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 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.

Are you suggesting the process of germination is the act of ID?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Are you suggesting the process of germination is the act of ID?

That's a good point. ID does at times try the 'complexity' argument. Notably the cell or DNA. I have pointed out that a pebble is as full of atoms (and they are as complex as a solar system and planets) as a galaxy and yet nobody would argue that anyone had to design a pebble (unwritten Rule of apologetics no 2 - don't make yourself a laughing -stock). So in fact a mobile phone os not really more complex than a rock. I think the point is it is a machione. It is designed to do stuff.

Of course a reservoir and a lake do the same job. And one may not know which is man -made and which natural. So in fact there is no real cut off between naturally designed (conditions and environment) and deliberately designed - humans and other critters built the thing to do a job of work.

That is why Paley picked out the watch from the grass as a designed thing, even if the grass was as 'designed' to exist in nature. Human design needs a human designer; natural design needs only nature; it does not need a big invisible human.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #169]

Since you opt for ID, why is it not also possible deception is also involved?

I did not argue it was not impossible. My argument was that any real deception (which can be identified) is not necessarily a purposeful act of evil intent (assuming that is what you are meaning).

I trust you watched the video? Just ignore the part, that it is Jesus and Lucifer,

As I mentioned earlier, I watched up to the point where it became obvious the characterization of Jesus and Satan (not Lucifer) was strawmanning. "Satan" is a strawman fiction of Lucifer, popularized by the Christianities.

and you can still address the points the video makes about the "chosen design elements".

Just state those points you think the video is making and I will comment on them as you do.

[POI]

I did not argue it was not impossible. My argument was that any real deception (which can be identified) is not necessarily a purposeful act of evil intent (assuming that is what you are meaning).

Please be advised the thread is placed in the Christianity and Apologetics arena. Even the Bible references punishment to his "design" for disobeying. Please recall (paraphrased) - "women will now experience pain in childbirth."

As I mentioned earlier, I watched up to the point where it became obvious the characterization of Jesus and Satan (not Lucifer) was strawmanning. "Satan" is a strawman fiction of Lucifer, popularized by the Christianities.

Of course it is not an actual portrayal. This is why the OP stated "for funsies." For starters, an omniscient being would already know the hand before it was delt, duh! The point is this ID-er has his designs messed with. For some reason, the ID-er allows for it, and does not stop it. Otherwise, the designer has some explaining to do... As the settled upon design allows for apparent flaws in the intentional design process. That's about it.

Just state those points you think the video is making and I will comment on them as you do.

Before I begin, I have an unanswered question looming about...

Are you a pantheist, agnostic, deist, or maybe a combination of some/all, other? Before we wage forth, since no Christians want to partake in this discussion, I would at least like to know exactly what position my interlocutor is taking, so we do not waste each other's time. I'll start. As I told 1985, if a gun was to my head, I would call myself an 'atheist', by basic defitnion. However, I am not opposed to entertaining the continued idea of some type of 'force'?.?.?.?.?.?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #174]

I did not argue it was not impossible. My argument was that any real deception (which can be identified) is not necessarily a purposeful act of evil intent (assuming that is what you are meaning).

Please be advised the thread is placed in the Christianity and Apologetics arena. Even the Bible references punishment to his "design" for disobeying. Please recall (paraphrased) - "women will now experience pain in childbirth."

I agree that the author puts words into the mouth of their idea of the creator, being that they also claim that the Bible is "The Word of God". I myself have seen no evidence that it is, and thus do not believe the claim

Rather, I see the author(s) appear to be attempting to "explain" why women suffer in childbirth whilst seemingly implying that at some time prior to that, women did not suffer such, further implying that an actual redesign of the original design happened in order to accommodate this so-called "punishment".

I understand that many Christian sects do interpret it that way, and teach members of their flocks said interpretation, and also that many atheist who used to be members of such flocks, continue to interpret it in the same manner, but I do not.

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #175]

Umpteenth request:

Before I begin, I have an unanswered question looming about...

Are you a pantheist, agnostic, deist, or maybe a combination of some/all, other? Before we wage forth, since no Christians want to partake in this discussion, I would at least like to know exactly what position my interlocutor is taking, so we do not waste each other's time. I'll start. As I told 1985, if a gun was to my head, I would call myself an 'atheist', by basic defitnion. However, I am not opposed to entertaining the continued idea of some type of 'force'?.?.?.?.?.?

[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.

Are you suggesting the process of germination is the act of ID?

No. I'm suggesting that grass is at least as sophisticated a machine as an iphone.

[POI]

No. I'm suggesting that grass is at least as sophisticated a machine as an iphone.

Okay. Do you think its sophistication is by way of "natural processes", or, "design"?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #176]

I don't refer to myself as anything in particular. Why do you ask?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #176]

I don't refer to myself as anything in particular. Why do you ask?

I have already explained why I ask in post 176.