Do You Think God Made A Mistake In the Design of Human Beings if Young Girls Can Get Pregnant? (Isaac, Biblical)
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.
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.
Depends what the claim is being refuted. As you pointed out for example - if both sides are making claims about the purpose or goal of the design then they are both working on assumption and ignorance and can not refute each other.
If the claim however is that there is any evidence at all that some intelligence actually did design us - then one group very much can refute the other. Because you and your ilk have no evidence for design, no evidence for a designer, no evidence for a purpose, a plan, a goal, or an agenda in any of it.
There simply is no basis at all at this time to think us designed by any intelligent agent with a goal or plan in mind.
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.
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.
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.
If you say "the designer was a fool" you know far more than anybody on the planet. it implies we could have been made differently from a cloud of hydrogen. I just don't see it. so i see you calling the process 'stupid" and I see others calling is a "miracle". neither has any real data showing it. I am stuck in the middle again.
I judge mystics claims on the claim. not weather it incorporates some religious stuff or not. I'm just an atheist that makes no choices based on a statement of belief about god nor do I base how the universe works on how I feel about religion.
as far as "intellect"? did my mom and dad make me? Did my "life" make that blood cell"? if we make another universe, was it intellect behind it? is there or is there not "intellect" behind my mom and dad making me? The answer is "yes" and "no".
now lets start by looking at the best descriptors we have to narrow down a better truth than "deny everything because I don't like "something"" and "my god only".
its more valid to claim we are in a larger more complex system than to claim we are not. Its that simple. If you are classified as "life", how do we classify the more complex system we are in? life, nolife, or inbetween?
It's a logical consideration for better truth. its far better than derail any logic because I want to stop religion and better than my god only.
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.
As I've mentioned, I'm atheist regarding holybook conception of god, but agnostic regarding more liberal (generally vague/hand-waving) conceptions that don't push specific illogical or blatantly unscientific details. The point I'd want to emphasize is that there are different types and gradations of "design" and, additionally, there can be "teleology" (i.e., "goal-orientation") that is not design. Examples: When engineers design a neural net, they cannot predict the details of behavior in advance because such systems are self-organizing. Life, in general, is self-organizing in this way. I'm confident in saying that life was not pre-designed in detail, but I would not be confident in saying that the laws of physic were not designed to allow life. This leaves a huge mystery concerning how one realistically goes about designing the laws of nature, but here we are dealing with mysteries that apply equally to theists and atheists.
Also, with or without god, it could be the case that natural laws aim toward a sort of "goal" (in a manner of speaking) and this "goal" could be something that deeply involves the nature of conscious experience - something like the Buddhist goal of an eventual elimination of suffering, or whatever. My point is that with or without god, the distant future could be "as if designed" by a loving god, so it might be virtually impossible to ever really answer the god/no-god question. For all atheists know, god could be the underlying reality and, for all the theists really know, "god" is just nature unconsciously evolving.
In either case, I don't think that the concept of "mistake" or "flaw" applies to humanity's biologically "too young" age of conception (because I'm confident that, if there is "design" at all, it is not design that goes to that level of detail).
I'm not going to read all 12 pages, so perhaps this has been mentioned already. Sorry about that.
Keep in mind that not so many centuries ago, people died at 30 to 40 years of age. Births had to occur in the teen years, so that the parents could raise the children before they died. Have babies at 13 to 16 years old, then you have 15 to 20 years to raise them, and you die.
Humanity didn't think or live the way we do today. Sometimes I wonder if we are really better off...
I wonder if God didn't create it all, set it in motion, then backed off and let us do our thing, to see what would happen!
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.
We are using design a little too imprecisely here, Shirina. Pragmatically, there is clearly design to our functioning, but there are those like Arq and his ilk who will insist on framing the issue as one of the existence of an intelligent designer with a purpose. That is a different question and neither atheist nor theist can assert any premise that is NOT out of ignorance (We Don't Know) just preference. Your insight about LIFE is probative since life demands a functioning design.
The existence of design to our functioning can be attributed to extant conditions supporting that functioning as in evolution by natural selection. It can also be similarly attributed to extant conditions supporting that functioning as in the existence of a living entity of whom we are merely a part, a subsystem, so to speak. There is no need for Will or purpose to be involved other than what is required to pragmatically support the existence of that living being (God). But as I said, neither position has any claim to primacy since they both are positioned in ignorance. Any evidence used to support one is equally applicable to the other since We Don't Know why life even exists!
I'm not going to read all 12 pages, so perhaps this has been mentioned already. Sorry about that.
Keep in mind that not so many centuries ago, people died at 30 to 40 years of age. Births had to occur in the teen years, so that the parents could raise the children before they died. Have babies at 13 to 16 years old, then you have 15 to 20 years to raise them, and you die.
Humanity didn't think or live the way we do today. Sometimes I wonder if we are really better off...
I wonder if God didn't create it all, set it in motion, then backed off and let us do our thing, to see what would happen!
lmao, i don't even go back two pages. even for my own post. lmao.
I am in the design camp. design to evolve, transfer information, and to live. The biosphere most certainly designed us. I make no choices based on how I feel about religion so i do not have to deny that basic interpretation.
universal grand design? the best guess i have is "to make another universe" But I have no idea of a universal design. I see nothing that suggest it has to be anything other than the universe coping itself.
As I've mentioned, I'm atheist regarding holybook conception of god, but agnostic regarding more liberal (generally vague/hand-waving) conceptions that don't push specific illogical or blatantly unscientific details. The point I'd want to emphasize is that there are different types and gradations of "design" and, additionally, there can be "teleology" (i.e., "goal-orientation") that is not design. Examples: When engineers design a neural net, they cannot predict the details of behavior in advance because such systems are self-organizing. Life, in general, is self-organizing in this way. I'm confident in saying that life was not pre-designed in detail, but I would not be confident in saying that the laws of physic were not designed to allow life. This leaves a huge mystery concerning how one realistically goes about designing the laws of nature, but here we are dealing with mysteries that apply equally to theists and atheists.
Also, with or without god, it could be the case that natural laws aim toward a sort of "goal" (in a manner of speaking) and this "goal" could be something that deeply involves the nature of conscious experience - something like the Buddhist goal of an eventual elimination of suffering, or whatever. My point is that with or without god, the distant future could be "as if designed" by a loving god, so it might be virtually impossible to ever really answer the god/no-god question. For all atheists know, god could be the underlying reality and, for all the theists really know, "god" is just nature unconsciously evolving.
In either case, I don't think that the concept of "mistake" or "flaw" applies to humanity's biologically "too young" age of conception (because I'm confident that, if there is "design" at all, it is not design that goes to that level of detail).
I would be in this camp also.
dna and the rna are running a program. they re design to do as such. My body most certainly designed the red blood cell. The biosphere did design us.
but we don't know, or see any evidence of, a "universal design". either
The reverse claim is just less valid so i can't support it just because of how i feel about religion.
the universe having a human experience? yeah, that fits observations so I am ok with it.
We are using design a little too imprecisely here, Shirina.
Speak for yourself perhaps a some of us have been _very_ precise about our usage of it -- going so far as to define exactly what we mean by it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Pragmatically, there is clearly design to our functioning
Nope. There is not. There is just the stories we tell ourselves and our children. When a child asks "Why do birds have wings" we give the design answer "So that they can fly". The real answer is they fly because they have wings. The other way around.
The mindless machinations of Natural Selection give us the illusion of design. And coupled with our species evolved tendency to see intention and agency even when there is none - which we evolved for good reason - we are prone to falling for that illusion. Nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
there are those like Arq and his ilk who will insist on framing the issue as one of the existence of an intelligent designer with a purpose.
Yes how inconvenient for your world of fantasy it must be that some people simply _insist_ on using language correctly. How bothersome you must find that in your attempts to by pass evidence for your views by simply modifying language to mean what you prefer it to mean.
But the simple fact remains that if you look up the meaning of the word - it is punctuated with explanations like "plan" "conception" "purpose" "before the fact" "decision" "mind" and many other words that very much imply a consciousness involved in the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Your insight about LIFE is probative since life demands a functioning design.
It demands it because you say so? Or because of some actual arguments you can bring to bear over the level of pure assertion to show it actually does?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
But as I said, neither position has any claim to primacy
Alas saying it does not make it true. One position does have some level of primacy over the other. Because one position does what the other position patently does not. Which is pre-suppose things on insufficient or non-existent evidence.
One position in other words is based on nothing at all that we do not have evidence and/or example of. There are no leaps or assumptions or details that we need to assert, imagine, imply or wish for in order to reach the conclusion in question.
The other position - yours - is quite the opposite. So let us not pretend there is no difference between a position supported by the evidence and a position that is at best congruent with it to the low level of not being negated by it.
Young girls can have babies once they start menstruating, which is starting earlier and earlier.
I am wondering if teen pregnancy is "wrong," then is "God" also wrong for designing young girls to be able to conceive at young ages?
Please do not quote scripture, but think about this question, and give a thoughtful response as to why a human being would be designed in a way that would then be frowned upon and difficult to interfere with (as in birth control, abortion, etc.).
It seems like a simple design flaw. If women are not "supposed" to give birth until age 20 say (just picked an arbitrary number), then why would "God" design them capable of having babies at age 10 through teens when they are unable to support themselves, act independently, or have the maturity to parent a child?
The examples of so-called “intelligent design” being far less than intelligent are legion. (See Mark 5:9 wrt “legion”)
In looking at other species, I do not see the same design flaws.
Birds kick their young out of the nest. Some survive, some do not. Mom is not devastated in either case (as far as I know). That is a pure survival model.
Human beings are different. It is much harder for a human infant to survive without a "good" mother (meaning a mother who provides food, care, and a secure, safe environment). Given that human beings are much more fragile than other species, it would indicate a great design flaw to have young girls who can procreate.
A much more efficient design model would have been to prolong menstruation to age 20 or more to effect a better rate of survival for the infant. That, or speed up human development so that a 12 year-old would be emotionally and physically, and financially able to mother a child.
Humans, especially early humans, were tribal and likely had multiple generations living in the same shelter. It is nonsensical to think a 12 year old moved out on her own to raise a child. Wouldn’t happen now either. Since we know it is difficult, we discourage it in society today.
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.
