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:

[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

---
Any answers,...Go! MvH,...you are doing good.
Isn't it funny that they do not mention dying as a design fault? Imagine a phone or computer where you are not always emptying the cache. Your brain does that automatically

Thanks

[Mae von H]

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.

Who sells a wicked book makes no difference. I am quite sure the description is suitable. And ridicule of the beautiful and holy is a favorite tool of the most wicked One. No serious scientist needs to employ it.

[Mae von H]

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

---
Any answers,...Go! MvH,...you are doing good.
Isn't it funny that they do not mention dying as a design fault? Imagine a phone or computer where you are not always emptying the cache. Your brain does that automatically

Thanks

Thanks MB! Nice to not be alone when surrounded by wolves. Obviously God designed them to do such. Maybe it’s the size or smell or some other feature that motivate them to treat those differently.

Now the atheists will employ the “god of the gaps”, evolution did it. Whatever is, evolution did it. No intelligence employed. Do you think the “evolution did a really poor job of designing everything they can’t see a reason for being there” view would be praised by them?

[Masterblaster]

Hello Mae von H

We have had our tiffs and our triumphs, together. That is what debate is about.

Skeptics have problems with the complexity of theism so that they attack its soft underbelly ,that is sometimes ,stupidity. I want your opinion on this point, please!

Paul was struggling with transferring the Jesus message. The disciples, alleged eye-witnesses to the events have struggled in the same way. I was reading Matthew 15, about them not washing their hands. Ritualistic washing and cleansing was vital in the Judaic religion, especially amongst its elite. The subject is fascinating and the habit is very strong still in Islam. Christians have Baptism and the washing of hands before the consecration at Mass. Jesus is said to have washed feet for a different reason. All fascinating stuff, but not my question.

You have been emphasising the concept of relationship with God and it has been leaning, too much,towards a personable God for my liking. ( on the God side).When Skeptics imagine this type of God in this type of debate they see a mad scientist guy fumbling at his desk. They attack the stupidity, on impulse.

MvH, ...look at Matthew 15, ...I think that Jesus was at Genius level in Theism.That is why most of us struggle ( past and present) to hold on to his coat-tails.

Jesus says that God is indifferent to human custom and ritual, that blind guides will lead us in that direction and that our focus should be directed on the following.

Matthew 15
"18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashed hands..."

This is not the same as the cross- communication between God and man that you constantly hint at. This is mankind getting their house in order so that they will truly see God. Jesus calls God ,Father. Imagine a Father with countless children and imagine your place in that family. You may never hear directly from that Father but may , and should be aware and grateful for His presence. Father might have referred to a tribal Father with countless family members, ie Abraham.

We appear to have a slight difference of emphasis,...that is all.

Thanks

[Masterblaster]

Hello
Defilement

"noun. the act of making something foul, dirty, or unclean: Humankind's destruction and defilement of the natural environment is seriously endangering the continuation of life on this planet."

Thanks

[Mae von H]

Hello Mae von H

We have had our tiffs and our triumphs, together. That is what debate is about.

Skeptics have problems with the complexity of theism so that they attack its soft underbelly ,that is sometimes ,stupidity. I want your opinion on this point, please!

Thank you and that’s an astute point regarding skeptics.

Paul was struggling with transferring the Jesus message. The disciples, alleged eye-witnesses to the events have struggled in the same way. I was reading Matthew 15, about them not washing their hands. Ritualistic washing and cleansing was vital in the Judaic religion, especially amongst its elite. The subject is fascinating and the habit is very strong still in Islam. Christians have Baptism and the washing of hands before the consecration at Mass. Jesus is said to have washed feet for a different reason. All fascinating stuff, but not my question.

You have been emphasising the concept of relationship with God and it has been leaning, too much,towards a personable God for my liking. ( on the God side).When Skeptics imagine this type of God in this type of debate they see a mad scientist guy fumbling at his desk. They attack the stupidity, on impulse.

Yes, I can see that. This case, then, is a character test. When someone purporting to know God speaks, if one also wants to know Him as well, one listens to what they say. Does what they say reflect their claim? Are they a faker or real? If one is jealous or has eliminated that possibility from any man, then of course one doesn’t listen. But there are A LOT of fakers out there, Iknow the tests to show them up dividing the true from the fake.

If you read my posts, you won’t find stupidity. I think I deftly handle all their attempts. But you must be the judge of that. No hard response on my part if you don’t believe me. But I cannot but impart the immense joy that relationship gives. He speaks to me and I know His voice, same as those real men in the Bible, just I’m a very minor player…of no importance at all.

MvH, ...look at Matthew 15, ...I think that Jesus was at Genius level in Theism.That is why most of us struggle ( past and present) to hold on to his coat-tails.

He actually said that he taught what he had heard from the Father. He didn’t figure it out. It came from relationship.

Jesus says that God is indifferent to human custom and ritual, that blind guides will lead us in that direction and that our focus should be directed on the following.

Matthew 15
"18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashed hands..."

Could you please explain to me how you see that God is indifferent to human traditions there? I read that human customs and traditions are not as important as character and behavior. Washing your hands making them clean but dirtying your heart by attacking other people means you’re dirty despite the hand washing.

This is not the same as the cross- communication between God and man that you constantly hint at. This is mankind getting their house in order so that they will truly see God. Jesus calls God ,Father. Imagine a Father with countless children and imagine your place in that family. You may never hear directly from that Father but may , and should be aware and grateful for His presence. Father might have referred to a tribal Father with countless family members, ie Abraham.

We appear to have a slight difference of emphasis,...that is all.

Thanks

We are in the same family circle, the same Father. I do not pretend to know anything about his interactions with other offspring. We have different callings and positions.

I once asked Him why, for example, Derek Prince had to fast once a week at the get go. He said that there are different callings for his different servants. With those words came a power not to compare my calling, with its demands and privileges, to others. Other challenges are required of me. There are different flowers in the garden of God.

[POI]

Mae You use the excuse of not believing He is there so abusive accusations are allowed.

POI "Excuse"? Are you saying I really believe he's there?

Mae Yet you want Him to please contact you and have asked me to ask Him to do so.

POI Like Saul, Jesus could immediately change my mind, if he wants. Your provided apologetics states that my mind has to be in a certain state or whatever. But this is false. All I'm asking is proof he exists. Heck, even the ones he despises (like 'demons', enemies, other), know he exists; which means they received some type of proof he exists. Why can't I at least receive this much?

Mae 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.

POI As I stated, repeatedly, I asked, in earnest for decades. Please harken back to the 'mother analogy', where I attempt to contact my biological mother for 3 decades and she chooses to ignore me.

Mae Would you be close friends with a person who is spreading false accusations against you?

POI If one of my 'close friends' completely ignored all my requests for 3 decades... Wait a minute, you get the idea... No sane person would attempt to contact a 'close friend' for 3 decades, which never bothered to respond at all.

Mae No update needed. It repairs itself.

POI Except when it doesn't, due to an affliction which could have easily been prevented had it not been designed poorly.

Mae 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.

POI Another dare? I already answered the last one, which you then ignored. Remember? The urinary catheter response?

Mae The problem on your side is anatomical ignorance

POI More chuckling is being had here....

Mae 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!!!

POI Newer versions are waterproof. God opted to keep the women's junk in "beta." Apple engineers also did not design the iPhone to still not being waterproof and also did not design it to reside right next to a fixed water source, destined for getting wet.

And the opening for your gas inlet has a protective cap. Some even a locking cap. The women's urethra does not. It has no provided barrier. If the gas tank were open, with no cap, and also within the exact same pathway as your oil, then yes, that would be inept design too. But apparently, automobile designers are smarter than your believed upon God as well as the Apple engineers.

Mae 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.

POI God provides instructions on how to treat a woman's UTI, when germs travel too far up the women's urethra, from sex or improper a$$ whipping? Where?

[William]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #69]

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.

I have no problem in understanding the idea of an omni-creator. My focus is on what kind of thing would such a being create if it wanted to experience non-omniness and "The Universe" appears to be a perfect creation for enabling that to happen for the being.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

---
Any answers,...Go! MvH,...you are doing good.
Isn't it funny that they do not mention dying as a design fault? Imagine a phone or computer where you are not always emptying the cache. Your brain does that automatically

Thanks

Thanks MB! Nice to not be alone when surrounded by wolves. Obviously God designed them to do such. Maybe it’s the size or smell or some other feature that motivate them to treat those differently.

Now the atheists will employ the “god of the gaps”, evolution did it. Whatever is, evolution did it. No intelligence employed. Do you think the “evolution did a really poor job of designing everything they can’t see a reason for being there” view would be praised by them?

Well, isn't 'God did it' the god of the gaps? Assuming the report is correct (I can already see some questions) Claiming anything that "Evolutionists" cannot explain right away as not needing a god means it has to be done by a god (name your own) is the epitome of'God of the gaps'.

While claiming that something that gives an advantage (assuming that ants did not agree this would be a good move, which I'd agree is unlikely they would do), other things that look 'designed' can be explained as evolutionary, suggests that the unknown reason for ants breaking seeds up has a similar explanation, whatever it is. This is called 'the materialist default', which means that the unexplained is unexplained, not evidence for an intelligent designer.

It is also a question why a supposed moral god, while having ants engage in agricultural practices, also has them engage in warfare methods that would shock Genghis Khan. Though given His orders in the OT, that would explain a few things.

Though it isn't a slam - dunk answer, this points to a phenomenon whereby critters nay have evolved an instinct that benefits them and the plants, without them having to have a tripartite conference about it.

Many plants actively encourage ants to disperse their seeds with chemical attractants and nutritional benefits. The ant gains a reward for dispersing the seed and the plant species has a greater chance of survival. This partnership is referred to as myrmecochory.

An obvious example is the offering of nectar to animals that provide pollination. Nether the plant nore animal worked this out but ehe adaptation ingrained a survival advantage to the strain of the species that did this, thus the creature that did it more and the plat that provided more nectar would become the dominant strain. This was first seen in Darwin's Galapagos finches where the beaks evolved to suit the type of food available. No god needed.

Thus ant behavior would seem to fall into this evolutionary category, even if not totally understood. Quite aside that, even if there was no hint of an explanation, that doesn't - according to the Rules of Logic, mean that a god (name your own anyway) has to be the default answer.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

Thank you for responding to my post. I think we go around in circles on this forum, myself included. I feel like we have had this conversation thousands of times. Maybe we are saying the same thing. Two ants talking to a wall, T&M.

I was imagining a bucket of slop from an abatoir containing cow brains. Imagine the goo that your own brain is. Now imagine the capability of this stuff when alive and tell me how it happens. I will enjoy your response.

If you use your gunge to explain that this is not smart engineering then , I'm sorry, but I will laugh at the audacity.

Thanks