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]

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

What would be the best alternative (evidence for a "grand designer" )? Perhaps, that we had bodies which never died?

[benchwarmer]

What would be the best alternative (evidence for a "grand designer" )? Perhaps, that we had bodies which never died?

Not necessarily, though that would be some indication of a good design.

For example, if our bodies were really designed, then perhaps a specific limit would be placed on lifespan. i.e. every body will last exactly 100 years and then you will painlessly terminate.

It's harder to see evidence of 'perfect' design, but it's pretty easy to see evidence of bad design.

Example: I suffer from kidney stones. Bad design involved here. Either don't allow conditions that create stones, or design in tubes that can handle passing them with no issues.

Another example: we all have one critical point in our breathing path, that if blocked, is the end of us. Trees don't have such a limited breathing apparatus, they have multiple leaves to do the carbon dioxide and oxygen transfer.

We see many examples in nature where other living things excel at something we don't and vice versa. It doesn't seem like anything was designed other than maybe the properties of the base chemicals that make up all living things. It would be analogous to designing Lego bricks, but not designing what gets built with them. While an interesting 'design', not a great one for the Lego creations since the creations can all be badly designed as it appears we are.

[William]

What would be the best alternative (evidence for a "grand designer" )? Perhaps, that we had bodies which never died?

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #112]

Not necessarily, though that would be some indication of a good design.

Would a good design therefore be obvious evidence of a good designer?
What then? Would this idea that bodies which never die, have one exclaiming a creator of said bodies exists, and is "grand" for that?
Or would it be a matter of complaining that the designer was "bad" for placing us in a universe which was badly designed in relation to everlasting human beings? (No doubt not immediately, but certainly eventually - at some point in the everlasting experience.)

For example, if our bodies were really designed, then perhaps a specific limit would be placed on lifespan. i.e. every body will last exactly 100 years and then you will painlessly terminate.

Wouldn't there be those who would think 100 years is hardly good and even argue that such is bad? Bad, perhaps because it is not nearly long enough.

It's harder to see evidence of 'perfect' design, but it's pretty easy to see evidence of bad design.

Wouldn't this also be a matter of opinion (perhaps shaped by influences of past beliefs). IF the universe is badly designed, where does the notion of "perfection" fit into one's argument? IS there even a universal agreement on what "perfect" is?

Example: I suffer from kidney stones. Bad design involved here. Either don't allow conditions that create stones, or design in tubes that can handle passing them with no issues.

So one such idea of "perfect" is "no experience of pain"?
What would a perfect universe look like and be experienced as, according to your particular specs?

Another example: we all have one critical point in our breathing path, that if blocked, is the end of us.

This of course is based upon the belief that when the body dies, "that is the end of you". While you share this belief with many (including some abrahamic-based sects) there is plenty of evidence (in the way of reports by those claiming to have experienced such) that death is definitely not the end of a human personalities experience.
If that turns out to be the case, how would that change your current opinion of this universe and your place in it?

Trees don't have such a limited breathing apparatus, they have multiple leaves to do the carbon dioxide and oxygen transfer.

Are you saying if you were a tree, then you could be more open to their being a good (if not grand) designer?

We see many examples in nature where other living things excel at something we don't and vice versa.

Yes we do. So collectively, is this an indication to you there is nothing even good about the design?

It doesn't seem like anything was designed other than maybe the properties of the base chemicals that make up all living things.

Would you say from that, that the design is "good" or "bad"? If the base properties were seen as code, and the results were seen as "bad", wouldn't that mean that the code is seen to be "bad" as well?

It would be analogous to designing Lego bricks, but not designing what gets built with them.

I don't think the universe actually works like that. But I do think that many Christian sects do teach that kind of thinking. Perhaps this is where you get your notions from? Were you once a Christian and did you think like that when you were?

While an interesting 'design', not a great one for the Lego creations since the creations can all be badly designed as it appears we are.

Where do you get the idea that we are the "badly designed" bodies we currently experience?
Also, isn't it "good" (enough) that it provides you with something interesting to experience?

Just to be clear, when I am asking "you" these questions, I mean this word to represent anyone else you argues a similar way. These are also questions I have asked myself. I found the answers to those questions became easier to compose, once I ejected the baggage of former religious belief systems and other non-essential things I had learned, even from secularism.

I think this is an essential step to take as a means of being able to begin to see the wood from the trees (and perhaps even breath easier as a result).

[TRANSPONDER]

They are relevant and interesting but not useful questions. We know human design is imperfect. Quite apart from death, we have bodies that do not grow back limbs (starfish do) get diseases, and have to do things that are frankly unsavoury. As products of evolution, that is quite what one would expect, but as the design of a god, it is hardly 'perfect' or even showing any sign of a shambolic designer.

The human mind is nothing to give God a Nobel prize about either. It is easily deceived and makes false conclusions. Humans have had to devise research and reasoning in order to get past the error - strewn thinking of the 'Natural' human mind.

It is pretty plain that evolution designed the human mind to enable us to survive, but not to guess right about how things are, which is why religion is a human delusion and reason has to correct that as it has out other errors of thinking.

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

[William]

They are relevant and interesting but not useful questions.

This adequately explains the belief you have that;

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

You are free to think of your self in that way, and believe it all you like and ignore any questions contrary to said beliefs. As you know, many Christians also do this type of thing, so perhaps this is an attitude imbued upon your psyche from a prior set of beliefs of which you still carry some of the baggage around? I don't know, but something has to explain this aversion to engaging with and even integrating certain types of information.
For those types of Christians, it is about clinging onto particular beliefs regardless of evidence (you appear to be aware of that dynamic) but have you ever seriously wondered if you also do the same re your own particular beliefs?

Maybe benchwarmer will have a different response...after all, I was asking those questions specifically in reply to his post ...

[William]

BRIEF.
When human personalities argue for or against the idea of being within an intelligently designed existence (this universe) I am not so sure that they know what it is they are talking about.

The way I view the question (are we or are we not within something intelligently designed) is to place aside religious mythology and atheistic views altogether and simply look at what knowledge we know about the Universe, the Earth (specifically) within the Universe, and our experience (as humans) within the Earth. (I say "within" the Earth as to also include the biosphere as the integral aspect of the Earth.)

In this way, I can be assured that those two positions have no influential bias on the outcome of any answer which might be forthcoming.

I then approach attempting to answer the question by examining the theory scientific investigation has created, starting with the Big Bang.

The first epochs of the event happened incredibly fast - something which reminds me of the idea of instant manifestation re the concept of ID.
I examine those theories and ask if they show any sign or non sign of intelligent design. The answer is inconclusive. I move on in this manner through the epochs, right up to present and still the answer is inconclusive.

What is conclusive is that the universe is still in a state of becoming. At this point (here/now) it becomes clear that yes indeed there is evidence for ID in the fact of the Earth having become a habitat for intelligent (mindful) life, an indication that there may well be something to the idea of ID.

I see no practical reason to critique something as "unintelligent" while it is still in the dawn of its becoming and thus no practical reason to adopt the belief in atheism/the beliefs of atheism.
Likewise with the mythology of religion. No requirement therein to take those literally.

So I focus on what IS in every appearance, intelligent and see what it is saying and doing about itself, in relation to where it is finding itself within.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to William in post #113]

Sorry to not answer every question posed, but my thesis is that we have no evidence for a designer to begin with. My point was that pointing at things that would be bad design and pretending a 'perfect designer' designed them kills the idea of a 'perfect designer'.

The entire argument about what would be 'good' or 'bad' design is kind of moot. Show us evidence of the designer in question (and preferably evidence that it actually designed anything we can observe) and then we can argue about whether the design is good or not.

To be clear, I see no evidence of a designer. Not because what we see would be 'bad design' necessarily (though that's a decent argument), but because we can't observe this designer in the first place.

It would be like claiming Zthgarbarg makes perfect beer, yet we can find no evidence of this Zthgarbarg character never mind find any perfect beer. Show us evidence of the beer maker besides continually pointing at different beers that aren't perfect.

[POI]

What is conclusive is that the universe is still in a state of becoming. At this point (here/now) it becomes clear that yes indeed there is evidence for ID in the fact of the Earth having become a habitat for intelligent (mindful) life, an indication that there may well be something to the idea of ID.

Maybe a better grasp of astrophysics is instead in order before you jump to a conclusion here? There may not be any state of a "becoming". It is instead 'eternal'. This guy explains it better than me. In other words, until you understand the concept, it would be like asking what is colder than absolute zero, or, what is North of the North Pole, before truly understanding those topics.

[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.

[William]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #117]

My thesis is that we have no evidence for a designer to begin with.

(eta to change bold to quote)

Wouldn't that depend upon what one means by "evidence"?

I see evidence and explain this view in my BRIEF on the subject of Obvious/non-obvious Designer.

The following phrases exemplify the BREIF content and context.

"I Think – Therefore – Who Do I Think I Am?":
Reflects introspection and self-awareness in exploring identity and consciousness.
Aligns with the emphasis on understanding oneself in relation to the universe.

"Living our forefathers' conflict":
Suggests grappling with the legacies of past beliefs and ideologies.
Aligns with the emphasis on setting aside biases from religious mythology and atheistic views.

"The Realm of The Knowing of My Self":
Highlights introspective exploration of identity and consciousness.
Aligns with the focus on understanding oneself within the broader context of the universe.

"Actions speak louder than words":
Emphasizes the importance of tangible evidence or manifestations in understanding intelligence or design.
Aligns with observing the dynamic and instructive nature of the present moment.

"This moment is the perfect teacher":
Highlights the significance of each present moment as offering valuable lessons and insights.
Aligns with the acknowledgement of the ongoing evolution of the universe as a source of learning.

"Data actual realistic communication":
Emphasizes accurate and meaningful communication grounded in empirical evidence.
Aligns with the reliance on data and scientific investigation to inform understanding of the universe.

"Brilliant Family Got The Picture":
Recognizes the intelligence and complexity inherent in the universe.
Aligns with the assurance of impartiality in exploring the question of obvious/non-obvious design.