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:

[POI]

Mae Can’t you drop the attacks on God’s character? It stands out and overshadows all other comments.

POI I would advise you look at my side, outside of your own narrow view. Can either of us actually attack the character of Thor? No.

The objective of this thread is to point out the countless levels of poor design, deceptive design, or no design, from a claimed creator being. Logically, your believed upon deity then becomes as believable as Thor, which both of us do not actually believe in.

Mae Sorry a cartoon expresses what you think.

POI My point being that without watching the video, you cannot understand what I actually mean when I state Jesus is bad at Texas Holdem. It's a metaphor.

Mae Since God needed no updates and Apple has them frequently, they lose the contest.

POI You again completely missed my point. If you were a designer, and saw countless people getting UTI's, and you had both the means and opportunity to update the design, I bet you would. God is either inept, or can't, because he lost the metaphorical bet, (as the video explains). Or maybe, just maybe, this 'design' comprises of natural processes alone? Which would explain why so many 'design' ques result in such necessary human intervention to avoid sickness and death - (as you repeatedly state above and below). If you are able to watch the video, without seeing 'red', maybe you will get the intended position. Maybe not though?

[POI]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #60]

That provided slide reminds me of the Dover trial of the mid 2000's.

[Masterblaster]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #57]

Hello TRANSPONDER

I just wanted to buzz your tower once more before retiring to my slumber. Your 'blasted apple' does not exist in a middle eastern climate. My favourite apple is called a 'Pink Lady', I think they are from South Africa.

"The Bible does not actually mention an apple – early Christian art depicts the Fall of Man by a fig. Christianity likely introduced the idea of the fruit being an apple, in recollection of the 'apple of paradise' or when the Bible was translated. In Latin, evil is malum and an apple is called malus."

What on earth is an Adam's Apple, ....I will ask, MvH.

What are tonsils for ? MvH

Thanks

[brunumb]

You are happy to post a link to a “wicked” site. I rest my case.

You are unbelievable. The image of the book is taken from Amazon and the book is widely available from 'non-wicked' sellers. The contents are fact based even if the presentation might be done in a lighter manner to make it more accessible to the average reader. That said, it firmly debunks the notion that the human body, or that of any other animal, is intelligently designed. Ironically, comparable features in other animals are often far superior to those in God's special creature.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Ants-"Scientists have discovered that ants collect grains and seeds and break them into two pieces before placing them in the ground. Because if the grain or seed is not broken into two pieces, it will grow in the ground and become a plant.He wondered why ants cut coriander seeds into four parts as coriander has only one seed which can germinate even after being cut into two parts. So the ants cut it into four parts.But the surprising thing is who told all this to the ants."

Isn't that the exact way Robotic AI develops. The only way that the connection could be disproved is if it were proven that it was more efficient to split the coriander seed in three parts, and that is assuming that it would not germinate as a 1/3of a seed.

Thanks

[brunumb]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #59]

The article below is full of examples. You might like to read it and try refuting some of them.

Unintelligent Design
Anatomy is full of evidence that a "creator" wasn't very smart.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog ... ent-design

Introduction

Biologists such as myself are fond of pointing to the remarkable adaptations generated by natural selection, while benighted religious believers claim that such adaptations are the result of “intelligent design.” Ironically, however, some of the most impressive evidence for evolution – as opposed to special creation — resides in imperfections, including those of our own bodies.

David P. Barash is an evolutionary biologist and professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Washington.

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #66]

Unintelligent Design
Anatomy is full of evidence that a "creator" wasn't very smart.

Please elaborate.
What is meant by "very smart" (compared to who?) and is the atheist fraternity able to take into account the following;

Overall I wonder at what a "perfect form" (and world accompanying that) would be like if a "perfect God" would've made it.

I don't know that anyone (including atheists) would be able to answer that one.

It is something to be critiquing what is, (or even wishing for what is not) and wholey something else to be accepting of what is, even if that also includes the idea that we may in fact be existing within a created thing.

I also ask myself " if a creator who was omni-omni wanted to create something which would give it an experience of NOT being omni-omni, would that not explain why the universe is as it is?" and my current answer is "yes" to that question.

"But" (says the "other" voice in my head) "how would the existence of this universe grant the omni-omni creator respite from its omniness?" and the answer is that unless that creator lost itself within that which is created, it could not experience being non-omni - thus it is possible that the creation was designed specifically (and perfectly) for such to be enabled.

[Mae von H]

Mae Can’t you drop the attacks on God’s character? It stands out and overshadows all other comments.

POI I would advise you look at my side, outside of your own narrow view. Can either of us actually attack the character of Thor? No.

You use the excuse of not believing He is there so abusive accusations are allowed. Yet you want Him to please contact you and have asked me to ask Him to do so. I have and He said you must stop siding with the Accuser of the brethren. He refuses to establish any contact with someone so quick to falsely accuse Him of evil or incompetence. Surely this is easily understood. Would you be close friends with a person who is spreading false accusations against you? Would you tell them about about yourself since they’re enjoying taking you down publicly.

The objective of this thread is to point out the countless levels of poor design, deceptive design, or no design, from a claimed creator being. Logically, your believed upon deity then becomes as believable as Thor, which both of us do not actually believe in.

The human body has worked so perfectly that billions now live well on the planet. No update needed. It repairs itself. It educates itself. It’s worked flawlessly as evidenced by the quality of life we know. I dare you to produce a single design by man that has been functioning for millennia, repairs itself and can made more of itself unaided.

The problem on your side is anatomical ignorance, as I said. Change the bladder to a distance from the outside similar to a male and pregnancy will no longer work. This your side never considers.

Mae Sorry a cartoon expresses what you think.

POI My point being that without watching the video, you cannot understand what I actually mean when I state Jesus is bad at Texas Holdem. It's a metaphor.

Mae Since God needed no updates and Apple has them frequently, they lose the contest.

POI You again completely missed my point. If you were a designer, and saw countless people getting UTI's, and you had both the means and opportunity to update the design, I bet you would.

It’s like the update that rendered other more important functions dead. This you don’t see.

God is either inept, or can't, because he lost the metaphorical bet, (as the video explains). Or maybe, just maybe, this 'design' comprises of natural processes alone? Which would explain why so many 'design' ques result in such necessary human intervention to avoid sickness and death - (as you repeatedly state above and below). If you are able to watch the video, without seeing 'red', maybe you will get the intended position. Maybe not though?

Did you know that if you go swimming with your phone on, it will “get sick” and cease to function? What a horrible design!!! Are the Apple designers totally incompetent?! Did you know that if you pour certain fluids into the gas tank, the car will cease to function? What a really stupid and inept design!!!

As it is, God has a handbook for proper use so that the life of the spirit and body living together will function long and well? Did you know that a number of diseases occur from not following the handbook? And yet you blame the Designer.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to brunumb in post #66]

Unintelligent Design
Anatomy is full of evidence that a "creator" wasn't very smart.

Please elaborate.
What is meant by "very smart" (compared to who?) and is the atheist fraternity able to take into account the following;

Overall I wonder at what a "perfect form" (and world accompanying that) would be like if a "perfect God" would've made it. .

I don’t know your work regarding IT or have experienced software updates, but my husband does and the danger in “smarter and improvements” from updates is that some unrelated functions might no longer work. So when someone tries to tell that xyz in the human body is poorly designed, there are two thoughts in response (at least.)

One is that it’s functioned perfectly over millennia such that humans have very successfully reproduced and improved their lives which is better than anything man ever designed. Two, the human body is complex such that those proposing are usual extremely ignorant of the interactive relationship absolutely necessary for all parts to function. They think they could “improve” a part without any understanding of what that change might result in such as the body unable to perform vital functions. One such suggestion was the eye. An expert pointed out that the suggestion made would actually render eyes blind because of the need for blood to flow BEHIND such blood is opaque. This the atheists didn’t think of. So all the “suggestions” I ever heard would render a body with less functionality.

I don't know that anyone (including atheists) would be able to answer that one.

It is something to be critiquing what is, (or even wishing for what is not) and wholey something else to be accepting of what is, even if that also includes the idea that we may in fact be existing within a created thing.

I also ask myself " if a creator who was omni-omni wanted to create something which would give it an experience of NOT being omni-omni, would that not explain why the universe is as it is?" and my current answer is "yes" to that question.

"But" (says the "other" voice in my head) "how would the existence of this universe grant the omni-omni creator respite from its omniness?" and the answer is that unless that creator lost itself within that which is created, it could not experience being non-omni - thus it is possible that the creation was designed specifically (and perfectly) for such to be enabled.

Do not try to solve a problem in your understanding of God by trying to figure out how His “omniness” works. We do not see the matter as He does.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #59]

The article below is full of examples. You might like to read it and try refuting some of them.

Unintelligent Design
Anatomy is full of evidence that a "creator" wasn't very smart.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog ... ent-design

Introduction

Biologists such as myself are fond of pointing to the remarkable adaptations generated by natural selection, while benighted religious believers claim that such adaptations are the result of “intelligent design.” Ironically, however, some of the most impressive evidence for evolution – as opposed to special creation — resides in imperfections, including those of our own bodies.

David P. Barash is an evolutionary biologist and professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Washington.

I bet he cannot name a single genetic mutation that rendered humans better able to survive and reproduce for all subsequent generations. I’ve asked this question and there are, so far, none. If evolution produced man as we know him to be, there ought to be thousands. There are none. So he believes there have been design changes with NO CHANGE in code. Like programs changed themselves increasing function with no genetic code changes. That is faith!

And seriously, you want me to read psychology today for truth?!! Really??? Psychology is barely thought to be a science by scientists. That’s the best publication you can come up with?!! Anyone observing the field over decades would laugh if that team of people hadn’t been responsible for unimaginable malpractice (according to Prof. Peterson) and ruining lives on a scale no GP could.