On Cavediver’s
Why is the Intelligent Designer so Inept? thread, I attempted to initiate a discussion about the type of designer that would be fully consistent with the physical evidence available to us. There didn't seem to be a great amount of interest in this discussion, but I would still like to give it a shot.
Basically, I would like to discuss the Intelligent Designer who would be consistent with the physical evidence available in terms of the three main qualities generally attributed to the Judeo-Christian style of God: power, intelligence and benevolence.
I have broken the three traits down into 5-point scale bars, each point representing a general appraisal of the Designer’s efficacy.:
Power:
impotent --- incompetent --- neutral --- competent --- omnipotent
Intelligence:
ignorant --- unintelligent --- neutral --- intelligent --- omniscient
Benevolence:
omnimalevolent --- malevolent --- neutral --- benevolent --- omnibenevolent
-----
Most formal discussion has concluded that the evidence is not consistent with a Designer who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent on my scale bars (ignoring the possibilities of trickster Gods and paranoid-reclusive Gods). Most would probably also disagree that a Designer who is impotent, ignorant and omnimalevolent also does not fit the available evidence.
I would like to determine, with this discussion, the highest possible set of values we could give a Designer in regards to these three attributes, and in light of the available physical evidence. I argue that a Designer who is competent, omniscient and benevolent is the highest set of values that can be given, and happens to also almost coincide with the God that I believe in.
My arguments for this position are (1) that a God with great power could learn how to engineer something as complex as a human body, but would not be able to make it absolutely perfect; (2) that God has all knowledge that is possible to have, but that “all knowledge” does not include the knowledge of how to do things that physics does not allow; and (3) that God is benevolent because He allows us to appreciate beauty and good taste, etc., but often sacrifices benevolence for practicality (makes us feel pain; allows things to die because it maintains the balance of the ecosystem, etc.).
Do others agree with my assessment? Or, should I raise or lower some of the gauges?
I realize that there are potentially many possible combinations of attributes, but I only want to discuss the maximum (simply because the Designer is generally treated in the superlative).
-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2