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:

[Mae von H]

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

Will you admit the new iphones LOST FUNCTION thereby? What you suggest would likely render females unable to successfully bear children. Why can’t you see that changes in code can render LOSS OF FUNCTION? This is common knowledge.

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.

You’re not reading mine. What you are saying it’s the design is NOT SUPPOSED to let other fluids in. Hummmm… follow the Designers manual and this adverse result won’t happen. Same with UTIs.

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.

Then why did you say that UTIs are the result of intercourse, an absurd position. Many single virgins get them. The facts you ignore.

I think you demanded God to prove Himself to you in the manner YOU prescribed. You still do. He won’t comply with your demands.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #69]

Do not try to solve a problem in your understanding of God by trying to figure out how His “omniness” works. We do not see the matter as He does.

I have no problem in understanding the idea of an omni-creator. My focus is on what kind of thing would such a being create if it wanted to experience non-omniness and "The Universe" appears to be a perfect creation for enabling that to happen for the being.

Greetings William,

I did not tell you not to understand the idea of an Omni-creator. I said trying to figure out what being Omni means will never succeed. It is beyond our experience. He does not want to experience not being who He is. Why would He do so? Being Omni is a part of his being. It’s like one of us saying we would like to know what it is to be less then who we are. Like, how about if we tried to see what it is like to lose all ability to think. Who would do that? There are many questions to ponder but how God experiences Omni is not one of them.

[POI]

Mae Will you admit the new iphones LOST FUNCTION thereby?

POI The reason there exists no 'perfect' iPhone is because they would never be able to sell new one's, duh. Only when the current one dies, which would not be a good business model. The Apple corp. is then 'deceptive' in this capacity. In regard to "features" in which Apple has not yet ever added, they are either a) unaware, b) dumb, or also again c) deceptive. In regard to God, God apparently knows that many contract UTI's solely due to his chosen current design. And yet, God opts not to update his design? See below...

Mae What you suggest would likely render females unable to successfully bear children.

POI God could not update his design, so the female's urinary tract is not susceptible to UTI's, (due to his current chosen design)? You appear to have little confidence in this claimed supreme and superior creator?

Mae You’re not reading mine. What you are saying it’s the design is NOT SUPPOSED to let other fluids in. Hummmm… follow the Designers manual and this adverse result won’t happen. Same with UTIs.

POI Simple 'Google' search:

"Any sexual activity — not just penetrative sexual intercourse — can push bacteria closer to and up into the urethra and cause a UTI"

The Female's urethra is short. Much shorter than the man's. Love juices, as well as fecal matter, can travel too far up the urethra, ultimately causing a UTI. If bacteria gets pushed up too far into the urethra, due to 'natural' actions which are not deliberate, like sex or whipping after defecation, then the women cannot rid herself of this bacterium, as it sometimes travels up too far into her urethra.

Mae Many single virgins get them. The facts you ignore.

POI I have done no such thing. I already stated that there exist many causes for UTI's. I'm speaking to the cause(s) which happen, specifically due to poor design.

[William]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #92]

I did not tell you not to understand the idea of an Omni-creator. I said trying to figure out what being Omni means will never succeed. It is beyond our experience.

But it is not beyond our basic comprehension, otherwise why would people claim a God as being omni? Or if the claim is made, what do they mean by it if they truly cannot figure it out and from that, explain what they mean?

He does not want to experience not being who He is.

If the being is omni-present, how can he/she/it not experiencing being everything as "who he/she/it is"? One cannot claim a being is "omni-everything" and deny it being everything at the same time, without falling into contradiction which then has one advising others not to try and understand what that means.

Why would He do so?

Why wouldn't he do so?

Being Omni is a part of his being. It’s like one of us saying we would like to know what it is to be less than who we are.

No it is not. What is "less than" experiencing being human? Perhaps experiencing being bacteria or being a neutron? Being a tree? Being a planet?

The idea of "more than and less than" are human concepts devoid of omni understanding. Of what use are such concepts?

Like, how about if we tried to see what it is like to lose all ability to think. Who would do that?

What does it mean to not be able to think? Do you mean, just experience without have thoughts as to the experience being had?

There are many questions to ponder but how God experiences Omni is not one of them.

Since the claim is that "God is Omni" the claim itself gives rise to how a being would experience omniness. One cannot have the one without the other. The fact that the claim is made verifies that folk who made/make the claim have pondered on this idea.

Otherwise what you are saying is that the claim should not be questioned because it cannot be understood, in which case the claim itself is of no value/significance.

To have claims which cannot be challenged on the additional claim that such cannot be understood is to be told to take claims at face value and believe them without question.

Is that what your faith/belief tells you to do?

[TRANSPONDER]

I think that is valid. Aside from 'Omni' being beyond comprehension (which makes it irrelevant to the discussion) or a blunderbuss term, which means that what is meant has to be defined by the person using it before the discussion starts, it would generally mean that a characteristic of the postulated god must be known to exist and be comprehended, if not accurately defined.

It thus becomes a Claim, and thus, the burden of proof falls on the claimant to validate it.

It is a cheat and a scam for them to put it beyond comprehension as then, the claim has no validation and is of course non -falsifiable. The fallacy of course is the universal one - falsely assuming it is a default hypothesis untill disproved and putting it beyond knowledge makes it safe.

But logically it us invalid; the claim (a god, omni or not) is under question and a priori assumptions are logically invalid, though of course are basic to faithbased thinking.

[SiNcE_1985]

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:

If you negate intelligent design, you have a list of problems that Mother Nature cannot solve.

1. Chicken & egg problem: What came first, the blood or the veins? The testicles, or the ovaries? The stomach, or the appetite? The brain, or the mind? The skin, or the skeleton?

You cannot have one without the other for too long...which means that those things had to originate simultaneously, and in harmony.

Not something that Mother Nature knows to do, or can do.

2. Entropy problem: Piggying back on #1, if you start with a Big Bang where entropy is high, you will only end with high entropy.

Based on how mathematically precise the natural laws are that govern our universe, those low entropy conditions had to be placed in there as an initial condition.

Only an intelligent design (Cosmic Engineer) can place those initial conditions in there.

Intelligent design has more explanatory power to explain those things, whereas science/mother nature just isn't in the position to do so.

[TRANSPONDER]

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:

If you negate intelligent design, you have a list of problems that Mother Nature cannot solve.

1. Chicken & egg problem: What came first, the blood or the veins? The testicles, or the ovaries? The stomach, or the appetite? The brain, or the mind? The skin, or the skeleton?

You cannot have one without the other for too long...which means that those things had to originate simultaneously, and in harmony.

Not something that Mother Nature knows to do, or can do.

2. Entropy problem: Piggying back on #1, if you start with a Big Bang where entropy is high, you will only end with high entropy.

Based on how mathematically precise the natural laws are that govern our universe, those low entropy conditions had to be placed in there as an initial condition.

Only an intelligent design (Cosmic Engineer) can place those initial conditions in there.

Intelligent design has more explanatory power to explain those things, whereas science/mother nature just isn't in the position to do so.

Unsound and unimaginative thinking.

You ought to know (but now you do) that the Theory (whether you believe it or not) is effectively, biochemicals, replication, bio -blob, complexity and gradual evolution of sponges, fish, reptiles, mammals and all the increasing complexity evolving.

That is where the theory says it came from, it is not a logical problem, and you out to understand that the theory works, whether you believe it or not.

Almost an Atheist Axiom, but Evolution - questioners should at least understand the theory before they attempt to debunk it.

2nd thing, Entropy. So what? Apart from possibilities like an infinite uncreated Cosmic basis that nullifies the closed systems that entropy requires, or the possibility of a repeated creation ad collapse, suppose the universe would run down and die? That doesn't mean it isn't true and what is actually going to happen.

[SiNcE_1985]

Unsound and unimaginative thinking.

You ought to know (but now you do) that the Theory (whether you believe it or not) is effectively, biochemicals, replication, bio -blob, complexity and gradual evolution of sponges, fish, reptiles, mammals and all the increasing complexity evolving.

This is bio-babble.

Notice that none of the "which came first" questions were answered, and as far as I'm concerned those questions remain standing.

That is where the theory says it came from, it is not a logical problem, and you out to understand that the theory works, whether you believe it or not.

You can have all the unproven theories you want.

What I seek are proven theories.

Do you have any of that? No, you don't.

Almost an Atheist Axiom, but Evolution - questioners should at least understand the theory before they attempt to debunk it.

I understand it, I just don't believe or accept it.

2nd thing, Entropy. So what? Apart from possibilities like an infinite uncreated Cosmic basis that nullifies the closed systems that entropy requires, or the possibility of a repeated creation ad collapse, suppose the universe would run down and die? That doesn't mean it isn't true and what is actually going to happen.

?

[TRANSPONDER]

Unsound and unimaginative thinking.

You ought to know (but now you do) that the Theory (whether you believe it or not) is effectively, biochemicals, replication, bio -blob, complexity and gradual evolution of sponges, fish, reptiles, mammals and all the increasing complexity evolving.

This is bio-babble.

Notice that none of the "which came first" questions were answered, and as far as I'm concerned those questions remain standing.

That is where the theory says it came from, it is not a logical problem, and you out to understand that the theory works, whether you believe it or not.

You can have all the unproven theories you want.

What I seek are proven theories.

Do you have any of that? No, you don't.

Almost an Atheist Axiom, but Evolution - questioners should at least understand the theory before they attempt to debunk it.

I understand it, I just don't believe or accept it.

2nd thing, Entropy. So what? Apart from possibilities like an infinite uncreated Cosmic basis that nullifies the closed systems that entropy requires, or the possibility of a repeated creation ad collapse, suppose the universe would run down and die? That doesn't mean it isn't true and what is actually going to happen.

?

If you understood the proposed mechanisms of abiogenesis you would understand what I posted not consider it 'babble'. You would know what 'came first' unless you want to consider the origins of biochemicals, but as I said, you have to know the hypothesis you are attempting to debunk. The chicken and egg argument is inapplicable.

As to evolution, whether you believe it or not is irrelevant; but if you understand it, you would understand the mechanism is sound and supported by evidence. Thus it is a valid alternative to goddunnit and what you believe or not is irrelevant.; your argument is inapplicable

[SiNcE_1985]

If you understood the proposed mechanisms of abiogenesis you would understand what I posted not consider it 'babble'.

If the mechanism of abiogenesis was understood, then you'd be able to go in the lab and take nonliving material and not only turn it to living material...but also turn it into living, SENTIENT material.

Because it isn't enough to just make living material. Oh, no.

You have to give this living material the ability to think and process information.. you know, just like you believe/claim mother nature did.

And, even if you WERE able to do it (which is a big "if"), all you would prove is that it takes intelligence (you) to create life...which is NOT the atheistic hypothesis and doesn't reflect what they believe to have occured...because after all, billions of years ago, there WAS NO INTELLIGENCE to create life.

So, either way; uphill battle.

You would know what 'came first' unless you want to consider the origins of biochemicals, but as I said, you have to know the hypothesis you are attempting to debunk. The chicken and egg argument is inapplicable.

Excuse me, sir.

What came first; the brain, or the consciousness?

If the brain came first, what was it doing in all the time it took before the consciousness spawned in to it?

Was the brain sitting back, chilling..tapping its watch as it waited for consciousness?

And if the consciousness came before the brain...well, we already know what that would entail.

You've got problems, my man.

Like I said; uphill battle and I'm glad I'm not the one having to defend this position.

As to evolution, whether you believe it or not is irrelevant; but if you understand it, you would understand the mechanism is sound and supported by evidence. Thus it is a valid alternative to goddunnit and what you believe or not is irrelevant.; your argument is inapplicable

I need to know how life originated before I know how life evolved.

Let's not put the cart before the horse.