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 #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)?

Perhaps to make the point that the point wasn't a point at all and we needn't bother about it.

But it is a question whether one could field an imperfect god to explain the imperfection. But that only emphasises the actual point - that the world would look the way it does if there was no god there.

It is a problematical point for god -apologists if God is supposed to be perfect. if the god is not supposed to be perfect there is no reason to suppose there is one there at all. One can say the 'god' is just evolution and it doesn't need to be anything else.

[POI]

what point is atheism in relation to theism

It's not this binary...

1) atheism - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

2) agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

3) deist - belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

4) pantheism - a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.

5) theist - a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

6) Christian - relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings. a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity.

************************

Where exactly do you land upon this given spectrum? I mean, are you a hard (4)? Or maybe in between two other numbers?

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)?

As I may have told you prior, my main focus is to address theists of the Christian flavor, as this is "debating Christianity". Which means that should go without saying. The point is to investigate the OP question. And yes, it invites all position(s). I'm after what makes the most sense. But quite frankly, your last response leaves me with no direction to investigate, in regard to the truthiness of all these last given unverifiable assertions. I tried, but sorry.

And BTW, as usual, not really getting much interaction from the Christian crowd here??? I figured this topic would do it.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #142]

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)?

As I may have told you prior, my main focus is to address theists of the Christian flavor, as this is "debating Christianity". Which means that should go without saying. The point is to investigate the OP question. And yes, it invites all position(s). I'm after what makes the most sense. But quite frankly, your last response leaves me with no direction to investigate, in regard to the truthiness of all these last given unverifiable assertions. I tried, but sorry.

Here's the thing. It was you who argued re the existence of the universe, that there may not be any state of a "becoming". It is instead 'eternal'.

I simply went along with the concept and said that this would also have to include mind-fullness and explained the logical reason(s) why?

You continued to be interested and ask me questions which I answered.

You are free to back-peddle with the excuse that "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"

Yet your initial comment about an eternal universe is also unable to be verified/falsified yet that didn't prevent you offering it as a possibility.

What am I to take away from that POI? Should I be ascertaining your posts and thread topics with in mind that if what you are arguing about is at all unable to be verified/falsified, then it is best to leave well enough alone instead of engaging with you?

And BTW, as usual, not really getting much interaction from the Christian crowd here??? I figured this topic would do it.

Perhaps it is because they have ascertained something which has them looking for more productive engaging?
Or it may be because they checked out the video you linked in the OP and realised that it was presenting straw?

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)?

It's not this binary...

1) atheism - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

2) agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

3) deist - belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

4) pantheism - a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.

5) theist - a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

6) Christian - relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings. a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity.

Noted.
I can tell by your list that atheist TRANSPONDER's argument that this message board is specifically for Christians and atheists to debate, not theists in general, is a fallacy. Obviously if atheist are entitled to present their case, so to are non-Christians who are also not atheists.

Where exactly do you land upon this given spectrum? I mean, are you a hard (4)? Or maybe in between two other numbers?

Not sure why you are asking, or how it is you cannot figure it out (ascertain), given what I argue in my posts.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #141]

One can say the 'god' is just evolution and it doesn't need to be anything else.

Or - as I did and continue to do - one can say God is mindful and so is evolution and evolution needs to be mindful, otherwise it would not be as it is.
It does not have to be "perfect" in order to be mindful (God/creator) and as I have argued and received no countering argument, there is no consensus of what "perfect" is supposed to be but if we take a dictionary definition...

1. having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.

This does not describe the universe and so why assume it should be the case for a creator of the universe?

2. absolute; complete (used for emphasis).

Ditto with this definition.

3. make (something) completely free from faults or defects; make as good as possible.

And again...

So, one can deduce from this, that IF the universe is a reflection of its creators attributes, (and why shouldn't it be seen that way) THEN arguing that the creator is "perfect" or is "supposed to be perfect" does not fit with the evidence.

Those who argue that a creator of the universe has to be/should be perfect may be suffering from false influences (baggage/residue) from current or prior belief systems, which they have not entirely tested and dropped (on account of the straw in said arguments).

[POI]

You are free to back-peddle

I'm doing no such thing.... I'm more than happy to address, but your last response offers nothing to move forward upon. I might as well just say, "kool story bro". If we harken all the way back to the OP, it asks... Is it 'obvious we were designed'? I side with no-ish, and you side with yes-ish. We diverge, from the jump. When I vet out or explore your rationale deeper, it unravels into a convoluted mess of (???) to me. Sorry! Maybe I'm just not getting it? But Transponder seems to agree with me, that it has no substance to address. Sorry, maybe we are just not keen enough to pick up what you are, in actuality, putting down??? Anywho, that's where this exchange may have to end?

What am I to take away from that POI? Should I be ascertaining your posts and thread topics with in mind that if what you are arguing about is at all unable to be verified/falsified, then it is best to leave well enough alone instead of engaging with you?

What I continue to point out is that I can NEVER prove a negative -- (logically). This is why we have so many, in the world, who can perpetually assert the 'invisible' and feel that their 'justifications' are never defeated. I guess that means there really is a Big Foot, demons, gods, haunted houses, etc... All I can do is raise the logical arguments, where applicable.

Perhaps it is because they have ascertained something which has them looking for more productive engaging?
Or it may be because they checked out the video you linked in the OP and realised that it was presenting straw?

Nah... Theists engage when they feel they have an argument. Maybe they don't here? At best, they can argue for an inept design, which definitely does not fit the narrative of their beliefs. And yet, logically, arguing for a 'smart' one looks to fall apart quite quickly. That's probably why there is no traction here from Christians thus far? I hope I'm WRONG and are proven to the contrary. (i.e.) Not only is their design, but it's smart design.

Not sure why you are asking, or how it is you cannot figure it out (ascertain), given what I argue in my posts.

Some of your responses are difficult to decipher, quite frankly. So I thought I would ask plainly? Where do you land in (1 thru 6)? Inquiring minds would like to know? This may save both of us a lot of unnecessary back and forth, moving forward?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #141]

One can say the 'god' is just evolution and it doesn't need to be anything else.

Or - as I did and continue to do - one can say God is mindful and so is evolution and evolution needs to be mindful, otherwise it would not be as it is.
It does not have to be "perfect" in order to be mindful (God/creator) and as I have argued and received no countering argument, there is no consensus of what "perfect" is supposed to be but if we take a dictionary definition...

1. having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.

This does not describe the universe and so why assume it should be the case for a creator of the universe?

2. absolute; complete (used for emphasis).

Ditto with this definition.

3. make (something) completely free from faults or defects; make as good as possible.

And again...

So, one can deduce from this, that IF the universe is a reflection of its creators attributes, (and why shouldn't it be seen that way) THEN arguing that the creator is "perfect" or is "supposed to be perfect" does not fit with the evidence.

Those who argue that a creator of the universe has to be/should be perfect may be suffering from false influences (baggage/residue) from current or prior belief systems, which they have not entirely tested and dropped (on account of the straw in said arguments).

No. If one understands evolution -theory, it does NOT have to be mindful.It has to adapt the organism to conditions because 'survival of the fittest' as the brief summary has it. Just as a river adapts to its surroundings and changed if the surroundings change it does not need to be mindful to do it. There is no need for Mind until an organism has developed reaction (which plants have) to the stage when reaction to stimuli and threats become effectively awareness, problem - solving and reason, apparently only in us, and you may argue that that 'reasoning' is so advanced that a god had to do it. Consciousness is a gap for a god, but a contestable argument.

This applies whether one maintains that 'god' is perfect (which is rather the Theological view) or need not be perfect, which only means that evolution explains it perfectly well and a Cosmic Mind is logically not required and seems only to appeal to a preference, instinctive, perhaps, or residual or traditional religious indoctrination.

[1213]

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.

My point was, I don't believe you can imagine anything better.

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. ...

When it is always losing something, it means there was original state that was more complex. That goes against the idea of original single organism evolving to this current variation of species.

[1213]

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.

Essentially the theory claims all species have developed from simple organism to this variety of species. Meaning there was allegedly an organism that was basically a single cell, which in time has developed arms, eyes and other complex systems. This is not about getting better, but about getting more complex, or functional. If we see only species losing, it doesn't point to that there is any development, or gaining. the direction is to less complex, which implicates that everything was once created completely and now things have been corrupted and become less complete.

[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.

Essentially the theory claims all species have developed from simple organism to this variety of species. Meaning there was allegedly an organism that was basically a single cell, which in time has developed arms, eyes and other complex systems.

Yes, correct so far.

This is not about getting better, but about getting more complex, or functional.

Incorrect. While organisms have gotten more complex and in many cases more functional, that's not what drives evolution. Your cells don't have a weekly meeting and take a vote on what new thing to start doing next week. It's not like some engineering meeting goes on where cells decide what new feature to implement.

Evolution is driven by natural selection. In short, what survives long enough to reproduce gets to reproduce. That's pretty much it. In a population of organisms, those that are best suited to survive generally are the ones that have better chances to reproduce. There's no guarantee though. If you are lucky by whatever means to reproduce, you pass on your genetic material. It's just that statistically, those better suited to survive in their current environment will have the better chances to reproduce.

If we see only species losing, it doesn't point to that there is any development, or gaining. the direction is to less complex, which implicates that everything was once created completely and now things have been corrupted and become less complete.

This makes no sense. You will have to give an example.

Evolution has nothing to do with an end goal of "development or gaining". It is purely driven by a species ability to survive long enough to reproduce. Organisms that don't survive long enough to reproduce don't contribute to the next generation. Statistically, the least 'fit' tend to die out before they have a chance to pass on their genes.

It's all about survivability in an environment. You can see that with humans right now, in many areas of the world there is very low selection pressure due to the easy access to food, medicine, health care, etc. Someone who is wildly out of shape and would never be able to catch/collect their own food can now just order some online. They can easily survive long enough to reproduce if they can find a partner. They are still taking part in evolution if they manage to make babies.

[POI]

I'm going to try and push this topic along. The "strawman video", in which William labels, suggests that a designer exists, but this designer lost a bet to "Lucifer". "Lucifer" is allowed to mess with God's design. While ignoring the applied (satire/disrespect/mockery/other), the provided video demonstrates a fundamental point:

A) The BEST a Christian can argue, is that God exists, but his intended design has been compromised by 'evil'.
B) At worst, no intentional designer exists at all.
C) Or, someone may want to instead argue somewhere there in between, as a pantheist, agnostic, deist, or other - (which would still demonstrate stupidity <or> a lost bet for the asserted Christian God).

The video lays out some key points:

1) God created each and every fully functioning male with foreskin in which God then later orders removal?
2) God creates males with an insatiable sex drive, by way of each male self-producing 50 million sperm a day, but then also orders releasing them to be a "sin" outside of sex with your legal wife?
3) Women are able to conceive at a very young age?

In essence, at best, viewing only these (3) objective facts alone highly suggests that "Lucifer", (if he indeed exists), got his way. He was allowed to mess with God's design. Otherwise, the Christian needs to explain WHY creating foreskins, generating 50 million sperm a day, and 12-year-old conception, is smart design?