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]

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.

You didn't answer my question.

[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.

You didn't answer my question.

Yes I did. You even quoted my answer. My answer signifies "all change" since that is what the universe is doing.

[POI]

Yes I did. You even quoted my answer. My answer signifies "all change" since that is what the universe is doing.

Great. Would something that is 'designed' be organized in their designs, or not, or maybe sometimes both -- (depending on the situation)? I think I may already know your answer, but I'm still exploring (your) rationale.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #133]

Great. Would something that is 'designed' be organized in their designs, or not, or maybe sometimes both -- (depending on the situation)? I think I may already know your answer, but I'm still exploring (your) rationale.

As I understand it.

Taking the Universe as the example (as all change is therein) the moment of the big bang is unorganised, and the subsequent epochs are evidence of mindfulness (so too is the BB event itself, but we are talking about the overall as well as the parts.) What may be understood as initial chaos became orderly (or is consistently becoming more orderly).

Currently we are only still in the beginning stages of its unfolding (relatively speaking) and it may be that it will stay like it is (changes happening) for a far longer time than it has currently existed.
This is not to say that the stuff it is made up of is not eternal, but that the universe which has manifested and which we are experiencing has had a beginning, will have a middle, and may well have an end.

Mindfulness is also eternal, and I think of that as also being physical (made of stuff) rather than there being the existence of "non-material things" and essentially this means that mind and matter are the same thing, and that organised matter (clumped as it is) is made from the substance of said mind, which means that everything experienced is "in the mind" and is why we minds experience things.

[1213]

...It is not 'perfect' as we can imagine how we would change ourselves, if we could.

If you could make the changes, I believe it would be worse than this.

...We are well adapted, yes, but that is what evolution does.

Evolution seems to be only degeneration, erosion of something that was good in the beginning. All observations that are used for to support the modern mother earth cult, are examples of how things are getting less than what they once were, "whales lost their feet", "DNA is accumulating more and more errors", "chromosome Y is disappearing"... ...if things continue like this, and if God would not be real, everything would eventually be only dust spread evenly in space.

Evolution -theory answers questions;

Only for the believers. To me it raises many questions.

We (like the rest of the biosphere) are evolved

Nothing in nature indicates that things are evolving. On the contrary, everything shows things are eroding and degenerating.

[benchwarmer]

We (like the rest of the biosphere) are evolved

Nothing in nature indicates that things are evolving. On the contrary, everything shows things are eroding and degenerating.

This is just conflation of the word 'evolving'. You think the word means 'better' in this context. That is not the scientific meaning when talking about evolution. I would think you should know that by now.

When people pretend a word means something it doesn't in order to 'win' the argument, those who know what the words mean and what the argument actually is simply tune out. It would be better to show that you know what the word means and provide a counter to the actual argument.

What you are doing is analogous to:

Person A: I saw Bob today, he was gay.

Person B: Bob is sinning by practicing homosexuality.

Person A: Bob is not a homosexual, he was just happy.

Person B: Bob should change his ways.

Person A: 'gay' in this context means happy.

Person B: Bob should really get right with God.

Guess which person you are in this analogy?

[TRANSPONDER]

...It is not 'perfect' as we can imagine how we would change ourselves, if we could.

If you could make the changes, I believe it would be worse than this.

Then why do the changes that should be made to bring us up to Jeusgod';s moral standard not arguably be worse than this? And if the vaguely imagined betterment that is ascribed to Jesusgod be better, why not the same improvements we can imagine if not know how to achienve? Obvious - double standards - for Jesu it works, for humans it doesn't.

...We are well adapted, yes, but that is what evolution does.

Evolution seems to be only degeneration, erosion of something that was good in the beginning. All observations that are used for to support the modern mother earth cult, are examples of how things are getting less than what they once were, "whales lost their feet", "DNA is accumulating more and more errors", "chromosome Y is disappearing"... ...if things continue like this, and if God would not be real, everything would eventually be only dust spread evenly in space.

You fail to understand that evolution adapts. If whales lost their feet it was because flippers were more useful in their environment. We lost our fur. What a terrible loss! You misunderstand biological evolution as much as you appear to misunderstand socialevolution even though i have explained several times that human life (good and bad) is far better than it was even 200 years ago.

Evolution -theory answers questions;

Only for the believers. To me it raises many questions.

And when you get the answers, you wave them away. I recall the whale evolution debate even if you don't. You tried to argue leg bones as being an advantage butbI countered with shark cartilage. cetans have leg boned because of evolution (or devolution, if you prefer ) and not because leg bones are a better design.Cartilage would do as well. You have declined to comment on the 'proof'of speciation Why should i care about any of your other questions? the cetan sequence established speciation and question are not about evolution, not OF evolution, but you don't or won't get that.

We (like the rest of the biosphere) are evolved

Nothing in nature indicates that things are evolving. On the contrary, everything shows things are eroding and degenerating.

You still have a false idea of evolution. Possibly some idea that Jesugod is making everything wonderful and if it isn't wonderful, then it's man's fault. So why does evolution have to be making everything wonderful? It had two major extinctions that wiped out most of life, but without which man wouldn't be here. Good and bad evolution is what it is and doesn't failjust because it doesn't do what you think it ought to do.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #133]

Great. Would something that is 'designed' be organized in their designs, or not, or maybe sometimes both -- (depending on the situation)? I think I may already know your answer, but I'm still exploring (your) rationale.

As I understand it.

Taking the Universe as the example (as all change is therein) the moment of the big bang is unorganised, and the subsequent epochs are evidence of mindfulness (so too is the BB event itself, but we are talking about the overall as well as the parts.) What may be understood as initial chaos became orderly (or is consistently becoming more orderly).

Currently we are only still in the beginning stages of its unfolding (relatively speaking) and it may be that it will stay like it is (changes happening) for a far longer time than it has currently existed.
This is not to say that the stuff it is made up of is not eternal, but that the universe which has manifested and which we are experiencing has had a beginning, will have a middle, and may well have an end.

Mindfulness is also eternal, and I think of that as also being physical (made of stuff) rather than there being the existence of "non-material things" and essentially this means that mind and matter are the same thing, and that organised matter (clumped as it is) is made from the substance of said mind, which means that everything experienced is "in the mind" and is why we minds experience things.

Okay, thanks. In all honesty William, is any of this even verifiable and/or falsifiable? I'd say not. Hence, there is really nothing for me to address here. Thanks anyways.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yep. Given that this is only about a postulated intelligent designer and not about a particular god or religion (though Christian Creationists assume it it is their just as Muslim creationists believe it it Allah) there is too little known or rather too much yet to be discovered about the Cosmic origins to even begin to make serious hypotheses, never mind faithclaims we should all take as true.

I reckon you can always tell a god -believer IF they try to make a case for a god through Cosmic Origins, as that was only ever an illogical argument based on a priori theism o/w 'Who made everything then?' goddunnit -belief without which inability to explain Cosmic origins does not lead to a god, unless God is assumed the default in the first place, which is of course assuming as a given what its being questioned. Theists never get this, and it is why they are always irrational in their arguments, even the super -apologist Lane -Craig, whose Kalam means NOTHING without the god he carefully avoids mentioning, but clearly he expects us to assume as 'cause', never mind which one. Kalam is actually a terrible argument but he really makes it sound erudite with a lot of long words.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #138]

In all honesty William, is any of this even verifiable and/or falsifiable? I'd say not. Hence, there is really nothing for me to address here.

If that were true, and every atheist followed this, then what point is atheism in relation to theism (or visa versa) or in atheists and theists addressing one another/engaging at all?

What was the point in your even creating this thread or engaging with theists/theism and posting silly atheist strawman videos (as you did in the OP)?