A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence

Our definition of "perfect" and God's, may be two entirely different things. Until all physics can be explained, then we don't know the answer to that. Refer to the answer for #1.

That is pretty much a know it all attitude. Pretty ignorant if you ask me. Like the speck (aka us) of the universe explaining what the universe is all about. It is a completely illogical statement, given all the assumptions.The bible says that God's ways are not our ways. I am not quoting that to say that the bible is always right, but in my life, as I continue to learn things and never stop, even my own ways of 40 years ago are not my ways now. If there is a God, and He did create it all, then I would logically think that it is safe to say, His ways are not our ways, and we have not but a little glimpse of how or what He created.In other words, it is pointless to say God is incompetent. It makes no sense logically, or comically.I guess you see no purpose in things that we deem "bad" and then associate it with an incompetent designer.

Again, more ignorance. How do you qualify that statement? Oh really? You think free will and the randomness of quantum physics have anything to do with each other?And lets look further into how nature is put together. So far as we know, as of this date, nature is "put together" by gravity. Gravity is the glue of the universe. Can you fully explain gravity to us? Where it comes from, how it works. Maybe we can finally get rid of the theory of gravity, since you are going to explain to us in detail. Yea, you could also get into a car crash, wake up 7 months later, and detect that you are in a hospital, but have no clue how you got there.Look, scientists know dam well that we are only uncovering the tip of the iceberg when it comes to understanding life, the universe, and everything. My advice to you, is to not think "we know enough". A better scientific attitude would be that we know what we know, until we know something else. You will never prove God is a farse by calling Him incompetent. You sound more like a child calling his parents idiots for grounding him.

Fine. But I don't get that feeling from the flavor of the post. He does not come across as not sure of himself.By faith alone. Can't prove a thing. Correct.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

How is this a design flaw?Also, I should have said this earlier, but where do we make the assumption that humans were designed as perfect? Also, humans were designed for a purpose. Unless we fully understand that purpose, then we can't judge if the design is flawed or not.You are saying having two holes would be a better design for living in the physical, but if we are eternal, then it doesn't much matter.

AKA gravity.FYI the earth has an electromagnetic field.

It was explained to me by those people (on this site), who are more knowledgeable than me on the subject that there is a theory, that attempts to explain gravity. It is not a full explanation, or a proven one, since nothing is ever proven in science. I also understand it. I know quite a bit about magnetic fields, and electromagnetic forces. I wind my own electric motors, and repair them on a daily basis.I am a fan of science, but not a scientist. I use science everyday in my trade, which helps me to understand certain things. The practical application of these sciences, shows me a lot.If you go to wikipedia, and read up on gravitation, you will see the history of what we believed were explanations. First there was Galileo, then Newton, then Einstein's relativity, then quantum, and finally at the end we read: So as you can see we don't fully grasp things. This pattern with science is applicable with all sciences.So as I stated, we know what we know, until we know something else. We are on this learning curve. We know not the beginning or end of this curve.It is therefor a logical assumption to say we are on the tip of the iceberg. The iceberg being the universe and beyond.It is a humble attitude.BTW, the theory of gravity does not explain where it comes from, only how it works. Necessary? I could never say that. I am a mere speck.If God exists, and created all this, then all of it is physical evidence.If we study the works of Hubble, and the big bang theory, I find it funny that the mass of the universe is just the right amount to cause a big bang, how convenient. But I do find the big bang theory consistent with a start to the creation of the universe. But again, these are all theories, and we really just don't know.

The theoretical implications of electromagnetism led to the development of special relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905.Thank you good night.Don't take what I say out of context. Stick to the point.My point is that gravity is the glue of the universe. It is not fully understood. I neither want or desire "credibility" in human terms.

Is that designer error/flaw, or operator?

You explained many things of which I already get, so no need to debate.I see fit to place a designer, because it is a possibility. You can believe in stuff without minimal evidence.I believed by faith, and then I had an encounter, and continue to this day. For me God is real, and you can have a relationship with Him. But it is subjective, not provable, and all physical evidence in the universe, is evidence of Him.It's what I believe, and I am entitled to it. I am well aware that others who live their lives by the current scientific theory will think I am crazy, and I understand that, because that is how I once lived.What pisses me off is when people try to use science to dis-prove God, and also when they use science to prove God (aka creation science). To me science should be considered a gift from God. Or if you don't believe, then it is just awesome.My main point is, there are somethings we will never know. So all concepts regarding where we came from require a leap of faith.

No. random notions are not equally valid. No evidence of being a competent engineer? Then how are we existing here, on a little blue ball, in the middle of the harshest environment imaginable, for millions, and millions of years?It's also good not to judge. I don't judge God, and I don't judge you.

Science is relative. One could also argue it is subjective, and I have.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

I guess you didn't get my explanation before.
Again, Rock stars drowning on their own vomit is a poor example, because the Rock star was probably overdosing on drugs, and the designer gave us enough info to know that we shouldn't be overdosing on drugs. He also told us not to eat like pigs, which would solve the problem of random people choiking when they put too much food in their mouths, and don't chew properly.There is nothing wrong with the design of the throat and mouth and respiratory. It has kept us alive for millions of years.The designer has told us that we were not designed to live forever in the physical sense. So any other examples you could provide of poor design would be negated by that statement. Our perfect design is when we leave this body and get a new one, we are told that. The designer may purpose for that, of which we do not understand. Your thoughts are all thoughts of the flesh, not of the spirit. Isn't that what you are doing by claiming the designer has made bad designs? We are protected from the sun by the earth of which God created. I never said one was harsher than the other, but the universe as a whole is extremely harsh. Pick any known point, and we would have a hard time surviving. Judging a situation, and judging people are two different things. Also judging someone, and passing judgment are two different things. We cannot help but assess a situation, or a person.Example: If I think (judged) that were not a Godly person, or one who believes in God, and then treated you as such, I would be passing my judgment. If I ask God, and remember that God loved me, as messed up as I am, I feel that God tells me to love you the same way He loves me, regardless of your belief's. That is not passing judgment. There is too much hypocrisy in religion. There is none in love.

I am not a deist, but deism may have had something to do with me "finding Jesus/God". I find nothing in science that makes me say Jesus cannot be the Son of God. I do find things in science that make me realize how screwd up religion is. Religion sucks, but if you believe in God, you are pretty much stuck with religion to a point.There are people who call themselves "red letter Christians"
Red-Letter Christians - Wikipedia
I am probably more closely related to that. The story isn't too far off from the truth. But that's just it, it is just a story, a translated dream.
Bible literates are hypocrites, because they say the bible means one thing, and one thing only. But then they read it, and get something different every time they read it. The bible is subjective, and I believe God uses it to connect with us, if you are truly trying to seek the heart of the Father, and not satisfy your own physical needs. As with everything in life, there is good and bad. If we are to be truly humble about things, as God tells to be, then none of us would come across as now-it-alls, including religious leaders. Everything rocks my faith. I question everything, and test everything against my faith. Hopefully I am doing it effectively.My faith is summed up like this:
Love God
Love others.It is hard for something as objective (human limited perception) as science to rock something as simple and subjective as love. How's the saying go? Love conquers all?

Again, you are basing this on your own limited perception. The designer, designed us with free will. In the garden of eden, it would have been impossible to O.D. unless you touched the fruit.
It would be impossible to have free will, and not be able to O.D.Would you prefer to give up free will in place of a perfect design? Would it even be a perfect design without free will? Either way, a hole could be blocked. A better design would have been solar powered humans. LOL, but then we would have not been able to enjoy food, or taking a breath of fresh air.Being able to judge whether we are designed perfect or not, includes being able to decipher all the variables. I think your opinions on this subject are too biased. You are not looking at the whole picture. Are caterpillars not perfect solely because they have to transform into a moth later?