God: The Bad Designer.

reply to post by bogomil

Why does he have to be 'real'? The impact of the probably fictive character has had impact on mankind and can be considered in terms of that impact.

regardless of the impact the idea of God has had on our society.... One would have to accept the idea of a "creator" existing before discussing said impact... If God doesn't exist, logically.. said non existant God can't be a bad designer, can he?

The title of the thread is God: the bad designer so lets start from there...

Quote: ["So, lets start with logic... Logically, why is God a bad designer?"]

Round two, probably identical to round one: Because of the un-necessary amount of suffering.

Ding Ding Ding!!

Suffering is a nessary part of life, each experience teaches you.

Again though, there is needless suffering inflicted by other men by ways of neglect, greed, hatered, anger...etc etc. This isn't God's issue but it is a part of the design. Society as a whole does not care for the individual. We're self centered and self serving for the most part, and government rules us with those traits.

You are a decent person; with no harm in you, I believe. And your worldview seems rather gentle.

I certainly don't dislike people, just because they disagree with me.

My thanks bro...

now down to business eh

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["regardless of the impact the idea of God has had on our society.... One would have to accept the idea of a "creator" existing before discussing said impact... If God doesn't exist, logically.. said non existant God can't be a bad designer, can he?"]

Myths have the same impact as alleged 'real' entities. The myth can be evaluated.

Quote: ["The title of the thread is God: the bad designer so lets start from there... "]

'God' as a myth, or 'god' as an alleged reality. No difference for the thread concerning 'bad design'.

Quote: ["Suffering is a nessary part of life, each experience teaches you."]

Just go back and read round one; we'll both save time this way.

Quote: ["Again though, there is needless suffering inflicted by other men by ways of neglect, greed, hatered, anger...etc etc."]

My cat is a maniac killer, who kills from hunger as well as a sport, as some of his victims aren't especially attractive for him as food. That's suffering, with no need of philosophical implications of 'god's' failed plan or character-deficiency motives.

Part of a universe rather hostile to biological life.

Quote: ["This isn't God's issue but it is a part of the design."]

So the suffering is observable as a part of 'real' creation (not only an alleged divine creation). To make part of this suffering meaningful or meaningless in a theistic context requires a validation of such a theistic context, BEFORE the question of meaninful/-less can be considered.

Maybe the flying spaghetti monster is the 'real god', and he just has a good laugh because of all the suffering. As I've said constantly, perspectives need as much validation as 'answers'.

The perspective of Kali thuggees made killing 'good, for a buddhist this is 'bad'. So validate your perspective, before you use it as a measure-tape.

Quote: ["Society as a whole does not care for the individual."]

I'm rather content with my society.

reply to post by bogomil

Myths have the same impact as alleged 'real' entities. The myth can be evaluated.

This is true, but why would we be talking about a mythical creator... The very idea of a Mythical creator eliminates the "God being a bad designer" theory...

For the sake of this arguement we assume God, being the "bad designer" exists, and messed up his plan... As per the original post... the first line is "is God an intelligent designer" So again we assume God exists.... this was the innital question.

'God' as a myth, or 'god' as an alleged reality. No difference for the thread concerning 'bad design'

Again, big difference... Clearly we must be talking about God as an alleged reality...

Just go back and read round one; we'll both save time this way.

I'd rather not....

My cat is a maniac killer, who kills from hunger as well as a sport, as some of his victims aren't especially attractive for him as food. That's suffering, with no need of philosophical implications of 'god's' failed plan or character-deficiency motives.

Death is a part of nature however vicious or grusome it might be... This isn't a design flaw, animals need to eat, sometimes they eat each other. Its not needless suffering. Its a part of the proccess of life. The physical universe is chaotic and destructive, but beautiful and amazing at the same time.

I could go further into it by saying all forms of life evolve spiritually after death because of their experiences, they move on to their next incarnation and continue their learning. As do we...

So the suffering is observable as a part of 'real' creation (not only an alleged divine creation). To make part of this suffering meaningful or meaningless in a theistic context requires a validation of such a theistic context, BEFORE the question of meaninful/-less can be considered.

Everything has a meaning no matter how small the event, though we might not know or understand its meaning there is a purpose to all things and all experiences. Life is a validation of these things IF, you see life as a place of learning. This depends on the persons view of the world.

Myself, i see meaning in all suffering, there is a purpose behind it. I attribute most of it to Karma, but that is a different topic.

Maybe the flying spaghetti monster is the 'real god', and he just has a good laugh because of all the suffering. As I've said constantly, perspectives need as much validation as 'answers'.

ya im not a fan of your flying spagetti monster idea... but who knows right...

I've told you my definition of God, its logical...you monster is just rediculous.

The perspective of Kali thuggees made killing 'good, for a buddhist this is 'bad'. So validate your perspective, before you use it as a measure-tape.

Inflicting harm on others is bad theres no arguement there. The harm you inflict on others comes back to you in one way or the other. Each person is responsible for his own actions, as far as the animal kingdom is concerned i don't know how it works. The bible validates the "eye for an eye" theory, and Karma backs it up...

I'm rather content with my society.

Good for you!

I am not...though im happy to be living where i am, as a species, we're horible to one another.

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["This isn't a design flaw, animals need to eat, sometimes they eat each other. Its not needless suffering."]

Nice, somthing tangible.

Under the momentary assumption (I can not speak for A_a_a's intentions in OP), that we're talking about an alleged creator:

In genesis 1 it was stated, that both humans and the other animals were to be vegetarians. In relative terms a lessening of suffering. Obviously an option (and as a vegetarian myself I know it to be possible for mankind).

As an extension of vegetarian biological life, there are the principles of true symbiosis (NOT just re-cycling) and predation. Symbiosis exists in nature, but to a much smaller extent than predation.

A 'good' design could easily have included a much higher degree of symbiosis.

Here we can go directly to some scientific hypotheses, which can be very helpful in this context: The anthropic principle and negative enthropy. But before doing this, I want to make sure, that you can and will follow such a direction.

Quote: ["The physical universe is chaotic and destructive, but beautiful and amazing at the same time."]

Living on a farm as I do, I hear the death-screams of animals around me constantly. And to postulate, that their fear and pain is counter-balanced by estetics is anthropocentric.

E.g. the mice slowly killed by my cat probably don't think: "Help, I'm dying. What a beautiful sunset. Gurgle, squiik".

Quote: [" I could go further into it by saying all forms of life evolve spiritually after death because of their experiences, they move on to their next incarnation and continue their learning."]

You could, but I would expect you to validate this re-incarnation 'perspective' then, before you use it is an 'explanation'.

Quote: ["Life is a validation of these things IF, you see life as a place of learning"]

As there's no reason to see a meaning, like the one you suggest...no sale.

Quote: ["I attribute most of it to Karma, but that is a different topic."]

I find the hypothesis of karma right on spot, but first it has to be validated, and then I believe, you have its basic principles wrong. Karma is a WAY OUT of a dysfunctional universe/(cosmos?), not a new-age 'spiritual-growth' thingy.

Quote: ["ya im not a fan of your flying spagetti monster idea... but who knows right... I've told you my definition of God, its logical...you monster is just rediculous."]

The FSM is supposed to be ridiculous. It's a parody of theist reasoning, identically leading to another absurdity like specific deities.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


So what's the point of this thread?

Are you stating "God exists, and is a bad designer?"

Or are you stating "God can't exist, because of the bad design"?

Although i appreciate the information; i don't get the purpose or your point in posting this thread.

reply to post by AtheistAnonym


It's an attack on the argument from design...didn't you bother to read the OP?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I read it; and i'm aware of most of the arguments against design (or at least "intelligent" design) but it still leaves the door open for the Theist or Deist "inferr" around such refutations of intelligent design....

Such answers i've heard in response consist of "You don't know what God's plan is" or even "It's an assumption that God design was meant to be perfect" and the old chesnut of "God works in mysterious ways"

How would you respond such arguments?

Thanks in advance.

reply to post by bogomil

In genesis 1 it was stated, that both humans and the other animals were to be vegetarians.

Although i believe we are supposed to be vegitarians, i don't believe its referenced in genisis... i could be wrong though. Christ was a vegetarian so it is probably correct. Though here is the verse you speak of...

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Having dominion over all animals/fish and birds, would mean "to do with what we will"... But "thou shall not kill" contradicts that as well.... so no real arguement there.

Here we can go directly to some scientific hypotheses, which can be very helpful in this context: The anthropic principle and negative enthropy. But before doing this, I want to make sure, that you can and will follow such a direction.

Im with ya...

Living on a farm as I do, I hear the death-screams of animals around me constantly. And to postulate, that their fear and pain is counter-balanced by estetics is anthropocentric.

E.g. the mice slowly killed by my cat probably don't think: "Help, I'm dying. What a beautiful sunset. Gurgle, squiik".

I've lived on a farm, i know what you're talking about. But remember animals do not have the ability to think rationally, nor do they understand such concepts. Regardless, death is a release from the bonds of the physical world. And its quite possible that animals also accumulate their own karmic debt, which must be repaid as well. Perhaps your kitty might come back as a mouse and the same thing will happen to him... Of course this is just an assumption.

You could, but I would expect you to validate this re-incarnation 'perspective' then, before you use it is an 'explanation'.

Unfortunatly this is only a theory, theres no way to validate reincarnation other then through scriptures. The bhagavad gita explains how we reincarnate from one body to the next over and over. One might return as a cat or a tree or what have you. Personally i believe each spirit starts from a lesser life form, and slowly though many incarnations we gain the knowledge to incarnate into human which of course is the top of the ladder as far as i know...

As there's no reason to see a meaning, like the one you suggest...no sale.

Im not trying to sell you on anything my friend, im just explaining my point of view...

I find the hypothesis of karma right on spot, but first it has to be validated, and then I believe, you have its basic principles wrong. Karma is a WAY OUT of a dysfunctional universe/(cosmos?), not a new-age 'spiritual-growth' thingy

I'll have to disagree with that... How is Karma a way out of anything. Perhaps through eliminating your accumulated Karma it may be a way out... that is up to the individual though. Karma has no purpose without a person(s) action. Perhaps we see Karma differently.... I'd like to hear your views on it.

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["I'll have to disagree with that... How is Karma a way out of anything. Perhaps through eliminating your accumulated Karma it may be a way out... that is up to the individual though. Karma has no purpose without a person(s) action. Perhaps we see Karma differently.... I'd like to hear your views on it.


The scientific as well as the buddhistic (and some versions of esoteric hinduism) cosmos is running on 'dualism'. In science it's differently charged polarities and in buddhism it's the 'breaking up' of non-dual reality into dualities. And while Mahayana buddhism (in its commonly most known form in the west: Tibetan buddhism) uses the equation Samsara (illusion) = Nirvana (reality), the aim is still to end dualism and RETURN to experiencing reality.

In many ways it resembles hard-core gnosticism, who talks about interference with reality.

Karma is related to how well this aim of returning is achieved, not a question of starting from scratch and grow.



Without overdoing the possibilities, the (strong) anthropic principle and its companion negative enthropy are interesting in metaphysical speculations. It's obvious, that growing complexity eventually will reach a point of some self-organizing (mankind can e.g. reverse some processes, which mechanistic 'nature' can't), and in that context it could have been postulated from theist side, that growing complexity is a part of 'design'.

Strangely enough it isn't a theist postulate, and maybe just as well for theists. Because even if self-organizing complexity CAN reverse some cosmic processes leading to enthropy (the end of cosmos) by slowing down the enthropy process, this is only a local phenomenon.

The negative-enthropy process is energy-inefficient and will actually in the long run ADD to enthropy. So the patchwork cosmos of dualities (on the level of biological life predation is a direct result of dualities: The food-chain/pyramid) WILL collapse.

(Unless zero-point physics concludes definitively on continuous creation, which I doubt).

So as with other theist arguments with postulated absolutes, there is NO help to get here either on alleged theist answers on 'suffering'. It's only guesses and the alleged creation models are, if taken seriously, actually lead to the conclusion, that a creator is incompetent.

reply to post by bogomil


Alrighty well...

Heres a thread i made a while back on "views of Karma" take a look if you like...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

the aim is still to end dualism and RETURN to experiencing reality.

perhaps you could explain this further?

Karma is related to how well this aim of returning is achieved, not a question of starting from scratch and grow.

this depends on your view of the subject... there is no factual information on Karma, only theories just like anything else.

So as with other theist arguments with postulated absolutes, there is NO help to get here either on alleged theist answers on 'suffering'. It's only guesses and the alleged creation models are, if taken seriously, actually lead to the conclusion, that a creator is incompetent.

So you're saying because everything deteriorates eventually over time, a creator of such a universe is "incompetent"?

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["So you're saying because everything deteriorates eventually over time, a creator of such a universe is "incompetent"?"]

I'm saying, that when the guessed at 'absolutes' and the elaborate circle-argumentation used to 'validate' them (in most types of theist myths) are analysed, they often turn out to be self-defeating.

In the case of a cosmos build around dualism, a dualism which eventually is non-durable and leads to suffering, it's not rationally explained by speculations on a trans-cosmic 'reality'.

Having 'answers' from such speculations on the unknown is a question of subjective faith. The objective method starts from available information and as sound a systematic methodology it is possible to create, to arrive at answers.

Personally being a strong supporter of the objective method (in spite of my metaphysical leanings), I consequently also have an 'agnostic' position concerning unavailable information, so I don't make 'gnostic' conclusions.

It appears, that not everybody can understand the idea of an analysis/evaluation of concepts (e.g. a plain myth...independent of whether the myth is 'true' or not); but such happens all the time.

A scientific hypothesis is evaluated this way (and can turn out to be wrong). Fictive characters can be analysed.

I did not introduce the anthropic principle and negative enthropy to make a 'gnostic atheist' statement, but to close the avenue to a 'gnostic theist' claim (but not to the implications for metaphysics).

Quote on the definition and implications of 'karma': ["this depends on your view of the subject... there is no factual information on Karma, only theories just like anything else."]

Agreed. But it is basically contrary to abrahamic/monotheist/pauline-theist cosmogony and cosmology. In the exoteric forms of 'karma' it is similar to (but not identical with) the common abrahamic idea of causality (with an alleged 'reality' model as mesaure-tape), in its esoteric form it doesn't relate at all to the implied 'hierarchy' in abrahamic religion.

When I have time, I'll read your link.

reply to post by Akragon


I read page one of your link. The OP is more or less, what you've said on this present thread.

I found two comments, which I liked, and which are similar to my views.

HUMBLEONE:

["Karma? Are we not in an illusion? Is Maya not an illusion? Is not this 3D experience an illusion? Hindu and Buddhist doctrine say so and the concept of Karma is of those two faiths. So. Where does one accrue Karma? In the Maya, the illusion is where one accrues Karma. So is not Karma an illusion as well? Of course it is! Now there is cause and effect while inside the Maya."]

Mysticnoon:

["Karma is simply the application of the law of action and reaction on the human level. If there are lessons to be learned from karma, The karmic law is as impersonal as any of the physical laws of our universe. For instance, if you trip over and fall flat on your face, you don't consider it a personal punishment from gravity, and it is also unlikely that you would regard God's creation of the law of gravity as any kind of punishment.

Karma is simply the application of the law of action and reaction on the human level. If there are lessons to be learned from karma, they are for growth in awareness"]

I especially agree with Mysticnoon's last sentence: "they are for growth in awareness", and here it's important to remember (as I've said before), that 'awareness' in the original karma-context doesn't mean 'god' or similar, but the end of dualism.

But again; I'm only relating to the karma-hypothesis. Not to karma as an established fact.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

You stated
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

en.wikipedia.org...
Immune function

New studies propose that the appendix may harbor and protect bacteria that are beneficial in the function of the human colon.[6]

Loren G. Martin, a professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University, argues that the appendix has a function in fetuses and adults.[7] Endocrine cells have been found in the appendix of 11-week-old fetuses that contribute to "biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms." In adults, Martin argues that the appendix acts as a lymphatic organ. The appendix is experimentally verified as being rich in infection-fighting lymphoid cells, suggesting that it might play a role in the immune system. Zahid[8] suggests that it plays a role in both manufacturing hormones in fetal development as well as functioning to "train" the immune system, exposing the body to antigens so that it can produce antibodies. He notes that doctors in the last decade have stopped removing the appendix during other surgical procedures as a routine precaution, because it can be successfully transplanted into the urinary tract to rebuild a sphincter muscle and reconstruct a functional

Ignorance is bliss

One does not need their arms to live does that make them unneeded, or their legs, or their eyes, or their ears.

Yet they do make life more enjoyable.

The tail bone is need or you would have a terrible time using the bathroom.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


Depending on enviroment, or diet; people may still have use for the appendix, and even for a society with a diet of rich foods; there still may be some small functions. Some studies suggest that the appendix prime function was as a "digestive tract used to digest cellulose" but their are more developed studies like you mentioned that are revealing more;

What remains true is;

The fact that vestigial structures reveal a similarity in structure and position with organs in presumed ancestors, but lack the function found in the ancestors, can be considered evidence for evolution—specifically, the "theory of descent with modification," or "theory of common descent."

www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is further evidence that nature has no forsight; it can't reconstruct, it's restricted the legacy of gene at hand. Nature is not an intelligent designer in the sense that it can start over again, it can't "go back to the drawing board".