Excellent!
No idea. Life because you can do that? (assuming you are the designer?)
Eyes not wired backwards, an appendix not so vulnerable to infection, a body properly designed for walking upright instead of a clumsy modification of a quadruped design, bones made of something less brittle, a throat arrangement not made for choking (animals don’t have our problems there), better designed software for the brain (we have all sorts of built in reasoning and perception defects), a third or fourth set of teeth so they last as long as the rest of us; that’s just off the top of my head.
And that’s just design defects that need fixing in our own species; other species have their own defects, and there are huge missed opportunities in nature.
I’m late to the party.
But no.
What would be really funny is if an intelligent designer had made infinite universes, and ours wasn’t even in the top million of importance, precisely because we were still too reliant on said creator.
Actually, if there IS a creator, and I don’t believe there is, then yeah, that creator is the one who designed the human body to break down in particular ways. It would be one thing if I ate a steady diet of junk food, but I mostly follow the recommendations given to me by my endocrinologist. Even before I became diabetic, I mostly followed a pretty healthy diet. Either this creator is not omniscient or is not loving. Which is it?
“Doesn’t any of this say “intelligent designer”?”
Yes on superficial glance, it can be easy to go ‘someone must have made this’. It is after all a very common way of explaining the world used by earlier societies that didnt have access to the information we have now.
But one thing science has shown is that many many many things are not ‘common sense’ and that our initial explanation or impression about something doesnt stand up well when we look at it in more detail.
This is one of those issues.
Otara
You forgot the plethora of hereditary diseases, venereal diseases, pathogens that can live in our gut AND kill us quickly at random, poor lung capacity (one of the worst of the mammals), male pattern baldness, and then there’s the genitals all out there and flopping around.
Also “God made it” (or if you like"A wizard did it") is just not that satisfying an explanation when you think about it.
If you stop there then it doesn’t really explain anything, and if you keep going there’s just as many questions (where does God come from, how was God able to do this, etc.)
For me, it complicates things unnecessarily wiithout adding any more explanatory power.
No, and everything is not an “accident” either. Everything is cause and effect, including the Big Bang . . . but we may never know what caused it.
Let’s say you’re right and there’s some sort of non-intervenist creator, who sets the basic rules of the universe in motion but in such a subtle way that it appears to have a natural explanation for the way it formed. He’s so subtle that he never interacts with humanity or gives us clues to figuring out his intent or the meaning of his existance.
What use is this knowledge to us? How would we live our lives differently? How would our understanding of the natural world change? What useful function does this viewpoint serve?
[QUOTE=NOLA Cajun;12538560
Doesn’t any of this say “intelligent designer”?[/QUOTE]
No.
Gee, we humans don’t presently understand everything about the universe. I guess that means there MUST have been a creator.
Given the immensity and age of the universe, why do you think it developed in a manner such that it could be comprehended by one particular species on this planet in this galaxy at this point in time?
Fucking magnets - how do they work?
Does omnipotence necessarily imply intelligence? Isn’t it possible that we were created by an omnipotent and benevolent being who just so happens to be an incompetent moron?
I won’t rehash what others have said, but let me address this:
“Hostile environment” is an anthropomorphic viewpoint. To those organism, we live in a hostile environment.
This is the only way I can buy into the concept of “God”. God = the universe. It’s what we don’t (or can’t) know. But it’s not a being. Still, that ends up just being semantics. Call it “The Universe”, or call it “God”, and it’s still just what it is.
The trouble with using a term like “God” to mean “The Universe” or “The Uncaused First Cause”, is that it sneaks a lot of assumptions into the argument. Is the Universe or the UFC intelligent? Conscious? Purposeful? Does it care about humans? Is it even aware of humans or other intelligent species?
Even if we find indisputable evidence for some sort of cosmic consciousness, that force whatever it is would be so different than a bearded guy who lives in the sky and chisels stone tablets that using the word “God” to describe both ideas seems ridiculous.
Pancreas and cerebral ventricles need popoff vents to the outside world. Entire gallbladder/gallstone/pancreatitis cascade is the result of poor design. Plus, coronary arteries are badly designed- considering the heart is chock full of blood, why should it ever be ischemic?
If you have ‘faith’ in the existence of God, why do you need logical or physical evidence of God’s existence?
No
No.