thehomer:

Computers and phones have groups of makers so are you proposing multiple Gods or just one? Then the fatal flaw of that claim is that humans are nothing like computers or phones.

Computers & phones are complex and humans are complex. His analogy holds.

thehomer: If the evidence is good, I expect that I will be persuaded and I understand that it isn't your aim neither is my persuasion what I'm asking for. All I'm asking for is that the evidence be non-fallacious and assessable. By laws are you talking about physical laws or do you have something else in mind? I've not asked you to prove anything to convince me, what I've asked for are those things that convinced you strongly. I'll address them as you bring them up.

The evidence doesn't speak for itself. you make it seem as if the evidence will put paid to it forgetting that the evidence is nothing without the people evaluating it. I doubt you will actually accept solid evidence even if it is pointed out.

thehomer: Just to be clear, are you saying God and time are necessities? Is there anything else that is a necessity?

God is a necessity. Something (the universe) can't magically burst out of nothing.

thehomer: Based on what we know about the only sort of consciousness available (human consciousness), I don't see how the consciousness you're proposing will work. How will it even be able to do something? Since as humans show, you need some sort of body to have consciousness and do some creating with it.

Consciousness is abstract. It transcends the human body. This is why you can write a book and evoke your thoughts in other people.

thehomer: The first cause argument depending on how you state it is fallacious. You can state the one you wish to use for me to point out why it is fallacious. The design argument that you're using above is fallacious because you're making a weak analogy since a shirt is not similar enough to a person to make such a comparison.

You didn't even demonstrate how the first cause argument is fallacious.you need to learn to back up the statements you make. The design argument holds because it is good analogy to everyday experience. Things are designed or made by people and by analogy the earth and by extwnsion our universe is designed.

Callotti: Atheism. . .freedom
Theism. . . mental slavery

Atheism. . . progress
Theism. . . retro-progressive

Atheism. . .peace
Theism. . .war-mongering

Atheism. . .informative
Theism. . .STUPEFYING

Atheism. . .live and let live
Theism. . .live and let DIE

Atheism. . . free from BIGOTRY
Theism. . .full of BIGOTRY

Atheism. . .super-human intelligence
Theism. . .divine ijjiocy

Atheism. . . HAPPY life without regret
Theism. . . SAD life full of misery

Atheism. . . realists
Theism. . . HYPOCRITES

Bottom line? Everything good about Atheism.
Nothing POSITIVE about THEISM!


I endorse this message! Chief Mrs Callotti "THE PROUD CHOP AND CLEAN BETTER MOUTH AND NYANSH ADULTERER". . . AND STILL THE OSINACHI#1 OF MY DARLING HUSBAND'S VILLAGE!

Exchange Atheism for theism and theism for atheism and you have a better picture of things. Let's start:

Theism freedom
Atheism mental slavery

Theism progress
Atheism retro-progressive etc

Uyi Iredia:

Computers & phones are complex and humans are complex. His analogy holds.

Can computers and phones reproduce? That right there shows just how flawed that analogy is.

Uyi Iredia:
The evidence doesn't speak for itself. you make it seem as if the evidence will put paid to it forgetting that the evidence is nothing without the people evaluating it. I doubt you will actually accept solid evidence even if it is pointed out.

Why don't you first present the evidence for evaluation? We can see just how consistently you're applying that evidence. Don't just run off deciding before hand that it won't be acceptable. Or are you scared it won't be good?

Uyi Iredia:
God is a necessity. Something (the universe) can't magically burst out of nothing.

No one says the universe "magically burst out of nothing". My questions there are whether time was created or a necessity and if there is any thing else out there that is necessary.

Uyi Iredia:
Consciousness is abstract. It transcends the human body. This is why you can write a book and evoke your thoughts in other people.

This is just a distraction. Is the concept of consciousness as we know it reasonable without some sort of physical component?

Uyi Iredia:
You didn't even demonstrate how the first cause argument is fallacious.you need to learn to back up the statements you make. The design argument holds because it is good analogy to everyday experience. Things are designed or made by people and by analogy the earth and by extwnsion our universe is designed.

That is because there are various first cause arguments. An argument first has to be made for it to be refuted.

I've already shown how the design argument is fallacious. Your aim now should either be to discard that argument or show why it isn't fallacious. Are you up to that challenge?

Uyi Iredia:

Exchange Atheism for theism and theism for atheism and you have a better picture of things. Let's start:

Theism freedom
Atheism mental slavery

Theism is freedom except when that God wants to send you to hell. Atheism is mental slavery except when it allows to freely explore the presence and absence of a God.

Uyi Iredia:
Theism progress
Atheism retro-progressive etc

Please can you tell me what progress theism has experienced other than the numerous splinter groups that erupt for no reason. How retrogressive is atheism when based on an assumption that there are no Gods, humans have made more progress in the past 400 years than in the previous 4000?

MyJoe: Welcome to the discussion, Mr_Anony.



Lots of assumptions there^^^. I do not normally discuss the nature of God because, like I explained to Martian in another thread, when I think about the nature of God, I recoil. The only thing I have said with certainty here is that there is a first cause – God. I have said nothing else with certainty. Ok, actually there is something else I am quite certain about - that God does not intervene in our lives individually. There is no evidence that he does. Note that that is different from saying that God is incapable of intervening or that he does not intervene on behalf of humanity – for example by sending prophets or even sons. My response to whether God intervenes on behalf of humanity and sends prophets or sons would be I don’t know, since I have not come into knowledge that he does. It is a possibility. Nowhere have I said, much less “insisted”, that “God is strictly non-interventionist”.

Besides, bear in mind that when it comes to belief, what makes sense to the individual is usually important in forming them.

Let me comment briefly on the question of “intelligent purpose” behind creation. Anything I tell you about that is my subjective belief. And it is not deism or an essential of it – unless you want to follow K17 and trace deism to Lord Herbert or some other particular Enlightenment or Reformation writer - but it rhymes perfectly with my deism. For example, I subscribe to Eastern thought on the matter of life and death being the nature of all living things, the purpose being to attain perfection. I believe that we are born. Then we die. Then we are born again. And on and on. What you get from fate is determined, not by grace or other similar quixotic concept, but by the machinery that has been put in place to run the universe. You reap what you sow. The system is scrupulously fair so grace does not come in because everything you do, good or bad, is recorded automatically and never gets lost. The logical conclusion is that you are not accountable to God, but to his laws. That is why a life spent solely in the pursuit of fame and personal enrichment is a wasted and wretched one.

Let me tell you why this makes sense. On the 29th of this month, Nigerians, including the president and senate president, will gather at Ibadan to be led by Adeboye and co on a Christian National Day of Prayers. There is nothing wrong with people praying of itself. But the tragedy here is that when Nigerians do this sort of thing, they believe they are actually doing something productive, whereas they are wasting time. How do we know? Because they have been praying and nada has been wrought. We all know where China was 20 years ago and where they are today. That is an atheist country. They don’t even acknowledge the existence of God, much less hold national day of prayers, yet they are tremendous making progress. The least corrupt countries and the best countries to live, according to the indexes, are the Scandinavian countries, yet they are atheist countries. Why are their societies better than religious ones? Because they obey the laws of God more than the religious societies - the religious societies merely rate high in traditions and mantra that create an illusion of godliness. These atheistic societies have created an ordered and humane system. While they may be selfish as human beings, they also think of and work for the common good. For these “the grace of God” which abounds in the universe and does not know Christian, Mohamedan or atheist abides with them. It is simply laws at work.

If you plant your seed yams in the dry season you have disobeyed the law of God which says you should plant them in the wet season. You will get a terrible harvest. Prayers won’t change anything, except, perhaps, make you feel better. Now, why would anyone think that as it is in the physical world is not how it is in the spiritual? To obey the laws of God – that is what matters. That is the “intelligent purpose” behind creation.

And you can see why God does not intervene. He doesn’t need to.

On the rest of what you wrote, God may well be a personality – maybe some kind of superpersonality, I don’t know. I don’t dwell much on it. But no, it doesn’t follow logically for me that God is a personality just because intelligence and intentions are among the things he manifests. Note that I am not objecting to your reference to God as a personality since that is the only way we puny humans can conceive of God. I was objecting to K17’s “anthropomorphic” God tag on deism.


Yes.


Not when there are perfect and immutable laws in place. You know how your MS Word runs, making phone calls to Bill Gates unnecessary. A very inadequate illustration, but I’m sure you get what I’m saying. If you are rich and powerful and you kill an innocent person, for instance, and it’s in a country like Nigeria where the institutions of state are weak, what can happen? You may get away with it. What usually follows? Prayers. Prayers. Prayers. By the victim’s family, I mean. The praying people will hope for some lightening of retribution to strike down the evil man. They expect God to intervene quickly. Usually nothing happens. By why should God listen to them when he already has laws in place to deal with the situation? Now, the above makes sense because it’s, in fact, what we see everyday – sincere and godly people praying sincerely and nothing happening. Recall, please, that I am talking here about intervention in our day to day lives, not intervention on behalf of the whole of humanity.

**Edited**

Ok, Let me see if I can get a grip on what you believe. Please correct me where I am wrong. You believe that.

1 God exists and has a will
2 God is a "superperson" (I think I know what you mean by superperson)
3 God can directly intervene in our affairs but does not need to because He has laws set in place.
4 God's justice system is such that it is set: human beings will continue to reincarnate as they journey towards attaining perfection.

Is this a fair representation of what you believe?

N.B. I am not in any way claiming that the above points are what deism is all about but I perceive that they are your personal beliefs.

If I am right then we can proceed, if I am wrong, please correct me.

thehomer:
........Can computers and phones reproduce? That right there shows just how flawed that analogy is........

Lol, @thehomer, you are arguing besides the point as usual. His analogy holds well and you know it.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, @thehomer, you are arguing besides the point as usual. His analogy holds well and you know it.

Come on now, I'm sure you can do much better than this. How does the analogy hold? Last time I checked, there was a huge difference between living and non-living things so how exactly does the analogy hold when the things being considered are significantly different in the relevant respect?

thehomer:

Come on now, I'm sure you can do much better than this. How does the analogy hold? Last time I checked, there was a huge difference between living and non-living things so how exactly does the analogy hold when the things being considered are significantly different in the relevant respect?

The analogy simply makes the point that complex mechanisms point to an intelligence behind them. Whether the mechanism is living or non-living is completely besides the point.

Mr_Anony:
The analogy simply makes the point that complex mechanisms point to an intelligence behind them. Whether the mechanism is living or non-living is completely besides the point.

Would you classify a nuclear fusion reaction as being a simple mechanism or a complex mechanism? How about the mechanism of natural selection?

Besides, you're talking about something else here. We're talking about specific objects not mechanisms. Mechanisms aren't living things.

thehomer:

Would you classify a nuclear fusion reaction as being a simple mechanism or a complex mechanism? How about the mechanism of natural selection?

Besides, you're talking about something else here. We're talking about specific objects not mechanisms. Mechanisms aren't living things.

Lol, typical of you to equivocate something else again in another purposeful attempt to misunderstand the analogy.

You and I know full well that mechanism used in this context does not refer to

the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished

...but to the structure or arrangement of parts of a machine or similar device, or of anything analogous. . . . . .

(italicized culled from dictionary.com)

Mr_Anony:
Lol, typical of you to equivocate something else again in another purposeful attempt to misunderstand the analogy.

You and I know full well that mechanism used in this context does not refer to

the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished

...but to the structure or arrangement of parts of a machine or similar device, or of anything analogous. . . . . .

(italicized culled from dictionary.com)

Let's analyze the definitions presented above by you and see which is more relevant to the discussion.

the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished

This is actually what I think was meant by mechanism in context. Recall that the context is in reference to how living things, phones and computers come about. (see here)

MyJoe:
Simples. Looking at a computer and a phone tells you they have a maker, right?

Contrast it with the second definition you think is more appropriate.

the structure or arrangement of parts of a machine or similar device, or of anything analogous. This to me obviously doesn't refer to living things. If you think it does, please explain why.

Notice the word in bold. Now can you tell me if you think living things are machines or devices?

thehomer:

Let's analyze the definitions presented above by you and see which is more relevant to the discussion.

the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished

This is actually what I think was meant by mechanism in context. Recall that the context is in reference to how living things, phones and computers come about. (see here)



Contrast it with the second definition you think is more appropriate.

the structure or arrangement of parts of a machine or similar device, or of anything analogous. This to me obviously doesn't refer to living things. If you think it does, please explain why.

Notice the word in bold. Now can you tell me if you think living things are machines or devices?

You asked me to notice the words in bold, now please notice the words in red.

It is very obvious to me that by referring to phones and computers insinuating a maker, MyJoe was referring to the fact that they are complex machines hence ought to be products of a complex mind. It is irrelevant whether these complex machines can breathe air as opposed to being plugged into electric power.

The question is not about the nature of these machines but their complexity and whether or not a complex mechanism(structure) indicates complex mind behind it.

Mr_Anony:
You asked me to notice the words in bold, now please notice the words in red.

It is very obvious to me that by referring to phones and computers insinuating a maker, MyJoe was referring to the fact that they are complex machines hence ought to be products of a complex mind. It is irrelevant whether these complex machines can breathe air as opposed to being plugged into electric power.

The question is not about the nature of these machines but their complexity and whether or not a complex mechanism(structure) indicates complex mind behind it.

Which is it, a phone suggests a maker because of its complexity or by our experience phones are made by men?

Kay 17:

Which is it, a phone suggests a maker because of its complexity or by our experience phones are made by men?

Good question..........my answer is both.

Which is first impressionable?

Mr_Anony:
You asked me to notice the words in bold, now please notice the words in red.

It is very obvious to me that by referring to phones and computers insinuating a maker, MyJoe was referring to the fact that they are complex machines hence ought to be products of a complex mind. It is irrelevant whether these complex machines can breathe air as opposed to being plugged into electric power.

I never implied that breathing air was relevant what I pointed out was that at the very least, reproduction is relevant if you wish to compare living and non-living things.

Mr_Anony:
The question is not about the nature of these machines but their complexity and whether or not a complex mechanism(structure) indicates complex mind behind it.

That's just it. Non-living things aren't analogous to living things. If you're relying on complexity, then can you tell me which of these structures indicates a complex mind behind them. The sun, the moon, the earth, the ocean, the HIV virus, the malaria parasite and a diamond. I would really like to see how you decide whether or not a given object's structure is complex.

thehomer:

I never implied that breathing air was relevant what I pointed out was that at the very least, reproduction is relevant if you wish to compare living and non-living things.

Lol, reproduction is similarly irrelevant because in light of the analogy, it is just another ability that one mechanism has which another doesn't have.
Also, no one is comparing living and non-living things. that's just your strawman.

thehomer: That's just it. Non-living things aren't analogous to living things. If you're relying on complexity, then can you tell me which of these structures indicates a complex mind behind them. The sun, the moon, the earth, the ocean, the HIV virus, the malaria parasite and a diamond. I would really like to see how you decide whether or not a given object's structure is complex.

By putting "structure" in bracket, I was qualifying complex mechanisms so as to indicate that I was referring to the machine itself and not the theory of it's working (I hope you got that)
Now for the examples you are asking me to indicate which has a complex mind behind them:
My answer would be that it depends on how closely you are willing to observe them. In my opinion, all of them together with all of creation indicates the mind of an intelligent creator. Looking at them in isolation is like reducing a complex machine to it's individual nuts and bolts then appraising each of them individually and finding no special purpose for it's individual parts, we conclude that the entire assembly itself has no purpose. That is how not to reason

Mr_Anony:
Lol, reproduction is similarly irrelevant because in light of the analogy, it is just another ability that one mechanism has which another doesn't have.
Also, no one is comparing living and non-living things. that's just your strawman.

Actually, you are comparing living things to non-living things. Phones and computers are non-living things while humans are living things.
How can reproduction be irrelevant when it is a significant reason why the analogy fails?

Recall that you actually need to show that phones are analogous to people. We've seen phone makers and we know what phones are have you seen people makers and do you know what people are for?

Mr_Anony:
By putting "structure" in bracket, I was qualifying complex mechanisms so as to indicate that I was referring to the machine itself and not the theory of it's working (I hope you got that)

Placing the word "structure" in brackets doesn't actually qualify mechanism.

Mr_Anony:
Now for the examples you are asking me to indicate which has a complex mind behind them:
My answer would be that it depends on how closely you are willing to observe them. In my opinion, all of them together with all of creation indicates the mind of an intelligent creator. Looking at them in isolation is like reducing a complex machine to it's individual nuts and bolts then appraising each of them individually and finding no special purpose for it's individual parts, we conclude that the entire assembly itself has no purpose. That is how not to reason

I simply want you to examine them in a consistent manner that one can use to decide on whether what they're looking at is complex and that it requires someone making it.

Based on what you're saying, there are no objects that exist that aren't designed. i.e everything humans encounter are designed. Would that be your conclusion?

thehomer:

Actually, you are comparing living things to non-living things. Phones and computers are non-living things while humans are living things.
How can reproduction be irrelevant when it is a significant reason why the analogy fails?

Recall that you actually need to show that phones are analogous to people. We've seen phone makers and we know what phones are have you seen people makers and do you know what people are for?



Placing the word "structure" in brackets doesn't actually qualify mechanism.



I simply want you to examine them in a consistent manner that one can use to decide on whether what they're looking at is complex and that it requires someone making it.

Based on what you're saying, there are no objects that exist that aren't designed. i.e everything humans encounter are designed. Would that be your conclusion?

Exactly what I am saying. You are demanding that I look at an object isolated from the system within which it is and then judge it's complexity from that. I may as well say that phones are not designed because I can't make any sense of a strip of wire and a screw in isolation.

Once again I repeat to you. The original analogy by myjoe was comparing order in the working behind mechanical technology to order in the workings of nature and pointing to how a complex entity such as a phone implies a designer, a complex entity such as an animal would infer a designer. The specifics of what these complex entities do are besides the point and that is where you are building your strawmen from.

thehomer:

Can computers and phones reproduce? That right there shows just how flawed that analogy is.

They don't need to reproduce. They only need to be complex which they are.

thehomer: Why don't you first present the evidence for evaluation? We can see just how consistently you're applying that evidence. Don't just run off deciding before hand that it won't be acceptable. Or are you scared it won't be good?

You have the universe as evidence of a Creator. Something cannot come from nothing and we know from daily experience that the sort of complexity we see in the universe requires a maker. Man has built complex things it is only reasonable to infer from this that our universe has a Maker.

thehomer: No one says the universe "magically burst out of nothing". My questions there are whether time was created or a necessity and if there is any thing else out there that is necessary.

Time is an abstract. It can't be created. Besides you aren't even answering my statement.

thehomer: This is just a distraction. Is the concept of consciousness as we know it reasonable without some sort of physical component?

It isn't a distraction. It is a point worthy of note.

thehomer: That is because there are various first cause arguments. An argument first has to be made for it to be refuted.

Various first cause arguments is a weak ground for saying it is fallacious BECAUSE you'll have to show how the argument itself is weak.

thehomer: I've already shown how the design argument is fallacious. Your aim now should either be to discard that argument or show why it isn't fallacious. Are you up to that challenge?

Where and how did you show the design argument is fallacious ? You haven't done such as far as I know.

thehomer:
Theism is freedom except when that God wants to send you to hell. Atheism is mental slavery except when it allows to freely explore the presence and absence of a God.

As you wish.

thehomer: Please can you tell me what progress theism has experienced other than the numerous splinter groups that erupt for no reason. How retrogressive is atheism when based on an assumption that there are no Gods, humans have made more progress in the past 400 years than in the previous 4000?

In fact the progress was made because a Creator God was assumed to have instituted order and design in the universe. Great scientists such as Newton & Boyle thought likewise and helped humanity towards great achievements in the sciences. Your claim is wrong.

Mr_Anony:
Exactly what I am saying. You are demanding that I look at an object isolated from the system within which it is and then judge it's complexity from that. I may as well say that phones are not designed because I can't make any sense of a strip of wire and a screw in isolation.

The phone and the human are supposed to be complete systems in themselves aren't they? No one is asking you to take the phone apart, they're asking you to compare a phone to a person not a haemoglobin molecule to the phone. Do you actually understand what the analogy is supposed to demonstrate?

Mr_Anony:
Once again I repeat to you. The original analogy by myjoe was comparing order in the working behind mechanical technology to order in the workings of nature and pointing to how a complex entity such as a phone implies a designer, a complex entity such as an animal would infer a designer. The specifics of what these complex entities do are besides the point and that is where you are building your strawmen from.

No, the specifics of those complex objects are the point. The analogy fails if the complexities don't match significantly. It looks as if you don't know what an argument from analogy is supposed to look like. Please take a look at this article. It should show you why you actually have to consider those objects in the way I'm talking about.

I also notice that you've run away from actually saying what it is that you see that makes you conclude that there was a designer and that is why you've side-stepped the list I presented to you for classification.

Uyi Iredia:

They don't need to reproduce. They only need to be complex which they are.

By what criteria do you decide that a certain object is so complex that it must have been made by someone?

Uyi Iredia:
You have the universe as evidence of a Creator. Something cannot come from nothing and we know from daily experience that the sort of complexity we see in the universe requires a maker. Man has built complex things it is only reasonable to infer from this that our universe has a Maker.

Who says there was ever nothing? Do you think there was ever nothing?

Uyi Iredia:
Time is an abstract. It can't be created. Besides you aren't even answering my statement.

People answer questions not statements. Are you saying that time always existed?

Uyi Iredia:
It isn't a distraction. It is a point worthy of note.

Is consciousness reasonable without some sort of physical component?

Uyi Iredia:
Various first cause arguments is a weak ground for saying it is fallacious BECAUSE you'll have to show how the argument itself is weak.

Because there are several first cause arguments, you have to present one for me to show you how it is fallacious. I shouldn't be both formulating the argument for you and destroying them. If you expect me to, then you're just being lazy.

Uyi Iredia:
Where and how did you show the design argument is fallacious ? You haven't done such as far as I know.

See my responses to MyJoe and Mr_Anony.

Uyi Iredia:

As you wish.



In fact the progress was made because a Creator God was assumed to have instituted order and design in the universe. Great scientists such as Newton & Boyle thought likewise and helped humanity towards great achievements in the sciences. Your claim is wrong.

Which claim is wrong? The progress we make now is based on methodological naturalism which actually assumes that God has no say in what happens in the universe and so far, it has landed rovers on Mars.

Talking about scientists who believed in God is simply a genetic fallacy. The fact that they believed in a God doesn't mean that it was that God that actually did anything.

Uyi Iredia:

As you wish.

In fact the progress was made because a Creator God was assumed to have instituted order and design in the universe. Great scientists such as Newton & Boyle thought likewise and helped humanity towards great achievements in the sciences. Your claim is wrong.

In your view, you believe something can't be created by or from nothing, right? Why do we owe a spiritual being the creation of a physical world? Different characters from the way I see it.

thehomer:

The phone and the human are supposed to be complete systems in themselves aren't they? No one is asking you to take the phone apart, they're asking you to compare a phone to a person not a haemoglobin molecule to the phone. Do you actually understand what the analogy is supposed to demonstrate?



No, the specifics of those complex objects are the point. The analogy fails if the complexities don't match significantly. It looks as if you don't know what an argument from analogy is supposed to look like. Please take a look at this article. It should show you why you actually have to consider those objects in the way I'm talking about.

I also notice that you've run away from actually saying what it is that you see that makes you conclude that there was a designer and that is why you've side-stepped the list I presented to you for classification.

Now I have not runaway from anything. you presented a few objects to me in isolation. for instance, put the sun, the moon, the earth, and the oceans together in a system and you see a sort of relationship between parts.
About myjoe's analogy, let me assume that we have different understandings of it so I'll put my argument this way.

Premise one: Everything that follows a complex organized order has an intelligence that organizes it and keeps it in order.
Premise two: The universe is complex, organized and works according to a set of laws
Conclusion A: The universe has an intelligence behind it.

Second argument.

Premise one: Anything that begins to exist has a cause
Premise two: The universe began to exist
Conclusion B: Therefore the universe has a cause

If conclusions A and B are true, then we can deduce that the cause of the universe is intelligent.

Now to refute my arguments, you must show that either the premises are untrue or that they do not follow.

MyJoe:


That said, I don’t think there is any deists who claim to have answers to the “creator’s complexity”.

Deep Sight knows absolutely EVERYTHING about anything.

Kay 17:

Which is it, a phone suggests a maker because of its complexity or by our experience phones are made by men?

i feel you are dragging the discuss back/always serving as a distraction.

I have seen you do this very often with your interjection.

thehomer:

Actually, you are comparing living things to non-living things. Phones and computers are non-living things while humans are living things.
How can reproduction be irrelevant when it is a significant reason why the analogy fails?

Recall that you actually need to show that phones are analogous to people. We've seen phone makers and we know what phones are have you seen people makers and do you know what people are for?



Placing the word "structure" in brackets doesn't actually qualify mechanism.



I simply want you to examine them in a consistent manner that one can use to decide on whether what they're looking at is complex and that it requires someone making it.

Based on what you're saying, there are no objects that exist that aren't designed. i.e everything humans encounter are designed. Would that be your conclusion?

this is circular reasoninging.

The argument is that intelligent designs have a maker QED

Stop chasing cat and mouse!

They both are intelligent design phone/human, human that design them are more inteligent QED.

If therhomer is not an intelligent entity, fine. An exception then.

In both we have variety/degree of intelligence but the fact is they remain intelligent designs.

Simply answer the question and spare us the childs play.
Imagine!

To you, if intelligent design does not deserved a maker fine, if it does, say so and stop the hide and seek game.

Childs Play.

^^

If an intelligent designer is required for complexity, one can easily point to the process of rain formation and change in state of water according to varying temperatures.

thehomer:

The phone and the human are supposed to be complete systems in themselves aren't they? No one is asking you to take the phone apart, they're asking you to compare a phone to a person not a haemoglobin molecule to the phone. Do you actually understand what the analogy is supposed to demonstrate?



No, the specifics of those complex objects are the point. The analogy fails if the complexities don't match significantly. It looks as if you don't know what an argument from analogy is supposed to look like. Please take a look at this article. It should show you why you actually have to consider those objects in the way I'm talking about.

I also notice that you've run away from actually saying what it is that you see that makes you conclude that there was a designer and that is why you've side-stepped the list I presented to you for classification.

are you confused?
Or
Can you answer the question now?

The article you posted was written by a human like you, so, pls, show that you deserved all this time/attention by answering this questions or it becomes necessary to concede that you therhomer is incompetent and as such you are Westing our time.

Should we conclude that it is the writer/editor of the link that have the capacity to answer the question while you cannot?

Mr_Anony:
Now I have not runaway from anything. you presented a few objects to me in isolation. for instance, put the sun, the moon, the earth, and the oceans together in a system and you see a sort of relationship between parts.

In that case, why present the phone alone? Why not present a phone, the base station, the circuit switched network, the packet switched network, the public switched network and the phone's factory of origin? In the case of humans, since no man is an island, why not consider the person, their family, their friends, their business partners, their country of location and the entire planet?

You see, rather than you comparing an object with another, you've arbitrarily decided that since you cannot show how you decide something is complex, you've decided to make anything you can encounter complex enough to satisfy you.

Mr_Anony:
About myjoe's analogy, let me assume that we have different understandings of it so I'll put my argument this way.

Premise one: Everything that follows a complex organized order has an intelligence that organizes it and keeps it in order.
Premise two: The universe is complex, organized and works according to a set of laws
Conclusion A: The universe has an intelligence behind it.

My question to you was simply; how do you decide that something has a complex organized order? I presented you with a list of objects for you to show me how you decide this but so far, you've not been able to do this. If you cannot do this, then your first premise is fatally flawed because you're making a circular argument.

Mr_Anony:
Second argument.

Premise one: Anything that begins to exist has a cause
Premise two: The universe began to exist
Conclusion B: Therefore the universe has a cause

The main problem here is that the universe isn't like any other object within it. So attempting to make this comparison is a fallacy of composition.
Other problems are your equivocation on "begins to exist" and "cause".

When things begin to exist around us, it simply involves a re-arrangement of the constituent atoms that have always been present but obviously in the case of the universe, this certainly doesn't apply.

Then by cause, in the first one you seem to be referring to a cause in time since that is how things occur within the universe but without the universe, is it even coherent to talk about events occurring without time?

Mr_Anony:
If conclusions A and B are true, then we can deduce that the cause of the universe is intelligent.

Now to refute my arguments, you must show that either the premises are untrue or that they do not follow.

Refuted above.