The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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 ?

   Selection is not a random process.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

It just gets more and more absurd, doesn't it? If I'm being asked to consider whether I think a god doing random shit is a better explanation for biology than...well...biology.....it's an easy answer.

[The Architect Of Fate]

It just gets more and more absurd, doesn't it?  If I'm being asked to consider whether I think a god doing random shit is a better explanation for biology than...well...biology.....it's an easy answer.

When you apply to magic anything goes

---

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?

God explains everything by explaining nothing , And can be used like putty to apply to any form to any speculation the believer needs it too And is thus worthless

[Paleophyte]

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

Says the person who called me a liar last post.

But OK:
(1) The Burden of Proof is on the one making the claim.
(2) You claim that the universe is designed.
(3) You have failed to demonstrate design beyond "we don't know what it does yet."
(4) The BoP is not met so your claim may be disregarded.

this ridiculing tone won't help you.

It isn't meant to help me. It's meant to mock you. I couldn't change your mind with an inadvisably applied ice pick. The rest of us know that you're full of shit so we're just going to sit here and point and laugh.

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.

Show me where I said design was supposed to be perfect or be shown guilty of using a strawman to argue that I'm using one.

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.

It isn't ignorance. We know that the overwhelming majority of HERV don't do anything. They don't transcribe, they don't regulate, they just sit there and take up resources. We know that the majority of HERV that have any effect are detrimental.

You on the other hand are arguing that "it's likely that more benefits will come to light in the future" when you simply cannot know that. It's much more likely that those benefits will be vastly outwheighed by the detrimental effects of HERV that will be discovered in the future. The ignorance is yours.

But my guess would be you're aware of the fallacies you're making, and I am beginning to smell dishonesty.

That'd be the bullshit you're full of.

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.

Quote in context SVP. I was stating that it is your job as claimant to show the appearance of design where no such appearance is evident.

. 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 ?

Your strawman is another strawman. I'm not telling any designer to do anything. I'd be an odd atheist to be talking to Gawd now wouldn't I? I'm telling you to meet your BoP. Stop your dodging and hop to it. No progress was made this post. I expect even less next post.

And one more thing: you can't explain away the necessity of a conscious designer by invoking accidents

There is neither necessity nor designer when accidents are all that are evident.

PS: Try reading the title that you gave this thread to understand my amusement with your antics.

[R00tKiT]

Says the person who called me a liar last post.

But OK:
(1) The Burden of Proof is on the one making the claim.
(2) You claim that the universe is designed.
(3) You have failed to demonstrate design beyond "we don't know what it does yet."
(4) The BoP is not met so your claim may be disregarded.

If design is defined as "adaptation of means to ends" - if you have better definition, be my guest - , then the observation that our organ/tissue systems do serve a biological function (breathing, digesting and processing food, etc.) satisfies the definition, and the burden of proof, and this would be the design we're looking for.

It's actually not a stretch to define design as any existent thing. Human designed objects are, after all, combinations of existent matter. So, in stone cold rigor : any designed machine = nature. If one doesn't agree with this identity, then one would have huge problems with defining the word design.

The problem with an atheist is that he's always looking for something else. He takes his body -for example- for granted, and as a result all the astonishing complexity of biological entites doesn't warrant a designer for him. That's it. As I said to Nudger a while ago, it's good to splash your face with cold water from time to time, maybe you'll get this sudden sense of " this body, these hands, an accident.. REALLY?""

Show me where I said design was supposed to be perfect or be shown guilty of using a strawman to argue that I'm using one.

You didn't say it. You're doing it. You're complaining about how useless is HERV, in other words, you're complaining about an aspect of imperfectness. The thing is, imperfectness is not a problem, it's only a problem if you commit a strawman, there is no problem with useless organs if design isn't supposed to be perfect.

I am not accusing you of strawman just to undermine your point of view. Anthropomorphising God really is a slippery slope if you're not careful, I saw many examples of that in this forum.

You inadvertantly required that there would be no waste and that everything should be efficient.... but again the absence of efficiency or usefulness is not a concern for an all powerful being with unlimited resources, who didn't mean for this universe to be perfect anyway. infinity minus (gazillion wasted genomes) is still infinity. And you think ,despite this, that these gazillion waste genomes undermines some infinite property of this being....

It isn't ignorance. We know that the overwhelming majority of HERV don't do anything. They don't transcribe, they don't regulate, they just sit there and take up resources. We know that the majority of HERV that have any effect are detrimental.

You on the other hand are arguing that "it's likely that more benefits will come to light in the future" when you simply cannot know that. It's much more likely that those benefits will be vastly outwheighed by the detrimental effects of HERV that will be discovered in the future. The ignorance is yours.

Well, if you are basing all this on the grounds of "it's much more likely", then you are already arguing from ignorance. Once again, it's not a problem that these benefits aren't here.

Let's actually go farther than that, and consider that all HERV are really detrimental. So what ? Are you trying to make an argument from evil ? Some bad stuff therefore no design and no god ? What's more, you actually didn't give any other definition of design than existence itself. Since, clearly, what we universally consider as designed like human machines are nothing else than nature itself... about which you're complaining ?

So, until you define what design are you looking for, what burden of proof are you talking about ? Do I need to prove your existence for you ?

it is your job as claimant to show the appearance of design where no such appearance is evident.

 
Get a pair of glasses, maybe ?

---

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 ?

   Selection is not a random process.

Boru

So much the better, then.

---

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.

Really? And this design - which you didn't define so far-, you did it ?

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

I don't think that's a good comparison you're making there. We're actually talking about the functioning of Hondas whether Honda Motor Co. exists or not. Let's say the latter vanishes from existence just like that, do you think accident will become the new explanation of the [apparent] design of Hondas ?

[Fake Messiah]

" this body, these hands, an accident.. REALLY?""

Who says it's an accident? Natural selection is not an accident. Please learn about evolution before lecturing on it.

there is no problem with useless organs if design isn't supposed to be perfect.

It's not supposed to be perfect, so how can God be perfect if he can't make perfect creation? But you are the one making the strawman because the so called creation isn't even functional - far far from perfect.

You should visit a museum in Amsterdam where they have thousands of these

[R00tKiT]

Who says it's an accident? Natural selection is not an accident. Please learn about evolution before lecturing on it.

I wasn't refering to natural selection per se, I was talking about these supposedly uselesss parts of the genome.

because the so called creation isn't even functional 

Not functional? How did you manage to write this sentence, then, if your hands aren't?

Sure, birth defects happen. To object to that is to object to an unexistent claim - that the universe under the theist worldview is supposed to be perfect.

so how can God be perfect if he can't make perfect creation?

There are actually perfect aspects in this world. Laws of physics, for example, are rigorously "enforced" everywhere.

[Nay_Sayer]

@Klorophyll You're wrong, I'm right. deal with it.

RAmen.

[Fake Messiah]

Sure, birth defects happen. To object to that is to object to an unexistent claim - that the universe under the theist worldview is supposed to be perfect.

I'm not claiming that universe is supposed to be perfect, (although the question remains "How do you know your God-designer is perfect?") but that there is no evidence for the designer because so called design fails, and it fails more than it works, like that 70% pregnancies don't come to full term but end instead. Now, you can make endless excuses for why that is so, like maybe God gets drunk and he makes mistakes, or some kid takes his magic wand and plays with it - but those are just speculations based on your wishful thinking that don't prove there's God, it only proves that you want to believe there's God. It doesn't mean that if I can type this that someone designed me, just like there are millions of people who can't write this or have to use their feet to write it don't prove there's a designer - you have to see the whole picture and not just the stuff you like.
Like "Yeah, birth defects happen, you know shit happens, but look at my card trick."

[R00tKiT]

I'm not claiming that universe is supposed to be perfect, (although the question remains "How do you know your God-designer is perfect?")

Okay. You make it look like you do, though. And I already answered your question : we have perfect stuff in this world, and I gave laws of physics as an example.

but that there is no evidence for the designer because so called design fails, and it fails more than it works, like that 70%  pregnancies don't come to full term but end instead.

And are you sure that all these pregnant women's lifestyle, age, eating habits, and countless other factors, do not play any role at all in increasing the likelihood of miscarriage ?

Now, you can make endless excuses for why that is so, like maybe God gets drunk and he makes mistakes, or some kid takes his magic wand and plays with it - but those are just speculations based on your wishful thinking that don't prove there's God

The arguments for God ,like the telological that I am defending here, are independent of the amount of the evil, you're just not thinking straight now. It's entirely possible to reconcile evil with the existence of God.

So, recall the following:

1/ We first prove the existence of God. Independently of any aspect of evil.
2/ We reconcile some of the properties of God with the existence of evil.

You can't interchange these steps or eliminate one of them.

It's already known that evil, even in its most extreme form, doesn't logically contradict omnibenevolence, given that there is an infinitely good/bad afterlife.

---

@Klorophyll You're wrong, I'm right. deal with it.

RAmen.

Whatever you say.