The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm pretty sure that objections to these things are as old as their insistence Bel.

Anywho, your revision of the omnis doesn't help god escape the dilemma referenced. God would be uniquely powerless in the situation you described for the same reason that god is uniquely powerless in the situation the other poster described. You could call gods uniquely powerlesss situation omnipotence if you like, since any power outside of it would be self defeting within the context of omniscience as either of you have described...but that's all you'd be doing...and that's probably why the omnis have always been subject to these objections. Objections that existed before christ was a twinkle in pauls eye, and long before the catholic church took to laundering it's silly ideas by dropping the names of dead pagans. Pagans who..and I can't believe this escaped our super academic notice...got it wrong themselves.

[R00tKiT]

So HERV are 8% of your genome and you've managed to find a handful that actually do something while the overwhelming majority either have no function or are outright harmful. We'd expect evolution to co-opt a few of them but that's the sort of behaviour that makes your Designer look like an imbecile.

I suggest you take a deep breath and present your arguments objectively, this ridiculing tone won't help you. Now let me count your logical fallacies for you:
You are smuggling a straw man here: design is supposed to be perfect, which is not my position, or any theist's position.

AND you're arguing from ignorance, it turned out there actually is something beneficial about HERV, and it's likely that more benefits will come to light in the future, despite that you're asserting that they have absolutely no function.
But my guess would be you're aware of the fallacies you're making, and I am beginning to smell dishonesty.

No, I'm arguing that the bulk of the genome is apparently useless rubbish

Bold mine. You deny arguing from the appearance of design to infer actual design. At the same time you have no problem arguing from an apparently functionless part of genome.
So, once again, you're arguing from ignorance.

. It's easy to understand how this would come about through purely natural processes. 4 billion years of unguided evolution is going to be a smidge untidy. If you're claiming Design then the Burden of Proof is on you to show why this unholy mess of a genome should be regarded as Designed rather than the nasty looking accident that it pretty clearly is.

Such a good-looking strawman you have there. Why are you instructing the designer not to operate through natural selection ? 4 billion years is long for you, not that long for the eternal, necessary being.
And one more thing: you can't explain away the necessity of a conscious designer by invoking accidents, it's not logically necessary that a perfect being should create perfect worlds ruled by perfect processes. And I already warned you that the concepts of waste and efficiency are vacuous for a being with unlimited resources.

[The Grand Nudger]

The minute you talk about genetics you eliminate any alleged necessity of a tinkering god, simultaneously destroying your fundamental premise that a conscious agent is required to produce any of this.

[R00tKiT]

You can't have a three omni being.  Omnipotence is funamentally incompatible with omniscience.  To know everything you need to know with certainty what happens in the future.  That knowledge will, by necessity, constrain the rang of your actions down to, at most, a few very similar actions (and in most cases down to one), thus making you not all powerful, but uniquely powerless.

That's an erroneous argument. Future is not defined for the three-omni being. This being is the creator of any spacetime he will act on, so he's clearly free to lay out any sequence of actions he wants.

---

The minute you talk about genetics you eliminate any necessity for a tinkering god.

Why can't God operate through genetics ..? : shrugs :

[The Grand Nudger]

Doesn't matter if he does..just like it doesn't matter if I operate through genetics....which I do.

You are essentially suggesting that a pilot is required to explain a plane, even though you know that planes fly regardless of whether any pilot or any specific pilot exists. You cannot require the truth of a proposition which demonstrates that your argument is false, and you cannot insist on the necessity of a god after explicitly referring to chemistry that works whether gods exist..or don't.

No one has done any of this to your non arguments. You did it all.

[HappySkeptic]

---

The minute you talk about genetics you eliminate any necessity for a tinkering god.

Why can't God operate through genetics ..? : shrugs :

A tinkering God can operate in any sphere of nature.  The problem is that science doesn't need to hypothesize such a being to explain reality.

If a God were required as a tinkerer to create human DNA, then the study of genetics and evolution would be wrong.  Evolution states that changes happen randomly, and that environmental pressure preferentially rewards individuals with traits that better pass on genes to the next generation.

Now, a God could decide to make non-random changes, but how would you distinguish them from random ones? A God could steer evolution faster, and make it go down fewer dead-ends.  A God could produce an error-free genome that has a perfect design.

Only there is no evidence of that.  If there were, science would see it, and the theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection would be declared invalid.  Instead, we have all sorts of genetic errors and oddities.  Our design works, but is hardly optimal.  And, it took a heck of a long time for us to come to exist.

As in all fields of science -- no gods are necessary.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm the one doing all of that, not a god. I like beetles and I think it's funny when people choke to death trying to eat.

The Grand Nudger has spoken.

[Angrboda]

---

Why can't God operate through genetics ..? : shrugs :

A tinkering God can operate in any sphere of nature.  The problem is that science doesn't need to hypothesize such a being to explain reality.

If a God were required as a tinkerer to create human DNA, then the study of genetics and evolution would be wrong.  Evolution states that changes happen randomly, and that environmental pressure preferentially rewards individuals with traits that better pass on genes to the next generation.

Now, a God could decide to make non-random changes, but how would you distinguish them from random ones? A God could steer evolution faster, and make it go down fewer dead-ends.  A God could produce an error-free genome that has a perfect design.

Only there is no evidence of that.  If there were, science would see it, and the theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection would be declared invalid.  Instead, we have all sorts of genetic errors and oddities.  Our design works, but is hardly optimal.  And, it took a heck of a long time for us to come to exist.

As in all fields of science -- no gods are necessary.

The real problem is that anything a God can do by tinkering invisibly with genetics, nature can do on her own without God's help. It is yet another God who is indistinguishable from being nonexistent.

[R00tKiT]

You are essentially suggesting that a pilot is required to explain a plane,

No. That's not what I am suggesting. I am simply showing you that there is no logical incompatibility between a laborious process of selection and a perfect designer. Maybe randomness is his way to show us how little we know about the world ?

You cannot require the truth of a proposition which demonstrates that your argument is false, and you cannot insist on the necessity of a god after explicitly referring to chemistry that works whether gods exist..or don't.

Machines work too whether manufacturing companies exist or not. Oh wait..

[The Grand Nudger]

You are essentially suggesting that a pilot is required to explain a plane,

No. That's not what I am suggesting. I am simply showing you that there is no logical incompatibility between a laborious process of selection and a perfect designer. Maybe randomness is his way to show us how little we know about the world ?

Then I guess that means that the products of design aren't any indication of a god after all..since those products are compatible with either...and that would also mean that there were no necessity for a god.

Machines work too whether manufacturing companies exist or not. Oh wait..

In fact, they do.  Internal combustion doesn't work or not work based on whether or not honda exists. Is honda your god?