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:

[TRANSPONDER]

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

Nature is amazing isn't it? And yet fossil evidence of evolution of the brain (including separation onto two parts - input assessment in the nut, locomotion in the butt, in dinosaurs), hints - indeed shows - how organic material or a bucket of goo, as you put it - can become a remarkable, if not reliable without corrective action (through logic and science research), organic machine. And why not, as electronic gadgetry is merely made with rock and oil?

We have to think beyond the parochial "I don't get it - unless a big invisible human did it" to the bigger picture, which includes the record of how it got to be the complex system is is now, not supposing that God made us all with the ability to build suspension bridges, reduce the carbon footprint of jet engines and agree complex trade relations from the time the height of fashionable dress was a fig leaf.

[William]

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

Nature is amazing isn't it? And yet fossil evidence of evolution of the brain (including separation onto two parts - input assessment in the nut, locomotion in the butt, in dinosaurs), hints - indeed shows - how organic material or a bucket of goo, as you put it - can become a remarkable, if not reliable without corrective action (through logic and science research), organic machine. And why not, as electronic gadgetry is merely made with rock and oil?

We have to think beyond the parochial "I don't get it - unless a big invisible human did it" to the bigger picture, which includes the record of how it got to be the complex system is is now, not supposing that God made us all with the ability to build suspension bridges, reduce the carbon footprint of jet engines and agree complex trade relations from the time the height of fashionable dress was a fig leaf.

As well as that, the evolution of God-Concepts...some can be more easily dispelled than others...

[Mae von H]

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?

Enough to employ insulting accusations.

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.

You like the mother analogy so you can feel justified feeling sorry for yourself. He was never your mother. Mothers are obligated to care for their children. He is under no such obligation. Another way to accuse him to something wrong. He „neglected you“ in your eyes. You accuse Him to justify yourself. You can continue to comfort yourself that you are innocent but He will simply not answer you.

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.

I told you, no one is going to be „close friends“ with a man who continually accuses them of incompetence or evil. You absolutely refuse to see your part in this, don‘t you? You did nothing wrong in your eyes.

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.

There isn‘t one there. You are imagining it so you can again, accuse Him of wrong.

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?

And I told you that if there were to be the change you demand, women would not be able to have children. It is an „update“ that renders an important feature no longer functionally.

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.

Newer versions have LOST function now that I think more important. And again, Apple engineers did poor design, which I guess you admit. I mean you think God did poor design because some feather you think important is not there so I can say that the Apple engineers did poor design because the phone is not waterproof.

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.

So you think that no man can purposely pour the wrong liquid into a gas tank same as no man can defy God‘s designed use of the body and the outcome is less function if not damage?

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?

OH, you really are terribly ignorant about female anatomy. You really do think that the urethra leads to the uterus. It is as I said, those who complain about the design of the human body are often very ignorant of anatomy and physiology. First some anecdotal information, I know a number of girls and young women who got UTIs and were virgins. This is not surprising.knowing female anatomy. For some science, the most common bacteria that cause UTIs far and away does not come from the male, it comes from the GI system. I have no idea why you think intercourse is a leading cause of UTIs.

But I know that none of this will make any dent. You have chosen very foolishly to accuse God to justify yourself. I tell you the truth about anatomy and you refuse to believe it. You very much WANT to blame God and enjoy doing so. You must want truth more than this pleasure.

[brunumb]

[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;.........

God is meant to be the ultimate in 'smartness', but even average human beings can spot the many poor 'design' considerations in the human and other animal bodies. That said, isn't it more pertinent to focus on the perceived flaws and discuss them from a design point of view, rather than take the MvH approach and focus on trivia like grammar, book publishers and ad hominem attacks on atheists?

[TRANSPONDER]

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

Nature is amazing isn't it? And yet fossil evidence of evolution of the brain (including separation onto two parts - input assessment in the nut, locomotion in the butt, in dinosaurs), hints - indeed shows - how organic material or a bucket of goo, as you put it - can become a remarkable, if not reliable without corrective action (through logic and science research), organic machine. And why not, as electronic gadgetry is merely made with rock and oil?

We have to think beyond the parochial "I don't get it - unless a big invisible human did it" to the bigger picture, which includes the record of how it got to be the complex system is is now, not supposing that God made us all with the ability to build suspension bridges, reduce the carbon footprint of jet engines and agree complex trade relations from the time the height of fashionable dress was a fig leaf.

As well as that, the evolution of God-Concepts...some can be more easily dispelled than others...

I would certainly see 'god' - concepts as evolutionary, both in and out of the religion of Christianity. I reckon religion is rather a human instinct than a cosmic truth.

[TRANSPONDER]

[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;.........

God is meant to be the ultimate in 'smartness', but even average human beings can spot the many poor 'design' considerations in the human and other animal bodies. That said, isn't it more pertinent to focus on the perceived flaws and discuss them from a design point of view, rather than take the MvH approach and focus on trivia like grammar, book publishers and ad hominem attacks on atheists?

I would say it is, if that is being done. The argument seems to be based on the idea of a god, perfect, good and knowing it all, and able to intervene (if not "Why call him God?" as the saying goes) would not (as Genesis thinks) get it all done as well as possible from the start. As Theramin Trees says in 'losing Faith' "I could do better than this".

The analogy of the barber fails in that God is able to cut everyone's hair by waving a magic wand. Our Pal Mae's post above points to a fair number of Problems that I would have expected any god worth an atom of respect to have sorted at creation, and apologists blaming any Faults on Man, Satan or that blasted apple just seems like an overkill excuse.

By any logic or reason (given a morality that in any way resembles that used by God) it should be better than this. On the other hand, the evolutionary arms -race (with no regard to human morality) would tend to produce results just like what we actually see about us.

[The Nice Centurion]

So, were you forgiven

So, were you planning on actually engaging the topic?


In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

Why should I? I never asked you for the topic and I certainly did not steal it

[TRANSPONDER]

So, trying on my Theist hat this morning, it occurred to me that I'm faced with the usual problem: atheists have an answer to everything, and that answer is in the science books, dammit and science won't go away no matter how much science denial tries.

What do I do? Well, I know their answers are just not believable. Animals do not decide on behavior or, (as an old opponent and eventual online pal put it) "Amoebas do not get around a table and decide how to evolve."

Galapagos finches developed different beaks on different islands through adaptation to different foods because of adaptation. Even creationists accept 'evolution within 'kinds'. So in principle, insects and plants adapting gradually to a mutually species -benefiting behavior, through DNA - encoded instinct, is not in itself incredible, even to creationist dogma. But what is incredible is that it goes as far as ants breaking up seeds so they don't germinate underground could have evolved in incremental steps.

(The transbrain) "Assuming this is reported correctly (evolution - skeptics have a history of misrepresenting the discovery, like the T- Rex soft tissue) I could guess at a process like ants thriving that selected broken seeds for storage and then that strain doing better that broke some softer seeds themselves and again those who were able to do it to the tougher seeds. Simple incremental stepscan culminate in what appears to be a worked out technological solution that could only have been devised by an intelligent designer."

(Theist brain). "You scientists think you know it all."

(transbrain) "shut up and take that hat off; you look ridiculous."

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #84]

What is meant by "very smart" (compared to who?)

God is meant to be the ultimate in 'smartness', but even average human beings can spot the many poor 'design' considerations in the human and other animal bodies.

Is that to say "compared to human intelligence" God isn't very smart?

My perspective has it that regardless of atheist claims that the design of the universe is "imperfect" therefore "unintelligent" it is still "right", and I see no reason why it is even "imperfect" (as my posts re the Jungian Archetypes clearly tell it) and/or that a seeming "imperfect" thing (created) must mean it was created by an unintelligent source (either by a stupid God or a mindless process et al)

That said, isn't it more pertinent to focus on the perceived flaws and discuss them from a design point of view, rather than take the MvH approach and focus on trivia like grammar, book publishers and ad hominem attacks on atheists?

I did this (approach) where I asked "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."

[POI]

Mae Newer versions have LOST function now that I think more important.

POI So you then admit the updated iPhone versions are now more resistant to water. Great Too bad God never updated his designs to make the female's "junk" less susceptible to UTI's

Mae So you think that no man can purposely pour the wrong liquid into a gas tank same as no man can defy God‘s designed use of the body and the outcome is less function if not damage?

POI It's as if you are not reading any of my responses. The opening for the gas tank was not designed to remain exposed, and also imbedded within other fluid chambers.

Mae You really do think that the urethra leads to the uterus.

POI I'm about ready to give up on you Mae. I'm not even sure if you are reading my responses. I do not think the urethra leads to the uterus.