Obvious Designer?

[POI]

Otseng's statement: "This is the variation of the omnipotent God argument by imagining a hypothetical perfect design. There is no need for God to be a "perfect" designer.

In human designs as well, things are not perfect and have flaws, but they are still designed. Nobody claims since iPhones have flaws in them that Apple engineers are either crappy designers or they don't exist at all."

*****************************

There is just so much to flesh out in this cluster of statements, I do not know where to begin. I guess we can start here and see where this goes.

For Debate: Is it obvious humans were designed, or not? Please explain why or why not. If you believe so, does this design lead more-so towards...

a) an intelligent designer?
b) an unintelligent designer?
c) a deceptive designer?

Like all other topics, let's see where this one goes.... And for funsies, here is a 10-minute video -- optional, but begins to put forth a case for options b) or c), if "designed" at all:

[Mae von H]

those who think the design is flawed, generally are uneducated in human anatomy and physiology. Ignorance is bliss for the atheists in this discussion.

Wow! More of the pot calling the kettle black here...

I'm currently exchanging with 1213 about the female vagina (post 17), how it possesses some "crap" design at best. Feel free to set all us 'atheists' straight, as we are all ignorant.

Since it performs it’s function beautifully, what changes would you make to improve it?

You ask why God won’t speak to you. This is why. You constantly judge and insult Him elevating yourself above Him. He never talks to those who do this.

[The Nice Centurion]

Otseng's statement: "This is the variation of the omnipotent God argument by imagining a hypothetical perfect design. There is no need for God to be a "perfect" designer.

In human designs as well, things are not perfect and have flaws, but they are still designed. Nobody claims since iPhones have flaws in them that Apple engineers are either crappy designers or they don't exist at all."

*****************************

But Apple engineers are not commonly presupposed to be All good, All knowing, All powerful. Thats the difference.

And because of that difference comparing them with the christian god as plan to help him out of the DD (Designer Dilemma) is futile

And additionally, even if we were to compare God to an Apple designer, the current iphone is on version 15, where-as God's humans are still in beta?

Doesnt this additional argument somehow shoot its own foot?

If christian god produced human apple designers who are able to produce a better product than he, shouldnt than go the greater admiration to the christian god, 'cause he managed to produce a product that in itself can produce a better product than him, while the apple designers Iphone 15 is unable to invent something that is better than its makers?

[brunumb]

So those who think the design is flawed, generally are uneducated in human anatomy and physiology. Ignorance is bliss for the atheists in this discussion.

Perhaps you should try a little education yourself.
Start here, easy to read:

Using all sorts of examples from the natural and scientific world Robyn Williams takes on the stalking monster of fundamentalist religion and creationism in a short, wicked and witty debunk of the nonsense that is intelligent design - a book to infuriate the religious right and amuse the rest of us.

[1213]

...Some of which have to do with 1) legal sex between a married couple, 2) improper whipping, or 3) having a much shorter urethra than a male. Do you opt for B) inept design, or C) a deceptive design, or D) no designer? It cannot be A) 'intelligent design'.

I think the reason for all the problems people have is that people rejected God.

[POI]

Since it performs it’s function beautifully, what changes would you make to improve it?

Not embed a sterile field within an unsterile one, and also right next to another completely unsterile one. Before humans invented antibiotics, women needlessly died of UTI's.

[POI]

...Some of which have to do with 1) legal sex between a married couple, 2) improper whipping, or 3) having a much shorter urethra than a male. Do you opt for B) inept design, or C) a deceptive design, or D) no designer? It cannot be A) 'intelligent design'.

I think the reason for all the problems people have is that people rejected God.

Up until a few decades ago, countless women died from UTI''s. Now, most don't because we invented antibiotics. Before this, such unknown/unidentified/undiagnosed UTI deaths would instead mistakenly be associated with 'evil'. Anything folks didn't/don't understand were/are either associated to 'God did it' or 'evil did it'. The God of the gaps keeps getting smaller and smaller.

[William]

Otseng's statement: "This is the variation of the omnipotent God argument by imagining a hypothetical perfect design. There is no need for God to be a "perfect" designer.

In human designs as well, things are not perfect and have flaws, but they are still designed. Nobody claims since iPhones have flaws in them that Apple engineers are either crappy designers or they don't exist at all."

*****************************

There is just so much to flesh out in this cluster of statements, I do not know where to begin. I guess we can start here and see where this goes.

For Debate: Is it obvious humans were designed, or not? Please explain why or why not. If you believe so, does this design lead more-so towards...

a) an intelligent designer?
b) an unintelligent designer?
c) a deceptive designer?

Like all other topics, let's see where this one goes.... And for funsies, here is a 10-minute video -- optional, but begins to put forth a case for options b) or c), if "designed" at all:

For Debate: Is it obvious humans were designed, or not?

For some it is and for some it is not.

If you believe so, does this design lead more-so towards...an intelligent designer?

I think it is obvious, yes. I also think that if humans were designed, then we have to extend that to everything else (The Universe)...

an unintelligent designer?

That would depend upon the objectives of the designer, given the role of humankind. Perhaps the design was meant to be as it is. Perhaps it is not the body which is acting unintelligent but the mind within the makeup of the body.

Perhaps the body is designed that way to produce that result or perhaps it was not known that the body would cause the mind to be retarded.

Those types of questions would have to be addressed in order to try to get closer to intelligent answers.

c) a deceptive designer?

This would bring in the additional question "why?" and with it the necessity to understand whether the deception was intended for evil or good (re the act and consequences) and how a (supposedly) flawed human could possibly get to know the actual difference.

The body may have been made in such a way that it retarded the mind using it, including that mind not being able to detect everything which can be detected (as scientific instruments have shown) and thus limiting the mind primarily to the human experience.

(MORE)

[Mae von H]

So those who think the design is flawed, generally are uneducated in human anatomy and physiology. Ignorance is bliss for the atheists in this discussion.

Perhaps you should try a little education yourself.
Start here, easy to read:

Using all sorts of examples from the natural and scientific world Robyn Williams takes on the stalking monster of fundamentalist religion and creationism in a short, wicked and witty debunk of the nonsense that is intelligent design - a book to infuriate the religious right and amuse the rest of us.

This is what I mean by atheists feeling more free to belittle and insult since they don’t believe there’s a Moral Law Giver. They’re proud to be “wicked.”

[Mae von H]

Since it performs it’s function beautifully, what changes would you make to improve it?

Not embed a sterile field within an unsterile one, and also right next to another completely unsterile one. Before humans invented antibiotics, women needlessly died of UTI's.

Well, the bladder is a sterile field embedded within an unsterile one. The GI tract is a deeply unsterile field embedded in a sterile one. And women obviously lived long enough to increase the human race exponentially so not a problem. Truthfully, death in childbirth was way more common than UTIs which have some non-antibiotic treatments. I just checked a list of mortality in the 1800s and UTIs didn’t make the list. The UTIs don’t come from the uterus.

The sterile within the unsterile and vice versa isn’t a problem but is rather unavoidable. And you didn’t talk about the bladder but the uterus.

[Mae von H]

...Some of which have to do with 1) legal sex between a married couple, 2) improper whipping, or 3) having a much shorter urethra than a male. Do you opt for B) inept design, or C) a deceptive design, or D) no designer? It cannot be A) 'intelligent design'.

I think the reason for all the problems people have is that people rejected God.

Up until a few decades ago, countless women died from UTI''s. Now, most don't because we invented antibiotics. Before this, such unknown/unidentified/undiagnosed UTI deaths would instead mistakenly be associated with 'evil'. Anything folks didn't/don't understand were/are either associated to 'God did it' or 'evil did it'. The God of the gaps keeps getting smaller and smaller.

Where’s the evidence for this? For any of this? And the fact is, antibiotics were discovered almost 100 years ago, not decades ago. Your information is way off.