Ok take a pin and stick it in your top facing lower arm, now twist your arm around and stab yourself on the other side.

Ok, the top of the arm will hurt very little as the skin is thick but on the other side of the arm you will experiance much greater pain.

It's clear that the reason for this thicker skin is to protect the outer facing arm from damage. As the outer side of the arm is much more susceptible to injury, we have evolved a thicker skin to protect us.

If we had been created by a designer surely he would have made the underside of the arm with the same thickness of skin? It would make for a much better and safer design than evolution could manage, yet it has not been done.

Surely the most intelligent designer in the universe would have made this 'very simple' design change for our benefit if he existed?

Surely he would have.

Well said, Alex.

It's the top, or outside of your arm that is more likely damaged, why would a creator make us grow useless extra skin cells? It's a weak argument, I think.

The "flaws" in the "design" of many creatures are evident if one only looks for them. Why do we humans experience back ache? Why do giraffes have such stiff necks? Why do whales have vestigial legs, for heaven's sake?

Unintelligent design, perhaps?

It's the top, or outside of your arm that is more likely damaged, why would a creator make us grow useless extra skin cells? It's a weak argument, I think.
Because an intelligent designer would have forseen possible injuries on the underside of the arm. However, it didn't, because an intelligent designer does not exist.

theres a whole pile of useless designs in life forms dont have a time to find the link, look for a site called "gods greatest mistakes"

Now take a look at a persian cat. Just 50 years ago that cat had a snout, now it's face dips inward. Where is your God now?

Why not protect the underarm with thick skin too, instead of having them do such a nasty thing as sweat? Because it works to our advantage to help regulate body temperature, etc.
Terrible argument.
That having been said, the same argument has been used from the other side, when people thought the tonsils were useless and couldn't have developed evolutionarily, yet as we learn more, some people start to find possible purposes for these things, and junk dna, and other things we haven't necessarily explained once and for all, and people realize the argument isn't worth much.

Evolution is not a subject that has much bearing on the existence of God anyway. Words like "created" and "day" are probably being misunderstood by religious and non-religious alike, so I don't really care.

edit- this might be confusing if you don't understand that I mean armpit when I say underarm, not the underside of your whole arm.

Because an intelligent designer would have forseen possible injuries on the underside of the arm.
The designer would have also forseen people being struck by lightning, but didn't add a grounding device to our bodies, because it doesn't happen much.

Anyway, people weren't "designed" with thick skin to prevent injuries, they were "designed" with brains to make gloves and shirts and so forth.

The designer would have also forseen people being struck by lightning, but didn't add a grounding device to our bodies, because it doesn't happen much.

Anyway, people weren't "designed" with thick skin to prevent injuries, they were "designed" with brains to make gloves and shirts and so forth.


I disagree. Just look at the ribcage as an example of a good working protective design.

And if you claim that thicker skin is not there as a protection, why not look at your own feet for the more extreme example?

but flaws in design can be seen as being there for a purpose. there are 'flaws' in the 'design' of everything; nothing works perfectly. but these flaws create individuality and a tendancy to do things a certain way. without flaws, we would not be unique. in an evolutionary process, there are no flaws. what we call flaws are merely unique characteristics of a certain gene order/combination. the trait might be a flaw in one environment or an advantage in another. or it might be useless altogether.

I love the argument that goes:

1. Evolution
2. Therefore, NO God!

First, evolution doesn't have to be contradictory to creation. They can work symbiotically. Evolution could just be the choice of creation by a creator.

That should end discussion on that point, but it won't so...

Second, you are taking a very time-specific argument to prove a time-independent occurence. The argument goes that because we have these supposed "flaws" now, that means that there cannot be an intelligent design that could care less what state our being is at this very moment, right now (or at any moment in time).

It is logically weak.

Max

You could reason that since evolution discounts the traditional role of the creator, what else have they been wrong about? It calls the whole thing into question, like when someone in a trial lies.

If we had been created by a designer surely he would have made the underside of the arm with the same thickness of skin? It would make for a much better and safer design than evolution could manage, yet it has not been done.

Surely the most intelligent designer in the universe would have made this 'very simple' design change for our benefit if he existed?

So, basically, your argument is this:


Because humans are not omnipotent,
they have not been made by an intelligent designer.

Yes?

You could reason that since evolution discounts the traditional role of the creator, what else have they been wrong about? It calls the whole thing into question, like when someone in a trial lies.

I don't see evolution as discounting any role of a creator. Evolution discounts one interpretation for the creation found in Genesis. That's it. There are many other interpretations of those same passages that evolution doesn't even touch.

Max

So, basically, your argument is this:


Because humans are not omnipotent,
they have not been made by an intelligent designer.

Yes?

Omnipotent is a strong word to use and I wouldn't go that far.

I just wonder why a fucking idiot such as myself can sit here and see a very basic design flaw, thats all.

I disagree. Just look at the ribcage as an example of a good working protective design.

And if you claim that thicker skin is not there as a protection, why not look at your own feet for the more extreme example?
Sorry, but your thick skin on the foot isn't going to keep a piece of glass from cutting it, and your shoes will.
The point you made was that the thinness of skin in less exposed areas is a bad thing because you can get stabbed by a pin there, and a designer would have been able to make a better design.
I say the design is ok, even if it is an adaptation and not a design.

There are protective designs, or adaptations - which word is appropriate to use depends on what your definition of the designer is, from physical seven day creator, to some type of "the force" or way, to none at all.

EDIT- your idea that it only takes an idiot to see that people should have thick skin all over their body is a good one, because only an uneducated person would think that we should have thick skin all over our body, instead of having different types of skin in different places.

How would the reproductive systems function so well if the penis had thick skin to protect it from injury?

I don't see evolution as discounting any role of a creator. Evolution discounts one interpretation for the creation found in Genesis. That's it. There are many other interpretations of those same passages that evolution doesn't even touch.

Max
Yes, but these are not traditional interpretations. One must wonder how God could have let all those Christians maintain incorrect beliefs for so long. Their defense of Christianity is usually about how it is firm and unchanging, how the gospels are perfect and the bishops and popes are the inheritors of an unerrant teaching going all the way back back to the disciples. If anyone can reinterpret them, where does it end?

I don't see evolution as discounting any role of a creator. Evolution discounts one interpretation for the creation found in Genesis. That's it. There are many other interpretations of those same passages that evolution doesn't even touch.

Max


I agree with your statement, even though I personally do not believe in a creator. The theory of evolution is not about "how it all started." The theory's concern is about how species change over time.

Omnipotent is a strong word to use and I wouldn't go that far.

I just wonder why a fucking idiot such as myself can sit here and see a very basic design flaw, thats all.

Why do you consider something to be a "very basic design flaw"?

What would, according to you, be a being *without* that "very basic design flaw"?

What traits would a being have to have for you to accept that it was made by an intelligent creator?

Yes, but these are not traditional interpretations. One must wonder how God could have let all those Christians maintain incorrect beliefs for so long. Their defense of Christianity is usually about how it is firm and unchanging, how the gospels are perfect and the bishops and popes are the inheritors of an unerrant teaching going all the way back back to the disciples. If anyone can reinterpret them, where does it end?
Average pre-scientific minds were not yet capable of understanding these things past the nursery school level. (sorry ancestors). We are smarter now, so our understanding needs to be better.
How does someone who can't even read comprehend anything past oversimplified concrete ideas? How can those ideas explain things the greatest minds still cannot really agree upon?
How could God have let errant humans take charge of spreading, and twisting these ideas? Because we are to be responsible for the planet and what happens on it. That is the system, apparently. "Why?" is a good question, I agree.

flaws seem to exist only from a dualistic, personal, perspective. but from god's universal perspective, everything's perfect, even the 'flaws'.

flaws seem to exist only from a dualistic, personal, perspective. but from god's universal perspective, everything's perfect, even the 'flaws'.

"Flaws" seem to serve a purpose -- we get to know what perfection might be.

Each atom can be view as perfect in its own, but when binding them together, flaws are not uncommon.

I'll wade in with a few more flaws:

The human retina has the nerves IN FRONT, which limit the max sensitivity. A DESIGNER could easily have placed the nerves in the back ...

The size of the human head at birth is dangerously large, to the host mother. Prior to modern medical tech, many human mothers died giving birth to the overlarge heads. Wouldn't an INTELLIGENT designer have considered this? From an evolutionary standpoint, if the baby lives, the mother was "successful" ...

Human hearing is quite sensitive: within it's range, it's as sensitive as any animal out there. Young, human hearing, that is. Why do not our hearing-nerves regenerate? There IS an example of regenerating nerves in humans: those in your skin, will regrow if damaged by cuts, etc (so long as the major structures of the skin are intact). These short, surface nerves will regenerate. So. Why not permit HEARING nerves to regenerate? They are composed of small hairs that will "self destruct" in the presence of too much sound. Moreover, over time, they will degrade, too. If we were DESIGNED, wouldn't it be more useful to keep renewing these nerves, to maintain our hearing health? From evolutionary standpoint, good hearing lasts well into your 20's, more than enough time for reproduction and to be considered "successful".

More ...

Why, if Humans are the "pinnacle of design" do we have a single heart?

Wouldn't it make more sense, to have a secondary heart, say at the junction of the major arteries at the top of the legs, to assist the main heart. This 2nd heart would really shine, during long runs or other extended use of our legs.

Finally, when the main heart is damaged, the 2nd heart could help carry the load, giving the main heart time to heal.

An INTELLIGENT designer would have thought of this ... (I'm not all that smart, and _I_ thought of it .. :p )

Why have a heart at all? Why not have the entire arterial system act as a distributed pump by rythmically pulsing just like the intestines do (peristalsis)?
That would be virtually inpervious to single-point failure. God must be a shitty engineer.

Why do we have toes that can be broken/stubbed? Why not a simpler ridge of nail or bone? Because we evolved from tree dwelling primates who used them for grasping branches. Duh.

God believers have a distinct lack of imagination.

Yes, hooray for redundant organs sytems.
Either god does not exist or he's a prick.

I agree with your statement, even though I personally do not believe in a creator. The theory of evolution is not about "how it all started." The theory's concern is about how species change over time.I agree as well.

Evolution is about change in allelic frequency in a population from one generation to the next. Evolution says nothing about creation (ie: abiogenesis) or a creators (ex: Oden).

That said if I were to believe in Gods, which I do not, and I had to choose one to worship. I surely would not worship that pin-dick YHWA, talk about a bore.

Aphrodite is the way to go. She is hot . Plus she may even do a little sandal knocking with you - if you`re lucky ;)
I love her pouring-water effigy in the British Horde . . . . . I mean museum.



Here she is taking her comic book form
:D
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/animelist/aphrodite.jpg

Gotalove then buns :D

Evolution does not disprove god, however it does disprove the notions taken by world religions. However to a deist, who can believe in evolution, evolution is just a vehicle used by god.

the argument becomes moot, evolution only explains naturally the way we evolved, not the why we are here, nor the reason for existence. This questions never will be answered to justify and please anyone, these questions are used by theist, to entice the qullible, to believe their propaganda. They believe they have the answers, to that the answer is "god" But ask them what the hell is god? And they will just give you circular answers.

The questions "Who Created Existence" and "Why of the Universe" are ancient, mind-subverting gimmicks of positing invalid, intellectually untenable questions that have no basis in reality. That false-question maneuver has been used by theologians and other mystics for centuries. The gimmick works by taking an invalid or meaningless idea and then cloaking the idea with specious but profound-sounding phraseology. That phraseology is then used as an "intellectual" prop to advance false, irrational concepts or doctrines. Consider, for example, the "Who Created Existence" and the "Why of the Universe" questions so often used by poets and theologians to advance the God or higher-power concept. On closer examination, one realizes that invalid questions such as "who made the universe" are meaningless and unprofound. For that type of infinite-regression question (of who created the creator and so on back) answers nothing and is anti-intellectual. Such a question cannot or need not be answered once one realizes that existence exists. click (http://www.neo-tech.com/neotech/advantages/advantage28.html)

Godless

The designer would have also forseen people being struck by lightning

I always heard it was god doing that. Beware bad little boys and girls.. god will strike you down with a lightning bolt. As such he has no reason to implement a "grounding system", because it would undo his system of punishment.

Aphrodite... (*drool*) Mmmm.... Instead of me bowing before her, maybe she'd bow before me? Oops. That was pretty blasphemous. Now she'll have to come punish me. Yay!

:rolleyes:
LOL

Gotalove then buns :D
Wow, an example of superstimuli!! I must remember not to try to mate with her (or pick fleas off her)! :bugeye:
One must wonder how God could have let all those Christians maintain incorrect beliefs for so long. Their defense of Christianity is usually about how it is firm and unchanging, how the gospels are perfect and the bishops and popes are the inheritors of an unerrant teaching going all the way back back to the disciples. If anyone can reinterpret them, where does it end?.
There's a lot of confusion between LITERAL truth and ALLEGORICAL truth among theists. Genesis is one of many creation myths - all cultures have developed them. It is allegorical, as were the parables that Jesus told. It's value is in the symbols and the purpose of the narrative. For instance, Gen1 gives a concept of the "mysterious" nature of God the creative principle at the heart of the universe. They are only taken as literal by (maybe dumb) people who think that that is the only form of truth.
...the argument becomes moot, evolution only explains naturally the way we evolved, not the why we are here, nor the reason for existence. This questions never will be answered to justify and please anyone, these questions are used by theist, to entice the qullible, to believe their propaganda. They believe they have the answers, to that the answer is "god" But ask them what the hell is god? And they will just give you circular answers.
I disagree Godless. I think the "what is the reason for my existence?" question is a genuine human existential quest, even if not an intellectually rigorous question.
There is no intellectual route to solving it, and the answer may of course be "no reason". However, one benefit theists have is that they believe they are onto the scent of an answer through non-rational (NOT irrational) means. God cannot be aprehended by rational intellectual means, so a theist therefore struggles to define God to a rationalist, and probably falls into circular answers. Hence the need for allegory and the myths told in Genesis!

I disagree Godless. I think the "what is the reason for my existence?" question is a genuine human existential quest, even if not an intellectually rigorous question.

It is your perogative to esue on an unatainable quest. This is a waste of time, when basically the answer truly is "Existence exists" and the reason for your existence is the fornication of two other individuals resulting in your birth. Without them, you wouldn't be here. Without their ancesters none would be here. There's no reason for existence. It just is.

However, one benefit theists have is that they believe they are onto the scent of an answer through non-rational (NOT irrational) means.

Fueled by irrational dogma, and myths, none of which would stand rigorous scientific scrutiny. So basically they fantasize, that some supreme diety is their creator, and thousands of different religions exist, conflict, and beget conflict amongs nations for these silly notions. Totally irrational beliefs proven by behavior.

Godless

It is your perogative to esue on an unatainable quest. This is a waste of time, when basically the answer truly is "Existence exists" and the reason for your existence is the fornication of two other individuals resulting in your birth. Without them, you wouldn't be here. Without their ancesters none would be here. There's no reason for existence. It just is. You assert a belief as ardently as any fundementalist. How do you know with such certainty that there is no deeper purpose for your life? Or have you simply closed your mind to the possibility?

Fueled by irrational dogma, and myths, none of which would stand rigorous scientific scrutiny. So basically they fantasize, that some supreme diety is their creator, and thousands of different religions exist, conflict, and beget conflict amongs nations for these silly notions. Totally irrational beliefs proven by behavior. Like many atheists, I think you confuse "non-rational" with "irrational". Not all phenomena are "objective" and not everything therefore is open to scientific scrutiny.

How do you know with such certainty that there is no deeper purpose for your life?

The deepest purpose to life, which has so far been the only thing apparent, is life itself. What other deeper purpose do your refer?

Like many atheists, I think you confuse "non-rational" with "irrational".

Both are the non use of reason, just different contexts.

Not all phenomena are "objective" and not everything therefore is open to scientific scrutiny.

Name one that doesn't invoke the supernatural.

The deepest purpose to life, which has so far been the only thing apparent, is life itself. What other deeper purpose do your refer?

Ah, you have moved the goalposts (Q)... I might agree with you that "The deepest purpose to life [...] is life itself.", though that statement is highly ambiguous. However it is different from:

...there is no reason for existence. It just is."

In strictly biological terms, the purpose of life is to continue. However, some would argue (I among them) that human life has purpose other than just biological reproduction. Because we are sentient and reflective beings, there is a meaningful qualitative difference (some say) between e.g. a happy or unhappy life, a tortured or pleasurable life, a moral or immoral life, a passionate or passionless life, a fulfilled or unfulfilled life etc.

A deeper purpose than biological replication might be found therefore by asking "How should man live?". Perhaps the answer for you is still about reproduction? ;)

Both are the non use of reason, just different contexts.

Irrational = Not consistent with or using reason.
Non-rational = Not based on reason. Intuitive: obtained through intuition rather than from reasoning or observation

A justification is irrational if it is inconsistent with reason. e.g. illogical.
Some justifications (e.g. the existence of God) are non-rational i.e. are not based on reason, but use other faculties of the human mind (yes, they do exist!).

Not all phenomena are "objective" and not everything therefore is open to scientific scrutiny.
Name one that doesn't invoke the supernatural.
The quality of a symphony. The memories invoked by the smell of strawberries. How the sky looks to me. What it's like to be a bat. Whether George Bush is sentient. Enough examples?

In strictly biological terms, the purpose of life is to continue.

Not true, then suicide would not be an alternative. The purpose of life is to live it by choice, wether one thinks, or lacks the means to think logically does not matter life will take it's corse, the choices we make determine the end outcome of choices made. Some don't continue after making a dredfull mistake, some just end it. BTW I've had now several friends who commited suicide. They were religious.

However, some would argue (I among them) that human life has purpose other than just biological reproduction.

Well of course one can't live by simply f*cking his life away! :p There's no purpose per say, one lives for happiness, one lives to love others, one lives to produce values that benefit self and others, those who produce greater values live by better means than those who don't, some live off the efforts of others, "theist leaders" & "politicians" some live with a sense of purpose, but there's no purpose desing without reproduction if the specie is to continue, though that effort has to be made by personal choice or not. Biologically a living organism strives for reproduction to continue the specie. We are no different.

This probably why when there's war, there's an increase in child birth.


You assert a belief as ardently as any fundementalist. How do you know with such certainty that there is no deeper purpose for your life? Or have you simply closed your mind to the possibility?

The only purpose of my life is that one that I set out to do, there's nothing deeper than doing what the hell I want, and no my mind is not closed, it just doesn't accept mystical bull shit.

Like many atheists, I think you confuse "non-rational" with "irrational". Not all phenomena are "objective" and not everything therefore is open to scientific scrutiny.

*1. nonrational - not based on reason; "there is a great deal that is nonrational in modern culture"
irrational - not consistent with or using reason; "irrational fears"; "irrational animals"
2. nonrational - obtained through intuition rather than from reasoning or observation
intuitive, visceral
illogical, unlogical - lacking in correct logical relation*http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonrational

I think the above explains it rather well don't it?

All phenomena can be objectively understood, one only has to set aside the mystic bs that exist within. Because it is not known today, means not that it will not be known of tomorow. Eventually we learn, we adapt and move on. Atheist have, I wonder when theist will. :rolleyes:

Godless

In strictly biological terms, the purpose of life is to continue.
Not true, then suicide would not be an alternative.
Biologically a living organism strives for reproduction to continue the specie. We are no different.

I think we agree in statements 1 & 3, (though Richard Dawkins might not agree that it is the species that we are striving to continue - I therefore used the term "life"). That humans commit suicide is an argument for our having a "deeper purpose" than mere biological reproduction, (unless they had always already reproduced - which is not bourne out by the statistics).

I am sorry to hear you had friends who killed themselves.

All phenomena can be objectively understood, one only has to set aside the mystic bs that exist within. Because it is not known today, means not that it will not be known of tomorow. Eventually we learn, we adapt and move on. Atheist have, I wonder when theist will.

Not all phenomena are objective - some are subjective, and not everything is subject to scientific scrutiny. I include a long list in my last post. Not every hypothesis is testable either, and therefore many things will forever remain conjecture. The best we do in science is make better models that conform increasingly well to reality.

The "purpose of living" is one such question that is not amenable to scientific scrutiny. It is a non-rational problem. By the way, we can agree the definitions of non-rational...

1. nonrational - not based on reason; "there is a great deal that is nonrational in modern culture"
2. nonrational - obtained through intuition rather than from reasoning or observation.

...except where you muddied the waters by including synonyms such as intuitive, visceral and "related words" such as irrational, illogical etc. which do not form part of the definition.

Ah, you have moved the goalposts (Q)... I might agree with you that "The deepest purpose to life [...] is life itself.", though that statement is highly ambiguous.

I've done no such thing, the goalposts haven't moved. How can that statement be even remotely ambiguous? It is self-explanatory with no wiggle room.

In strictly biological terms, the purpose of life is to continue.

I'm not talking abut simple subsistence, I'm talking about existence with purpose.

However, some would argue (I among them) that human life has purpose other than just biological reproduction. Because we are sentient and reflective beings, there is a meaningful qualitative difference (some say) between e.g. a happy or unhappy life, a tortured or pleasurable life, a moral or immoral life, a passionate or passionless life, a fulfilled or unfulfilled life etc.

The fact that we want to believe in a higher purpose does not mean one exists. It's merely our want to believe in such things and the fact we have the ability to imagine such things. So what?

A deeper purpose than biological replication might be found therefore by asking "How should man live?". Perhaps the answer for you is still about reproduction? ;)

No, its embedded in sociological interactions. As sentient beings with the ability to reason, we should easily come the conclusion that we should not do harm to others, for example.

The quality of a symphony. The memories invoked by the smell of strawberries. How the sky looks to me. What it's like to be a bat. Whether George Bush is sentient. Enough examples?

All of those are open to scientific scrutiny, perhaps not with our current technologies, but open nonetheless.

Of course, to find out what it's like to be a bat is not really a phenomenon, is it? That would most likely require the supernatural.

Do you have at least one that isn't?

I am an a-theist.

I love a cool spring breeze while the warm sun washes over me.

I love to help people because it makes me, and them, feel good.

I love to go camping with my family.

I love to explore the universe through astronomy and physics because I get intense pleasure from learning and discovery.

I love the sense of deep mystery that comes withy contemplating the cosmos.

I love to swim in the ocean and feel the life enveloping me.

I love the interesting/frustrating/downright stupid conversations on sciforums.

I love figuring things out, especially after having a misconception about them - the WOW NOW I GET IT experience.

I love the idea that someday, us "sentients" will learn to coexist in peace so that every creature can be completely free to explore the universe in his/her/its own way.

In a nutshell, what more could anyone ask of a life? Why would anyone constrain themselves to some arbitrary "religious" outlook when the universe reveals itself if you only look? Why live for a fantasy when reality is so friggin rewarding?

Peace.

I am an a-theist.
I love a cool spring breeze while the warm sun washes over me.
I love to help people because it makes me, and them, feel good.
I love to go camping with my family.
I love to explore the universe through astronomy and physics because I get intense pleasure from learning and discovery.
I love the sense of deep mystery that comes withy contemplating the cosmos.
I love to swim in the ocean and feel the life enveloping me.
I love the interesting/frustrating/downright stupid conversations on sciforums.
I love figuring things out, especially after having a misconception about them - the WOW NOW I GET IT experience.
I love the idea that someday, us "sentients" will learn to coexist in peace so that every creature can be completely free to explore the universe in his/her/its own way.

In a nutshell, what more could anyone ask of a life? Why would anyone constrain themselves to some arbitrary "religious" outlook when the universe reveals itself if you only look? Why live for a fantasy when reality is so friggin rewarding?

Peace.
Sounds like you love life, including the "mystery of the cosmos" superluminal. That is very close to the heart of theism (I include Buddhism too, though there is no God in Buddhism). The only difference is theists (some theists) are reaching into that mystery to find the essence of that love, joy, peace etc. It is a risk because it may be a fantasy, but then Columbus took a risk when he set sail West, not knowing what was beyond the edge of the known (Old) World.

Sounds like you love life, including the "mystery of the cosmos" superluminal. That is very close to the heart of theism (I include Buddhism too, though there is no God in Buddhism).

No, theists already know there are no mysteries to the cosmos, as their god created all things, including the cosmos. Big difference.

The only difference is theists (some theists) are reaching into that mystery to find the essence of that love, joy, peace etc.

Again no, theists are reaching to their gods. They could care less as to what actually makes the universe go round.

It is a risk because it may be a fantasy, but then Columbus took a risk when he set sail West, not knowing what was beyond the edge of the known (Old) World.

You can't compare the supernatural to reality.

Q we should call you a sledge hammer :) Smash those silly notions of mysticism.

Good work; btw.

Godless

No, theists already know there are no mysteries to the cosmos, as their god created all things, including the cosmos. Big difference.

Again no, theists are reaching to their gods. They could care less as to what actually makes the universe go round.

You have a strange & distorted notion of theism Q. Non-dogmatic theism is a belief in an ultimate mystery, an ultimate intelligence - incomprehensible by thought, but within reach of anyone. Science (yes - I am a scientist) is a not dissimilar project, in trying to explore, observe, map and build models of physical reality. The two are not contradictory - both are a search for a different kind of truth.

It is dogmatism that robs the cosmos of mysteries. That can be religious dogmatism, or reductionist dogmatism. Science (partially) liberated us from the former, but who will liberate us from the latter? My objection to your views is not their atheism (which I respect), but their lack of skepticism i.e. their dogmatism.

You can't compare the supernatural to reality.
Why not? Because the supernatural may not exist, and is beyond the edge of the world we know? :p

Q we should call you a sledge hammer Smash those silly notions of mysticism.
Hmm, you sound just like a religious fanatic Godless! :mad:

P.S. You may like to read "The End of Science" by Richard Horgan who was editor of Scientific American (and is an atheist). His thesis is that science is slowing as it is nearing the limits of possible investigation. He conjectures it will become increasingly "ironic" i.e. hypotheses will be increasingly untestable.

Ok take a pin and stick it in your top facing lower arm, now twist your arm around and stab yourself on the other side.

Ok, the top of the arm will hurt very little as the skin is thick but on the other side of the arm you will experiance much greater pain.

It's clear that the reason for this thicker skin is to protect the outer facing arm from damage. As the outer side of the arm is much more susceptible to injury, we have evolved a thicker skin to protect us.

If we had been created by a designer surely he would have made the underside of the arm with the same thickness of skin? It would make for a much better and safer design than evolution could manage, yet it has not been done.

Surely the most intelligent designer in the universe would have made this 'very simple' design change for our benefit if he existed?

What condition are your lower arms in?

If we had been created by a designer surely he would have made the underside of the arm with the same thickness of skin? It would make for a much better and safer design than evolution could manage, yet it has not been done.

Surely the most intelligent designer in the universe would have made this 'very simple' design change for our benefit if he existed?

This seems a very stange example, alexb123? You could point to the appendix, coccyx, enzymes of the (redundant) vitamin C synthetic pathway, (most of which we still carry), or any number of vestigial or redundant features of us and other organisms as better evidence for evolution over design.

We may have thinner skin on the inside of our arms because it's useful to have them more sensitive to touch, texture & temperature. Both a designer and evolution would share a direction on this - to make us fit for purpose. It's just that a designer would presumably be less wasteful and leave the redundant bits off.

What if the designer did not want humanity to go around living in a black and white world where every idea was reducible to 2+2=4?
Perhaps the designer would use a process which appears "natural" to allow for discussion. What does the word "natural" even mean? It doesn't preclude a system designer any more than it assumes one.

In a dogmatic theist's view, where every unbeliever is sent immediately to hell, this confusion is a horrible thing. In hinduism though, for example, the game is the whole essence of this plane of existence, so it isn't as subject to our value judgments.

You have a strange & distorted notion of theism Q.

My view of theism consists of nothing more than the scriptures I've read and that which has been shown to me by other theists.

Personally, I have no concept of theism.

Non-dogmatic theism is a belief in an ultimate mystery, an ultimate intelligence - incomprehensible by thought, but within reach of anyone.

Is that a new religion?

Science (yes - I am a scientist) is a not dissimilar project, in trying to explore, observe, map and build models of physical reality. The two are not contradictory - both are a search for a different kind of truth.

How many different kinds of truth do you propose?

It is dogmatism that robs the cosmos of mysteries. That can be religious dogmatism, or reductionist dogmatism. Science (partially) liberated us from the former, but who will liberate us from the latter? My objection to your views is not their atheism (which I respect), but their lack of skepticism i.e. their dogmatism.

Sorry, but you'll have to do better than just invoke reductionist dogmatism.

Why not? Because the supernatural may not exist, and is beyond the edge of the world we know?

Can you show the supernatural exists?

This seems a very stange example, alexb123? You could point to the appendix, coccyx, enzymes of the (redundant) vitamin C synthetic pathway, (most of which we still carry), or any number of vestigial or redundant features of us and other organisms as better evidence for evolution over design.

We may have thinner skin on the inside of our arms because it's useful to have them more sensitive to touch, texture & temperature. Both a designer and evolution would share a direction on this - to make us fit for purpose. It's just that a designer would presumably be less wasteful and leave the redundant bits off.

Why would a designer need to make the inner arm sensitive to touch, texture or temperature, when our greatest tool for all these jobs sits at the end of the arm. Our hands cover all of these roles to a level not seen anywhere else in the body. When you already have a job covered so well by something so close by, I don't think your argument seems logical.

alexb,
just admit it, your thin skin argument sucks.
You ignored the question about having thick skin on the sex organs. Are we supposed to accomplish all sexual contact with our hands, since they are so well developed for sensation?
Give it up, it's ok, nobody's perfect.

alexb,
just admit it, your thin skin argument sucks.
You ignored the question about having thick skin on the sex organs. Are we supposed to accomplish all sexual contact with our hands, since they are so well developed for sensation?
Give it up, it's ok, nobody's perfect.

Please stop hiding your bad arguments by insulting mine. I do not claim to be correct here I am open-minded as to my accuracy but so far I am un-shifted in my belief. And lets face the FACTS here we will never really know who is correct it’s all a matter of opinion. Let’s just debate the issue and not resort to attacks of any nature.

firstly i dont see how evolution expells the notion/philosophy of a "god" it just dissproves the bible and holy books,

wich do not represent the true philosophy of a god that created the known universe,

we all know the bible was written by man, and its only a storybook, no need to let a storybook taint the true philosophy of a god like bieng.




anyway,


i practice certain shaolin iron methods, and muay thai conditioning, i have made nearly my entire body thicker skinned, the inside of my arms are just as durable as my forearm fronts. hit them against a rough tree trunk for 1 hour per day for a few years, and it will get alot thicker and stronger.


by using shaolin iron methods, and other conditioning you can do some amazing things with your body, and make it a great deal tougher/stronger than the average mans, even the huge muscle guys you see on mr universe etc are pretty weak on the outside, its like "injected muscle" if i were to punch one of those guys in the arm or chest muscle full power, they would cry like babies, to condition your muscles skin bones etc is needed i think, (if you are in need of strength), alot of big guys are still pretty fragile, and only really can dish out hits, rather than take them,



shaolin iron methods of training are amazing, try them out if your serious about martial arts, (if you are only going to try it once and never again i say dont bother, it will do more harm than good),


consistent or not atall.



peace.

Why would a designer need to make the inner arm sensitive to touch, texture or temperature, when our greatest tool for all these jobs sits at the end of the arm. Our hands cover all of these roles to a level not seen anywhere else in the body. When you already have a job covered so well by something so close by, I don't think your argument seems logical.

I do want more sensation than just on my hands (e.g. Cole Grey's sex organs objection). The inner arm is in fact much more sensitive to temperature than our hands.

I think you have come up with an interesting thought experiment as to what improvements one would suggest to a future human genetic design team. e.g. endogenous :m: anyone? Only kidding!

Hmm, you sound just like a religious fanatic Godless!

Thanks for the morning joke ;)


Like emptyforceofchi says, evolution would not disprove a god, no matter what evolution may do in our future, or how we may see design flaws, a theist will never accept that evolution has eradicated their beloved farie in the sky, they will give circular arguments til the end of times, have been for 2500 years, will be for the next two milliniums. Yep! they will still be waiting for their savior to come, in the year 2020 and 3020 they will still have excuses why the damn dood hasn't shown up!. :rolleyes:

Godless

Thanks for the morning joke ;)


Like emptyforceofchi says, evolution would not disprove a god, no matter what evolution may do in our future, or how we may see design flaws, a theist will never accept that evolution has eradicated their beloved farie in the sky, they will give circular arguments til the end of times, have been for 2500 years, will be for the next two milliniums. Yep! they will still be waiting for their savior to come, in the year 2020 and 3020 they will still have excuses why the damn dood hasn't shown up!. :rolleyes:

Godless

Do you have any other records Godless? You do sound angry. I hope you can forgive whatever religion did to your friends. There are f*cked up religions about like there are f*cked up people. Shouldn't condemn them all indescriminately though, otherwise you miss out on the good ones.

In fact I just got a message from God: By special arrangement he's here and waiting to listen to your complaints - you don't have to wait until 3020! ;)

In fact I just got a message from God: By special arrangement he's here and waiting to listen to your complaints - you don't have to wait until 3020!

You do make me laugh, it's not anger if I'm laughing. ;)

Religion are silly superstisions, there's no such thing as a good one. They all have one purpose in mind. To rule.

Godless

Ok take a pin and stick it in your top facing lower arm, now twist your arm around and stab yourself on the other side.

Ok, the top of the arm will hurt very little as the skin is thick but on the other side of the arm you will experiance much greater pain.

It's clear that the reason for this thicker skin is to protect the outer facing arm from damage. As the outer side of the arm is much more susceptible to injury, we have evolved a thicker skin to protect us.

If we had been created by a designer surely he would have made the underside of the arm with the same thickness of skin? It would make for a much better and safer design than evolution could manage, yet it has not been done.

Surely the most intelligent designer in the universe would have made this 'very simple' design change for our benefit if he existed?The underside of the arm may have less skin for a reason, one being the cooling of blood, well I didn't need to think much to figure that out, and it's probably wrong, but that doesn't matter, that it took so little time to think out just shows that there is probably a better theory than I have thought of.

Even in evolution things have a cause, and honestly is the 'improvement' such a great benefit for us? We wouldn't get the same sense of close contact when hugging someone either. Sensitive areas of the skin is actually very good for intimacy. I would rather keep that, than having thick skin overall. Also, I as I am now wouldn't feel comfortable with equal skin overall, it's a matter of human design and I like it.

No, theists already know there are no mysteries to the cosmos, as their god created all things, including the cosmos. Big difference.There are many mysteries for us theists too.

Allthough God has made it all, we don't know it all, and there is much that we don't know of (as there is much that you don't know of).



Again no, theists are reaching to their gods. They could care less as to what actually makes the universe go round.We do care. It's astonishing to study things like relativity and quantum theory, how everything is symmetric, heisenbergs uncertainty principle (fascinating much because it is a principle that seemingly is stopping us from know everything about something, as if it were the purpouse, how could there be a purpouse prohibiting knowledge in a universe stated by scientists to have no actual knowledge?). There seems to be purpouse to principles! Actual purpouse!

So what is the purpouse of the heisenberg uncertainty principle?

Or is it that I treat the principle as something seperate? Still it is a principle, even if embedded in the natural cause of things.

Also it's very interesting for me to study holograms, functioning of the brain, the mere size of things and quantity of things.

Philosophy can also be really interesting as it can give answers to things that we cannot reach.

"Flaws" seem to serve a purpose -- we get to know what perfection might be.

Or rather, does it expose the motivation and perhaps, unrealistic expectation of the person assigning the dissapointment?

Isn't a "flaw" the disspointment of an expectation or hope?

Perhaps perfection is, and it's the assertion of "flaws" that exposes an inability to comprehend perfection.

Or..

Perhaps the notions of "flaws" and "perfection" can only be really asserted in the case of known, purposeful human parameters - and the term is far too often utlized outside of useful parameters.

Please stop hiding your bad arguments by insulting mine. I do not claim to be correct here I am open-minded as to my accuracy but so far I am un-shifted in my belief. And lets face the FACTS here we will never really know who is correct it’s all a matter of opinion. Let’s just debate the issue and not resort to attacks of any nature.
If you have a rebuttal to the "bad" argument regarding the specialization of tissues which has been brought up a number of times here by myself and others, please go ahead.
It is not a matter of opinion that certain areas of the skin have specialized functions.

There are many mysteries for us theists too

But given that you already know the answer: "god did it", where is the mystery?

Emptyforce is right, of course, if the inner arm needs to be thick, it will adapt to circumstance, as will muscles and tendons.

An interesting question for Darwin was, are these aquired traits passed on to the next generation?

But given that you already know the answer: "god did it", where is the mystery?
how about why?
who or what is this "god" being really?
Just to name a couple of the myriad questions that remain.

how about why?


"god works in mysterious ways".

who or what is this "god" being really?


"nobody can really know god".

Generally the religious will bring every answer down to the most basic.

Those are copouts, I agree.
But so is reducing all of life's "why's" to meaningless chemical processes.

Or rather, does it expose the motivation and perhaps, unrealistic expectation of the person assigning the dissapointment?

Isn't a "flaw" the disspointment of an expectation or hope?

Certianly so. Those who argue against intelligent design, and base their counterarguments on the premise that humans are flawed --
these people certainly have a particular idea of how humans *should be*, *if* they were to be the product of intelligent design.

So I am calling them on it, I want them to explain what their criteria for proof of intelligent design are. Because if they don't have those criteria, they cannot meaningfully argue neither for nor against intelligent design.




Perhaps the notions of "flaws" and "perfection" can only be really asserted in the case of known, purposeful human parameters - and the term is far too often utlized outside of useful parameters.

I think the issue is very very context-dependent. For example, very dark skin could be considered perfect if one is living somehwere where there is a lot of insolation. The same trait, however, can be redundant, or even detrimental if one lives somewhere with little insolation (as the production of certain vitamins is lessened; but metabolism can adapt, and physiological functions are strongly interconnected, so it is questionable to point out just one cause for a certain effect).


Bottomline, what can be a mark of perfection in one context, can be a mark of redundance or flaw in some other context.


I myself have no idea how to set the criteria for perfection, in and of itself, independent of context. So the argument for/against perfection seems moot to me.
I am willing to be surprised though. :)

Alex, you have not answered my questions!


I myself do not believe in intelligent design. But it is lame to criticize something without defining one's criteria.


Here are the questions for you again:

Why do you consider something to be a "very basic design flaw"?

What would, according to you, be a being *without* that "very basic design flaw"?

What traits would a being have to have for you to accept that it was made by an intelligent creator?

I am pushed for time and I need to reply to a few posts here. Hopefully I will get time later on today.

But given that you already know the answer: "god did it", where is the mystery?Cause it proves to be more than we thought!

When we find such a mystery the "world opens" for us, we see everything in a different way. Everything is the same, but still everything is new cause we see it in a different light. Oftentimes you cannot do much more than you could before, but sometimes new ways opens and you do things differently, do new things that you had never thought of.

God has hidden things for kings to find.



Also.



Sometimes we get to see wisdom in the making, how everything works out, and, it's like a hand moving destiny to make things right, you see one thing, marvels, then another thing and multitudes of things working together and the pleasure knows no limits. Cause you know that, now finally, everything is going to be fine again.

What you perceive as sadness can then be for us a lasting trust.

Ok take a pin and stick it in your top facing lower arm, now twist your arm around and stab yourself on the other side.

Ok, the top of the arm will hurt very little as the skin is thick but on the other side of the arm you will experiance much greater pain.

It's clear that the reason for this thicker skin is to protect the outer facing arm from damage. As the outer side of the arm is much more susceptible to injury, we have evolved a thicker skin to protect us.

If we had been created by a designer surely he would have made the underside of the arm with the same thickness of skin? It would make for a much better and safer design than evolution could manage, yet it has not been done.

Surely the most intelligent designer in the universe would have made this 'very simple' design change for our benefit if he existed?


There is no reason whatsoever that God should create everything perfectly, especially if it was his first attempt at creating a world. Everything takes practice! :)

Evolution is designed to correct mistakes and assist species adapt accordingly to a changing environment, some do this better than others.
Why do you assume all designs should be perfect, you assume far too much.

If God is a being of sorts then he is susceptible to things that beings are susceptible to, bad days, good days, good ideas, bad ideas, lol

This is funny thread :D

There is no reason whatsoever that God should create everything perfectly, especially if it was his first attempt at creating a world. Everything takes practice! :)

Evolution is designed to correct mistakes and assist species adapt accordingly to a changing environment, some do this better than others.
Why do you assume all designs should be perfect, you assume far too much.

If God is a being of sorts then he is susceptible to things that beings are susceptible to, bad days, good days, good ideas, bad ideas, lol

This is funny thread :D
A "being" being a being doesn't necessarily imply that it has human characteristics. The God being may not even be susceptible to "days" at all. Our idea of days was created by our perception of the sun going up and down. A being who lived on the sun wouldn't have solar days, or years and might not assign its sense of "time" to the objects floating around it. Its idea of a day could be the time it takes some other star system to "rotate" through the "sky".

P.s. I know, I just thought it would be interesting to use the word "being" three out of four words in a row.

A "being" being a being doesn't necessarily imply that it has human characteristics. The God being may not even be susceptible to "days" at all. Our idea of days was created by our perception of the sun going up and down. A being who lived on the sun wouldn't have solar days, or years and might not assign its sense of "time" to the objects floating around it. Its idea of a day could be the time it takes some other star system to "rotate" through the "sky".

P.s. I know, I just thought it would be interesting to use the word "being" three out of four words in a row.

Don't take my posts too literally Coley ;) just putting my point this way, because for some reason Athiests who deny existance of God seem to have a pretty CLEAR idea of what he's like! Contradiction there somewhere ay?

Don't take my posts too literally Coley ;) just putting my point this way, because for some reason Athiests who deny existance of God seem to have a pretty CLEAR idea of what he's like! Contradiction there somewhere ay?
I understand you are just having fun and pondering things, and throwing out ideas to discuss. It is good to step the conversations at sciforums down from fighting levels since these questions are a bit unanswerable. Alexb said this before, when his theory was unfortunately thrown in as an unanswerable along with an otherwise great statement he made about these larger questions remaining up for debate.

It's clear that the reason for this thicker skin is to protect the outer facing arm from damage. As the outer side of the arm is much more susceptible to injury, we have evolved a thicker skin to protect us.

But thin skin is better for sex. :cool:

In a nutshell, what more could anyone ask of a life? Why would anyone constrain themselves to some arbitrary "religious" outlook when the universe reveals itself if you only look? Why live for a fantasy when reality is so friggin rewarding?

I don't know what more you could ask for, but I always wanted to fly. Only in my dreams. ;)

Or in heaven, I can move a lot faster than that.

my son will not be born with shaolin iron skin all over jis body,

it will not be genetic throught he gene pool of my future children, they will start off fresh with baby skin and have to perform the iron methods to reach the level i am on,

i have evolved to further levels of strength and toughness all over my entire body, i have dedicated much time and effort years and years into training my body and mind through martial arts, but my children will not get these advantages just from bieng my child, they will have to earn it like i did through training methods day after day,


the only benefit my children would get is maybe bieng healthy children, due to my strong sperm count and high fitness level.



peace.

Hey water, just for kicks i thought i'd try one:

An object that is perfect is an object that's never been observed or projected to be observed (like one's internal organs that have not been explored or directly observed).

(thus, no expectation and no means of disspointing criteria. this of course raises the question, can an object that hasn't been observed be imperfect?)

Just poking around. Don't think it's a particularly useful notion, but seems to be the logical conclusion.

Wes,


If we haven't observed an object, how then do we know it is there (other than by speculation and deduction)?



And as for your intestines example: Things may be badly wrong with one's intestines, yet until opened up, one might not know it, and, as per you, assume them perfect.
(It's a bit like the Schrödinger's Cat problem.)

Wes,


If we haven't observed an object, how then do we know it is there (other than by speculation and deduction)?


As always, we can only place such concepts into models with which we can attempt to describe something useful to our personal profit function (seeking and gaining more/less of what we value). It what would seem to me to be a wholistic perspective, we can speak of the compliment of what isn't being observed. It would indeed have to be deduced to be. When I change my location, stuff that was where I was is no longer being observed by me (by observation I mean sensory stimulation I suppose). I'd say though, that it would seem to me that there is strong enough evidence to take it as probable that there are things I have not observed.



And as for your intestines example: Things may be badly wrong with one's intestines, yet until opened up, one might not know it, and, as per you, assume them perfect.

Hehe, wrong by what standard?

I would deduce from the "laws of physics" or even if the "theory of everything" were "known", that intenstines can only function according to first principles and as such, must alway function perfectly. The value you place on it is personal, as in "I need these to continue my life" or "they need these ...". While most humans would agree that a medical diagnosis of malfunctioning instestines isn't good, that's life-specific.

Bah, this is just your observation of perspective in action.

However while there is no observation, there is no problem, literally in the sense of "problem" as in, there's nothing known to be wrong. IMO, it can't be a "problem" until observation renders it so. Until then, it's just pure function, even if it's killing you silently.

(It's a bit like the Schrödinger's Cat problem.)

Yeah I have a tendency of pushing things that direction. Seems perfect to me. :p

Bah, this is just your observation of perspective in action.


So?
What is the implication to "this is just your observation of perspective in action"?

You do make me laugh, it's not anger if I'm laughing. ;)

Glad to hear it Godless, it's hard to read the feeling behind the text sometimes. Perhaps we should use colured text red=anger blue=sad yellow=scared etc?

Religion are silly superstisions, there's no such thing as a good one. They all have one purpose in mind. To rule.

Unfortunately, many unintelligent, dogmatic, scripture bashing, superstitous religions are around, and they tend to shout the loudest, which gives theism a bad name...

However, if (as I do) you identify "God" as equivalent to the unexplored deepest layers of our unconscious mind (e.g. the "Self" of Jungian psychology), then it is no longer believing in Santa Claus, but seems like a sensible thing to take seriously.

God is not someone else - he/she is the root of ourselves! OK, theology lecture over. :o

An object that is perfect is an object that's never been observed or projected to be observed (like one's internal organs that have not been explored or directly observed).

I'm not sure it would apply to your guts wesmorris :confused: , but do you mean "Platonic forms"? e.g. a perfect triangle?

And as for your intestines example: Things may be badly wrong with one's intestines, yet until opened up, one might not know it, and, as per you, assume them perfect.There is the simple matter of observation, though.
If your guts are not working properly you will observe the effects of this elsewhere (stomach pain, vomiting etc).
You can therefore observe by deduction.

An object that is perfect is an object that's never been observed or projected to be observed (like one's internal organs that have not been explored or directly observed).

(thus, no expectation and no means of disspointing criteria. this of course raises the question, can an object that hasn't been observed be imperfect?)

Just poking around. Don't think it's a particularly useful notion, but seems to be the logical conclusion.

Taken to its logical conclusion when taken in the absolute, something that is not observed, or projected to be observed, is logically consistent with something that does not exist.

The question then is: can something that is observed be perfect - and does observation destroy any perfection that it might have had prior to observation?

Taken to its logical conclusion when taken in the absolute, something that is not observed, or projected to be observed, is logically consistent with something that does not exist.

But it is also consistent with something that does exist but is not being observed. We can think of an entire class of "things that exist but are not being observed" without projecting any details of what might make up that set. We can also separate within the set of "things that are not being observed". We can say "things that don't exist and aren't observed" and "things that do exist and aren't observed". The latter is was the object of my point.

Mind you however, I'm just dicking around trying to meet a half-hearted challenge set by water and have obviously wandered far from the topic.

The question then is: can something that is observed be perfect - and does observation destroy any perfection that it might have had prior to observation?

I think observation necessarily renders an item into the classification water specified, wherein the parameters to meet "perfection" are necessarily subjective.

I was trying for an "objective" definition as she asked, which is as I noted earlier, somewhat useless in a practical sense... but still sort of interesting to me.