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:

[William]

I don't think of 'Omni' as being beyond comprehension (making such irrelevant to the discussion) and have seen plenty of atheists argue about omni-related concepts (to do with a Creator-Mind) so clearly being able to understand the concept (of omni) is not outside of human understanding.

Omni meaning.
A combining form meaning “all,” used in the formation of compound words: omnifarious; omnipotence; omniscient, et al.

I think it is important that if we are to discuss a creator-mind which is omni, then we are required to keep true to that rather than introduce contrary speculation such as the creator mind "does not want to experience being what it is not" when the mind is also claimed to be omniscient and omnipresent.

The argument "the omni creator mind does not want to experience being what it is not" is contrary to it being omni. It is being what it is, and cannot be what it is not.
My (ongoing) argument is that the universe (being what it is) can be seen to have been created as a perfect intelligently made device, as a means through which such a creator-mind could experience "losing" its sense of omni-ness - not indefinitely, temporarily - and the means to achieve this is evident in the existence of the universe itself and our (human-mind perspective) within it.

Effectively we human minds represent the creator mind which has fully lost touch with itself, while at the same time are individually given the opportunity to find/reconnect with the creator mind we are really all aspects of (since there is no "other" creator-mind) and this realisation is what ends the temporary ignorance which should then (potentially) help us to all play nicely in the universe together...or for that matter, anywhere else we may experience which might be alternative to said universe.

The battle between "My god-idea is the truth" and "The universe is not a created thing is the truth" is a stumbling block for all who participate directly in said battle.

Neither of those claims have been verified as "truth" and are thus equally invalid, so the onus on those human minds who understand this, is to find their own way, examine other views which are often left out of the equation by both atheists and religiously indoctrinated folk alike and to report what they find so that other human minds searching will have the opportunity to discover said data in their own searching for it.

[Mae von H]

I don't think of 'Omni' as being beyond comprehension (making such irrelevant to the discussion) and have seen plenty of atheists argue about omni-related concepts (to do with a Creator-Mind) so clearly being able to understand the concept (of omni) is not outside of human understanding.

How does God hear all prayers at the same time? How is He in more than once place at the same time? If He has all power how come others have power too?

Omni meaning.
A combining form meaning “all,” used in the formation of compound words: omnifarious; omnipotence; omniscient, et al.

I think it is important that if we are to discuss a creator-mind which is omni, then we are required to keep true to that rather than introduce contrary speculation such as the creator mind "does not want to experience being what it is not" when the mind is also claimed to be omniscient and omnipresent.

You are limiting Him to the dictionary definition. I know Him and He does not want to be less than He is. Surely this is understandable. Who does?

The argument "the omni creator mind does not want to experience being what it is not" is contrary to it being omni.

How? Can you explain how not desiring something less is contrary to having or being all?

It is being what it is, and cannot be what it is not.

Does not want to be was the statement, not cannot be.

My (ongoing) argument is that the universe (being what it is) can be seen to have been created as a perfect intelligently made device, as a means through which such a creator-mind could experience "losing" its sense of omni-ness - not indefinitely, temporarily - and the means to achieve this is evident in the existence of the universe itself and our (human-mind perspective) within it.

Why would any satient being want to lose anything?

Effectively we human minds represent the creator mind which has fully lost touch with itself, while at the same time are individually given the opportunity to find/reconnect with the creator mind we are really all aspects of (since there is no "other" creator-mind) and this realisation is what ends the temporary ignorance which should then (potentially) help us to all play nicely in the universe together...or for that matter, anywhere else we may experience which might be alternative to said universe.

No evidence for this.

The battle between "My god-idea is the truth" and "The universe is not a created thing is the truth" is a stumbling block for all who participate directly in said battle.

What? In any case I pick neither side.

Neither of those claims have been verified as "truth" and are thus equally invalid, so the onus on those human minds who understand this, is to find their own way, examine other views which are often left out of the equation by both atheists and religiously indoctrinated folk alike and to report what they find so that other human minds searching will have the opportunity to discover said data in their own searching for it.

Ok, we both reject the two options. But most things about God, especially truth, will not be found by all the human endeavor put together. He hides from those who think they can find Him by searching.

Surly this can be understood. If a man refuses to reveal his motivations, it will be impossible for another to find out by research. Hide who you are from others and they never find out. And we’re mere men.

[Mae von H]

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...

You refuse to admit new features can result in the loss of other ones, perhaps preferable to many users. Change the code and fearures can be lost. You won’t admit this. (NO ONE IS ADDRESSING SALES.)

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?

I gather you’re not experienced in software updates. Programmers never intend to destroy important features. The word “bug” ought to help. God has designed the female anatomy do all organs function even when pregnant. No change us going to protect a woman from poor hygiene.

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"

Except the majority of UTIs come from the GI tract. That’s a fact. But if a male has poor hygiene or diseases, yes, there’s a problem. No design will solve poor hygiene or STDs.

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.

Sorry but the data indicates the GI tract. You can make up story if you want but they’re contrary to known medical science. And UTIs are easy to get rid of. Very easy ans compared to other infections.

And there’s no connection between deep in the vagina and the urethra. You don’t know female anatomy.

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.

Sorry but the GI tract sends the UTI bacteria. It’s a fact. It’s called E. coli.

[POI]

Please note, from the video, Jesus lost the metaphorical hand in designing humans.

Mae You refuse to admit new features can result in the loss of other ones, perhaps preferable to many users. Change the code and fearures can be lost. You won’t admit this.

POI You continue to fail in understanding all replies, regarding this topic. Allow me to clarify even further. Otseng is merely comparing the 'grand designer' to an Apple engineer. This sets a pretty low standard. Are you suggesting the 'grand designer' is as limited as the Apple engineer? Regardless of the presented shortcomings of the Apple engineer, one of the following possibilities then prevails: a) inept, b) unaware, c) deceptive, or d) wise. If a 'grand designer' DOES exist, I'm demonstrating that only answers a) thru c) can apply. See below for details.

Mae Programmers never intend to destroy important features. The word “bug” ought to help. God has designed the female anatomy do all organs function even when pregnant. No change us going to protect a woman from poor hygiene.

POI Then you are suggesting the Apple engineer is a) thru c). I do not really care which one it is. The entire point here is that the 'grand designer' is being compared to a fallible human, and the 'grand designer' also resides in a) thru c), not d).

Further, necessary acts exist which can cause harm and/or death to the female, due to poor design alone. See below for details.

Mae Except the majority of UTIs come from the GI tract. That’s a fact. But if a male has poor hygiene or diseases, yes, there’s a problem. No design will solve poor hygiene or STDs.

POI Please take note to the part you expressed in bold. I've expressed repeatedly, that many reasons exist for the result in UTI's. I'm addressing the one(s) directly related to poor design alone. Sex can cause a UTI. If the urethra was not so short, and/or had a protective cap over the opening, (like a gas cap for your car), UTI's may be less of a thing. But, since the designer is either a), b) or c), here we go.

Mae Sorry but the data indicates the GI tract. You can make up story if you want but they’re contrary to known medical science. And UTIs are easy to get rid of. Very easy ans compared to other infections.

POI Again, many reasons cause a UTI. Many decades ago, and prior, there were not yet any easy treatment options to treat a UTI. Many would die. I'm addressing the one(s) related to poor design.

http://nortonhealthcare.com/news/uti-af ... ital%20UTI.

"The bacteria that cause UTIs live in the area around the anus. Any sexual activity — not just penetrative sexual intercourse — can push bacteria closer to and up into the urethra and cause a UTI.

"While men and women can get UTIs from sex, women are more likely to develop a post-coital UTI.

“Blame it on anatomy,” said Morgan Cole, APRN with Norton Immediate Care. “Women’s urethrae tend to be shorter than men’s, so it is easier for bacteria to reach the bladder and cause infection.”

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

In conclusion, move the keaster away from the vagina, and/or place a protective flap over the urethra, and/or lengthen the urethra. Simple 2nd generation stuff here..... But I guess Jesus lost the bet, so he can't?

[William]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #102]

He hides from those who think they can find Him by searching.

I guess that's why Jesus said "don't bother searching for the kingdom of God for you will not find it" and "seek, and you will not find"...wait...what?

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #102]

He hides from those who think they can find Him by searching.

I guess that's why Jesus said "don't bother searching for the kingdom of God for you will not find it" and "seek, and you will not find"...wait...what?

Jesus said that he hides from the wise and intelligent. He thanked God personally and openly that He, God, hid "these things from the wise and intelligent." Jesus himself said he taught in parables so that the crowd would not easily understand what he was teaching and even his disciples did not understand. Do you know of those passages? Shall I find them for you?

Now, you are generally a very intelligent man who thinks a great deal about matters. Do you need me to explain to you why Jesus told men to seek and you shall find and God hides things from the wise and intelligent? I understand this completely but it is likely complex. But I studied science that is complex so I am not surprised that matters dealing with God Himself are complex. It fits.

[Mae von H]

Please note, from the video, Jesus lost the metaphorical hand in designing humans.

Mae You refuse to admit new features can result in the loss of other ones, perhaps preferable to many users. Change the code and fearures can be lost. You won’t admit this.

POI You continue to fail in understanding all replies, regarding this topic. Allow me to clarify even further. Otseng is merely comparing the 'grand designer' to an Apple engineer. This sets a pretty low standard. Are you suggesting the 'grand designer' is as limited as the Apple engineer? Regardless of the presented shortcomings of the Apple engineer, one of the following possibilities then prevails: a) inept, b) unaware, c) deceptive, or d) wise. If a 'grand designer' DOES exist, I'm demonstrating that only answers a) thru c) can apply. See below for details.

Mae Programmers never intend to destroy important features. The word “bug” ought to help. God has designed the female anatomy do all organs function even when pregnant. No change us going to protect a woman from poor hygiene.

POI Then you are suggesting the Apple engineer is a) thru c). I do not really care which one it is. The entire point here is that the 'grand designer' is being compared to a fallible human, and the 'grand designer' also resides in a) thru c), not d).

Further, necessary acts exist which can cause harm and/or death to the female, due to poor design alone. See below for details.

Mae Except the majority of UTIs come from the GI tract. That’s a fact. But if a male has poor hygiene or diseases, yes, there’s a problem. No design will solve poor hygiene or STDs.

POI Please take note to the part you expressed in bold. I've expressed repeatedly, that many reasons exist for the result in UTI's. I'm addressing the one(s) directly related to poor design alone. Sex can cause a UTI. If the urethra was not so short, and/or had a protective cap over the opening, (like a gas cap for your car), UTI's may be less of a thing. But, since the designer is either a), b) or c), here we go.

Mae Sorry but the data indicates the GI tract. You can make up story if you want but they’re contrary to known medical science. And UTIs are easy to get rid of. Very easy ans compared to other infections.

POI Again, many reasons cause a UTI. Many decades ago, and prior, there were not yet any easy treatment options to treat a UTI. Many would die. I'm addressing the one(s) related to poor design.

http://nortonhealthcare.com/news/uti-af ... ital%20UTI.

"The bacteria that cause UTIs live in the area around the anus. Any sexual activity — not just penetrative sexual intercourse — can push bacteria closer to and up into the urethra and cause a UTI.

"While men and women can get UTIs from sex, women are more likely to develop a post-coital UTI.

“Blame it on anatomy,” said Morgan Cole, APRN with Norton Immediate Care. “Women’s urethrae tend to be shorter than men’s, so it is easier for bacteria to reach the bladder and cause infection.”

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

In conclusion, move the keaster away from the vagina, and/or place a protective flap over the urethra, and/or lengthen the urethra. Simple 2nd generation stuff here..... But I guess Jesus lost the bet, so he can't?

Let's get some info:

"The most common germ causing urinary tract infections is found in your digestive system, Escherichia coli (E. coli). E. coli can easily spread to the urethra and stick to the lining of your urinary system."

Your understanding of human anatomy is weak but anyone can find anything in the net. I had NUMEROUS UTIs as a child and there was no intercourse involved. Numerous. In those days one took a sulfa drug, not the antibiotics used today. I had kidney infections as well and the same statement, no sex involved at all. You are really in error. You continue to ignore that if the bladder were higher up in the abdomen, a growing pregnancy would render it unable to perform its function. It is already a challenge as it is. There is no room for the bladder to move farther away.

I wish you would see that I am not criticizing Apple engineers, but I am trying to show you that changing one feature often causes the finished product to lose functions in other sometimes unrelated areas. The human body works perfectly in design. The operators do not treat it according to "manufacturer's" specs and so there are problems. UTIs were never ever a big killer of women. And there are natural products one can take that treat UTIs in any case. Women were not dying from UTIs until antibiotics showed up. Drinking a lot of water helps. Certain teas help. You refuse to look at the data but it is simply true. UTIs are not limited to sexually active women but happen in virgin girls. Even your site only that sexual activity only "CAN" result in a UTI. Only maybe....

For women who get UTIs, sex rarely plays a role and I had to laugh at something in the vagina "pushing up" bacteria in the uretha knowing a great deal more about female anatomy than the author. The author also knows nothing at all about bacteria. 1) they do not respond to pushing by a large object...might as well say a wrecking ball pushes flies. 2) UTI bacteria have flagella and move rapidly on their own. That is why they come from the GI tract.

I have copied non-antibioltics treatment from the net:

7 Best Ways to Treat UTIs at Home

Stay hydrated. (always available to women)
Urinate often. (always available to women)
Drink cranberry juice. (available to women down through the centuries depending upon location)
Use probiotics. (unsure but since food was not always refrigerated, consuming other bacteria was likely common)
Supplement vitamin C. (available in ancient times according to location and season)
Wipe front to back. (many cultures have used water and not wiping so always available to women)
Stay hydrated. (always available to women)
Suitable sexual hygiene. (here is where you point out as the design flaw, way down on the list and hygiene solves this)
Comparison.

Let's move you. You have made up information to suit your "bad design theory" because you want to accuse God of bad design. The fact is, UTIs are a minor inconvenience and never killed women in the thousands before antibiotics. The fact is, proper hygiene when cleaning after emptying the GI tract is the major step to prevent UTIs. What is more common in women after sex is a fungal infection, not in the urthrea. That is associated with sexual activity, but that is not a design problem so that is ignored.

[POI]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #107]

It's clear that addressing your points, point-by-point, is not getting us anywhere. I will now try a differing approach...

If you had watched the video, you would understand where I am coming from. News flash, the video does not even mention UTI's. The video raises the point that theists wish to use the observation of "human anatomy" as a means to prove a 'designer'. Theists see the human body as a great point of evidence that a "grand designer's" hand must be at play here. The video then goes on to show a metaphorical challenge between himself (Jesus) and (evil) or the devil, who wants to mess with the "grand design". Jesus then plays a hand of Texas Holdem with "Satan". Jesus loses the hand. Satan gets to mess with Jesus's design. One of the MANY 'designs' in which the devil messes with is their "junk".

Before you opt to issue a knee-jerk response, I would like you to reflect and think for a bit here.... If a "grand designer" truly exists, why embed the urethra within the vagina? Truly think about this simple question alone. I've already read all your responses. Wouldn't God already know that reproductive acts (alone) can cause infection, due to this simple design choice?

[benchwarmer]

If a "grand designer" truly exists, why embed the urethra within the vagina? Truly think about this simple question alone. I've already read all your responses. Wouldn't God already know that reproductive acts (alone) can cause infection, due to this simple design choice?

I think a simpler question is why did God design humans such that they are susceptible to any infections in the first place? If God is truly the master designer/engineer, this should have been easy peezy. Don't create infectious bacteria, or don't allow human biomaterial to be effected by bacteria.

Humans can make squares that don't fit in round holes. Apparently the Bible god can't make human cells that are impervious to other things it created. Seems like a serious design flaw to me (an engineer who likes simple designs).

Now we get to hear all the apologetics about how it's humanity's fault our bodies have gone wrong.

[POI]

If a "grand designer" truly exists, why embed the urethra within the vagina? Truly think about this simple question alone. I've already read all your responses. Wouldn't God already know that reproductive acts (alone) can cause infection, due to this simple design choice?

I think a simpler question is why did God design humans such that they are susceptible to any infections in the first place? If God is truly the master designer/engineer, this should have been easy peezy. Don't create infectious bacteria, or don't allow human biomaterial to be effected by bacteria.

Humans can make squares that don't fit in round holes. Apparently the Bible god can't make human cells that are impervious to other things it created. Seems like a serious design flaw to me (an engineer who likes simple designs).

Now we get to hear all the apologetics about how it's humanity's fault our bodies have gone wrong.

Yes, it's almost as if this 'grand designer' had/has no concept of what germs were/are