The design argument

[Unfalsifiable]

I would like to have a discussion about the design argument for the existence of God in this thread.

One of the most discussed threads on this forum was the one where Pastor Ezekiel showed us a video of a man describing how a banana is seemingly designed for a human perfectly.

The great philosopher William Paley came up with a good analogy - we stumble over a heath and see a rock, we think nothing more of it, but we stumble over a heath and see a watch, we presume there is a watchmaker due to its intricate design. So why don't we assume there is a designer of the world, and all of it's bananas? And it's circulatory systems, and all the incredibly fine detail that it has.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: The design argument

I would like to have a discussion about the design argument for the existence of God in this thread.

One of the most discussed threads on this forum was the one where Pastor Ezekiel showed us a video of a man describing how a banana is seemingly designed for a human perfectly.

The great philosopher William Paley came up with a good analogy - we stumble over a heath and see a rock, we think nothing more of it, but we stumble over a heath and see a watch, we presume there is a watchmaker due to its intricate design. So why don't we assume there is a designer of the world, and all of it's bananas? And it's circulatory systems, and all the incredibly fine detail that it has.

I look at the human body as clearly see the hand of God; consider the male tentacles. In the fetus they start in the abdominal cavity and then drop down to the position we see on adults. As a consequence we men are prone to hernias, thus punishing us for having sex. Only the God of The Bible would do such a wonderus thing giving us the free will to sin and the punishment in the same act. GLORY!

[Sacha-DG]

Re: The design argument

I look at the human body as clearly see the hand of God; consider the male tentacles. In the fetus they start in the abdominal cavity and then drop down to the position we see on adults. As a consequence we men are prone to hernias, thus punishing us for having sex. Only the God of The Bible would do such a wonderus thing giving us the free will to sin and the punishment in the same act. GLORY!

If to have sex is to sin, then surely every human who ever lived must be burning in hell?
Women have breasts and are more prone to breast cancer. Is feeding your baby a sin?

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: The design argument

If to have sex is to sin, then surely every human who ever lived must be burning in hell?
Women have breasts and are more prone to breast cancer. Is feeding your baby a sin?

Sex, when properly done is not a sin. However things like self pollution, same gender sex and bestiality are sins.

You still are dodging the issue that such an almost malicious design could not possibly be the result of some survival of the fittest (how viable is a monkey man with a hernia?) but the result of a God who is heavily concerned about punishing His creations.

[Sacha-DG]

Re: The design argument

Sex, when properly done is not a sin. However things like self pollution, same gender sex and bestiality are sins.

You still are dodging the issue that such an almost malicious design could not possibly be the result of some survival of the fittest (how viable is a monkey man with a hernia?) but the result of a God who is heavily concerned about punishing His creations.

Its perfectly viable, monkies are known to suffer to many similar ailments to humans.
The penis being outside of the body is not in any way a malicious design. It encourages reproduction by moderating the temperature at which the sperm are kept, in order for them operate at maximum efficiency.
Most mammals have external penis and testes, as do humans.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: The design argument

Its perfectly viable, monkies are known to suffer to many similar ailments to humans.
The penis being outside of the body is not in any way a malicious design. It encourages reproduction by moderating the temperature at which the sperm are kept, in order for them operate at maximum efficiency.
Most mammals have external penis and testes, as do humans.

Again you dodging my point friend; why does it look like the testicles were designed by somehow who outright hates us? Hernias and all that when it would be much better to have the organ start off in the pelvis without all that insane migration around the torso? There is only one thing in the universe that thinks humans are so utterly evil as to feel compelled be that cruel to a human for the act of merely being born; God.

[Sacha-DG]

Re: The design argument

Ok, then if God hates us, why does he encourage our reeproduction? Also, did God not create man in his own image?

[One-eyed Jack]

Re: The design argument

The argument from design is a powerful witness to God's omnipotence alright.

Consider an elaboration of Paley's thought experiment. A man is walking 'mongst the withered sedge beside a lake where no bird sings. He sees a watch laying on a rock. He pick it up, notices that it is running two hours slow and the second hand is crooked.

What may we conclude?

We conclude that the craftsman who made the watch was an idiot, that's what. (Excuse me, have to shift around a bit...back bothering me.) So, as Paley rightly deduced, God made that watch in His image.

You know, Narrowpathy's question on another thread bothers me. Why DID William Paley design males with nipples? It makes no sense.

Anyway, to extend the experiment further, suppose we find a faulty watch laying in Keats's elfin grot -- a watch that has superfluous nipples and a backbone that is unnecessarily prone to injury. (A backbone for instance which ends up making its owner take two Ibuprofen every four hours....goddam it.)

What then might we conclude?

Why, simply that God built that watch! And we might further conclude that if a lady watch has a baby it is going to hurt quite a lot because a lady watch's pelvis is rather poorly designed for passing items the size of a watermelon.

So Paley's argument for the existence of God is quite strong, really. Have you ever noticed how chickens can't control their bowel movements? That's a nifty design feature. It means if you take your chicken on a long drive it will never nag you about stopping at the next rest area. It will just quietly and efficiently take care of business. It's hard to get the smell out of the upholstery, though.

Caution: don't let the chicken do the driving. God didn't design chickens for that.

Also noted in passing: some snakes have pelvic bones. That's a good design feature too, because if those snakes ever happened to grow legs they would need their pelvises. Funny that they don't have shoulder bones, and so if they grew four legs their front pair would be useless.

I guess that God meant snakes to walk on their hind legs. If they ever grew legs to go with their pelvises, that is.

You know, I bought a watch at the dollar store the other day. It had a picture of Hello Kitty on it -- which is annoying but immaterial to the Watchmaker Argument -- and when I got it home I found it had stopped. And it never did run again.

That Watchmaker must have been a cretin.

Which reminds me, I need to take my daily vitamins. They say if you take extra vitamin C it helps stave off colds. I don't give my dog vitamin C because God designed him to synthesize his own vitamin C. It's a good thing God didn't design humans that way, though, because otherwise we wouldn't ever get scurvy.

That's more evidence of good design.

~~ OEJ

[Enigmatic Harpo Marx]

Re: The design argument

We conclude that the craftsman who made the watch was an idiot, that's what. (Excuse me, have to shift around a bit...back bothering me.) So, as Paley rightly deduced, God made that watch in His image.

Anyway, to extend the experiment further, suppose we find a faulty watch laying in Keats's elfin grot -- a watch that has superfluous nipples and a backbone that is unnecessarily prone to injury. (A backbone for instance which ends up making its owner take two Ibuprofen every four hours....goddam it.)

What then might we conclude?

Why, simply that God built that watch!

If the creator of a faulty watch is an idiot, then isn't the creator of a faulty human an idiot as well? maybe I missed the boat on this argument but the logic does seem to carry over.

[One-eyed Jack]

Re: The design argument

EnigmaticHarpo: "If the creator of a faulty watch is an idiot, then isn't the creator of a faulty human an idiot as well?"

SIR! I beg to differ!

What we see in God's glorious design of living creatures is far beyond human comprehension.

Consider the Being who created boa constrictors with pelvic bones! Imagine the foresight involved! Better yet, imagine a 12-foot boa strutting about proudly on its hind legs, perhaps staggering a bit now and then as its immensely long "torso" gets out of balance...but just proud as punch and walking tall.

Only God could have had the foresight to include pelvic bones in case snakes grew hind legs. Why, it's like building a railroad bridge with a keel and mast in case someone needs to use it as a sailing ship!

THAT, Sir, is not poor design! It is superhuman foresight...DIVINE foresight.

~~ OEJ

[Sacha-DG]

Re: The design argument

It would be physically impossible for a snake to walk on its hind legs, as it would have too much weight to support. Notice how many lizards appear to be the same as a snake, only with legs? They have pelvic and shoulder bones Snakes with pelvic bones are a perfect example of evolution in progress.

[One-eyed Jack]

Re: The design argument

Sacha: "It would be physically impossible for a snake to walk on its hind legs, as it would have too much weight to support."

Not if it had really big, REALLY STRONG legs. I'm thinking Arnold Schwarzenegger legs here. In fact, Arnold very much resembles a two-legged snake! Derned liberal-Republican traitor.

But look, are you saying that William Paley never found that watch he wrote about? SIR! Mister William Paley was not a writer of fictions.

(Actually, that's not true. He wrote one graphic novel -- Goose-Girls Ungirdled -- but it was never published.)

Where were we? Oh yes, I had painted myself into a corner and was climbing the walls to get out. Now look here: You have an appendix. Why? It is useless to you, and evolution "knows" it is useless. So why is it there? Because God designed it that way!

Ha!

There, I have run circles around you logically despite having painted myself into a corner.

And though the Lord give you the bread of adversity, and the water of affliction, yet shall not thy teachers be removed into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers. Isaiah 30:20

~~ OEJ

[Enigmatic Harpo Marx]

Re: The design argument

EnigmaticHarpo: "If the creator of a faulty watch is an idiot, then isn't the creator of a faulty human an idiot as well?"

SIR! I beg to differ!

What we see in God's glorious design of living creatures is far beyond human comprehension.

Consider the Being who created boa constrictors with pelvic bones! Imagine the foresight involved! Better yet, imagine a 12-foot boa strutting about proudly on its hind legs, perhaps staggering a bit now and then as its immensely long "torso" gets out of balance...but just proud as punch and walking tall.

Only God could have had the foresight to include pelvic bones in case snakes grew hind legs. Why, it's like building a railroad bridge with a keel and mast in case someone needs to use it as a sailing ship!

THAT, Sir, is not poor design! It is superhuman foresight...DIVINE foresight.

~~ OEJ

Ahah, but I have no doubt that the human creature, actually all creatures, are amazingly complex and full of subtleties that would be outside our capacity to imagine. This I don't disagree on. But if you follow through with the logic you put forward, than since the creator, God, is perfect then its creation is perfect as well. I really don't feel that humans are perfect creations. I noticed that you pointed out the appendix. Is a heaping mass of useless tissues that still pull away from our intake of nutrients and give nothing back a hallmark of perfection? Or, take the human eye for example (actually the optic lense brand of all eyeballs that all creatures with eyes have). It is a terribly inefficient way to see the world. Why we have them can be seen through the tracing of the evolutionary process, but that doesn't make them anymore effective.

I view these as defects, not as signs that the creator is perfect.

[One-eyed Jack]

Re: The design argument

Dang it! Now you've gone and brung in absolute attributes like divine perfection. You know the problem with heathens like you, EnigmaticHarpo? You hang around and you just get smarter and smarter.

Jest you wait. I hain't barkin' at a knot yet, Sheriff, I jest got to figger how to euchre the gang of ye.

Ie, I'm gonna have to go away and pray on this for awhile.

~~ OEJ

[Sacha-DG]

Re: The design argument

A God, is perfect then its creation is perfect as well.

I have seen Cartesian theories used many times on this board, so let me point out that Descartes (I think it was him anyway, possibly Leibniz) said that the cause is always greater than the effect. I agree with this to some extent, but its down to interpretation.

OEJ, for a snake to have huge legs, it would have to have a huge pelvic bone, and even then there is still the matter of balance. Tyrannosaurus Rex's arms were thought to have been primarily for balance, much like a cat's whiskers.
A snake with one pair of legs would be highly inneficient, as it would be unable to maintain an upright position unless it evolved arms of some form. Either way it would still require shoulders to develop either more legs or small arms.