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]

[Replying to POI in post #184]

There is a thread which allows us to ask questions of other forum members. If you use that forum and post your questions there, I will do my best to answer.

You spend more time not telling me verses just telling me. I answered you plainly, so you clearly know my position. I guess I broke the rules, by telling you my position Okay, I guess we can proceed forward. I gather you are an advocate of ID. Please explain:

1) Why would a designer opt to have a sterile airway share an unsterile foodway, inclined to aspiration/infection/death?
2) Why would a designer opt to have female sewage and reproductive organs so close together, and/or on top of one-another, inclined to infection/death?
3) Why would a designer opt to have the male urethra pass through the middle of his prostate, inclined to urinary retention?
4) ID-ers will also argue for irreducible complexity. Yet, seems this topic has been debunked?

I'll stop here...

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #184]

There is a thread which allows us to ask questions of other forum members. If you use that forum and post your questions there, I will do my best to answer.

You spend more time not telling me verses just telling me. I answered you plainly, so you clearly know my position. I guess I broke the rules, by telling you my position Okay, I guess we can proceed forward. I gather you are an advocate of ID. Please explain:

1) Why would a designer opt to have a sterile airway share an unsterile foodway, inclined to aspiration/infection/death?
2) Why would a designer opt to have female sewage and reproductive organs so close together, and/or on top of one-another, inclined to infection/death?
3) Why would a designer opt to have the male urethra pass through the middle of his prostate, inclined to urinary retention?
4) ID-ers will also argue for irreducible complexity. Yet, seems this topic has been debunked?

I'll stop here...

I see you appear to have dropped your apparent need to understand my position. If you change your mind, then please feel free to ask me in the thread "Questions for a Specific User" and I will try to answer any questions you ask.

As to your questions above, I find them interesting from a psychological perspective (where some think such design is bad/stupid/incompetent/imperfect et al).

I could hazard a guess by trying to put myself in the position of the designer and providing an answer to your questions from that perspective, but anyone (and you yourself) can do that right?

So I am wondering why such questions are asked? What motivates the questionnaire to ask these specific questions? What makes one think things could or should have been done better and why things not being done better somehow proves that evolution is a mindless accident?

[POI]

I see you appear to have dropped your apparent need to understand my position.

I now have no choice. You are making something, in which would take a few sentences, instead into something perpetually unanswered. So I'm moving on with partial information.

As to your questions above, I find them interesting from a psychological perspective (where some think such design is bad/stupid/incompetent/imperfect et al).

Kool.

I could hazard a guess by trying to put myself in the position of the designer and providing an answer to your questions from that perspective, but anyone (and you yourself) can do that right?

I would just like to know, using WHAT logic, dictates that Q's 1-3 are considered 'intelligent design'?

So I am wondering why such questions are asked? What motivates the questionnaire to ask these specific questions?

I already plainly answered here. This question is first, and foremost, geared towards Christians. They believe the designer is all wise and all knowing. The thread is to suggest answers a) - d), and ruling out option a), only leaving b) and c), or even the silent option of d) - no designer.

What makes one think things could or should have been done better and why things not being done better somehow proves that evolution is a mindless accident?

Well, it depends....? I do not know your actual view, because you do not want to provide it without me jumping throw unnecessary hoops. Hence, I could be wasting my time with you here. Maybe you think like me, in the sense that if there exists some intentional designer, they either do not care and/or are not really that smart?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #193]

I see you appear to have dropped your apparent need to understand my position.

I now have no choice.

Really? I gave you a link to a forum specifically dedicated to allowing questions to be asked of and answered by members, and you "now have no choice" as a consequence?

You are making something, in which would take a few sentences, instead into something perpetually unanswered.

What about "There is a thread which allows us to ask questions of other forum members. If you use that forum and post your questions there, I will do my best to answer." leads you to the conclusion your questions will be "perpetually unanswered"?

So I'm moving on with partial information.

Won't that just circle back to your need to better understand my position (ie problem unsolved).

I would just like to know, using WHAT logic, dictates that Q's 1-3 are considered 'intelligent design'?

Wouldn't that depend upon understanding the intelligence which designed these things in that particular manner?

Does logic dictate that if things could be done better and were not, that the conclusion has to be "the designer is therefore stupid"?

So I am wondering why such questions are asked? What motivates the questionnaire to ask these specific questions?

I already plainly answered here. This question is first, and foremost, geared towards Christians. They believe the designer is all wise and all knowing.

I think that even if that were the case (or because that is the case) only shifts the mind away from thinking the designer is stupid.
By assuming the designer is "wise and all knowing" one can examine the same questions differently and come to a different conclusion (than that the designer must be stupid rather than wise and all knowing.)

The thread is to suggest answers a) - d), and ruling out option a), only leaving b) and c), or even the silent option of d) - no designer.

Yes - I understand that. I also understand that those answers appear to derive from the fundamental belief that the designer must be stupid.

What makes one think things could or should have been done better and why things not being done better somehow proves that evolution is a mindless accident?

Well, it depends....?

Exactly.

Furthermore, it depends on how one choose to think about these things. It depends upon what is "going on" in one's mind-field.

I do not know your actual view, because you do not want to provide it without me jumping throw unnecessary hoops. Hence, I could be wasting my time with you here.

Is that how your mind is thinking about this? That there being provided a place where such questions can be answered and been given the link to said place, you interpret such as being require to jump through hoops?

One particular reason as to why I linked you to that forum, is because it might asked of me again by someone else, and I could easily link them to where those answers can be found.

On that subject, I could just as easily link you to a thread where I explain my position in great detail, but in the past this has not worked out so well as I get the complaint that there is "too much to plow through", even that I also provide subject matter in linked heading format so that the one asking can at least navigate to the most relevant topic to their particular question.

Maybe you think like me, in the sense that if there exists some intentional designer, they either do not care and/or are not really that smart?

What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality is different to what you think, so no - I do not think like you that if there exists some intentional designer, they either do not care and/or are not really that smart.

I think there is an intentional designer, and the designer does care and is exceptionally intelligent...but I have told you this already so am puzzled that you feel you still have to ask.

[POI]

I think there is an intentional designer, and the designer does care and is exceptionally intelligent

If the "designer" does care and is also exceptionally intelligent, then:

1) Why would a designer opt to have a sterile airway share an unsterile foodway, inclined to aspiration/infection/death?
2) Why would a designer opt to have female sewage and reproductive organs so close together, and/or on top of one-another, inclined to infection/death?
3) Why would a designer opt to have the male urethra pass through the middle of his prostate, inclined to urinary retention?

What say-you about the ID-ers who also argue for irreducible complexity?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #195]

I have no formal opinion about those you mention.

I see no logical reasoning which suggests that those things you mention necessitate having to believe/think that such things require such answers to your "why" question.

This is to say that we do not have to assume the designer must be stupid (as a possible answer) when we can just as easily assume other possible answers.

Essentially, it is our train of thought which leads us to ask questions and then provide answers which can only serve to suit our preferred train of thought.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #195]

I have no formal opinion about those you mention.

I see no logical reasoning which suggests that those things you mention necessitate having to believe/think that such things require such answers to your "why" question.

This is to say that we do not have to assume the designer must be stupid (as a possible answer) when we can just as easily assume other possible answers.

Essentially, it is our train of thought which leads us to ask questions and then provide answers which can only serve to suit our preferred train of thought.

Thanks for wasting my time.

[Masterblaster]

Hello POI

William said to You - "Essentially, it is our train of thought which leads us to ask questions and then provide answers which can only serve to suit our preferred train of thought."

---------
What part of this advice did you not get, POI?

You self-declared yourself an anatomy expert with a few copy and paste Google anecdotes, and then, you are indignant when your prognosis is not met with universal approval.

I was looking at A Botanical Diagram of The Dandelion Plant on Google today. My lawn is full of these things, at the moment.

Consider, POI, the undertakings of these 'simple' life forms and compare what they can accomplish to those of some of the world's greatest man-made technologies. These botanical diagrams and their attached explanations( easy to find on Google) then become comparable or superior to NASA blueprints.

Maybe dandelions are too yellow for you. Maybe their seed dispersal rate sometimes dips below 100%. Maybe you just decide to dismiss them as a weed .You tell me, POI, unless your precious time cannot be further wasted.

Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello POI

William said to You - "Essentially, it is our train of thought which leads us to ask questions and then provide answers which can only serve to suit our preferred train of thought."

---------
What part of this advice did you not get, POI?

You self-declared yourself an anatomy expert with a few copy and paste Google anecdotes, and then, you are indignant when your prognosis is not met with universal approval.

I was looking at A Botanical Diagram of The Dandelion Plant on Google today. My lawn is full of these things, at the moment.

Consider, POI, the undertakings of these 'simple' life forms and compare what they can accomplish to those of some of the world's greatest man-made technologies. These botanical diagrams and their attached explanations( easy to find on Google) then become comparable or superior to NASA blueprints.

Maybe dandelions are too yellow for you. Maybe their seed dispersal rate sometimes dips below 100%. Maybe you just decide to dismiss them as a weed .You tell me, POI, unless your precious time cannot be further wasted.

Thanks

I am sure POI gets this but you (and maybe William) does not.

Train of thought is argument from Bias. The faithful operate on bias; it is praised and lauded. It is called Faith and is treated as a more reliable guide to truth than logical reasoning and science data.

But logic and science are the toold for avoiding faithbased bias and that is nwhy it is able to avoid the bias -loop of a faithbased train of thought.

As to the appeal to wonders of nature, natural design is generally explained by physics and evoltionary design. design and complexity are explainable by natural causes and no god is neded nor has any kind of god be demonstrated.

Human manufactures may try to imitate nature, but that does not mean that humans intelligently designing means that nature has to be intelligently designed.

The problem is that those who argue against human reasoning and naturaly design (evolution) do not undertand the things they argue against.

I'm reminded of the novel 'Flashman's lady' which has something of cricket in the Victorian era and Flashman's wife (the gorgeous but empty - headed Elspeth) watching a game observes that the fellow who caught the ball then dashed down the wicket when the batter was running and could not be there to defend it and surely that was not fair. It is funny because she did not understand the rules of the game.

[Masterblaster]

Hello
Wood lice, or Paddy Pigs, I have millions of them in my garden, beside the dandelions. Look at one of these under a microscope.

"This is called the Oniscidae. You may find them under a brick or a damp object. You may have felt disgusted and wondered why they exist in nature.
Well, let me tell you, the oniscdae, better known as cochineal, is a subgroup of isopod crustaceans whose function is to remove harmful heavy metals from the earth such as mercury, cadmium and lead. They contribute to the cleansing of soil and groundwater to reaffirm the wisdom of nature. Do not damage them or spray pesticides!"

Do you not get it TRANSPONDER? When you argue against intelligent design in nature, you are using your own idea of intelligence in design as a yardstick of comparison. POI, is doing exactly, the same thing. God is being measured by your ruler. This is presumptious nonsense,...as I mentioned to you previously. This debate is another one that you cannot conceivably win or learn from and that adds up to folly, on your part. Without your exasperating appetite for folly this forum could be declared as clinically dead at the moment. Have you seen Mae von H, lately? Have you noticed that theists are not exchanging viewpoints with other theists any more. In stick or twist, they choose to stick! Have you ever played 21?

Thanks