The Constraints of Design

Having responded to your Message 73, I want to get this topic back on track and return to some of the questions posed in the OP.In particular, I want to dig a bit deeper in to the claim you made in Message 60, that your god “is all knowing. So He knew all design knowledge.”In my dictionary, knowledge is defined as, “understanding of or information about a subject which has been obtained by experience or study”.This begs the question, where did your god obtain its knowledge from? What experiences did it draw upon? What sources were available for it to study?I keep coming back to this point, but it’s important. When we examine a human design, we can deduce a great deal about the knowledge (or limitations of) that were prevalent at the time of the design. By examining designs from the past, we can tell a very great deal about the technological knowledge that existed at the time of each design. Furthermore, we can make deductions about the way people lived at various times in the past by examining the technologies and designs they employed.Finally, we can trace the evolution of designs back through history and see how new discoveries of knowledge led to modifications in design. In short, examination of design through the ages gives us a good insight into the development of human knowledge during that time.So I repeat my question to you. What are you able to deduce about your god, based upon the design you claim to observe within nature?To date all you have offered is the assertion that your god is “all knowing” and imagined a design for the universe, without any reference to the context against which any of this occurred.Human design does not happen in isolation. It is an integral part of the environment in which it occurs. It draws upon knowledge gained from observing the universe in which it occurs. It is constrained by the properties of the energy, forces, processes and matter with which it has to work.If you insist that your god formulated an idea in its head, without experience of or access to pre-existing knowledge of similar environments or designs, then please desist in making comparisons between what you claim and what we can clearly observe to be human design.

Apologies for butting into an exchange between others, but this caught my eye:- Interesting link. Especially as it contains this definition of design:- Which seems a little at odds with what you were arguing in Message 60 when referring to your god:- So you offer us a definition of design that acknowledges the process as "The management of constraints", yet when you claim to see design in nature, that leads you to conclude your supposed designer’s “power is unconstrained. Infinite”. Would you like to clarify this apparent lack of consistency?Before closing, this also caught me eye:- Let’s see what happens if we retain the sentiment but change a couple of the words.Zebras have four legs . Something that appears to have four legs would be suggestive of a zebra. . That doesn’t really work for me. How about for you?Edited by dogrelata, : Tidying up link to previous message