Do You Think God Made A Mistake In the Design of Human Beings if Young Girls Can Get Pregnant? (Buddhist, myth)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
we were designed. we were as designed as you designed a red blood cell in you. thats closer to the truth than claiming 'no design at all". it fact, its a more valid claim.
we can argue that there is no omni-god thing-a-ma-gig, that's true enough. But once we start nailing down what is going on around us, flat denial of everything, just because of how arg feels about religion becomes nonsensical.
that's the claim. thats what mystic said.
What Mystic said is that you cannot make unwarranted claims about design from a position of ignorance (lack of knowledge) which atheists readily admit (We don't know) and then use them to refute theist claims.
Alas evolution does not work that way It does not look at something that is about to start happening and cause selection on that basis. Evolution has zero foresight.
This is really true, but a species that continues to have more possibilities (in this case, many years of fertility; in other cases, many many young birthed or eggs laid at a time) does have a better chance of surviving the next great global issue, whatever that may be (this has been true since the beginning, as far as we can tell, and it's logical).
So it's not that evolution "planned" in advance for the possibility of extinction threat, it's the other way around. FWIW cockroaches and reptiles seem to have benefited similarly. So far. We haven't been HSs for very long, after all.
we were designed. we were as designed as you designed a red blood cell in you. thats closer to the truth than claiming 'no design at all". it fact, its a more valid claim.
Perhaps we are using the word "designed" differently. I am using it in the sense of a trait being created intentionally - by a conscious intentional mind - with a future goal in mind. There is nothing in science or evolution at this time that suggests we were "designed" in that sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
What Mystic said is that you cannot make unwarranted claims about design from a position of ignorance
And yet even the claim that we were "designed" is one made from a position of ignorance. So one wonders why it is one rule for them and one rule for everyone else.
There is simply no evidence at all that we were "designed" - so any claim we were would be you "making unwarranted claims about design from a position of ignorance"
Perhaps we are using the word "designed" differently. I am using it in the sense of a trait being created intentionally - by a conscious intentional mind - with a future goal in mind. There is nothing in science or evolution at this time that suggests we were "designed" in that sense.
Well, from a religious point of view (I waffle between wanting to believe, but not really seeing it as a possibility), if you believe in God, then you HAVE to assume he does everything with a purpose, and he knows the reason why.
I don't think you can believe in an All Powerful, but think you know better in some areas. That would be hubris to an insane level.
Seriously, if there is a God, I would never question what happens. I would be like a one celled creature versus the Creator of All.
Yes, and therein is one of the main problems of religion.
It demands that you humble yourself to such a ridiciulous degree that you fail to try and obtain the truth. Instead, you are browbeaten into believing in unsatisfying, fantastical, magical answers instead of seeking the truth.
Think about it: If we did not have certain humans throughout history who were able to thumb their noses at the prevailing religious doctrine of their era, we would still be living in caves, worshiping fire and the sun, and chucking spears at gazelles.
Because we would always accept the easy answer - God dunnit. And because God dunnit, you don't question it.
Why don't you question it? Why does religion always frown on questioning its dogma? Because doing so reveals just how stupid the explanations religion gives for the natural world in which we live.
If even the preachers, priests, rabbis, imams and pastors were 100% convinced that God was the answer to everything and he has some purpose, some secret wisdom, some unfathomable reason for doing the things he does, then they should welcome questions - because every answer would lead us right back to God.
Except not only do the answers *not* lead us to God, they lead us in precisely the opposite direction. They know this - most of them do - and so try to stamp out curiosity amongst children attending many churches. Every Sunday school class has one - the kid who is always raising his hand and asking questions like, "Well, where did Cain's wife come from?" Those things that flummox even the teachers because they have no answer.
I was actually kicked out of a Christian school for asking too many questions. Of course, when they explained it to my parents, they said I disrupted the class too much. Yeah, I disrupted it by forcing the other kids to actually think about the answers we were being spoon-fed from religious dogma, none of which made any real sense. If questioning religion improved our relationship with God and brought us closer to the Truth, why are they discouraged?
we were designed. we were as designed as you designed a red blood cell in you. thats closer to the truth than claiming 'no design at all". it fact, its a more valid claim.
I've pointed out so many times that, if we were designed, then our designer was the most incompetent biologist in the history of religion OR our designer was the most malicious biologist in the history of science.
There are so many ways in which the human body could have been improved and yet we were left with some ridiculous flaws that even a brain-dead Frankenstein would not have left in his creation.
In any event, your claim that we were designed is just an unsubstantiated bold assertion - and that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
we can argue that there is no omni-god thing-a-ma-gig, that's true enough. But once we start nailing down what is going on around us, flat denial of everything, just because of how arg feels about religion becomes nonsensical.
You claim that we were designed because that's what you want to believe. With the exception of a tiny fraction of outliers - most of whom would cite an "omni-god thing-a-ma-gig," the scientific community has reached a unanimos consenses that evolution is the answer to how we became the humans we did - and it is the *only* logical answer as to why the human body is rife with so many easily fixable flaws. Well, they would be easily fixable to any designer with intent and purpose.
Unless, of course, you can give a good explanation as to why the human eye has a big fat blind spot right in the middle of where we look most of the time - straight ahead at whatever we're looking at. Which is why our peripheral vision is better than our straight-on vision. The only reason why we don't notice the blind spot so much is because our brain extrapolates from our surroundings what we should be seeing.
But try looking at the stars. If you try looking at a star straight on, it will literally disappear from view because the brain can't extrapolate your surroundings when looking at blackness with a few bright points scattered around; the brain doesn't know whether it should put a star directly in your field of view or not, so the star literally disappears.
Can you offer up any logical, rational, non-magical explanation as to why having our optic nerve run right down the middle of, and in front of, our retina? This has fostered a need to evolve a highly complex eye that brings in images upside down and yet another mechanism to turn it right side up and all of that. Makes sense if it were an unguided process because there is no "intent" behind it, i.e. evolution's "intent" isn't to help us see better.
But when one starts putting any intelligence behind it, regardless of what that intelligence is or what label you decide to slap on it, then you start running into the Stupid Factor. Then you start having to ask WHY there's a blind spot in the middle of our eye. WHY do we still get goose bumps if we never had fur over our entire bodies. WHY are some people still born with vestigal tails. WHY does some 1% of the population have an extra bone in their torsos whose purpose is to facilitate running on all fours?
The biological evidence that humans were once a very different kind of creature is overwhelming AND undeniable. That makes perfect sense with evolution. In fact, that's precisely what you would expect to see. But to claim we were designed, well, then you have to ask: Why didn't the designer make us as we are now from the very beginning? If today's humans are what this designer wanted, then why wait for the agonizingly slow process to evolve to this point?
After all, if you're really really hungry, do you pop a turkey in the oven and wait 5 hours? Of course not. You may not cook at all and instead get an insta-burger at a fast food chain or order out for pizza because you want your food NOW. In the same way, if you want to create humans, it makes no sense at all to create and design them at some earlier stage and then wait until they evolve, right?
That's the problem when you ascribe any sort of "mind" or "intelligence" to a design. You have to ask yourself, "What was this entity thinking when he/she/it did X or Y ... and not only will you never know the answer, human beings are far to eager to jump in and claim they *do* know it and then they offer up what stands for the truth rather than what actually *is* true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
that's the claim. thats what mystic said.
Well, as much as I like and respect Mystic, I disagree with a lot of his claims because he felt he had to incorporate Christian mythology into his otherwise more elegant hypothesis.
What Mystic said is that you cannot make unwarranted claims about design from a position of ignorance (lack of knowledge) which atheists readily admit (We don't know) and then use them to refute theist claims.
The issue here is that theists posit that their claims are not ony 100% true, but in many cases, they believe everyone else should believe their claims are 100% true, as well.
Nope, not saying you're that way, but I've run across many theists who do.
Theists all too often spew a lot of woo and no evidence - which makes them just as vulnerable to atheists as deists. The only difference is that theists don't derive their knowledge from some easily refutable holy book and, as such, theists are harder to pin down, so to speak.
But at the end of the day, they don't have any more evidence for their claims than deists do. Now, I'll grant you that sometimes a theist can be partially right - or at least make partial sense whereas religions make almost no sense whatsoever, being wrong, contradictory, or immoral 95% of the time.
The issue here is that theists posit that their claims are not ony 100% true, but in many cases, they believe everyone else should believe their claims are 100% true, as well.
Nope, not saying you're that way, but I've run across many theists who do.
Theists all too often spew a lot of woo and no evidence - which makes them just as vulnerable to atheists as deists. The only difference is that theists don't derive their knowledge from some easily refutable holy book and, as such, theists are harder to pin down, so to speak.
But at the end of the day, they don't have any more evidence for their claims than deists do. Now, I'll grant you that sometimes a theist can be partially right - or at least make partial sense whereas religions make almost no sense whatsoever, being wrong, contradictory, or immoral 95% of the time.
All I am trying to point out, Shirina, is that both atheist and theist are in the same position on the issue of design and therefore have no basis to refute one another. They both proceed from the same position - ignorance (We Don't Know) - and that cannot logically provide a premise to conclude anything.
Maybe God intended humans to procreate starting at a young age and to procreate as often as possible to further humans?
Perhaps the concept that a girl at age X isn't ready to bear children is a pure social construct of relatively recent years?
IIRC, 1900s the average life span was 30-40 (depending where in the world). Projecting that further back in time, 20s was already more than half way to end of life. So it wouldn't be a surprise to think that girls started having sex at the age of 10-15 to bear children. They would have to try many times since infantile death rate was probably pretty high.
Also, people grew up faster than today.. they had too... life was short and tough.
All I am trying to point out, Shirina, is that both atheist and theist are in the same position on the issue of design and therefore have no basis to refute one another. They both proceed from the same position - ignorance (We Don't Know) - and that cannot logically provide a premise to conclude anything.
Well ... not exactly.
Atheists and theists can both begin from the premise, "I don't know" when it comes to how life originally got started.
But I doubt many atheists, including myself, are going to say, "I don't know if we were designed."
Evolution seems pretty much in the bag, to be honest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It does not look at something that is about to start happening and cause selection on that basis. Evolution has zero foresight.
