Originally posted by DoctorScribbles I had a feeling it wasn't.
why ask a question that you know the answer to? and what does one food prove? why arent ALL foods conveniently made for humans? it was a coincidence but that does not mean God does not exist. a banna; atheist's nightmare? these type of theists embarrass theists like me
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles I know what you mean. After watching the clip, I started wondering why watermelons are such a bitch to eat. Do you suppose they are of the Devil?
Maybe God wanted you to get Watermelon in your ears.
I believe that any argument for "Intelligent Design" based on the premise that:
1. The universe shows signs of intelligent design.
2. The design is specifically for the benefit of humans.
falls over immediately as it is immediately apparent to the majority of humans of even average intelligence that even we with our meager intelligence can see some obvious design flaws as well as suggest some design improvements.
Originally posted by twhitehead I believe that any argument for "Intelligent Design" based on the premise that:
1. The universe shows signs of intelligent design.
2. The design is specifically for the benefit of humans.
falls over immediately as it is immediately apparent to the majority of humans of even average intelligence that even we with our meager intelligence can see some obvious design flaws as well as suggest some design improvements.
I don't think all ID-ers will hold (2) necessary.
Also, even if we can genuinely suggest "design improvements" (a claim that is often more bark than bite), that doesn't refute Intelligent Design per se -- at best it shows that we are better designers.
Originally posted by lucifershammer I don't think all ID-ers will hold (2) necessary.
Also, even if we can genuinely suggest "design improvements" (a claim that is often more bark than bite), that doesn't refute Intelligent Design per se -- at best it shows that we are better designers.
Of course even those who do accept 2. try to use the argument that we can't possibly know what is "best" for us. Of course such a stance invalidates any claim that 2. is evident.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Also, even if we can genuinely suggest "design improvements" (a claim that is often more bark than bite), that doesn't refute Intelligent Design per se -- at best it shows that we are better designers.
How could an IDer hold the belief that humans are better designers than God?
Originally posted by XanthosNZ How could an IDer hold the belief that humans are better designers than God?
In itself, ID theory does not posit an all-knowing, all-powerful, morally perfect personal being (i.e. God) as the Designer. Belief in those qualities would have to come from elsewhere.
You're right in that IDers who believe the Designer is God would not believe that humans are "better" designers. I suppose the counter-argument to twh's argument that we can come up with design improvements would be that, in reality, we simply can't. Either the "new designs" would be impossible in reality, or would cause more harm than good.
Originally posted by lucifershammer In itself, ID theory does not posit an all-knowing, all-powerful, morally perfect personal being (i.e. God) as the Designer. Belief in those qualities would have to come from elsewhere.
You're right in that IDers who believe the Designer is God would not believe that humans are "better" designers. I suppose the counter-argument to twh's argument th ...[text shortened]... her the "new designs" would be impossible in reality, or would cause more harm than good.
Is this a sound argument for Creationism?
13 Mar '07 04:55
YouTube
Back to Top