EvilBrain1:
@Joshthefirst

Watch the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDdiCYTK160

EvilBrain1:
@Joshthefirst

Watch the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDdiCYTK160

Joshthefirst:
Do you believe in intelligent design?

EvilBrain1:


No.

I've yet to encounter anything in nature that can't be explained through natural processes. All the examples creationists give are either strawmen (eg the self-assembling 747) or have been clearly shown to have evolved with no need for a designer (e.g. the human eye). There is no scientific basis for believing in a creator because there is no evidence of one. And there is no philosophical basis it because assuming one exists is solving a problem by creating a bigger one.

Intelligent design is not an explanation. All it does is push the problem down the road by making up a magical creator which it then makes no attempt to explain.

The principle of parsimony states that you should make as few assumptions as possible when forming hypotheses. All things being equal, the simplest explanation is always the correct one. And god is not a simple explanation, it is a huge assumption with essentially zero empirical evidence to back it up. Google Occam's Razor.

Joshthefirst:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.

From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, we can put forward the next part

The universe has a cause;
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore:
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.


Before I was aware of this argument I had a bit of thought on causes and origins and arrived at the same conclusion of the character and basic nature of the Source of all things.

davien:
Joshthefirst of what use are floaters if the eye was "intelligently designed"...when they only cause problems?

Joshthefirst:
Unfortunately the presence of floaters do not negate the intricate design system of the eye

EvilBrain1:
^^^Why did god put our retinas in backwards causing blind spots, glaucoma and other problems? It's not like he couldn't create them facing the correct way, octopuses (octopi?) have retinas facing the right way and see much better than us.

And why our eyes filled with liquid causing all sorts of distortion and refraction problems when the light passes from air to water? Why are fish able to see so much better than us with very similar eyes? It's almost as if our eyes were originally built to function underwater.

Strange.

N.B. Joshthefirst, you better watch all 13 episodes of Cosmos like I said. I'm going to cure you of this religion nonsense if its the last thing I do. Nigeria doesn't need any more doctors that don't know how to think.

davien:
It does, it posits a major design flaw that increases impairment..

Joshthefirst:
Unfortunately the presence of floaters do not negate the intricate design system of the eye

plaetton:


Did the designer also design the many occular diseases, or, as you and your ilk are more likely to say, is Adams sin responsible for occular diseases, the far majority of which are genetic?

Joshthefirst:
That has no part to play in the primary discussion. First you must accept the fact of design in the universe before we go into design flaws and why they are here and what we can do about them.

A computer with a virus is still a computer that was designed, inspite of the virus now damaging its system

plaetton:


You are the one who brought out the issue of designed human eye. Did you not?
Why are you now running away from it?

I remind you again, most occular diseases are genetic. This means that they would have had to been woven in the design. Not so?

If your so-called intricately designed human eye shows serious flaws, it would imply one of two possiblities.
1. The designs were highly flawed, and therefore the designer is a bad designer.
Or
2. The imperfections are the result of the trial and error mechanisms that would be expected from the ever dynamic processes of an evolving organ.

Incidentally, there are similar kinks in every aspect of nature, even stars and galaxies show anomalies that highlight their evolving natures.

DeepSight:


What is seeing?
And why is evolution incompatible with the concept of a first mover?

And - assuming for once - and just for the purpose of a question - that such a first mover exists, must such a first mover be either perfect or moral according to human understanding?

Joshthefirst:
Your very statement contradicts you. A design flaw indicates a design in the first place. By pointing out a design flaw you indirectly concede a design. Try again.

DProDG:

That's pure semantics right there ^^^

plaetton:

The idea of a first mover makes no logical sense.

First relative to what?

A first mover would have to have been moved prior to being the first mover. Not so?

For someone who waxes eloquent about infinity, how then can you dream up a first mover?

The religious concept of god positions him as the embodiment of perfection.

A less than perfect god would put god as part and parcel of an evolving universe, and clearly outside the domain of a first mover or creator.

Joshthefirst:
This is old news. The "inverted" design of the retina presents VARIOUS advantages physiologically, one of which is ensuring adequate contact of the photoreceptors with bslood and nutrients. Bring octopuses to a terrestrial environment and check if they would still see better than us or interpret photo data faster than us.

And our eyes are filled with fluid because the eyeball would collapse if they weren't.

It'll do you well to educate yourself on the subject. In your own words; knowledge is power.

Here's a simple and effective link.
http://www.icr.org/article/backwards-human-retina-evidence-poor-design/

DeepSight:


Why?



This universe.
Remember that the immediate proximate cause of the universe needn't be God as presented in terms of eternity.



Yes, if that first mover is not the eternal God, no if it is.

Remember that the term first mover is being used in relation to this universe: which should suffice for this discussion at this time.

What may be sought to be shown is a creative agent of this universe, which may or may not be the Eternal God - BUT at all events suffices for the purpose of the Kalam argument.



In relation to this universe, such an idea can be considered.

However kindly note that when we speak of the Eternal or Infinite God, this in no way suggests that such an agent cannot be at the root of a finite creation.

Beings living within that finite creation however, will have to limit their understanding to its time-space frame. There is no contradiction in this, if you can see clearly the simple point.



Why must we discuss the religious concept of God?

The topic is the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Is it a religious argument or a philosophical one?



A less than perfect god can be conceived of which is a causative agent standing in a chain: there would be no need to state that such a god ceasing to be a causative creative agent simply because it stands in a causative chain. It would only mean that such a god is not necessarily the Eternal Godhead itself. For the purpose of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, there is no need to invoke and question the existence of the Eternal God Head. A causative creative agent suffices for that argument alone.

Please answer my questions above as they are very important:
1. What is seeing?

2. Assuming for once - and just for the purpose of a question - that such a first mover exists, must such a first mover be either perfect or moral according to human understanding?

DProDG:


This does not address the question of the 'design flaws'. Physiological advantages over what exactly? The fluid for examples causes distortions in vision as Evilbrain1 mentioned. An 'intelligent designer' could have come up with something more 'intelligent' than that.

Wow, a notorious Creation website as a source? Not to mention the article(yes I actually bothered reading it) did not address the poor designs but rather, basically explained how they worked and said they were okay.

Also, Jerry Bergman? Really? Have you seen his credentials?

Joshthefirst:
Physiological advantage over a "verted" retina. Like what? A design is presented as the best case scenario for a particular environment t and you stand there saying it should've been made better without presenting your better alternative. The brain makes up for the refractive distortions.

If thats what you got from reading the article then you need to learn comprehension. Don't blame it on me.

Joshthefirst:
Physiological advantage over a "verted" retina. Like what? A design is presented as the best case scenario for a particular environment t and you stand there saying it should've been made better without presenting your better alternative.

The brain makes up for the refractive distortions.

If thats what you got from reading the article then you need to learn comprehension. Don't blame it on me.

davien:
Evilbrain1 I think this video is better at presenting the case of the kalam argument for Joshthefirst...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpKGMq077-s

plaetton:

1. Seeing is visual perception.

2. No. but order, symmetry, harmonious blend of form and function express beauty and perfection in any universe where form and function co-exists.

DeepSight:


Very well, let us start with this although all you have done is to say something like: "Seeing is seeing" simply you have used different words. nevertheless in so doing you have used the cardinal word I wanted to elicit: perception.

What does it take to perceive something and do you think that non living matter, if given sufficient time in random states, can (1) become living and more topical to my thrust (2) begin to perceive.

Further on, do you agree that perception requires a mind at work?



I hope you know that this has nothing whatever to do with any possible or conceivable refutation of the Kalam.

The most central plank of the Kalam is a commencement - something "beginning" and the logical inference that a "beginning" of necessity requires a trigger. namely that things do not just "begin" absent a trigger - as such would violate all laws of motion, causality and logic conceivable. Hence the logically sound statement that - "whatever begins to exist requires a cause."

Only things that have no beginning can be said to require no cause, as they are existent by default.

I have seen evidently mentally disturbed persons on this forum (and even one who fancies himself a scientist right here on this thread) bizarrely assert that this logical statement is not true - and given that such is the most illogical and unscientific position possible, I am hoping that you do not fall into same category?