If everything is designed...

[Belk]

I am not talking about mans attempt to understand the laws contained within the universe. I am talking about the actual laws that we can only begin to understand. Why does everything follow the Golden ratio?

Ah, my misunderstanding. Not entirely sure what your point is then, everything follows the laws because they are the laws. It would be impossible to not follow them.

 

[Delphiki]

Everything is in Thor's plan; Thor controls your life even if you don't realize it. Thor is always with you, on earth and in heaven, that is. But what is Thor's creation is alive, such as us, and what is man's creation are dead objects like money and cell phones.

Which is why Thor doesn't like when you take life for something that doesn't even matter..

Thor bless.


Cwhatididthere?

"Blahblah, doesn't count because you don't really believe in Thor, etc"

Just trying to beat them to the punch.

 

[Jazer]

It would be impossible to not follow them.

You could argue that it is impossible not to follow evolution but that does not stop us from trying to figure out how evolution works.

 

[Jazer]

"Blahblah, doesn't count because you don't really believe in Thor, etc"

I believe in Thor.
I did enough construction work to know that I would not mess with a guy that had a big hammer in his hand.

 

[Naraoia]

So, God can't exist because something in nature may not look designed...great.

Can you point out where the OP said that?

Where did all matter come from? Answer that first then we can move on to what designs came out of that matter and how it ended up in the current design it's in.

Where does oil paint come from? Answer that first and then we can move on to discussing how it ended up in patterns like this.

I am not talking about mans attempt to understand the laws contained within the universe. I am talking about the actual laws that we can only begin to understand. Why does everything follow the Golden ratio?

"Everything" is a bit of an overstatement, dontcha think?

 

[Belk]

You could argue that it is impossible not to follow evolution but that does not stop us from trying to figure out how evolution works.

I would agree with that statement.

 

[Belk]

You did not spell out the whole sentence: Everything is designed "by God".

So your design is NOT designed by God.

Very easy.

Again, whenever I see your post, I couldn't help to have a feeling: here comes another dumb question.
Sorry.

And that changes the nature of the question not one whit. If everything is designed by God there is nothing we can use as a gauge between designed and not designed.

 

[Flatland]

You skip the all important question with this silly little strawman. Shame shame...

Thanks for revealing that you have absolutely no idea what a strawman is.

 

[Delphiki]

You did not spell out the whole sentence: Everything is designed "by God".

So your design is NOT designed by God.

Very easy.

Again, whenever I see your post, I couldn't help to have a feeling: here comes another dumb question.
Sorry.

Thank you for your contribution to the conversation without resorting to insults... Oh wait. There was one.

Ever consider the reason you don't understand the question might be because it's not the question that's dumb?

Thank you Belk, for illustrating what was wrong with juvenissun's post.

And that changes the nature of the question not one whit. If everything is designed by God there is nothing we can use as a gauge between designed and not designed.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So, God can't exist because something in nature may not look designed...great.

Err, where did he say that?

Where did all matter come from?

A singularity, approximately 13.5 billion years ago. Where the singularity came from is anyone's guess - I don't have the answer, and neither do you.

Answer that first then we can move on to what designs came out of that matter and how it ended up in the current design it's in.

Your point is moot. The nature of the origin of matter is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the universe displays hallmarks of design. Yes, you can certainly make a cosmological argument, but that is different to the teleological argument - the veracity of one is unrelated to the veracity of the other. Even if we somehow proved that Brahman did indeed create the original singularity as an act of divine will, that doesn't answer the question, "Is everything designed?". Maybe Brahman left everything to operate under its own devices, maybe he didn't.

In other words, the cosmological argument is unrelated the teleological argument, and you're dodging the question at hand.

You skip the all important question with this silly little strawman. Shame shame...

What strawman? The extent of the OP's characterisation of the ID movement was, "...creationists and ID supporters purport that everything is designed...", no more, no less. Unless you're asserting that this is an incorrect statement regarding Intelligent Design, I don't think you really know what the word 'strawman' means (ironically, your attempt to divert focus away from teleology and onto cosmogony could well be a strawman itself).

 

[juvenissun]

And that changes the nature of the question not one whit. If everything is designed by God there is nothing we can use as a gauge between designed and not designed.

As I said, just take a look on one of your best "design". That is NOT designed by God.

After that, take a look of any thing which is called "natural". That IS designed by God.

A dumber can tell the differences.

 

[Belk]

As I said, just take a look on one of your best "design". That is NOT designed by God.

After that, take a look of any thing which is called "natural". That IS designed by God.

A dumber can tell the differences.

So your answer is that we can tell design by God if it looks nothing like anything we design?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

As I said, just take a look on one of your best "design". That is NOT designed by God.

After that, take a look of any thing which is called "natural". That IS designed by God.

A dumber can tell the differences.

So, you're saying that if something looks designed, it's not designed by God? And if it doesn't look designed, it's designed by God?

Evolution has been called an explanation of the appearance of design. The eye certainly looks designed (superficially, that is; evolution explains its origins naturally, without a designer needed), so, according to your logic, the eye wasn't design.

Hey, juvenissun, congratulations on finally believing in evolution!

 

[Philothei]

So, you're saying that if something looks designed, it's not designed by God? And if it doesn't look designed, it's designed by God?

Evolution has been called an explanation of the appearance of design. The eye certainly looks designed (superficially, that is; evolution explains its origins naturally, without a designer needed), so, according to your logic, the eye wasn't design.

Hey, juvenissun, congratulations on finally believing in evolution!

But it does not matter if evolution explains it or not It is still Intelligent design since Evolution cannot explain the origin of life anyhow

 

[Philothei]

So your answer is that we can tell design by God if it looks nothing like anything we design?

That is not what he meant

He says that what WE as humans make is NOT designed by God

 

[Mike Elphick]

As I said, just take a look on one of your best "design". That is NOT designed by God.

After that, take a look of any thing which is called "natural". That IS designed by God.

A dumber can tell the differences.

You make a huge assumption that "natural" things are designed by God.

The point here is that biological evolution is a design process in its own right, but one that differs fundamentally from man-made designs. That's because man-made objects all have a function, even if this is to amuse or decorate (arts and crafts) or change man's mental state (painting, music, drugs). A can-opener satisfies these criteria. As pointed out by Darwin, no organism can develop traits that are solely of benefit to another organism, yet the can-opener benefits us without benefiting itself.

Creationists tell us that God created the Earth and designed it to be a good place for man to live. Then he gave man dominion over it all. Man was to be a good steward of the Earth and its resources. So the creation of man is his purpose, his redemption his purpose and his destiny his purpose. God wants some obedient righteous people so that they can live with him forever... But isn't the Earth then just temporary accommodation?

Is that it? I personally cannot accept this gross expression of anthropocentrism, so I'm left thinking, from the point of view of the 'intelligent designer', what the objective of all his hard work is? What is the point of the objects (billions of living organisms) that he has designed? What are their functions. For example, what is the function of a rabbit — is it to feed the foxes or keep the grass short? What is the purpose of the Universe? What function does the Earth play in the Universe? Is it really only to show man the power and majesty of God?

 

[juvenissun]

You make a huge assumption that "natural" things are designed by God.

The point here is that biological evolution is a design process in its own right, but one that differs fundamentally from man-made designs. That's because man-made objects all have a function, even if this is to amuse or decorate (arts and crafts) or change man's mental state (painting, music, drugs). A can-opener satisfies these criteria. As pointed out by Darwin, no organism can develop traits that are solely of benefit to another organism, yet the can-opener benefits us without benefiting itself.

Creationists tell us that God created the Earth and designed it to be a good place for man to live. Then he gave man dominion over it all. Man was to be a good steward of the Earth and its resources. So the creation of man is his purpose, his redemption his purpose and his destiny his purpose. God wants some obedient righteous people so that they can live with him forever... But isn't the Earth then just temporary accommodation?

Is that it? I personally cannot accept this gross expression of anthropocentrism, so I'm left thinking, from the point of view of the 'intelligent designer', what the objective of all his hard work is? What is the point of the objects (billions of living organisms) that he has designed? What are their functions. For example, what is the function of a rabbit — is it to feed the foxes or keep the grass short? What is the purpose of the Universe? What function does the Earth play in the Universe? Is it really only to show man the power and majesty of God?

I am not making any assumption. It is a contrast of two systems.

For two designed systems, just look at their complexity. The one designed by God is far far far far superior than the one designed by man. The simplest thing designed by God (e.g. rock, soil, leaf, water etc.) is far far better than the best and the most complicated thing designed by man.

That is how you tell. Very easy.

 

[Mike Elphick]

I am not making any assumption. It is a contrast of two systems.

For two designed systems, just look at their complexity. The one designed by God is far far far far superior than the one designed by man. The simplest thing designed by God (e.g. rock, soil, leaf, water etc.) is far far better than the best and the most complicated thing designed by man.

That is how you tell. Very easy.

You've only tried to deal with your assumption, not with the points I raised.

What is the purpose of these simplest things "designed by God"? I can't see any, except from the anthropocentric world view, which I reject. Please try and answer my questions.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But it does not matter if evolution explains it or not It is still Intelligent design since Evolution cannot explain the origin of life anyhow

Even if an intelligent being created the original common ancestor, that wouldn't change the veracity of the theory of common descent (i.e., we'd still be descended from that common ancestor, biological diversity would still be a result of inheritable mutation, environmental attrition, etc). So, on the contrary, the origin of life is itself irrelevant to evolution.

Evolution can be seen as starting from a premise: "All life is descended from a common ancestor". From that premise, and a sprinkling of biological facts (the fact that life replicates, the fact that offspring inherit their parents' (mutated) traits, etc), we can explain the diversity of life on Earth today. The origin of that common ancestor is irrelevant: it could be abiogenesis, it could be a direct act by Brahman, it could be aliens, but whatever it is, evolution is utterly unchanged.

And, so, my statements stand

 

[AV1611VET]

It is still Intelligent design since Evolution cannot explain the origin of life anyhow

Why the 'sorry' emoticon?