Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4732 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 106 of 327 (502866)
03-13-2009 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by riVeRraT
03-13-2009 7:20 PM


riVeRrat - A designer could have any motives for designing life. There may well be a reason why a designer would want to design things that appear imperfect to us. But that's the whole weakness of the idea - there is no set of evidence that would rule out a designer. So it's not scientific. You're arguing against your own case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by riVeRraT, posted 03-13-2009 7:20 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by riVeRraT, posted 03-13-2009 7:36 PM Richard Townsend has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 107 of 327 (502868)
03-13-2009 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by lyx2no
03-13-2009 3:46 PM


Re: I'm Not That Thick
lyx2no writes:
Fair enough. Your point was that since science doesn't know everything random notions are equally valid.
No. random notions are not equally valid.
He leaves behind no evidence of competence as an engineer, astronomer, geologist, biologist, mathematician, physicist or moralist, but because we don't know "His" plan we can't judge.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by lyx2no, posted 03-13-2009 3:46 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by lyx2no, posted 03-13-2009 8:53 PM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 108 of 327 (502871)
03-13-2009 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Richard Townsend
03-13-2009 7:30 PM


Richard Townsend writes:
So it's not scientific.
Science is relative. One could also argue it is subjective, and I have.
Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Richard Townsend, posted 03-13-2009 7:30 PM Richard Townsend has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 109 of 327 (502877)
03-13-2009 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by riVeRraT
03-13-2009 7:33 PM


A Designer Consistent & Consistent Designer
No evidence of being a competent engineer?
Worse still, for the designer to be consistent with the evidence it is necessary for it to be incompetent as an engineer. I can't imagine how this could be news so I'll only tire you with one example: People can't breath while swallowing. This is not a difficult problem to resolve. Especially since there are models for its resolution in many other creatures. If a mere human can recognize this why couldn't the creator? It's either incompetent, unconcerned or has a mystical plan that involves rock stars drowning in their own vomit.
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?
Firstly, this presupposes there is a creator. Secondly, it's hyperbole. I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't think the surface of the Sun a harsher environment then the surface of the Earth.
Off topic stuff.
It's also good not to judge. I don't judge God, and I don't judge you.
This is pabulum. Do you drive with your eyes closed or let child molesters baby sit your kids? I'm betting you don't. You've likely judged that to be a dangerous thing to do. Is that not a judgment, or do you have your own meaning for the word?

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by riVeRraT, posted 03-13-2009 7:33 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:30 AM lyx2no has not replied
 Message 133 by Peg, posted 03-20-2009 7:21 AM lyx2no has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 110 of 327 (502879)
03-13-2009 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by riVeRraT
03-13-2009 7:20 PM


Is that designer error/flaw, or operator?
Designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by riVeRraT, posted 03-13-2009 7:20 PM riVeRraT has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 111 of 327 (502934)
03-14-2009 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by riVeRraT
03-13-2009 7:30 PM


You explained many things of which I already get, so no need to debate.
Cool.
I see fit to place a designer, because it is a possibility.
A lot of things could be possible, but I get what you're saying. You believe cause it's not that far fetched of an idea, are you also claiming to follow a certain religion or do you consider yourself a diest?
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.
Well at least your honest about it being subjective. But I'm curious how, if you are of a specific religion, do you connect the subjective notion that design is possible to one specific god story?
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.
"Crazy" just means "interesting" to me. I'm not here to insult your belief, just curious about it's philosophical implications.
My main point is, there are somethings we will never know. So all concepts regarding where we came from require a leap of faith.
What happens when we do know, would that rock your faith?

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by riVeRraT, posted 03-13-2009 7:30 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:45 AM onifre has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 112 of 327 (503289)
03-17-2009 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by lyx2no
03-13-2009 8:53 PM


Re: A Designer Consistent & Consistent Designer
lyx2no writes:
Worse still, for the designer to be consistent with the evidence it is necessary for it to be incompetent as an engineer. I can't imagine how this could be news so I'll only tire you with one example: People can't breath while swallowing. This is not a difficult problem to resolve. Especially since there are models for its resolution in many other creatures. If a mere human can recognize this why couldn't the creator? It's either incompetent, unconcerned or has a mystical plan that involves rock stars drowning in their own vomit.
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.
Firstly, this presupposes there is a creator.
Isn't that what you are doing by claiming the designer has made bad designs?
I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't think the surface of the Sun a harsher environment then the surface of the Earth.
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.
This is pabulum. Do you drive with your eyes closed or let child molesters baby sit your kids? I'm betting you don't. You've likely judged that to be a dangerous thing to do. Is that not a judgment, or do you have your own meaning for the word?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by lyx2no, posted 03-13-2009 8:53 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Taq, posted 03-17-2009 10:42 AM riVeRraT has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 113 of 327 (503290)
03-17-2009 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by riVeRraT
03-17-2009 10:30 AM


Re: A Designer Consistent & Consistent Designer
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.
If we were designed properly we would not be able to overdose on drugs in the first place.
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.
Why not have separate breathing and eating holes? That would be a better design.
Our perfect design is when we leave this body and get a new one, we are told that.
So the designer could have given us a perfect design, but chose not too so that we could suffer. That's what I suspected all along.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:30 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:54 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 134 by Peg, posted 03-20-2009 7:33 AM Taq has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 114 of 327 (503291)
03-17-2009 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by onifre
03-14-2009 10:25 AM


onfire writes:
A lot of things could be possible, but I get what you're saying. You believe cause it's not that far fetched of an idea, are you also claiming to follow a certain religion or do you consider yourself a diest?
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.
Well at least your honest about it being subjective. But I'm curious how, if you are of a specific religion, do you connect the subjective notion that design is possible to one specific god story?
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.
What happens when we do know, would that rock your faith?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by onifre, posted 03-14-2009 10:25 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by onifre, posted 03-17-2009 4:39 PM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 115 of 327 (503293)
03-17-2009 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Taq
03-17-2009 10:42 AM


Re: A Designer Consistent & Consistent Designer
Taq writes:
If we were designed properly we would not be able to overdose on drugs in the first place.
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?
Why not have separate breathing and eating holes? That would be a better design.
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.
So the designer could have given us a perfect design, but chose not too so that we could suffer. That's what I suspected all along.
You are not looking at the whole picture. Are caterpillars not perfect solely because they have to transform into a moth later?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Taq, posted 03-17-2009 10:42 AM Taq has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 116 of 327 (503294)
03-17-2009 10:58 AM


Light and the dark
Both Taq, and lyx2no are trying to debate here that the design of our bodies is imperfect because bad things can happen to us. That insinuates that a perfect design would not allow anything bad to happen to us. (that is also a subjective view, not an objective one)
So tell me, is light a bad design if there is dark? How would we even know that light was good, unless we experienced the dark?
Edited by riVeRraT, : spelling

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Huntard, posted 03-17-2009 11:48 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 118 by Taq, posted 03-17-2009 4:00 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 123 by lyx2no, posted 03-17-2009 11:49 PM riVeRraT has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 117 of 327 (503296)
03-17-2009 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by riVeRraT
03-17-2009 10:58 AM


Re: Light and the dark
riVeRraT writes:
So tell me, is light a bad design if there is dark? How would we even know that light was good, unless we experienced the dark?
Who says light is good? I think many creatures prefer the dark.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:58 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:12 PM Huntard has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 118 of 327 (503308)
03-17-2009 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by riVeRraT
03-17-2009 10:58 AM


Re: Light and the dark
Both Taq, and lyx2no are trying to debate here that the design of our bodies is imperfect because bad things can happen to us. That insinuates that a perfect design would not allow anything bad to happen to us. (that is also a subjective view, not an objective one)
That's correct. That is the objective definition of perfect. Any and all actions do not have a bad outcome.
So tell me, is light a bad design if there is dark? How would we even know that light was good, unless we experienced the dark?
It would seem rather obvious that a lack of energy resulting in us freezing to death would be a bad thing. Do you really think that we couldn't figure this out without freezing to death?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:58 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:17 PM Taq has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 119 of 327 (503310)
03-17-2009 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by riVeRraT
03-17-2009 10:45 AM


I find nothing in science that makes me say Jesus cannot be the Son of God.
But we would also have to include any and all god(s)/metaphysical entities; science disproves none of them.
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.
How do you know that that particular book is the right one?
I'll re-ask, how do you connect the subjective notion of design to specifically Christianity and Jesus, and not Islam and Allah, or Hindu and Shiva, etc?
How did you decide "Christianity"?

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:45 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by riVeRraT, posted 03-17-2009 10:34 PM onifre has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 120 of 327 (503342)
03-17-2009 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Huntard
03-17-2009 11:48 AM


Re: Light and the dark
Huntard writes:
Who says light is good? I think many creatures prefer the dark.
To hunt for food that would not exist without light.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Huntard, posted 03-17-2009 11:48 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Peg, posted 03-20-2009 7:42 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024