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]

The fundamental point it demonstrates is that the atheist who created the video is relying on stories which are not even biblical and certainly not something that all christians believe in.

The video suggests the designer either (lost a bet), or (is just plain dumb). The video maker is actually trying to place the 'creator' into the best possible available position, for the Christian. Meaning, he wanted to create intelligently, but has to follow Lucifer's plan to mess with the design instead. Otherwise, the Christian has to address why the design sucks. And this is why there is so few Christians here arguing intelligent design at all.

[TRANSPONDER]

The fundamental point it demonstrates is that the atheist who created the video is relying on stories which are not even biblical and certainly not something that all christians believe in.

The video suggests the designer either (lost a bet), or (is just plain dumb). The video maker is actually trying to place the 'creator' into the best possible available position, for the Christian. Meaning, he wanted to create intelligently, but has to follow Lucifer's plan to mess with the design instead. Otherwise, the Christian has to address why the design sucks. And this is why there is so few Christians here arguing intelligent design at all.

Indeed.This is basic stuff, though William (not doing religion) may be distracted by the religious shibboleths involved.

But as has been mentioned in other posts (assuming that Theists ever read them) the ID argument is non -religious - it applies to all religions and irreligious theism that involves an intelligent designer...this is petty obvious but Theists do seem to miss the obvious.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #156]

We have a comparison between an iphone and a rock. That's why it's obvious an iphone was designed.

Specific to that, are you arguing that the third rock from the sun is not obviously designed?

No. I'm saying we can't know, because we have no basis for comparison. If we were just buried in iphones and never saw a rock, they might still be designed, but it's harder to establish the basis for comparison. The argument might become a little bit better if you compared Earth to Venus. But that's not what theists think. They think it is all designed. If we accept that, then we've never seen an undesigned thing. All our pants are designer pants. So we can't actually have this comparison between $20 Walmart pants and the latest runway show sensation, because the same designer actually made all of them.

The theist counterpart is that the argument from suffering is bad for the same reason. We don't know how much unnecessary suffering there is. We can't.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #163]

Interestingly enough, iphones are made of the stuff of rock. Perhaps design is more obvious that a designer.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #163]

Interestingly enough, iphones are made of the stuff of rock. Perhaps design is more obvious that a designer.

The thing about this 'watchmaker' argument is that it fails. The reason we can identify the watch lying in he grass as designed, means that (without even Thinking about it ) we distinguish between what is designed (the watch) and what is natural (grass) even though the watchmaker is arguing that grass is obviously designed, while the argument says (without any thought or consideration) that it isn't.

That everything designed and made is made of natural stuff (even plastic is made from oil) is obvious and means nothing other than apologists do not understand the argument or much else.

Just what it is that allows us to distinguish between the watch and the grass is I suggest "We know how the world works" (materialist default). Or maybe something else.

Thing is, natural features that looked a bit regular could be taken for being made not with human hands. Fairy rings were attributed to the supernatural before we discovered outgrowing mould spores. Instinct was inexplicable (and therefore evidence for God for the unprincipled Bible - apologist) until DNA showed how instinct worked. And the regular growth or calyx or shells led some to use it as evidence of a designer, when natural processes explain it.

Ignorance or dishonesty, the 'rocks are as designed as mobile 'phones is an invalid argument and I propose in sweet friendship that such argument be dropped before it explodes all over your face.

[William]

Think about it. The "third rock from the sun" and everything upon it just happened to mindlessly evolve and we should simply think that a product of accident rather than design?

[POI]

Think about it. The "third rock from the sun" and everything upon it just happened to mindlessly evolve and we should simply think that a product of accident rather than design?

Without getting into any of what you just said, you are of the position of 'mindful designer.' Okay. In your estimation, and in keeping with the OP question, is this 'designer':?

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

[William]

Think about it. The "third rock from the sun" and everything upon it just happened to mindlessly evolve and we should simply think that a product of accident rather than design?

Without getting into any of what you just said, you are of the position of 'mindful designer.' Okay. In your estimation, and in keeping with the OP question, is this 'designer':?

a) an intelligent designer?

Super-intelligent even.

b) an unintelligent designer?

Nope. Indeed, I am puzzled as to why anyone would think that.

c) or a deceptive designer?

Super intelligence could appear that way to less intelligent beings, but I do not think the deception is real and thus purposeful.
The design of the human form does come with properties which prevent us from seeing everything and lack of understanding why such a design was used, might appear to be a gap in which one can place the idea of their being an act of creative deception.

[POI]

Super intelligence could appear that way to less intelligent beings, but I do not think the deception is real and thus purposeful.

Since you opt for ID, why is it not also possible deception is also involved? I trust you watched the video? Just ignore the part, that it is Jesus and Lucifer, and you can still address the points the video makes about the "chosen design elements".

[Purple Knight]

the watchmaker is arguing that grass is obviously designed, while the argument says (without any thought or consideration) that it isn't.

This. Though just because grass is complex, and arguably designed by its own self, I prefer the use of rocks in this analogy. We do need to separate the idea of things that are numerous, from the idea of things that are actually simple and don't do anything. Grass is a very complex machine, perhaps even better than the iphone sitting on it.