Intelligent Design

It wasn't take personally. What made your response odd was how you kept saying "well if you truly believe etc..." Could you please clarify the 'you' or is it just general?

You make the argument that:
[INDENT]'Design Flaws' exist therefore God is either incompetent or has a weird sick sense of humor.
[/INDENT]What you are assuming is that if a God does exist that you would know his reasons for designing the way he chooses to design. You posit that if a God does exist then by this evidence we can know that he is incompetent or has a odd sense of humor. So I ask, if you as a finite mind assume for hypothetical reasons the existence of a divine designer with an infinite mind whom created you, how are you to know what his reasons are for his design?

I have already told you that I do not hold on to one specific view yet and am working on finding views and interpretations that I find to be most plausible etc...

But to humor you for the remainder of this debate between you and I, I will assume the position of a literal 6 day creation of day light, stars, humans, animals and vegetation.

There are many that say God and evolution can coexist and the believe this is the case. However, if God exists then there is no need for evolution. According to Occam's razor, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, roughly"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". So because God creating everything is simpler than God creating evolution which then creates everything else. Then, we can say that the creationism worldview is preffered according to Occam's razor.

So you're implying that we cannot know his reasons for creating us in a way that would seem to negate intelligent design...

That suggests to me that intelligent design is inherently illogical, because we cannot understand God's reasons. And therefore, we should not abide rational arguments about the philosophical necessity of intelligent design.

We can easily tell. If something which has not only been designed but 'intelligently' designed has no purpose or function or in fact impedes on the objects health, like a lot of the flaws do, then they arent beneficial to that particular object. So far it seems we can either come to 2 conclusions...1) it wasnt intelligently designed or 2) it was intelligently designed but cant support the claim because we dont know god, his plan, or his super omniscient knowledge...? If we do take the latter how is that claim any better than the former? My claim is grounded in nature so we can observe, test, replicate and falsify the claim with reasons and evidence to support it, while the opposing claim is just an argument from ignorance. I dont see how saying we dont know gods plan or 'god did it' helps anyone understand anything...

Sorry it don't work like that either you believe or you dont im not here to be humoured.If your musing give me your proposed ideas for debate but don't pretend to take a positive view for humours sake.

What is a day..twentyfour hours?

Thanks for asking Doc,

The theory of evolution, as is any creation theory, be it Godly, or scientific, were all designed by the intellect of mankind. The real question to be ask is: just or truly how intelligent is mankind?

I would humbly answer: until we All know the absolute truth rather than the uncertainties of theories and faiths that we live by and teach our children today, not very imtelligent at All.

I've heard a day is currently about 23 hours 56 min and 4.1 sec but we can just stick to 24 hours for simplicity.

All I am merely doing is attempting to balance the 'playing field' by pointing out that many oppositions hold no ground in their accusations.

I find this just too silly for words debating with an intelligent human how long in hours god decided to make the cosmos including earth and its creatures.144 hours, why 144 why not a second or half an hour sorry its mind boggling that i even think its worth debating.He then rested , it then appears that this god who can do so much in such a short period of time needed to rest.Do you actually admit that god made the universe faster than the speed of light?You refuse to accept known science on how the universe expanded and the speed.

In other words, if the only thing that legitimizes God is that arguments against him hold no ground (by virtue of being negative assertions), then God becomes entirely and totally arbitrary.

So the playing field isn't exactly balanced. I would have a much easier time convincing a million skeptics that my left foot exists than I would have convincing them that God exists. Why do you think that is?

I would have to repeat my point, that if we only gave consideration to what was clearly visible, tangible, then we would still be living in caves, alone and hungry.

Many people are completely won over to atheism because of the "problem of evil": 'there is evil, therefore God does not exist'.

That's a fairly concrete interpretation of "observable". There's a difference between observing electrons and observing God.

What I mean is, imagination, perceiving that which isn't obvious, is the root of invention, discovery and progression.

And, I think there should be great caution in pure rationalism.

We always have this preconceived idea of a creator and its motives.We cant stop our imagination or our logic creating an image of this creator. The debate always reverts to the same old arguments, it never moves on.I think its a human condition to search for the definitive answer.We can dismiss certain images that are proposed for our creator because they dont fit our logic but it should not stop us discounting the evidence.

Who is saying that all aspects of creation down to the smallest detail must in this day and age show design?

Is it not possible to say that what was once created had changed over the years?

You are also creating a line that must be reached for you to consider more evidence for 'intelligent design'. If all of the flaws that you name did not exist then you would create other flaws as I spoke of earlier. You could ask why do we have to die at age 80? Why can't we live longer? Why can't I grow lost limbs back? etc... Humans will always find a scab to pick. You will choose to default to no ID every time you find the slightest error (error by your definition). How much 'nature displaying 'design" would you require to then create the default to an ID? I don't think you would ever succeed in any case to default to an ID.

I personally am not a huge fan of the 'argument from design' 'proof' of God as all debate is based on self definitions and opinions on what design is and what necessitates design.




my word.. can we just get started?

6 literal days! GO!