The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[Pat Mustard]

<snipping the bullshit>

Hey, idiot! If your god designed us we would be perfect, simply because as the perfect, ultimate, being that's how he'd design us.

The fact that we are far from perfect is one nail in the coffin of your creationism. Of course the whole of the coffin is the fact that evolution has tons of evidence for it whereas creationism only has evidence to disprove its premises.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Hey, idiot! If your god designed us we would be perfect, simply because as the perfect, ultimate, being that's how he'd design us.

The first three chapters of the Bible describe a world originally created good, that subsequently fell into death and imperfection. This is a basic Christian narrative (perhaps it's different in Islam). How does your claim fit into this narrative? You seem to be making objections that are detached from even an elementary reading of Scripture.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The first three chapters of the Bible describe a world originally created good, that subsequently fell into death and imperfection. This is a basic Christian narrative (perhaps it's different in Islam). How does your claim fit into this narrative? You seem to be making objections that are detached from even an elementary reading of Scripture.

Right the creation of a perfect being could be made imperfect. He's not ignoring it as it's simply bullshit.

[R00tKiT]

Hey, idiot! If your god designed us we would be perfect, simply because as the perfect, ultimate, being that's how he'd design us.

No, fool. It doesn't follow logically that a perfect god must create perfect creatures.

Of course the whole of the coffin is the fact that evolution has tons of evidence for it whereas creationism only has evidence to disprove its premises.

Evolution is irrelevant to the existence of god, idiot.

[Ryantology]

Yes, & no. Design has perfectly naturalistic explanations. All living organisms are products of design; natural selection. Every biological organism alive today is the product of millions of years of 'design.'

I think Dawkins used the analogy of puddles being perfectly designed for the holes they fill. Each puddle perfectly matches the shape of the hole. Dawkins is usually not very good at philosophy, but I think that's an excellent analogy.

Bu I would go further and say that since the very laws of nature, of matter & biology, seem almost intended for this end, we can say the universe has meaning & purpose beyond beyond what pure materialism is willing to admit.

Design requires a designer, though. A consciousness actively and deliberately directing the course of events. A puddle perfectly fits a hole it fills because it follows physical rules which apply to everything, not because the water was designed and portioned specifically to fit the hole, or because the hole was sized and shaped specifically to fit a certain amount of water.

[Angrboda]

I'm dishonest?  I said two hydrogen atoms constituting complexity, treating hydrogen atoms as atomic as they were at one time and still are today to many.  Upon your pointing out the technical flaw, I rephrased it as two elementary particles, no matter how you care to define them, and that is what you have been replying to for several posts.  For you to pretend that I hadn't clarified my point and was still defending hydrogen as an elementary particle just makes you a dishonest twat.  You have been focusing on the question of elementary particlehood as if that were the point and as if you didn't know it wasn't the point because of my explicitly pointing it out.  Now, for you to accuse me of dishonesty after you've repeatedly tried to pretend I hadn't is the utmost in bullshit and lies.

Answer the point or concede the point.  This "hydrogen being an elementary particle is essential to your point" is a bunch of crap.  I've already said otherwise.

Okay. Fair enough. It's progress of a kind that you acknowledged hydrogen is not simple. Now you say : two isolated elementary particles are not an indication of complexity. Well, this is not the observable state of affairs, no one ever saw isolated elementary particles floating in some vacuum somewhere in the universe. We have 118 chemical elements, each with their own properties and their subatomic particles. All matter we know exists is a combination of these, which in turn contain simpler components -not the simplest-. Now, do you think all that is not indicative of -at least- a highly skillful designer, whereas, at the same time, you acknowledge that relatively simple mental operations leading to a watch do point to an intelligent agent....?

There need not be an example of such a universe, as that is not the point of the example. It's called a reductio ad absurdum proof, whereby, starting with the given premises and definitions, one derives a result that is simultaneously absurd and fully consistent with those assumptions. If that can be done then something is not kosher with the given premises, auxiliary assumptions, and definitions. That your definition of complex results in labeling such a toy universe both complex and begging for the explanation of design shows that something is rotten in Denmark.

[The Architect Of Fate]

No, fool. It doesn't follow logically that a perfect god must create perfect creatures.

There no reason any theist can give why God wouldn't have created a perfect creation 

Evolution is irrelevant to the existence of god, idiot.

Nope as it consistently renders  design arguments redudant

[Ryantology]

Nope as it consistently renders design arguments redudant

I'd say evolution renders omnipotent designers with grand, unknowable plans redundant, but if you have a creator god being which is unfathomably powerful in comparison to us, yet also having flaws and limitations on their power/knowledge/scope and is attempting to experiment and learn what they do not know, this variety of god can rationally co-exist with evolution as we know it.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Nope as it consistently renders  design arguments redudant

I'd say evolution renders omnipotent designers with grand, unknowable plans redundant, but if you have a creator god being which is unfathomably powerful in comparison to us, yet also having flaws and limitations on their power/knowledge/scope and is attempting to experiment and learn what they do not know, this variety of god can rationally co-exist with evolution as we know it.

Then that form of god becomes simply indistinguishable from evolution and remains redundant.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Redundancy exists in this universe. Parsimony only makes things simpler―it doesn't make them correct. God can be as redundant as possible (I disagree that he is) and that is not an argument against his existence.