The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[John 6IX Breezy]

A perfect being cannot create imperfect things.

A perfect being can make whatever it wants. Expert photographers, for example, are able to take novice photographs. Whereas novice photographers are unable to take expert photographs. (I use this example because a recent renowned Hollywood photographer did just that: Intentionally taking glamourless photographs of James Corden and others in ways that anyone using a camara for the first time could have done.) Creativity requires the breaking of rules.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sounds like an imperfect being taking imperfect pictures that are relatively better than other imperfect pictures taken by other imperfect beings. What pictures of james corden would have to do with any standard of perfection that binds the author of creation is beyond my paygrade.

We have two candidates for perfection before us. One that can and does create perfect things, and one that either can't and doesn't or can and doesn't. Which is more perfect?

[Angrboda]

It only follows if creating imperfect beings is not the right thing to do.  It also ignores that there may be multiple interests at stake which conflict.  Flawed but free beings may be preferable to perfect but not free ones.

But its not about what is preferrable but about what's perfect.  A perfect being cannot create imperfect things.

A good illustration of that idea is Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker.

I'm not familiar, could you hum a few bars?

[John 6IX Breezy]

But you are arguing for intelligent design and no less by a perfect being, so if a design is not intelligent and is stupid in many ways, then it's not by the intelligent designer but by blind nature.

Intelligence here (or pretty much anywhere) doesn't mean smart. When we search for intelligent life out in the cosmos we are not searching for beings with an IQ of 140, we are searching for beings with specific cognitive abilities (learning, attention, perception, etc). Artificial intelligence also defines intelligence along these lines. By confusing intelligence with things like smart you get the kinds of objections you see on the thread: "If it looks stupid then it's not designed."

A bad design, an imperfect design, an evil design are all designs by admission. The existence of which is still a product of intelligence. The argument the forum should be making, is not that these are stupid, evil, or imperfect designs, but that they are not designs in the first place. (There are people who believe humans are the product of accelerated evolution engineered by alien life. This falls under intelligent design—it's not exclusive to gods.)

[The Grand Nudger]

If you intend to argue that the designer is an incompetent intelligence, by all means, have at it.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I'll take it one step further and gladly pretend he is not just incompetent but evil. Since the forum seems to think this has any logical significance on the question of existence or intelligent design, I'll accept both terms.

[The Grand Nudger]

The forums probably think that because the character and attributes of a designer very much would be significant to the question of it's designs, and whether or not a given thing were one of them.

As before, if you intend to argue for an incompetent and evil intelligence, have at it. You appear to be under the impression that others should stop you from punching yourself directly in the junk.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

‘The Junk Punchers’ would be a great name for a band.

Boru

[John 6IX Breezy]

...the character and attributes of a designer very much would be significant to the question of it's designs, and whether or not a given thing were one of them.

No; that is incorrect for the same reason that strawmen and ad hominems are fallacies—they are logically disconnected.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hitler-in-the-Sky it is, I guess?