 profile image72
                recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The point you clearly missed is that not only is there no absolute perfection, there is glaring imperfection everywhere.  The design of most things is horrendously flawed in many ways, from your coccyx that can prevent you walking for the rest of your life if you sit down hard in the wrong place to starving children living next door to some of the richest people in the world.

                Now if I was designing things I would, even with my limited knowledge, be able to improve almost everything I see.

                1. earnestshub profile image88
                  earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  This is where goddidndunnit is used in place of goddunnit. smile

                  1. recommend1 profile image72
                    recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It is.   Looking over the convent gardens a supercilious nun told my gardener father "it is amazing what god can do", my father replied, "well - he was doing a pretty rubbish job of it before I came along."

                2. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The design is nature and nature isn't perfect from a human's perspective but you're blaming God for the changes Humanity did and does to nature.

                  I admit Humanity has made a mess of things, but all creatures, while learning, make mistakes. God allowing us to make our mistakes and hopefully learn from them isn't a flawed design. Each of us think we could do it better, and for our selfish ends we could, but the next human would do it exactly the opposite way from yours. Because what is perfect for/to you isn't perfect for the next guy. That's why an absolute way, an absolute truth, doesn't exist.
                  Best is different for each of us.

            2. kess profile image60
              kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well if thats all you can see then....

              Your own eyes will continue to keep you stuck in the mud of imperfection....

    4. BradyBones profile image89
      BradyBonesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I find it interesting that you are asking a question of spirituality through the lens of mortal law. If something can go wrong, but doesn't, it must be a miracle? Evidence that a God or gods exist? And if it can go wrong, and does, then God or gods do not exist?

      Is this really the basis of your argument? It would be my opinion then that what you are engaged in is not, by definition, logical debate, but instead a logical fallacy. Coming to a conclusion based on non-fact does not make the conclusion fact. What you end with instead is a circular logical pattern that only works within itself, but does not withstand outside investigation.

      With that said, I find it interesting when people imply that science trumps God. Man's version of science has been constantly evolving, and will continue to evolve. Scientific theories change with time based on current understanding. Current understanding cannot, by virtue, be tied to one point in time until either all facts are known or the collective of knowledge refuses to learn anything new or reflect on different perspectives. In the 1800's it was a common belief that eating cold leftovers caused stomach aches. We now understand that this was not the heat of the food itself, but that the bacterium in the leftover food were not killed until heating to a certain temperature. Once heated, the food could be chilled and eaten without risk of food poisoning. This understanding, also known as biological science, has evolved with our own understanding of the process of various life-cycles and the threshold of life for certain non-beneficial organisms. To bring it back to point, the idea that the relative temperature of the leftover food had an impact on stomach illness was a logical fallacy based on the incorrect information and subsequent assumptions of the unknown science of pasteurization.

      Do we know everything now? Absolutely not. As long as we see the things around us with the limitations of what we think we know, we will be blind to all the possibilities that may actually exist.

      1. profile image0
        Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        BradyBones, I don't think you have fully understood my argument. There's nothing spiritual about Intelligent Design (a pseudo-science) or Murphy's Law, and the miracle part of my question was to demonstrate how we as humans misinterpret coincidence and sheer luck to be an act of God, or whatever. I'm asking about 'Intelligent Design' and how Murphy's Law fits into any 'design' at all!
        We know that when we design something we don't design to make things go wrong (unless that's what the designer intended, but then the design would function as intended and it would be right).

    5. profile image68
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The Creator God who is All-Wise; does say that He has created the Universe; this should be accepted:

      [2:117] And they say, ‘Allah has taken to Himself a son.’ Holy is He! Nay, everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him. To Him are all obedient.
      [2:118] He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a thing, He does only say to it, ‘Be!’ and it is.

      http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … ;verse=117

      Intelligent Design could be made by an Intelligent Being; there is none such being except Him; none to claim as such, truthfully.

      1. profile image68
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this
      2. profile image0
        Virgil Newsomeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        All the planets that are known to man have been on the same track ever since they were first discovered.  Was it all just by accident?  I believe everything was created not just random acts. 



        Things may seem to be random but still be designed to do what they do.  In order to prove that intelligent design is false, you must first prove that everything we call random is random and not designed to perform in the way they do.

      3. profile image68
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I am of the opinion that only an Intelligent Being could endow intelligence to others; universe or nature or evolution are deaf and dumb; they cannot bestow intelligence on others of their own; it is the Creator God- the Most-Intelligent the Most-Wise who has bestowed intelligence to others as per His design.

    6. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

      Mmmm this one is going to be fun!!  big_smile

    7. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago

      G'Day Mikel!

      I'm not going to enter this one for now, I want to see where this goes.

      Is it just me.. or are we seeing some discussions on the religious forums in place of the usual scriptural confirmation that goddunnit? smile

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I believe we have turned a corner. smile

        But that doesn't change the fact that Goddunit.  big_smile

    8. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

      You state that the randomness of the results somehow nullifies the idea that there was a plan. I say the randomness simply shows the plan(design) was to create 'Infinite Diversity'.(An endless supply of diverse entities.)

      1. profile image0
        Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How diverse? To what extent?
        That a man can grow wings and fly to work (and everywhere else)?
        That a woman can give birth to a child without pain?
        That leopards can become MORE intelligent than humans?
        That stars will gather in one place and cast bright light on the earth?

        What exactly are you talking about?

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          infinitely

          Do you not understand the term infinitely?


          That a being can exist and fly to work...  We call them birds on this planet.


          How is that action an example of existing?

          I suppose hmm

          also possible

          Infinite Diversity. Which word don't you understand?

          1. profile image0
            Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Was that a misquote I detect there Mikel?

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              ?? the quotes are your exact words. Go back and read them from your posts.

              or here they are again:

              Cromper wrote:

              How diverse? To what extent?
              That a man can grow wings and fly to work (and everywhere else)?
              That a woman can give birth to a child without pain?
              That leopards can become MORE intelligent than humans?
              That stars will gather in one place and cast bright light on the earth?

              What exactly are you talking about?


              End quote.

              1. profile image0
                Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Quote Mikel: "That a being can exist and fly to work...  We call them birds on this planet."

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  None of my other answers are the same words you wrote(that I quoted) either, what problem do you have with this one?

    9. knolyourself profile image61
      knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

      quite the opposite. The only way to discover the new is by accident. If it's intended, it is just duplication of what already is from the memory.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        hmm

    10. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

      :yawn: boring....



      ....gonna go watch tv.

      1. profile image0
        Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Wouldn't you rather be out flying?
        Of course you would! But then that would require a DESIGNED universe!
        LOL!

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ??? Are you saying that in order for a universe to be designed, the entities that reside in that universe would have to be able to do or be anything they desired?

          1. profile image0
            Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No. I'm saying that things wouldn't go wrong. There would be no freak weather conditions that kill many people. There would be no earthquakes. No floods. No famine. No disease. Etc.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So in order for the universe to have been designed, there would have to be 'only' good? No bad occurrences?

              Unfortunately, in order for good to exist, so must bad.

              I have a hub about that too.

              1. profile image0
                Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You're obviously twisting the argument here. Who said anything about good or bad?
                I'm talking about when things go WRONG. When things are designed, they are designed to serve a purpose. They work. If they go wrong it is either down to poor design or poor operation of the design.

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Wrong doesn't equate to a 'bad happening'? Failure, poor operation...these are all 'bad' occurences...no?
                  Is wrong good then?

                  Arguing that if something fails to do what is was designed to do proves
                  the design was/is flawed always isn't true.

                  The space shuttle design is good, usually it works. However sometimes they blow up on thier way to space.

                  You're looking for an absolute answer to existence. Absolutes are very rare, and I'm afraid there isn't an absolute answer in your logic here. Murphy's Law is also a flawed expression, an attempt at an absolute: If something can go wrong, It will. That's an absolute, every time the shuttle doesn't blow up on the way to space, it proves Murphy's Law is untrue, and flawed.

                  The simple truth is 'sometimes' things go wrong. 'Sometimes' good designs fail. 'Sometimes' good creations go bad.

                  'Sometimes'

                  1. profile image0
                    Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No. Wrong does not equate to a bad happening. Lots of things can go wrong without anyone getting hurt. There is nothing bad about hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, etc - they happen naturally without any designed intent to hurt anyone. People do get hurt though - that is unfortunate.
                    However, if natural catastrophies are DESIGNED to kill people, then they are BAD! Evil!

                    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
                      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      I think you're selectively deciding the meanings of words depending on what makes them agree with your point of view.
                      In so doing you're contradicting yourself.

                      On one side of the scale is the concept 'Good' on the other is the concept 'Bad' which side would you place the concept word 'Wrong'? Which side would you place the concept 'correct'?

                      wrong is equated with bad.(I'm not saying they are identical concepts, if they were we wouldn't have two words)

                      here's the definition from dictionary . com -so we are both clear.


                      wrong [rawng, rong] adjective
                      1.not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.

                      2.deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer.

                      3.not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him.

                      4.not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: the wrong way to hold a golf club.

                      5.out of order; awry; amiss: Something is wrong with the machine.

      2. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        seriously... I'll be back later.

        1. profile image0
          Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Good. I have a challenge for you.

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Oh ...I can't wait  roll

    11. LeanMan profile image81
      LeanManposted 5 years ago

      Can we fit the buttered toast into this discussion somewhere?? Or maybe whales and petunias....

      1. Disappearinghead profile image88
        Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        We'll be needing a maximum improbability drive then. smile

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Don't forget the flux capacitor, you'll always need one of those too.


          smile

    12. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

      @Cromper

      You seem to be brushing over and ignoring 98% of what I'm saying and only commenting on the 2% you can find some possibility of refuting. What about the other 98% of what I'm saying?

      1. profile image0
        Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Now that's just rubbish, and you know it. big_smile

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The 2% being the definition of the word wrong. The 98% being:

          Arguing that if something fails to do what is was designed to do proves
          the design was/is flawed always isn't true.

          The space shuttle design is good, usually it works. However sometimes they blow up on thier way to space.

          You're looking for an absolute answer to existence. Absolutes are very rare, and I'm afraid there isn't an absolute answer in your logic here. Murphy's Law is also a flawed expression, an attempt at an absolute: If something can go wrong, It will. That's an absolute, every time the shuttle doesn't blow up on the way to space, it proves Murphy's Law is untrue, and flawed.

          The simple truth is 'sometimes' things go wrong. 'Sometimes' good designs fail. 'Sometimes' good creations go bad.

          'Sometimes'


          But have fun arguing about definitions, I'm done with you.

          1. profile image0
            Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That means I win. Thanks for playing smile

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              roll Make sure they get you your trophy.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image62
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        98% of what you say is logical fallacy. Funny you don't see it but everyone else does. lol

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          To use your words:
          So now your thinking for everyone and telling us what everyone thinks?

          1. A Troubled Man profile image62
            A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, just thinking.

            lol

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              To use your words:

              You're doing no such thing.

    13. WD Curry 111 profile image60
      WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago

      No, it was built in.

     
    working