The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[Belacqua]

Would the oceans be more useful to man if he had gills?

We would be able to live in them without as much tech, I guess.

I rather find it amusing that John was suggesting the empty inaccessible spaces were ours to explore and exploit, 

It's common for people these days to fantasize about space exploration. I'm not really for it, myself.

and you, supposedly agreeing with him, argued that the emptiness of the oceans was to prevent us exploring and exploiting them.

No, I never said that. Please don't make up shit that I didn't say. 

It is clear that, lacking gills, we can't comfortably live in the oceans as we do in the open air. But I never said we were "prevented from exploring or exploiting them." We obviously have done that. In fact we've exploited them too much. If the oceans die we die too. 

Man has found his gills, despite not being furnished with them.

Yes, it appears that Bierce was wrong about this. Counter to what he says, the presence of so much ocean is not a reason to think that the earth wasn't designed with people in mind, or that it is a poor design for people. 

This is a good example of the narrow-mindedness of people who pass judgment and say that "if God had really designed things, he would have done it the way I would have." Bierce couldn't conceive of the benefits of having the oceans the way they are.

Edited to add:

You're continuing to add to your post after I'd already replied. Here is part of what you added:

Christian theology, the story of God's chosen, is about how we are not just a side-show in God's plan, but center stage!

You may be confusing me with someone else, because I have never argued for a human-centered view of the world. In fact I argued against "Apollo"'s view because I consider it too human-centered.

[Angrboda]

Would the oceans be more useful to man if he had gills?

We would be able to live in them without as much tech, I guess.

I rather find it amusing that John was suggesting the empty inaccessible spaces were ours to explore and exploit, 

It's common for people these days to fantasize about space exploration. I'm not really for it, myself.

and you, supposedly agreeing with him, argued that the emptiness of the oceans was to prevent us exploring and exploiting them.

No, I never said that. Please don't make up shit that I didn't say. 

It is clear that, lacking gills, we can't comfortably live in the oceans as we do in the open air. But I never said we were "prevented from exploring or exploiting them." We obviously have done that. In fact we've exploited them too much. If the oceans die we die too. 

Man has found his gills, despite not being furnished with them.

Yes, it appears that Bierce was wrong about this. Counter to what he says, the presence of so much ocean is not a reason to think that the earth wasn't designed with people in mind, or that it is a poor design for people. 

This is a good example of the narrow-mindedness of people who pass judgment and say that "if God had really designed things, he would have done it the way I would have." Bierce couldn't conceive of the benefits of having the oceans the way they are.

Edited to add:

You're continuing to add to your post after I'd already replied. Here is part of what you added:

Christian theology, the story of God's chosen, is about how we are not just a side-show in God's plan, but center stage!

You may be confusing me with someone else, because I have never argued for a human-centered view of the world. In fact I argued against "Apollo"'s view because I consider it too human-centered.

Funny how in all those words you managed to skip over the part about you not having made a valid argument about Apollo's point, aside from that you can't know what you don't know, but if that's the case, and not knowing what one doesn't know is narrow-minded, then what are we to say of the people who, in their narrow-mindedness argue that the evidence does indeed point to design by God? If it's stupid to judge design unlikely because one doesn't know what one doesn't know, it's equally stupid for both sides. But you seem to think the one is stupid and the other is not. I don't think either Bierce or Apollo was arguing that the oceans and the universe couldn't have unknown uses, only that the appearance is that they do not. Bierce, writing at the turn of the 19th century was justified in his conclusions, and Apollo speaking today appears justified in his conclusions. Maybe that's being narrow-minded, but if so, then you too are narrow-minded because you make statements all the time which might ultimately prove wrong but which seemed reasonable to you at the time.

[Belacqua]

Funny how in all those words you managed to skip over the part about you not having made a valid argument about Apollo's point, aside from that you can't know what you don't know

That's not the argument I made. Please stop making shit up.

I said that judging the entire universe according to how comfortable it is for humans is a bad way to judge. It is too human-centered. That was my argument. If you have an argument against what I said I promise to read it. 

, but if that's the case, and not knowing what one doesn't know is narrow-minded, then what are we to say of the people who, in their narrow-mindedness argue that the evidence does indeed point to design by God?

If people make that argument we should listen to them, with all proper skepticism. I haven't seen a good argument yet that there is design in the universe pointing to God. Nor have I ever said that there is one.

  If it's stupid to judge design unlikely because one doesn't know what one doesn't know, it's equally stupid for both sides.  But you seem to think the one is stupid and the other is not.

I have argued that Apollo's argument was overly human-centric. I have also continually said that there are almost certainly things in the universe that we don't understand. Do you disagree with those two statements? 

I've been dealing with the statements made on this thread. No doubt there are lots of other statements that I could be dealing with. 

  I don't think either Bierce or Apollo was arguing that the oceans and the universe couldn't have unknown uses, only that the appearance is that they do not.

Yes, I don't think they asserted that.

  Bierce, writing at the turn of the 19th century was justified in his conclusions

Interesting. So you think it used to be reasonable to assert that if a God designed the world he would make it with less ocean? Or he would give people gills? Why was this more believable in Bierce's time? 

, and Apollo speaking today appears justified in his conclusions.

No, his argument is still overly human-centered. 

  Maybe that's being narrow-minded, but if so, then you too are narrow-minded because you make statements all the time which might ultimately prove wrong but which seemed reasonable to you at the time.

It's certainly true that any of the statements I make today may turn out to be wrong. If you have any arguments against them I will respond.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I agree about Apollo's argument being human-centered, but I kind of think that was the point. Design proponents will frequently try to make their case that the universe was designed with humans in mind.

The flaw in arguing that the universe is human centered doesn't lie with Apollo, but with people try to prove design.

Boru

[Belacqua]

I agree about Apollo's argument being human-centered, but I kind of think that was the point. Design proponents will frequently try to make their case that the universe was designed with humans in mind.

The flaw in arguing that the universe is human centered doesn't lie with Apollo, but with people try to prove design.

Boru

That's not what he said at the time. But if that's what he intended he can let us know.

[Silver]

Page 42. Will the answer appear on this page?

[Fake Messiah]

Page 42. Will the answer appear on this page?

This is going to be the next level of arguments from Christians:

[Angrboda]

and you, supposedly agreeing with him, argued that the emptiness of the oceans was to prevent us exploring and exploiting them.

No, I never said that. Please don't make up shit that I didn't say. 

It is clear that, lacking gills, we can't comfortably live in the oceans as we do in the open air. But I never said we were "prevented from exploring or exploiting them." We obviously have done that. In fact we've exploited them too much. If the oceans die we die too. 

[emphasis mine]

There used to be a quote going around among the anti-religion people, about how the earth couldn't be designed because so much of it is ocean. The argument, I guess, is that because people can't live on water then the ocean is wasted space.....I think that idea is pretty much over now. We know that if the oceans die then people will, too.

[emphasis mine]

Funny how in all those words you managed to skip over the part about you not having made a valid argument about Apollo's point, aside from that you can't know what you don't know

That's not the argument I made. Please stop making shit up.

That’s what a typical place looks like in universe. Big cold with nothing happening.

If that’s some design then the designer flunked big time.

[....] The universe is very big and lasts a long time. Humans, on the other hand, occupy only a tiny fraction of the universe in time and space. We know extremely little about the universe. We evolved for survival, not understanding. There is probably all kinds of stuff going on that people don't know about, and probably can't know about. Who's to say that the places not welcoming to us are "failures" in every sense? We don't have enough information to judge.

[emphasis mine]


The Christian God is human-centric, Bel.  If you're arguing about some other god, let us know, because if the design isn't human-centric then it wasn't made by that god.

[John 6IX Breezy]

The Christian God is human-centric, Bel.  If you're arguing about some other god, let us know, because if the design isn't human-centric then it wasn't made by that god.

What do you mean he's human-centric?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The Christian God is human-centric, Bel.  If you're arguing about some other god, let us know, because if the design isn't human-centric then it wasn't made by that god.

What do you mean he's human-centric?

Imma go out on a limb and say that it means that God’s actions, motivations and desires are centered around human beings.

Boru