Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: August 20, 2026, 6:14 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Human Eye: A Double Standard?
#34
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard?
(April 28, 2015 at 12:20 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:
(April 28, 2015 at 11:04 am)Pyrrho Wrote: I see you have spent too much time around Christians.

However, that is irrelevant to the original argument.  It is the human eye, as it presently exists, that is supposedly only to be explained by reference to God.

And for the original argument, that the human eye must have had a designer:  in that case, the designer must have been an incompetent buffoon.  If you consider all of the people who need glasses, or who get corrective surgery, one finds that the failure rate for the human eye is near 100%.  That indicates a poor design, and so we have an incompetent designer who designed the eye.  Indeed, humans are capable of making artificial eyes that are, in many respects, superior to a human eye, and so it would seem that humans must be superior to God.

Let me apologize to you all for not making my question clear to begin with. What I am saying is that theists have this double standard where they say because the eye is so complex so it has to have had a designer. On the other hand, if you ask them where god came from they dismiss the question quite flippantly, saying god needed no designer. So what I'm asking does that mean the eye is more complex than god?

BTW their eyes were actually better after the fall. Before that they walked around butt naked and didn't even know it. Dayum. I'm legally blind and know when I'm naked. But that's another thread. Thank you and 30.

Sorry, I was remembering an argument that I have heard frequently, and had not reread the opening post before writing that.

You are right, that if complexity required a designer, then there would have to be a designer for the designer as well, because the designer would have to be complex to be able to be a designer.

That, in turn, would lead to an infinite regress of designers, as the designer of the designer would be complex and therefore require a designer, which in turn would be complex and require a designer, which in turn would require a designer, etc., etc., etc.


What this really shows is that they do not believe their own argument, that something complex must have a designer.

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Reply



Messages In This Thread
The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Rhondazvous - April 28, 2015 at 9:01 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Longhorn - April 28, 2015 at 9:05 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by vorlon13 - April 28, 2015 at 9:09 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by pocaracas - April 28, 2015 at 9:13 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by polar bear - April 28, 2015 at 9:30 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Anomalocaris - April 28, 2015 at 9:51 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by vorlon13 - April 28, 2015 at 9:55 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Alex K - April 28, 2015 at 9:58 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by pocaracas - April 28, 2015 at 9:58 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Alex K - April 28, 2015 at 10:04 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by pocaracas - April 28, 2015 at 10:10 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Alex K - April 28, 2015 at 10:15 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by pocaracas - April 28, 2015 at 10:22 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Pyrrho - April 28, 2015 at 10:57 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by pocaracas - April 28, 2015 at 10:58 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Pyrrho - April 28, 2015 at 12:08 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by pocaracas - April 28, 2015 at 12:13 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Alex K - April 28, 2015 at 12:15 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by pocaracas - April 28, 2015 at 12:24 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Pyrrho - April 28, 2015 at 1:04 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Pyrrho - April 28, 2015 at 11:04 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Rhondazvous - April 28, 2015 at 12:20 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Pyrrho - April 28, 2015 at 12:29 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Rhondazvous - April 28, 2015 at 1:45 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Darkstar - April 28, 2015 at 12:11 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by TheRealJoeFish - April 28, 2015 at 10:55 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Lek - April 28, 2015 at 11:45 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Thumpalumpacus - April 30, 2015 at 5:50 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Minimalist - April 28, 2015 at 11:54 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Anomalocaris - April 28, 2015 at 11:59 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Alex K - April 28, 2015 at 12:05 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by robvalue - April 28, 2015 at 12:06 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Exian - April 28, 2015 at 12:07 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by robvalue - April 28, 2015 at 12:08 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Pyrrho - April 30, 2015 at 1:56 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by robvalue - April 28, 2015 at 12:18 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Alex K - April 28, 2015 at 12:20 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by robvalue - April 28, 2015 at 12:23 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Minimalist - April 28, 2015 at 12:54 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Godschild - April 30, 2015 at 3:03 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Pyrrho - April 30, 2015 at 3:59 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Godschild - April 30, 2015 at 8:57 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by AFTT47 - April 30, 2015 at 4:17 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Godschild - April 30, 2015 at 9:27 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Ravenshire - April 30, 2015 at 11:52 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Mudhammam - May 1, 2015 at 1:26 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Cato - May 1, 2015 at 9:16 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Ravenshire - April 30, 2015 at 4:33 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Darkstar - April 30, 2015 at 4:52 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Iroscato - April 30, 2015 at 6:09 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Alex K - April 30, 2015 at 6:20 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Minimalist - April 30, 2015 at 6:53 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Iroscato - April 30, 2015 at 6:57 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Mudhammam - April 30, 2015 at 6:58 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Anomalocaris - April 30, 2015 at 7:34 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Thumpalumpacus - April 30, 2015 at 10:32 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Chas - May 1, 2015 at 9:21 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Razzle - April 30, 2015 at 4:52 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by SteelCurtain - April 30, 2015 at 5:00 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Pyrrho - April 30, 2015 at 6:43 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Iroscato - April 30, 2015 at 6:26 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Iroscato - April 30, 2015 at 6:51 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Pyrrho - April 30, 2015 at 6:59 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Chas - May 1, 2015 at 5:57 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Iroscato - April 30, 2015 at 7:02 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Minimalist - April 30, 2015 at 7:02 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Iroscato - April 30, 2015 at 7:05 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Minimalist - April 30, 2015 at 9:16 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Minimalist - April 30, 2015 at 9:57 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Mudhammam - May 2, 2015 at 4:55 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by Iroscato - May 1, 2015 at 8:47 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by KevinM1 - May 1, 2015 at 9:11 pm
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by robvalue - May 2, 2015 at 2:40 am
RE: The Human Eye: A Double Standard? - by robvalue - May 2, 2015 at 7:06 am

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Human Reason and Christian Denominations Bahana 92 30614 April 20, 2018 at 9:25 am
Last Post: vorlon13
  New Revised Standard Version Bible has Dead Sea Scroll input ?!?! vorlon13 17 6719 February 20, 2017 at 5:16 pm
Last Post: vorlon13
  Reduced to a Piece of Clay: False Humility and Human Dignity Rhondazvous 63 22066 June 20, 2016 at 12:57 pm
Last Post: Esquilax
  The Christian God Does Violate Human Free Will Rhondazvous 85 23613 March 5, 2016 at 6:25 pm
Last Post: Rhondazvous
  Did Bishops (In London) Ever Debate Whether Or Not Women Were Human? ReptilianPeon 8 5037 March 29, 2015 at 12:46 pm
Last Post: Brometheus
  Human monster suggests Ebola could be a solution to the atheism "problem." Esquilax 35 12287 August 25, 2014 at 2:58 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Shouldn't there be more Christians with eye patches? BrokenQuill92 33 12491 February 2, 2014 at 9:57 am
Last Post: Tonus
  God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them. Greatest I am 22 16932 June 11, 2012 at 10:23 am
Last Post: Greatest I am
  Tired of xtians prattling on about their "eye-witness" testimony? Minimalist 22 14125 April 27, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Did Jesus Christ exist as a historical human or was he a theological construct? darkwolf176 68 44207 April 9, 2012 at 5:49 am
Last Post: Forsaken



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)