Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 106 of 352 (478414)
08-15-2008 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by LucyTheApe
08-14-2008 11:30 PM


Re: Natures Folly
Once again, Lucy, all you can do is go on the offensive - the thread is not about how well *I* can design.
Is the best defense of your god that he can design better than me boy, that's some god. And you've not even demonstrated this.
And your best defense of his piss-poor design is that we should chew our food more carefully to avoid catestrophic failure of his design
Both you and Buz seem convinced that this thread is about blasphemy - not in the slightest, it is about following the evidence where it leads and calling on it. The evidence shows that any creator who made us humans as a complete creation sometime in the past 100,000 years, was either severely constrained in his options or retarded. That is what the evidence shows. That is not blasphemy.
Tell me again - we do we hurt, damage, or even kill ourselves when we fall over, or trip down the stairs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-14-2008 11:30 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 107 of 352 (478416)
08-15-2008 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Buzsaw
08-14-2008 10:36 PM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
The only people who would describe all of the wonders of what is observed on this planet and in in the cosmos as shoddy or the work of an idiot designer would be people who for one reason or another deny ID or anything supernatural to earthlings
Once again, Buz, you get it completely backwards. I came to this conclusion as a Christian And th only axe I had to grind was with the idiot creationists around me. Those who don't even consider the possibility of a creator would never have a reason to consider the cosmos as shoddy - because it only appears complete shit when you consider that there was a creator who brought it all into existence, designing each individual component to his sepcification. Only when you appreciate that the human design is completely dictated by the evolution of our Universe, do you realise what an incredible construct it is - but it is not a design.
The work is clearly not shoddy to rational observers who have no axe to grind
The work is clearly not shoddy to those who understand how the human body is the result of a strict progression beginning at least 14 billion years ago. And so you are correct - to rational observers, the Universe is exactly as it should be.
The creator of an army designs the army to the needs and purposes of the government, not according to the whims and desires of the individuals which make it up. Savvy?
And does this imply that the creator of the army is not an idiot, when we see the attrocious results of his decisions?
Again Buz, why do we hurt, damage, or even kill ourselves when we fall over, or trip down the stairs?
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Buzsaw, posted 08-14-2008 10:36 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Buzsaw, posted 08-15-2008 9:03 AM cavediver has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 352 (478425)
08-15-2008 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by cavediver
08-15-2008 4:16 AM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
cavediver writes:
And so you are correct - to rational observers, the Universe is exactly as it should be.
I don't see it that way. I see it according to the trend of the LoTs, that order, intelligence, complex design etc does not trend from disorder and randomness.
cavediver writes:
And does this imply that the creator of the army is not an idiot, when we see the attrocious results of his decisions?
Idiot? That depends on what brought about attrocious results, the fault and/or miscalculations of the army or the creator of it.
cavediver writes:
Again Buz, why do we hurt, damage, or even kill ourselves when we fall over, or trip down the stairs?
Because we are not the angel creatures of the cosmos who have the capacity to go through walls. The creator, for whatever reason, being soverign majesty of creation chose to create us on this planet as flesh and blood creatures with the capacity of etermal life.
That the ID creator chose to make us thus does not make him idiotic. I makes you appear naive, insultive or blasphemous regarding the creator who the majority revere and how ID works.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by cavediver, posted 08-15-2008 4:16 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by cavediver, posted 08-15-2008 9:23 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 112 by lyx2no, posted 08-15-2008 11:27 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 118 by Blue Jay, posted 08-15-2008 2:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 109 of 352 (478427)
08-15-2008 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Buzsaw
08-15-2008 9:03 AM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
I see it according to the trend of the LoTs, that order, intelligence, complex design etc does not trend from disorder and randomness.
I wouldn't expect you to see it, Buz, because you have next to zero knowledge of thermodynamics. And there is no complex design - that's what we keep tellign you.
The creator, for whatever reason, being soverign majesty of creation chose to create us on this planet as flesh and blood creatures with the capacity of etermal life.
The problem, Buz, is that you are looking around you and saying - look at this amazingly designed world, doesn't that just point to a "soverign majesty of creation"?
And we're saying, no Buz, it doesn't. It points to an eons long mind-blowing evolutionary process - if a creator just willed all of this ex-nihilo, then its pathetic
The creator, for whatever reason...
And that is your only get-out clause? That God must have his reasons for why we're so crap, so fragile, but we are not privy to them? That's a fine excuse, Buz, but it sort of flies in the face of the original claim that the 'obvious desgn' was so good it implies a creator. The design doesn't look good, even if God has his reasons to make it not look good... and thus we are never to going to conclude that there is "soverign majesty of creation" by looking at the evidence.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Buzsaw, posted 08-15-2008 9:03 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by johnfolton, posted 08-15-2008 1:38 PM cavediver has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 110 of 352 (478431)
08-15-2008 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by onifre
08-14-2008 8:43 PM


Agobot writes:
Although non-existant, god is good vent for my anger at the injustice, suffering and death of innocent living creatures(human or animals).
Onifre writes:
It seems like you are insane
You place all of the blame for human and animal suffering on something that you claim is non-existant?
You're right, thats the perfect way to solve injustice, suffering and death of the innocent...by blaming that which is non-existant!
Were you working in Bush's cabinet when WMD's were blamed for the Iraq invasion?
How bout we don't blame, nor reward, non-existant things, that way we can keep them non-existant and irrelevant?
Hehe, it's just a vent, plus it's cool to see the grins on the faces of the religious . 90% of the population of the US believe in god so maybe you should try that next time when something bad happens that was beyond your control. It takes some courage the first time but then it gets kind of addictive and it's fun .
Edit: If god punishes you, report back so we can take down the EVC forum and bow before the creator(i have a feeling god is heavily preoccupied killing and punishing good and innocent people around the world and doesn't have much time and desire to deal with small, innocent insults on forums.)
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by onifre, posted 08-14-2008 8:43 PM onifre has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 111 of 352 (478433)
08-15-2008 11:01 AM


Agobot writes:
Why would you call god a deity that has lied to you or used deception on you and your friends/loved ones(throwing out evidence here and there pointing to life coming about on itself, by itself)?
Catholic Scientist writes:
The assumption is that god wants us to believe in him through faith rather than know from evidence that he exists.
If that is what he wants, then he would simply be withholding evidence. That's different than lying and deceiving.
How is spreading dinosaur bones and skeletons throughout the Earth considered "withholding evidence"? To me, that's deliberate deception.

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-15-2008 12:47 PM Agobot has not replied

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


Message 112 of 352 (478437)
08-15-2008 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Buzsaw
08-15-2008 9:03 AM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
The creator, for whatever reason .
You're still arguing one side of the dilemma at a time. Those reasons, whatever they were, weren't too nice. You've got to make Him nice at the same time you make Him competent. Capisci?
Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

Kindly
When I was young I loved everything about cigarettes: the smell, the taste, the feel . everything. Now that I’m older I’ve had a change of heart. Want to see the scar?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Buzsaw, posted 08-15-2008 9:03 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 08-15-2008 10:41 PM lyx2no has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 113 of 352 (478443)
08-15-2008 12:46 PM


Just as a general reply, I'd like to modify my position somewhat on the inltellectual/ethical qualities of any designer of the human species.
Previously, I've said that such a designer may simply be cruel, and I no longer think that's the case.
While many of the flaws inherent in the human body would suggest that a designer, if he is assumed to be intelligent, would also have to desire unnecessary human suffering, there are other features that simply don't make sense with such a perspective.
The many vestigial features of the human body simply have no purpose. The appendix could be interpreted to be a cause of suffering and therefor support the case of a cruel designer, but features like the tailbone or the remnants of the nictitating membrane serve no purpose whatsoever. They aren't cosmetic, they serve no function, they're just...there. Why would a designer of any sort include a tailbone for an organism that doesn't have a tail, particularly one so small as ours that you can't even see it through the flesh?
The only answers would be that either such a designer is incompetent, including extraneous features for no purpose whatsoever (cruel, benevolent, mysterious or otherwise), or the designer is explicitly attempting to disguise his existence.
To me, it seems rather odd to suggest that a designer capable of creating a sentient lifeform lacks the engineering skill to simply not include such extraneous features, and so we're left with a designer who doesn't want to be found and is making every effort to make his designs look like they were not designed at all. Some sort of Loki-like trickster deity who simply enjoys sowing chaos and confusion.
But then, we violate parsimony. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, why are we assuming it's a goose? We're invoking an extraneous entity in the form of the designer when it appears that there is, in fact, no designer whatsoever. The "evidence" for a designer becomes a matter of a preconceived conclusion, that the designer exists, and then a reinterpretation of the evidence (that humanity does not appear to be designed) to support the polar opposite of an objective interpretation (the lack of an appearance of design means the designer must be trying to hide its existence, as opposed to there simply not being a designer). This is of course fallacious reasoning, along the lines of apologetics rather than an inquiry focusing on accuracy.
For the purpose of this thread, I suppose it's "valid" to say that any designer of humanity, because we are assuming one exists, must then be either incompetent or be attempting to hide its existence. But the entire premise is logically unsound - there is no appearance of design in the face of the detrimental, the inefficient, the sub-optimal, and the plain odd features of the human body. Pretending otherwise is along the lines of saying "if Santa exists, he must be able to break the speed of light to deliver all of those gifts in a single night." Explaining the conclusion through apologetics doesn't make the conclusion any more valid, and doesn't make the extraneous entities likely to exist.

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Buzsaw, posted 08-15-2008 10:19 PM Rahvin has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 352 (478444)
08-15-2008 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Agobot
08-15-2008 11:01 AM


How is spreading dinosaur bones and skeletons throughout the Earth considered "withholding evidence"?
Huh!?
What are you talking about? What do dinosaur bones have to do with the existence of god?
To me, that's deliberate deception.
If you're going to decide, a priori, that god is a deceiver, then its going to be pretty easy to see things as deception.
I don't care to argue with you about things that you have already decided can only be the way you see them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Agobot, posted 08-15-2008 11:01 AM Agobot has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 115 of 352 (478449)
08-15-2008 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by cavediver
08-15-2008 9:23 AM


If everyone did not die the earth would not contain all the generations. However in Christ there is a promise of an incorruptible body to the generations not just the present generation in Christ.
Salvation come from the north, the great void in the North is this where The Word was sent by his Father. akjv John 3:17 http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/heaven_in_the_north.htm
It says God sits on the great white throne and if he would but turn his face all things would be destroyed.
akjv John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by cavediver, posted 08-15-2008 9:23 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Rahvin, posted 08-15-2008 1:52 PM johnfolton has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 116 of 352 (478450)
08-15-2008 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by johnfolton
08-15-2008 1:38 PM


If everyone did not die the earth would not contain all the generations. However in Christ there is a promise of an incorruptible body to the generations not just the present generation in Christ.
Salvation come from the north, the great void in the North is this where The Word was sent by his Father. akjv John 3:17 http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/heaven_in_the_north.htm
It says God sits on the great white throne and if he would but turn his face all things would be destroyed.
akjv John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
So...what does this have to do with the topic? Your response doesn't tie in very well at all. You seem to be explaining why death exists, while simultaneously exclaiming that death doesn't really exist if you're Christian.
This is specific Christian rambling. it doesn't have anything to do with a discussion of an intelligent designer, unless you're trying to point out that we are "designed" to die (again, it's difficult to decipher what your position is since you neglected to actually state anything beyond reciting Christian doctrine).
If this is the case, why did the "designer" include useless vestigial parts like the tailbone that serve no purpose? They have nothing to do with death or life, you can't see many of them with the naked eye, and they have no actual function beyond simply existing. Regardless of the specific designer you ascribe to, what possible explanation exists for such random inclusions in the supposed design? It would seem that, even granting the Christian "purpose" of humanity, those features would still be extraneous and at best a curious addition, an engineering faux pas, and at worst extraneous addition of useless parts demonstrating design incompetence. It's along the lines of the Winchester Mystery Spot in California, a house built by a crazy lady with stairs to nowhere and rooms with no doors or windows - many of the extraneous parts don't serve any purpose at all, not even a decorative one, they're just...there.
Your "designer" still seems to be an incompetent one, or is attempting to hide his existence. Considering the Christian deity's focus on gaining glory and being worshiped, he certainly doesn't fit the model of a designer trying to avoid detection. Was he simply incompetent then? What's your opinion on the assumed design of the human body?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by johnfolton, posted 08-15-2008 1:38 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by lyx2no, posted 08-15-2008 2:26 PM Rahvin has not replied

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


Message 117 of 352 (478452)
08-15-2008 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Rahvin
08-15-2008 1:52 PM


More Incompetent by the Minute
Your "designer" still seems to be an incompetent one, or is attempting to hide his existence.
And yet johnfolton and Buzsaw both found Him. How incompetent is that?

Kindly
When I was young I loved everything about cigarettes: the smell, the taste, the feel . everything. Now that I’m older I’ve had a change of heart. Want to see the scar?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Rahvin, posted 08-15-2008 1:52 PM Rahvin has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 118 of 352 (478453)
08-15-2008 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Buzsaw
08-15-2008 9:03 AM


It Won't Work, Buzsaw
Hi, Buzz.
Buzsaw writes:
Because we are not the angel creatures of the cosmos who have the capacity to go through walls. The creator, for whatever reason, being soverign majesty of creation chose to create us on this planet as flesh and blood creatures with the capacity of etermal life.
That the ID creator chose to make us thus does not make him idiotic. I makes you appear naive, insultive or blasphemous regarding the creator who the majority revere and how ID works.
You know that I believe in God, too. I haven’t been shy about admitting on this forum that I am a theist. But, I have a lot of major concerns about how mainstream Christians (and non-mainstreamers like Mormons) go about their thought processes, and for good reason.
This angle of attack is not going to do the slightest bit of good for you, for your cause, or for anybody that you’re trying to convince. I know they started this one, and I can see why Cavediver’s and Rahvin’s approach to this topic might offend you. But, spitting back isn’t going to help, for three reasons:
  1. ”Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” was part of the law that Jesus’s Atonement did away with.
  2. Nobody’s going to want to listen to your idea if you argue it with a tactic of personal insults.
  3. If God wants Cavediver and Rahvin rebuked for their insolence and blasphemy, He is fully capable of doing it Himself.
Look, I get quite upset about this sort of topic too: it almost invariably turns into a ranting session about God’s malevolence and cruelty, and I don’t believe that God is cruel or malevolent. I believe God is omniscient (for all intents and purposes relevant to our stay on Earth), so I’m sure He understands what has led Rahvin and Cavediver to their conclusions. I’m sure He is also aware that the reasoning process they use is really the best we can muster as “puny little mortals”---after all, He “designed” us that way---so I don’t see why this thing should outrage Him at all. In fact, it shouldn’t even surprise Him. How could He get mad at something for simply doing what He fully expected them to do when He made them?
I was a missionary in Taiwan for two years. I can tell you from personal experience that rebuking people for their disbelief never, ever works, even on a humble and inoffensive people like the Chinese. The best thing you could do is at least try to discuss things with people. Look how Rahvin and I reached an understanding after maybe four posts, because we didn’t go at the problem trying to prove our points: we went at it searching for a solution. And, we found one: I understand what he’s saying, and he understands what I’m saying, and now we can just get over each other’s viewpoints and try to discuss something rational.
And, who knows, maybe we could come up with a Designer that Rahvin could agree is both compatible with the evidence and isn’t cruel or incompetent. Almost certainly, this Designer concept would not fit the profile for a Christian God, but the point isn't to make it "perfect" on the first try. A step forward is better than stalemate.
The first ideas about evolution only somewhat fit the model that is broadly accepted by science today, but they didn’t just discard those old ideas because of their imperfections: they kept them for their strengths, and science has since been working on and correcting the weaknesses. Undoubtedly, scientists fifty years from now will have added much more to our understanding of evolution, and the scientific model will better fit the actual phenomenon in nature than the current model does. That’s what science and logic do.
The same could be said for any other scientific pursuit. For example, Cavediver and his colleagues work on Big Bang Theory, and they’ve answered many questions and filled in many blanks that the original formulators of the theory could not account for. The model gets better all the time.
Why can’t we do the same here with our concept of an Intelligent Designer? Let’s look at the evidence, make some inferences, and come to a preliminary conclusion. Then, if any new information comes up, we can change our ID model.
Here’s what I was trying to do. Since my “God population” failed because it was essentially just a less parsimonious version of Bluegenes’ argument, I decided to start from scratch with what everybody else was saying. There are three attributes of an Intelligent Designer that we can work with: omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. The discussion has leaned heavily against all three being unlimited “good” simultaneously, based only on the physical evidence. Even if you don’t agree with this, it’s best to just grant it to the majority opinion and move to the next step: that’s a good way to keep the discussion going. Otherwise, we’re just stuck with the first step for 300 posts, and it decays into insults and bad logic.
So, let’s say they’re right that omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence are not all consistent with the physical evidence left by the Designer. So, we’ve established sort of a cap value: no one here will accept a God that hits that value. So, I tried in Message 89 to establish some sort of minimum value by completely minimizing one of the three qualities (I chose omnibenevolence, because it seems to be the most prominent in the debate so far). That way, we could ascertain what range of possibilities the debaters on the thread are willing to consider.
We could try the same by minimizing each of the other two qualities while simultaneously maximizing the others.
Minimizing Power: Is the evidence consistent with a Designer who is omniscient, omnibenevolent and omni-impotent? No, Percy covered that in Message 28: clearly, the Designer must have a great level of power in order to design the universe in its present state, even if it is somewhat imperfect.
Minimizing Knowledge: It the evidence consistent with a Designer who is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omni-ignorant? No, Percy’s post probably covers that one too.
The other two having been addressed pretty well beforehand, I tried the third:
Minimizing Benevolence: Is the evidence consistent with a Designer who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnimalevolent? I argued that the evidence is not, because the Designer has at least allowed us the possibility of respite from the bad things. No one has yet taken me up on this.
Assuming that everyone agrees that the evidence is not consistent with omnimalevolence, we have then established a range of possibile benevolences that those on this forum might be willing to accept.
Perhaps by repeatedly raising and lowering the gauges on the three qualities, we can find the maximum levels of knowledge, power and mercy the evidence allows. Then, all of the theists here can decide whether this God is good enough for them. If not, you can be free to reject it, but I am personally very interested in finding out what everyone could come up with.
Whether or not we pursue this is ultimately up to Cavediver, because I am only assuming that this is consistent with his intentions for this thread. I certainly do not want to hijack his thread. I would be willing to take this to another thread, if Cavediver would prefer it.
Edited by Bluejay, : Addition.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Buzsaw, posted 08-15-2008 9:03 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by cavediver, posted 08-15-2008 5:51 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 119 of 352 (478465)
08-15-2008 5:46 PM


We are the lucky ones
My pekingese has a lot to say about the Designer. It's 36 deg. C over here and its long fur could kill it within hours(but he's lucky to have me keep him in an air-conditioned room). It takes him 5-6 times longer to quench his thirst because of the way god designed his mouth - he cannot suck the water as we do but instead has to lick the water for several minutes. And he chokes after each drinking, it happenes so often i've come to the point where i consider it 'normal'. My garden hedgehog must be mad at the designer for sex between a male and female hedgehog is a real ordeal(check out youtube for some funny vids). I also have a garden tortoise that is so slow because of the way and weight of its shell, it hurts me to watch how much efforts she puts in going a length of just 10 metres. I guess we are the lucky ones that should not be complaining about terrible design flaws. The animal world would curse and swear all day long, 365 days a year, about the way their bodies were 'designed'.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 120 of 352 (478467)
08-15-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Blue Jay
08-15-2008 2:37 PM


Re: It Won't Work, Buzsaw
Whether or not we pursue this is ultimately up to Cavediver
Feel free - I'm off to DisneyLand Paris for three days

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Blue Jay, posted 08-15-2008 2:37 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by RAZD, posted 08-16-2008 8:54 PM cavediver 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