RE: The absurd need for logical proofs for God
December 17, 2020 at 5:14 pm
(This post was last modified: December 17, 2020 at 5:34 pm by R00tKiT.)
(December 15, 2020 at 8:58 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: 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?""
(December 15, 2020 at 8:58 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: 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....
(December 15, 2020 at 8:58 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: 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 ?
(December 15, 2020 at 8:58 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: it is your job as claimant to show the appearance of design where no such appearance is evident.
Get a pair of glasses, maybe ?
(December 15, 2020 at 3:13 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(December 15, 2020 at 3:05 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: 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.
(December 15, 2020 at 3:13 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: 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 ?
(December 15, 2020 at 3:13 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: 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 ?