God: The Bad Designer.

Is GOD an intelligent designer?

Most extinctions have occurred naturally, without human intervention: it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct"

www.lassp.cornell.edu...
www.abebooks.co.uk...

Nature has no forsight, evolution has proved this. What is meant by this is that nature can't go "back to the drawing board" it can't start again, turn back time. Gene legacy occurs, we have no use for our appendix, but it remains a part of our DNA.

This is explained best by the term: "Vestigiality"

Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms that have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution. These may take various forms such as anatomical structures, behaviors and biochemical pathways. Some of these disappear early in embryonic development, but others are retained in adulthood.

Another example of nature (or the "designer") having no forsight is the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe

Here's a short video explaining this aspect of natural selection, and refuting the "intelligent design" argument:-
--Richard Dawkins showing the dissection of a giraffe to explain Evolution by Natural Selection.

Another few concerns with the "designer" theory are Philosophical dilemmas, paradoxes or general criticisms;

The Logical Problem:

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

The Argument From Design...

The blind watch maker is an anology of the assumption that nature has a designer; (Richard Dawkins has explained this fully, i will provide a video link to go with the below description)

"Watchmaker" anology

The watchmaker analogy, or watchmaker argument, is a teleological argument for the existence of God. By way of an analogy, the argument states that design implies a designer. The analogy has played a prominent role in natural theology and the "argument from design," where it was used to support arguments for the existence of God and for the intelligent design of the universe.

IMAGE: farm4.static.flickr.com...
VIDEO: www.youtube.com...

Perhaps less Philosophical, more Scientific....

What about the Andromeda Gallaxy? What about it's collision course with our own?

"The Fate of the Solar System"

Two scientists with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics stated that when, and even whether, the two galaxies collide will depend on Andromeda's transverse velocity.Based on current calculations they predict a 50% chance that in a merged galaxy the solar system will be swept out three times farther from the galactic core than it is currently located.They also predict a 12% chance that the Solar System will be ejected from the new galaxy some time during the collision. Such an event would have no adverse effect on the system and chances of any sort of disturbance to the Sun or planets themselves may be remote.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/efd57bc694dc.jpg[/atsimg]"This new image from the Gemini South telescope in Chile captures a pair of galaxies locked in a graceful waltz that will eventually bring the two crashing together." (image taken at Gemini Observatory)

With these points in mind;

Ask yourself - What if God was one of us....

What would he think about his design? "Perfect" perhaps?

What about if he was one of the many species or lifeforms that have gone extinct due to cosmological imbalance? Would God wish differently of his "design"?

i don't think god is as good as most people think he is, if he was he could of just wrote evil out of the design, now why would a god that created EVERYTHING, need some type of balance? why? I do not know, unles there is also some form of law governing his actions aswell.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Laryngial nerve!

There's a really good video from NonStampCollector on YouTube about the lack of intelligence of a human eye which does a parody on the famous 'dead bird' sketch from Monty Python.

Our eyes? They sort of suck compared to certain cephalopods.

Want an example: Follow the directions I got here.

There's a way to find your blind spot. Cover your left eye and look at the dot on the left in this image. Be aware of the cross on the right, but don't look at it - just keep your eye on the dot. Move your face closer to the monitor, and farther away. At some point, you should see the cross disappear. Stay at that point and close your right eye. Stare at the cross, and you should see that the dot has disappeared. It doesn't just happen with a white background. Try the same with colored paper, and your mind will fill in the background color of the paper when the mark gets in your blind spot. You don't see as much of the world as you think.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4eb2c4e7dd20.gif[/atsimg]

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I'm glad I made you think by laying forward the "debate between a monkey and a human".

You can't claim whether creation (Universe or anything within) is a bad design unless you know the purpose. Let me give you another example, "monkeys tell humans that one of their creation is badly designed. Humans ask which one. The Monkeys point to a rocking chair, hence it is shaking. The Humans respond by saying the chair is suppose to shake, that's how it was designed". It you don't know the purpose of a rocking chair, you would think it is a bad design. If a house which is designed to collapse, and then collapses, is it a bad design? Unless you know the purpose behind the design, you won't know.

(Apart from)....... the obvious bad reasoning-chain presented by monotheists on this:

1/ It's all 'mysterious', so shut up and accept Jahveh

2/ I't 'good', because it's from 'god, so it must be 'good'

.......there are the more specific problems.

a/ An alleged 'creator-god', who doesn't know his own handiwork (genesis 1 demonstrates that).

b/ The Theravada or gnostic alternative models of interference somewhere in the cosmological situation (Mara or the demi-urge) making much more sense.

c/ The scientific hypothesis of the 'strong anthropic principle' as an intrinsic part of 'design'. It's just that the strong anthropic priciple' (if true) is a patchwork solution to a bad design.

d/ The 'observer created model' (popular amongst the syncretistic new-age mainly-christians) eventually is a defense of the non-order ( = NO absolutes), opposite to the ideas of mono-theists, who cling to the absolutes of their ideology.

Originally posted by confreak
reply to post by awake_and_aware

 

I'm glad I made you think by laying forward the "debate between a monkey and a human".

You can't claim whether creation (Universe or anything within) is a bad design unless you know the purpose. Let me give you another example, "monkeys tell humans that one of their creation is badly designed. Humans ask which one. The Monkeys point to a rocking chair, hence it is shaking. The Humans respond by saying the chair is suppose to shake, that's how it was designed". It you don't know the purpose of a rocking chair, you would think it is a bad design. If a house which is designed to collapse, and then collapses, is it a bad design? Unless you know the purpose behind the design, you won't know.

edit on 12-6-2011 by confreak because: (no reason given)

You are enlightened "confreak"!

"Awake", this is for you, food for thought: What if I told you that the experience you are currently living is actually Research and Development toward the Perfect World to come? Your current abode is a creature, a transitional vessel, evidenced by the fact that the body dies: then again it was never a living body, as it is the spirit within that simulates its life: the spirit tells each member of the body what to do and it does it; sought of like a car, when you enter and start it and start driving, the car seems alive; but when you stop and exit it, it is lifeless.

Do not criticize the work you find yourself in, until it has been completed: for then, unawares, you are criticizing yourself: imagine the magnificence that you are and are experiencing! What a Mind it is that conceived such!!!

Understand this: The image of God is MAN, the Soul, which was also recreated, sought of, as the human being: this image is a Light to God: look at it as a concept for Research and Development: for in man God experiences Life, fashioning perfection. As it is written, "The images are visible to humanity, but the light (purpose) within them is hidden in the image; the light of the Father will reveal itself, but his image is hidden by his light." Reflect on that.

Peace be with you!!!

reply to post by Olise


Just because i don't believe like you believe doesn't mean i'm not "aware". All humans are awake and aware, unless they're sleeping. That's another debate though.

Stop trying to ridicule my username. I refuted the anology in another thread which described how a monkey sees ancient ruins and assumes they have designer, well of course that assumption is correct, because they HAVE been designed. I've explained nature doesn't work in this way, althought it may ULTIMATELY be true, it's still an assumption, and based on no evidence. Ancient ruins don't reproduce.

Nature has no forsight, nature can't dismantle humans and start again to improve them.

See the blind watch maker part of my post instead of just jumping to self-opinionated preaching mode.

You can inferr further by saying God "designed" evolution, but it's intellectually backrupt for progression of debate, . and is a non-sequitor.

Now have you got any refutations of the OP? Are you going to refute any of the points? Or use them in your argument? I highgly doubt it.

reply to post by Olise


You wrote:

["As it is written, "The images are visible to humanity, but the light (purpose) within them is hidden in the image; the light of the Father will reveal itself, but his image is hidden by his light." Reflect on that."]

Using your own self-proclaimed 'true' premises as both answer and measure-tape, you'll ofcourse arrive at your pre-determined answer.

It's called circle-argumentation, or: "It's true, because it's true".

Originally posted by Olise

...then again it was never a living body, as it is the spirit within that simulates its life...the spirit tells each member of the body what to do and it does it; sought of like a car

In this day in age? Really?? There are people out there that still think the body cannot live without 'spirit/soul'???

Have you heard of Henrietta Lacks? She died in 1951, yet her cells are still being used for cancer research. Her cells can still process nutrients and proliferate, 60 years after her death! They call them the HeLa Cell Line.

Then there are neurotoxins like Tetrodotoxin that can paralyze you, render this "god designed spirit/soul" useless with respect to controlling your "abode"

Hilarious you believe in mambo jumbo.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Olise

 

Just because i don't believe like you believe doesn't mean i'm not "aware". All humans are awake and aware, unless they're sleeping. That's another debate though.

Stop trying to ridicule my username. I refuted the anology in another thread which described how a monkey sees ancient ruins and assumes they have designer, well of course that assumption is correct, because they HAVE been designed. I've explained nature doesn't work in this way, althought it may ULTIMATELY be true, it's still an assumption, and based on no evidence. Ancient ruins don't reproduce.

Nature has no forsight, nature can't dismantle humans and start again to improve them.

See the blind watch maker part of my post instead of just jumping to self-opinionated preaching mode.

You can inferr further by saying God "designed" evolution, but it's intellectually backrupt for progression of debate, . and is a non-sequitor.

Now have you got any refutations of the OP? Are you going to refute any of the points? Or use them in your argument? I highgly doubt it.

edit on 12/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

"Awake", to start with, each time I say something to you, you percieve it from a negative perspective. Your chosen ATS ID is Awake-and-aware; I simply shortened it when I was addressing you, and put it in quotation marks so you don't think I am ridiculing it, which you assumed anyway: I was not ridculing it: and I did this because I started by quoting someone else's response to your response, whose username "confreak" I also put in quotation marks for that very reason, as these are not your actual names.

And secondly, I addressed the OP's claim in what I wrote; go back and read it again, this time without bias.

Peace be with you awake_and_aware!!!

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Olise

 

You wrote:

["As it is written, "The images are visible to humanity, but the light (purpose) within them is hidden in the image; the light of the Father will reveal itself, but his image is hidden by his light." Reflect on that."]

Using your own self-proclaimed 'true' premises as both answer and measure-tape, you'll ofcourse arrive at your pre-determined answer.

It's called circle-argumentation, or: "It's true, because it's true".

edit on 12-6-2011 by bogomil because: spelling

What has what I said got to do with your claim of "Circle-argumentation"? I have no desire to argue with you or anyone else; I simply quoted what is written to draw attention to the point I was making. I have not nor will I ever attempt to impress anything upon you: for it doesn't matter what I say, that which you are biased to will always prevail within you; this is how truth manifests, which when it does, is incontrovertible. Truth cannot be claimed; truth is what is! It is not what one, a creature/primate, claims to know to be; it is what truly is!

Is that which you quoted that I wrote not true? Is light not in you? The intelligence with which you express is light: so the image of your abode hides the light within you; and the light that you are hides the true image which you are, not the image that you see. Truth is within each and everyone: for each "person" is a precise partition of God, whether you accept it now or later. The only reason why dispute exists is that without it truth cannot be verified and glorified.

Peace be with you "bogomil"!!!

reply to post by awake_and_aware

1. God exists...

This isn't a logical problem, either God exists or he doesn't. IF he does then it doesn't matter what anyone believes. The same is true if he doesn't...

2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.

I would say yes...

3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.

Define evil... personally i don't think it exists.

4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.

true...

5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.

sure.... but why would he want to? Again this comes down to if evil exists or not. IF evil doesn't exist then people do "bad things" from their own free will. Which would mean they're greedy or selfish, or just hate others for whatever reason. Theres no real logical concept of Evil, its always subjective.

6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.

Who says he wants to prevent said non existant evil. People act according to whats inside them, God has nothing to do with it. You also learn from what you do wrong one way or the other... Is God supposed to be humanity's babysitter?

7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.

right... Evil is a creation of the human mind... In reality it doesn't exist.

8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

right...

Originally posted by LiveEquation

Originally posted by Olise

...then again it was never a living body, as it is the spirit within that simulates its life...the spirit tells each member of the body what to do and it does it; sought of like a car

In this day in age? Really?? There are people out there that still think the body cannot live without 'spirit/soul'???

Have you heard of Henrietta Lacks? She died in 1951, yet her cells are still being used for cancer research. Her cells can still process nutrients and proliferate, 60 years after her death! They call them the HeLa Cell Line.

Then there are neurotoxins like Tetrodotoxin that can paralyze you, render this "god designed spirit/soul" useless with respect to controlling your "abode"

Hilarious you believe in mambo jumbo.

edit on 12-6-2011 by LiveEquation because: hil

Listen to yourself, "Her cells are being used". By who? Her or someone else? Is she still alive? Is there life in her body? Can she still move her body by herself? When organisms die do they not regenerate and extend the course of nature? Until an organism decomposes it can regenerate; and even after it decomposes, it regenerates into other organisms. Do transplants not extend the course of the primate? What you refer to as Nature is self-sustaining, cyclical; but without the Energy that simulates life in it, which Energy is spirit, it is what it is, a lifeless thing.

Have I heard of Henrietta Lacks? What use is Henrietta Lacks to me? What good is death to life? Every primate, regardless of how much you invest into it, will perish; why would I want to waste my time with death? Can you by continuing to transplant cells keep the primate alive? You can for a while, until it becomes too degenerated to accept anymore transplants, and then it is done; so what good is all you have invested into it?

To answer your question, it is the spirit/energy that simulates life in the body; and that is incontrovertible!

Peace be with you "LiveEquation"!!!

reply to post by Olise


You wrote:

["Truth cannot be claimed; truth is what is!"]

"Truth being what it is", sounds about right to me.

But I'm sorry to add, it also sounds like a platitude from a more prctical point of view. It has never stopped theists from presenting their 'absolute' (but disagreeing) 'truths'. This being an issue on the forum: Subjective 'truth' (faith) being pushed, usually as THE 'truth'.

Quote: ["Is that which you quoted that I wrote not true? Is light not in you?"]

Nope; not in the terms you presented it (spirit-soul).

Quote: ["Truth is within each and everyone: for each "person" is a precise partition of God, whether you accept it now or later."]

Please don't presume your religious ideas on me. Not now and not later.

Quote: ["The only reason why dispute exists is that without it truth cannot be verified and glorified."]

Another self-contained postulate.

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["This isn't a logical problem, either God exists or he doesn't......."]

Depends on what the word 'god' means.

Quote continued: [".........IF he does then it doesn't matter what anyone believes......."]

Until this alleged being manifests for everyone to experience, the various believers have a merry time fighting each other according to "what they believe".

Quote continued: ["......The same is true if he doesn't... "]

Except that a lot of people have died for nothing or at best wasted their time.

Quote (on omni-everything in 'god'): ["I would say yes..."]

It's not manifested anywhere in such a way, that it's even slightly indisputable.

Quote: [" Define evil... personally i don't think it exists."]

Agreed. But suffering does. So the design is counter-productive to those existing in it. There's no NEED for suffering, except as an expression of asymmtric polarities spurring life to compete.

reply to post by bogomil

["This isn't a logical problem, either God exists or he doesn't......."]

Depends on what the word 'god' means.

I've explained that before...

Quote continued: [".........IF he does then it doesn't matter what anyone believes......."]

Until this alleged being manifests for everyone to experience, the various believers have a merry time fighting each other according to "what they believe".

If God is everything as i've explained to you before, life is a manifestation of God....

His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"

"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

Everything is there for all to read. The problem is no one can come to a logical consensus of what certian texts mean.

Quote continued: ["......The same is true if he doesn't... "]

Except that a lot of people have died for nothing or at best wasted their time.

What can i say, people are stupid i guess? Theres never a need for war or killing... Agendas create those things not God...

Quote (on omni-everything in 'god'): ["I would say yes..."]

It's not manifested anywhere in such a way, that it's even slightly indisputable.

Again, i would disagree

Quote: [" Define evil... personally i don't think it exists."]

Agreed. But suffering does. So the design is counter-productive to those existing in it. There's no NEED for suffering, except as an expression of asymmtric polarities spurring life to compete.

I disagree, suffering teaches you. That is plainly obvious... Though there is needless suffering as well, but that is a problem with society, not God.

reply to post by bogomil


Amazing, absolutley amazing!!!!
You have written:
(Until this alleged being manifests for everyone to experience, the various believers have a merry time fighting each other according to "what they believe".) End quote.

All i ever see on this forum entitled Religion, Faith and Theology is the UNBELIEVERS having a 'merry time' fighting the believers.

As Trueman said on another thread; your hate makes you blind and you should take Truemans advice.

Good day to you.
Namaste.

reply to post by Olise



1. So what you are saying is that if we gave you a neurotoxin to paralyze you, we kill/inactivate your spirit since you cannot move anything in your body?

2. What evidence is there that the body is controlled by spirit and not biological processes? Can the spirit circulate blood like the heart can?

You are not making any sense, don't try to use metaphysical ideas to explain biological processes that we can observe and explain.

Keep your after life thoughts separate from biology. It is because of your line of thinking that our fellow scientists were killed by your faith.

Who knows what medical and technological advancements we could have made if it wasn't for religion.

And today you use science to do everything, even read your bible while you use toilet paper before you flush down crap. You probably even own a car and even watch movies on a big screen TV.

science has given you real tangible stuff and yet you still hold to a grand design idea by a god who doesn't even know who you are.

What has your god given us? The idea of this god has given us nothing except pests who claim they know how unobservable things work and yet cannot prove it. Your bible calls them charlatans.





etrodotoxin that can paralyze you,

reply to post by Itisnowagain


You wrote:

["All i ever see on this forum entitled Religion, Faith and Theology is the UNBELIEVERS having a 'merry time' fighting the believers."]

When I talked about theists fighting each other, I was actually referring to the world outside, and greater than ATS.

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["I disagree, suffering teaches you. That is plainly obvious... Though there is needless suffering as well, but that is a problem with society, not God"]

Postulating 'meaningful' suffering is just another guess, invented on top of the 'god' guess; .....to justify the 'god' guess.

This new-age school eventually will have to validate the idea, that 'ultimate reality' is dynamic (as we know dynamics).

Rational reasoning starts with real information. Not from speculative pre-determined answers.