The Human Eye: A Double Standard?

[Rhondazvous]

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.

Precisely!

Take any theist argument to its logical conclusion and you get something as ridiculous as what you've described above.  That's why they step short and settle for fiat authority.

If this world is so intelligently designed, why do the foods that are good for me also contain things that are bad for me? Why did the doctor tell me the operation that would eliminate the problems in my eye also cause other problems that would make me go blind faster?. As one poster said over in the "Did Yahweh Set Adam Up" thread, the story of the Fall of man just makes god look like a "draconian psychopath," so let's not even go there.