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]

[Replying to POI in post #118]

There may not be any state of a "becoming". It is instead 'eternal'.

Both ideas are able to be integrated. Neither are exclusive to one another.

Possible. Where the origins of the universe or indeed the origins (if any) of the cosmos from which the (known) universe came are concerned, many things are possible.

What that means is that ID is not the only hypothetical explanation and there has to be better evidence than origins and some apparent suggestion that no natural (unplanned) cause could start it off.

The discussion here is religion and Christianity. This actually means that an origin of the universe (or cosmos - theists often seen unable to decide which idea they have in mind if they are even aware of the difference) has no real relevance to Religion as is the case in fact with Life, consciousness or morality; it does not tell us which god, Holy Book or religion is the right one.

I realise William that your interest is for a 'Cosmic Mind' as I put it and I guess some sorta Deist god and irreligious (though Theist) belief.

As I posted this is neither relevant nor carries much weight, though 'Constants' may have some theistic weight.

Just sayin' as you can post your thesis on the subjects, but as I say, it's without weight or relevance, at least from where I'm standing.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #121]

The discussion here is religion and Christianity.

Incorrect. While I acknowledge that some would rather focus on that one aspect of theistic thinking, the subject of obvious/non-obvious designer goes beyond any one religion.
Again, I will point out that the possibility some atheists might prefer to stick with the one religion (Christianity in this case) and argue only against that has to do with those atheists still being under the influence of/carrying baggage from their days as a Christian, perhaps even leaving Christianity believing (as many Christians proclaim) that if one won't accept Christianity or one "backslides" from it, then there only option is to "become an atheist". Re that I would ask such atheists if they have every considered anything else other than becoming atheists, and if they have, what they found therein.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #118]

There may not be any state of a "becoming". It is instead 'eternal'.

Both ideas are able to be integrated. Neither are exclusive to one another.

Sure. Take Kennith Miller, a Roman Catholic who wrote an entire book about "Darwin's God". And yet, what is so ironic about this is he was on the side of pure skepticism when the Dover trial was taking place regarding teaching ID. Cognitive dissonance is alive and well. Hell, I too have to admit I possess it every time I eat meat.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #118]

There may not be any state of a "becoming". It is instead 'eternal'.

Both ideas are able to be integrated. Neither are exclusive to one another.

Sure. Take Kennith Miller, a Roman Catholic who wrote an entire book about "Darwin's God". And yet, what is so ironic about this is he was on the side of pure skepticism when the Dover trial was taking place regarding teaching ID. Cognitive dissonance is alive and well. Hell, I too have to admit I possess it every time I eat meat.

It doesn't matter re the main point.

IF the Universe is eternal,THEN so must mindfulness be. That is the integration. There is no need to exclude one from the other. (Or at least, no reason has ever been given as to why it should be suitable to do so.) That some folk do, is besides the point.

In my most recent interactions with the Christian Tanager, he argues for the need to separate these two components (having his god-concept outside of the physical universe) and I question whether ex-Christians who are now atheists carry this around with them as a "truth" not fully realising where they inherited this "truth" from.

Such is the "baggage" of prior influence. If it hasn't yet been purged, what are the reasons for holding onto it?

[POI]

IF the Universe is eternal,THEN so must mindfulness be.

IF the universe is eternal, then 'creationism' becomes a silly term. You are then left with the argument for a 'change agent', at best.
.

In my most recent interactions with the Christian Tanager, he argues for the need to separate these two components (having his god-concept outside of the physical universe) and I question whether ex-Christians who are now atheists carry this around with them as a "truth" not fully realising where they inherited this "truth" from.

Such is the "baggage" of prior influence. If it hasn't yet been purged, what are the reasons for holding onto it?

I like to debate religion because it forces us to explore many diverse topics which keeps my brain sharp. I also come here because one entire side of my family is still devout Christians, and I cannot debate them, for fear of discourse. I then ask my many questions here, in which I hear them assert out loud. There are other lesser reasons, but I trust you get the gist.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #125]

IF the Universe is eternal,THEN so must mindfulness be.

IF the universe is eternal, then 'creationism' becomes a silly term. You are then left with the argument for a 'change agent', at best.

Why split hairs? The focal is mindfulness so change requires mindfulness - often creative mindfulness (when you think about how one affects changes one wants and the thinking which is involved with the process).
I am being specific to the idea of the Universe being mindful in relation to the idea that the stuff it is made of has always existed and is always changing. Effectively it is its own designer/agent of change.

I like to debate religion because it forces us to explore many diverse topics which keeps my brain sharp. I also come here because one entire side of my family is still devout Christians, and I cannot debate them, for fear of discourse. I then ask my many questions here, in which I hear them assert out loud. There are other lesser reasons, but I trust you get the gist.

Your trust is well placed. I do indeed get the gist. The baggage remains an influence on your way of doing things and seeking things.
I myself have no problem debating with christians or atheists and calling them out when and where I see it as being necessary. Losing family is a price I am willing to pay, even if it also brings with it sadness. There are plenty of folk who think about things in very similar ways as I do, so I am not and cannot be completely alone anyway - and family (real family) often isn't about blood-ties anyway.

And do we not both know that Biblical Jesus mentions this dynamic too?

[1213]

They are relevant and interesting but not useful questions. We know human design is imperfect. ...

It depends on what is the purpose. I think human design is perfect for the purpose.

We (like the rest of the biosphere) are evolved, not intelligently designed.

If you are not intelligently designed, how could you even know what is truly intelligent?

[POI]

change requires mindfulness

All change, or some change?

[TRANSPONDER]

They are relevant and interesting but not useful questions. We know human design is imperfect. ...

It depends on what is the purpose. I think human design is perfect for the purpose.

It is not 'perfect' as we can imagine how we would change ourselves, if we could. You recognise yourself the 'better' choice, (doing God's word) so you know we aren't perfect. We are well adapted, yes, but that is what evolution does. Evolution -theory answers questions; God -design only raises and then ignores them.

We (like the rest of the biosphere) are evolved, not intelligently designed.

If you are not intelligently designed, how could you even know what is truly intelligent?

Because (like many other critters) we evolved astonishing problem -solving capabilities. With a complex society came rules, not only to sortlaw and morals but make better tools, technology and learning. The better we do that the more we can call it 'intelligence'. We can even see how it could be even better (which shows we are not "Perfect") and using it as a gap for a god is not doing ourselves any good service, and we have to get beyond fairy tales, especially the ones that the selfish and exploitative use to contol us, siphon off our money and gain access to our wives. Wake up, smell the coffee and realise that God, religion and intelligent design is just a dream

[William]

change requires mindfulness

All change, or some change?

Re the overall context that the material this universe consists of is eternal and thus so too is mindfulness, I am surprised you have asked this question.