Junk DNA means no God.

God, the FSM, and everything else.
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10207
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:16 am

According to a Scientific American article I read some years ago, 80% of all humans will suffer back problems at some stage of their life. That is definitely not an adequate design!

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:30 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:There is nothing wrong with my use of the term "conception" in that context. You may be a feminazi, but that doesn't mean you have to be a spelling & grammar Nazi too.
:roll: Here's a little tip for you: Working for gender equality and active extermination of a religious population are not equal goals.
Working for gender equality?! :lol: You've already GOT your gender equality sweetheart, and then some! And you'll continue to have it until such time as men - be they Western men [b]or otherwise - decide that it's no longer required.[/b]

As a matter of fact, the so-called gender equality that people like you are working towards does coincide with active extermination of a religious population, because it works to reduce both the birth rate and the morale of said population to unsustainably low levels. And if you don't believe it coming from me, then maybe you'll believe it coming from a bearded {!#%@} when he beats you half to death for daring to expose your head in public.
Even your ad hominems lack logic. :roll: They also show your lack of observational skills, pathetic insecurity, recognition that you've lost this argument, and zero sense of humor.


:lol: Ad hominem?! What part of that was an ad hominem? Your response, however, is exactly the sort of butt-hurt sanctimonious ad hominem drivel that feminists resort to when they have no comeback to an argument.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:While I'm at it, here's another one: Correcting improper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, and active extermination of a religious population are not equal goals. My argument is not based on a "conception" of a creator, but a "concept." Your counter argument misses that point by a mile.
Attempts to police the language of others however, can go and have gone hand-in-hand with genocidal ambitions. Again there was nothing wrong with my use of that word, and your eagerness to chide me over such a preposterous red-herring is demonstrative that language policing is never far removed from thought policing. Stop trying to thought-police me and try to actually address the argument I made instead.
I was not "policing your language."


Yes you were.

You literally used the wrong word.


No I didn't, and your continued obsession with this non-issue would be hilarious if it weren't for its sinister feminazi - or more accurately, Femimarxist - context.

My argument is based on a "concept" of a creator...an objective, abstract idea. Your counter argument is based on your "conception" of your particular god...a subjective, specific description derived from the tenets of your faith.


Rubbish. Not only is your conception of God no more objective than mine, it is actually less so because it has everything to do with Little Ole Ethel's vague fuzzy version of God and nothing to do with God as described by any major religion's scriptures.

Where exactly in my argument did I mention Yahweh? Right. I didn't.


I never said you did. What I am saying is that the God you talk about has no basis in the teachings of any major religious tradition.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:1. Why would I have bothered addressing Lance's argument when xouper already was?
Because your argument against an omni-benevolent God is both pointless and an indirect endorsement of Lance's line of argument.
Arguments against mythical beings in whom billions of people blindly believe are never pointless.


I agree, but your argument does not fall into this category.

My argument was not an endorsement of Lance's, indirectly or otherwise, because:
1. I specifically defined the creator against whose existence I was arguing; I did not refer to "God."


You are both advancing arguments against the perfection of God as if they were arguments against the existence of God. But whereas Lance at least has the discipline to equates God's apparent incompetence with His non-existence, you can't even decide whether you are arguing against God's existence on the grounds of incompetence or cruelty. While your argument may lean towards the latter, the fact is that the vast majority of the world's theists don't even believe in your omni-benevolent God in the first place! In other words, arguing against the existence of God on the grounds of omni-benevolence is a waste of everyone's time.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:2. Your assumption about my assumption is incorrect. I merely made those three properties elements of my argument; I did not say they were non-negotiable features. YOU assumed that because of your monotheistic belief.
Then you admit that your argument is pointless, because no omni-benevolent God has been posited by the Bible or any other source of any consequence.
I don't admit that at all.


Why not? It is a logical consequence of your admission.

Nor do I agree that your statement speaks to the validity of my argument, especially since "omni-benevolence" was only one quality of the creator in my argument.


Whether you like it or not, omni-benevolence is the lynchpin of your argument. It is entirely possible for God to be omniscient and omnipotent while doing all those unpleasant things you cited as examples. Omnipotence and omniscience are necessary features of an almighty creator God, but omni-benevolence is not.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Why would an omnipotent creator fail to allow for humans evolving into creatures that walk upright?
What makes you think He did?
The clearly inadequate design of the vertebral column, hip joints, knee joints, ankle joints, and arches, to name a few.


Inadequate how? According to whom? And how does your charge reconcile with the fact that humans walk around upright at every opportunity?

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Why would an omnipotent creator not use more durable materials? And a thousand other questions.
Why would He use more durable materials? If humans are not made of durable materials, then how is that any skin off His Divine Nose??
*facepalm* Inherently poor design is obvious proof against both omniscience and omnipotence.


No it's not. Again, who is deciding that it's "inherently poor design", and how are they deciding it? And even if we accept that your subjective notions of poor design are somehow absolutely true, then a God who is only capable of flawless designs cannot truly be called omniscient and omnipotent (i.e. because He mustn't know how to and/or be able to make flawed designs).

An omniscient being would have foreseen the need for more durable materials and a better design. An omnipotent being would have created more durable materials and a better design.


And you accuse me of jumping to conclusions!

This is called "logic."


I can think of many things to call it, but logic definitely ain't one of them!
Last edited by Venerable Kwan Tam Woo on Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:37 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:According to a Scientific American article I read some years ago, 80% of all humans will suffer back problems at some stage of their life. That is definitely not an adequate design!


And according to a Scientific American article I read some years ago, 100% of all humans will go splat if they fall to the ground from the top of a tall building. That is definitely not an adequate design!
Last edited by Venerable Kwan Tam Woo on Wed Aug 02, 2017 6:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10685
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:01 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:According to a Scientific American article I read some years ago, 80% of all humans will suffer back problems at some stage of their life. That is definitely not an adequate design!


That's your personal and subjective opinion, and depends on your personal definition of "adequate". A creator deity may have another idea about what's "adequate".

In any case, "adequate" does not necessarily mean totally problem-free. That would be "ideal", not "adequate". Adequate means people can walk upright, even if not always perfectly all the time.

The current design is indeed "adequate" (sufficient) for walking upright even if it does not fully live up to your personal requirements.

Nice try, but no cigar.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10685
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:01 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Why would an omnipotent creator fail to allow for humans evolving into creatures that walk upright?
What makes you think He did?
The clearly inadequate design of the vertebral column, hip joints, knee joints, ankle joints, and arches, to name a few.


Seems to me the design is sufficient (adequate) to allow walking upright. Seems to me, but I could be mistaken, I've been walking upright for a number of years. ;)
Barely adequate, but not superior.


True, it's not superior (or ideal), but that's not what I was responding to. I was not implying or suggesting that "superior" is the only alternative to "inadequate". As you observed, there is a middle in there somewhere. ;)

Are you now revising your assertion from "inadequate" to "barely adequate"? I won't complain if you do, but I will point out that such a revision severely weakens your argument.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10685
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:39 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:. . . Inherently poor design is obvious proof against both omniscience and omnipotence. An omniscient being would have foreseen the need for more durable materials and a better design. An omnipotent being would have created more durable materials and a better design. This is called "logic."


Please show the intermediate steps (the unstated premises and assumptions, etc) in your syllogism. Thanks.

Specifically, please justify the (implied) assertion that the design does not meet the design objectives of the (omniscience and omnipotence) creator. Or please explain on what basis the creator should consider the design to be "poor".

Also, why does being omniscient mean that the creator should have foreseen the need for a better design or foreseen the need for better materials?

Why does being omnipotent mean the creator should have created more durable materials and a better design?

Enquiring Minds Wanna Know™. :D
I'm not speaking to motivation or design objectives here, . . .


When you judge a design to be "poor", then you are implicitly speaking to the design objectives, because it is not possible to judge a design without knowing the design objectives (i.e the intent of the designer/creator).

(If it's not clear what I mean by that, I refer you back to the three Cessna examples I posted previously.)


Nikki Nyx wrote: xouper, only the qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence. It's a completely subjective argument, not necessarily a strictly logical one.


OK, sorry, I was fooled when you said earlier "This is called logic". ;)

If you are merely expressing your subjective opinion rather than making an objective argument, then I can accept that.


Nikki Nyx wrote: As I stated previously, we can't imagine these three qualities in any case, so it's an exercise in futility.


I don't require anyone to imagine any of that, since it is not relevant to my questions about your argument.


Nikki Nyx wrote:Omniscience implies knowing how the design will work out in practice, prior to actually building it, . . .


I accept that. Please explain how it is possible to determine "how well" something works out without knowing how it is supposed to work out?

(Example: If an airplane is supposed to go 200 mph, but it only goes 100 mph, then we can say it didn't work out well in practice. But if the design objective was to get good fuel efficiency at 100 mph, then failure to go 200 mph is not a defect. Rule of thumb: For an airplane to go twice as fast, it requires eight times as much power.)


Nikki Nyx wrote:Omnipotence implies the ability to create materials with properties appropriate to the task for which the design is intended, . . .


That's exactly my point (and one I have been making all along). Please explain how you know what the designer's intentions were?


Nikki Nyx wrote:Omni-benevolence implies the empathy to create a design pleasing to those who will be inhabiting it, . . .


Please explain how you justify that assertion about the definition of omnibenevolence.

As I understand it, benevolence is defined in relation to doing "good". Who gets to define what "good" means in this context? You or the creator? Example: Sometimes when someone does something for your own "good" does not always mean it will be "pleasing" to you.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10207
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Aug 02, 2017 7:57 am

To Xouper

If as is the case, 80% of all humans have back problems at some time in their life, I definitely define that as inadequate. Adequate, like so many adjectives, has meaning only if relative to something else. In this case, the relativity is to non upright mammals. They have close to zero back problems. It is only since our ancestors evolved an upright stance that this became a problem. In other words, this problem is caused by an evolutionary process which is not 'perfect' , rather than some kind of creator deity.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby TJrandom » Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:27 am

xouper wrote: ... When you judge a design to be "poor", then you are implicitly speaking to the design objectives, because it is not possible to judge a design without knowing the design objectives (i.e the intent of the designer/creator). ...


I disagree. A design can be poor because the requirements have changed, or better designs have been identified. The horse and buggy was a very good transportation design over the alternatives - walking or double on a horse in its day, but is a poor design for today. Human body design may have been adequate for when life expectancy was just 40, but is wildly inadequate for today.

If I were designing the human female, I`d add a few features... nothing carnal of course... no not me. ;)

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11013
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:41 am

TJ--I disagree. You are talking about design alone and not design by "the Creator" himself perfect in all ways. Its obvious to me, applied to your assumptions, that a perfect Creator would design dna to change over time so that no notion of "junk" would arise. Course.....one might ask why hoomans get sick or get old or die at all. Why design a creature meant to spend 24/7 on their knees worshipping the creator be designed to eat or sleep? Seems to me a non-defective design for such a commanding purpose would be nuclear powered.

Gee.... once you start really looking..... what was HE thinking?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby TJrandom » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:24 am

The design problem is easily resolved by concluding it wasn`t a design at all, but rather the simple result of evolution. Frequently the obvious answer is the correct one. There is probably a law to this effect...

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11013
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:46 am

Thats true. ................... every difficult thorny dilemma can be resolved by picking the most obvious answer. Kinda skips over the dilemma though?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby TJrandom » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:49 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Thats true. ................... every difficult thorny dilemma can be resolved by picking the most obvious answer. Kinda skips over the dilemma though?


If it works, don`t knock it. :oldman:

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10510
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:54 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:Omniscience implies knowing how the design will work out in practice, prior to actually building it, instead of ending up with something like Formula 409 because the first 408 formulae didn't work.

Ardipithecus
Australopithecus
Homo habilis
H. erectus
H. sapiens
H. 409
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10510
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:07 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:Unloading rocks is easy. Please describe the chemical pathway necessary to expunge extraneous DNA. Justify your claim that it would require less energy than carrying the old stuff.



It is the time factor.
Carrying rocks for two hours takes more effort than for one hour.
Carrying junk DNA is something our ancestors have been doing for hundreds of millions of years.


Nothing 'carries' junk DNA. Junk DNA is part of a molecule. Your analogy is as useful as boobies on a bishop.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Aug 02, 2017 6:47 pm

VKTW: You are in need of a quality dictionary, a course in basic logic, and therapy. None of the definitions of "venerable" are appropriate to you, including the RC one. "Woo" fits you well, though. You should keep that part.

An ad hominem attack, by definition, attacks the arguer independent of her argument. You have done that repeatedly without a great deal of intelligence. (Femimarxist? Dafuq is that? Someone who believes in the collective ownership of the means of sperm production? :rotfl: ) None of it has hurt my feelings, since you've merely revealed your own weakness in the process. Did it start with your mother? Or some teenage girlfriend who crushed your ego? Regardless, kindly stop swinging your misogynistic dick in my face.

All your counter arguments are based on your conflation of the particular deity you worship with the hypothetical creator in my argument, and they are not the same thing. You have a specific, subjective conception of "god." I've presented a hypothetical concept of a creator with the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence. Because of your conflation, your argument is based on the emotions you attach to your perceived attack on your faith. This is clear from your repeated insistence that the hypothetical creator I've described does not match your conception of your deity. But I never specified I was referring to your deity...or anyone's...merely an artificial construct, a concept purely for the sake of argument.

You claim that omniscience and omnipotence are necessary features of a creator, but claim that omni-benevolence is not. None of the three is a logical necessary feature. Greatly superior knowledge and power, both to a degree unimaginable by the human mind, would suffice, via Clarke's Third Law. Such superior knowledge and power would be perceived by the human mind to be omniscience and omnipotence, neither of which we can imagine any more than we can grasp the concept of infinity. However, I provided my hypothetical creator with all three features, and my argument is based on the possession of those attributes. You cannot unilaterally change my premise, then attack my conclusion because the premise you changed makes the conclusion illogical. :roll: That's like changing the rules in the middle of the game.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11013
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Aug 02, 2017 7:02 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:Greatly superior knowledge and power, both to a degree unimaginable by the human mind, would suffice, via Clarke's Third Law. .

Or........the creator could be mind numbingly stupid... as when hoomans seed some ice moon of Jupiter with a virus that hitched a ride. aka: creation doesn't have to be intentional...or by design.

What does "omni-" add to any adjective? Are the other attributes something other than omni?

Edit: oops....I see they are all omni. the hyphen threw me off..... bloodhound that I am, still more visual than smell. Or would that be flavor?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Aug 02, 2017 7:14 pm

xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:Seems to me the design is sufficient (adequate) to allow walking upright. Seems to me, but I could be mistaken, I've been walking upright for a number of years. ;)
Barely adequate, but not superior.


True, it's not superior (or ideal), but that's not what I was responding to. I was not implying or suggesting that "superior" is the only alternative to "inadequate". As you observed, there is a middle in there somewhere. ;)

Are you now revising your assertion from "inadequate" to "barely adequate"? I won't complain if you do, but I will point out that such a revision severely weakens your argument.
I don't believe I'm revising. Let me restate in case anything is unclear.

For the purpose of my argument, I have described a hypothetical creator with all three of the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence. (Any relation to creators that others have...er...created is purely coincidental.) I have posited that the design and construction of the human body is proof that my hypothetical creator could not exist with the attributes I have described, for the following reasons:

1. The attribute of omniscience would cause such a being to produce the most efficient, elegant, and beautiful design possible. With infinite knowledge available, including how every possible design would pan out in the long run, my hypothetical creator would be capable of engineering a perfect design.

2. The attribute of omnipotence would cause such a being to create the most durable, sensorially pleasing, and functional materials possible. With infinite power available, my hypothetical creator would be capable of manufacturing materials that were perfectly suited to every organ's function (and other qualities as necessary).

3. The attribute of omni-benevolence would cause such a being to create a design that would not cause its inhabitants physical or emotional pain to any degree. Since my hypothetical creator is infinitely good, empathetic, and generous, it would ensure its design was pleasing in every way to those who would be inhabiting it.

Since none of the numbered statements is true, then a hypothetical creator with all three attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence must not have designed and constructed the human body.

(Note that my argument does not speak to the existence of a creator with none, one, or two of the specified attributes, who may have created the microorganisms that eventually evolved into human beings. Frankly, I see no way to formulate an argument for or against that, there being far too many variables. My argument, therefore, speaks only to the existence of a creator with all three attributes who specifically and directly designed the human body. I think I initially failed to make that clear.)
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Aug 02, 2017 7:24 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:To Xouper

If as is the case, 80% of all humans have back problems at some time in their life, I definitely define that as inadequate. Adequate, like so many adjectives, has meaning only if relative to something else. In this case, the relativity is to non upright mammals. They have close to zero back problems. It is only since our ancestors evolved an upright stance that this became a problem. In other words, this problem is caused by an evolutionary process which is not 'perfect' , rather than some kind of creator deity.
Exception...quite a few of the larger dog breeds that are habitually inbred tend to develop hip dysplasia, the result of multiple generations of reinforcement of recessive genes. Mixed breed dogs generally don't have hip dysplasia unless they experience trauma prior to growth plate closure.

But compare that to humans. How many people do you know who have had hip or knee replacement surgery? Or who have chronic back pain, even though they're in good shape?
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10207
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Aug 02, 2017 7:56 pm

Nikki

Dogs are victims of incompetent 'creators '. To the point. If humans are the result of a creator, he, she, or it must also be incompetent. Certainty not the Christian idea of omnipotent, omniscient, and lmnibenevolent.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Aug 02, 2017 8:25 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:I'm not speaking to motivation or design objectives here
When you judge a design to be "poor", then you are implicitly speaking to the design objectives, because it is not possible to judge a design without knowing the design objectives (i.e the intent of the designer/creator).
I disagree that judging the design is impossible without knowing the design objectives. If one is using the product for its intended purposes, then one can judge the design by how well it works in practice. For example, I own a Brita water pitcher, the design of which I judge to be poor based on using it for its intended purpose:
1. You cannot pour filtered water from the bottom reservoir if there is still unfiltered water in the top reservoir; you have to wait until the top reservoir is empty. If you try, the lid falls off and spills unfiltered water everywhere.
2. The pitcher includes a multitude of crevasses, nooks, and crannies that capture dust, dirt, and mold, making it extremely difficult to clean.
3. The indicator light that tells you when the filter needs replacing lights up only when you're pouring from the pitcher, at which point the light is facing away from you and out of your view.
Regardless of what the design objectives were, in practice, the design is poor for a filtered water pitcher.

Similarly, even though we can't know the design objectives of my hypothetical creator (with the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence), we can still make a judgment about the design of the human body based on how well it works in practice. If, that is, the human body was, in fact, designed. If it evolved, then we can't say it was designed, can we?

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:Omniscience implies knowing how the design will work out in practice, prior to actually building it
I accept that. Please explain how it is possible to determine "how well" something works out without knowing how it is supposed to work out?

(Example: If an airplane is supposed to go 200 mph, but it only goes 100 mph, then we can say it didn't work out well in practice. But if the design objective was to get good fuel efficiency at 100 mph, then failure to go 200 mph is not a defect. Rule of thumb: For an airplane to go twice as fast, it requires eight times as much power.)
The failure in your example is not with the design department, but the marketing department for advertising the plane's capabilities incorrectly. Your analogy is a touch flawed here, since the plane was never "supposed to go 200mph" in the first place. It would be like me complaining, after seeing a Renaissance painting of an angel, that I don't have wings and can't fly. But that's not the case here; I'm not expecting the human body to perform superhuman feats, then judging it poorly because it can't. What I'm saying is that it's poorly designed for basic survival...again, if it was, in fact, designed. Evolution is not part of my argument.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:Omnipotence implies the ability to create materials with properties appropriate to the task for which the design is intended
That's exactly my point (and one I have been making all along). Please explain how you know what the designer's intentions were?
An examination of the human digestive system makes it clear that teeth are intended for masticating food into smaller pieces, yes? Teeth are inadequately designed for the task. They're soft, prone to chipping and breakage, easily invaded by pathogens, inadequately protected by enamel, not self-cleaning, present a direct path for pathogens to the brain, do not last for the lifetime of the user, can injure the user, and on and on. Poor design for the intended use.


Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:Omni-benevolence implies the empathy to create a design pleasing to those who will be inhabiting it, . . .
Please explain how you justify that assertion about the definition of omnibenevolence.

As I understand it, benevolence is defined in relation to doing "good". Who gets to define what "good" means in this context? You or the creator? Example: Sometimes when someone does something for your own "good" does not always mean it will be "pleasing" to you.
Oxford defines omni-benevolent as "possessing perfect or unlimited goodness." Nothing there about doing something for someone else's own good, regardless of whether they want you to or not. Collins English definition: "kind and generous towards everyone and everything."

How does "perfect, unlimited goodness" and "kind and generous toward everyone" synch with migraine headaches, cancer, chronic pain disorders, autoimmune diseases, birth defects, mood disorders, anaphylactic allergies...or even dental cavities, menstrual cramps, ulcers, erectile dysfunction, and labor pain?
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10685
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 02, 2017 10:08 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:To Xouper

If as is the case, 80% of all humans have back problems at some time in their life, I definitely define that as inadequate. Adequate, like so many adjectives, has meaning only if relative to something else. In this case, the relativity is to non upright mammals. They have close to zero back problems. It is only since our ancestors evolved an upright stance that this became a problem. In other words, this problem is caused by an evolutionary process which is not 'perfect' , rather than some kind of creator deity.


I agree with your conclusion that evolution is a better explanation than a creator. But not for the reasons you give.

The syllogism you are using is logically invalid, for all the reasons I have stated.

You have repeatedly failed to justify any of your assertions, premises, or assumptions. You just keep repeating them, like a borken record.

Regarding the part in yellow, yes, that is exactly the point I have been making all along. The judgement that a design is "adequate" must be made by comparing it to the intentions of the designer, which you have not yet done, despite repeated requests to do so. It is not valid to merely compare a design to just any other thing, as you have tried to do here. Sorry, that doesn't work. A design can only be compared to the design objectives, nothing else.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10685
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 02, 2017 10:13 pm

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote: ... When you judge a design to be "poor", then you are implicitly speaking to the design objectives, because it is not possible to judge a design without knowing the design objectives (i.e the intent of the designer/creator). ...


I disagree. A design can be poor because the requirements have changed, or better designs have been identified. The horse and buggy was a very good transportation design over the alternatives - walking or double on a horse in its day, but is a poor design for today.


Please explain how you know that the creator's design objectives have changed over time.

Your personal design objectives are irrelevant no matter how much they change over time, and are not a valid justification for saying the creator was incompetent.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10685
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:33 pm

This getting a bit long, so I'm going to risk breaking it into separate posts.

If this is unacceptable, please petition the court for your money back. :P


Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:Seems to me the design is sufficient (adequate) to allow walking upright. Seems to me, but I could be mistaken, I've been walking upright for a number of years. ;)
Barely adequate, but not superior.


True, it's not superior (or ideal), but that's not what I was responding to. I was not implying or suggesting that "superior" is the only alternative to "inadequate". As you observed, there is a middle in there somewhere. ;)

Are you now revising your assertion from "inadequate" to "barely adequate"? I won't complain if you do, but I will point out that such a revision severely weakens your argument.
I don't believe I'm revising. Let me restate in case anything is unclear.


OK, I am willing to allow that I misunderstood your point and that I ought to revise my understanding of your argument based on further clarification. This is why I ask questions rather than risk arguing against a straw man.


Nikki Nyx wrote:For the purpose of my argument, I have described a hypothetical creator with all three of the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence. (Any relation to creators that others have...er...created is purely coincidental.)


Yes, I had no problem with that part. Your clarification demonstrates we are on the same page regarding that detail.

To be continued . . .

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10685
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:34 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:1. The attribute of omniscience would cause such a being to produce the most efficient, elegant, and beautiful design possible. With infinite knowledge available, including how every possible design would pan out in the long run, my hypothetical creator would be capable of engineering a perfect design.


Please justify your assertion that there exists a "perfect design"?

I contend there is no such thing and that all designs inherently make trade-offs with respect to competing (and sometimes mutually exclusive) design objectives.

To see what I mean by that, consider this (trivial) example: Do you want an airplane that goes fast or one that gets low fuel consumption? You can't have both in the same design, therefore if a perfect design means having both, then there is no such thing as a perfect design in this case.

So when you say "perfect design", you must still explain what the intended purpose is.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10685
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:36 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:2. The attribute of omnipotence would cause such a being to create the most durable, sensorially pleasing, and functional materials possible. With infinite power available, my hypothetical creator would be capable of manufacturing materials that were perfectly suited to every organ's function (and other qualities as necessary).


Same question. How do you justify your assertion that for any given design requirement there always exists a perfect material to make it from?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Example: What is the perfect material to make an airplane part from? Aluminum or carbon fiber or something else? Answer: It depends on what the design objective is.

There is no single perfect answer for any given part without knowing the intended purpose. And maybe not even then.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10685
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:46 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:3. The attribute of omni-benevolence would cause such a being to create a design that would not cause its inhabitants physical or emotional pain to any degree. Since my hypothetical creator is infinitely good, empathetic, and generous, it would ensure its design was pleasing in every way to those who would be inhabiting it.


Please explain how you justify that assertion about the definition of omnibenevolence.

As I understand it, benevolence is defined in relation to doing "good". Who gets to define what "good" means in this context? You or the creator?


Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Omni-benevolence implies the empathy to create a design pleasing to those who will be inhabiting it, . . .
Please explain how you justify that assertion about the definition of omnibenevolence.

As I understand it, benevolence is defined in relation to doing "good". Who gets to define what "good" means in this context? You or the creator? Example: Sometimes when someone does something for your own "good" does not always mean it will be "pleasing" to you.
Oxford defines omni-benevolent as "possessing perfect or unlimited goodness." Nothing there about doing something for someone else's own good, regardless of whether they want you to or not. Collins English definition: "kind and generous towards everyone and everything."


Yes, I know what the definition is. But thanks for quoting it anyway. Seems I did not explain my example sufficiently. Let me try again with a different example.

In military boot camp, the drill instructors often make life a living hell for the recruits. The intended purpose is for the long term "good" of the soldier and of the military, despite the short term "discomfort".

This example is intended to demonstrate how "good" does not necessarily mean "kind and generous" at all times. I am not saying my military example is the (hypothetical) creator's intended purpose, but I am asking how do you know it isn't something similar (or analogous) to that?

Or, to use a cliche, one person's "good" is another person's "not so good". It all depends on the intended purpose,

Secondly, it is not possible to be kind and generous to everyone and everything. If you try, someone won't like it. ;)

This point wanders into a philosophical discussion (going back some 2500 years at least) about what is "good". It is not my intention go into it that deeply here. My only intention here is to ask how you justify claiming that the (hypothetical) creator must adhere to your opinion of what is "good, kind, or generous"?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10685
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:47 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:(Note that my argument does not speak to the existence of a creator with none, one, or two of the specified attributes, who may have created the microorganisms that eventually evolved into human beings. Frankly, I see no way to formulate an argument for or against that, there being far too many variables. My argument, therefore, speaks only to the existence of a creator with all three attributes who specifically and directly designed the human body. I think I initially failed to make that clear.)


Actually, I got that point before, but thanks for making it more clear and explicit, thus validating that we are on the same page.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10207
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:48 pm

Xouper

If I, in my definitely limited nature, can posit an improvement to the design of the human body, then it is inadequately designed.
Suggestion. Do away with the appendix.
That is an improvement, and the suggestion came from me, who is not a genius. Thus the body is inadequately designed. Not an issue when we consider evolution. But definitely an issue when we consider a deity as creator. After all, a God, by definition , is superior to a human.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10685
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:49 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:I'm not speaking to motivation or design objectives here
When you judge a design to be "poor", then you are implicitly speaking to the design objectives, because it is not possible to judge a design without knowing the design objectives (i.e the intent of the designer/creator).
I disagree that judging the design is impossible without knowing the design objectives. If one is using the product for its intended purposes, then one can judge the design by how well it works in practice.


When I use the phrase "design objective" I intend that to mean the same as "the designer's intentions".

So let me rephrase: It is not possible to judge a design without knowing the intended purpose. And by that I mean the (hypothetical) creator's intended purpose, not your personal requirements.


Nikki Nyx wrote:Similarly, even though we can't know the design objectives of my hypothetical creator (with the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence), we can still make a judgment about the design of the human body based on how well it works in practice.


I disagree. Determining how well it works in practice depends on knowing its intended purpose.

Please explain what the (hypothetical) creator's intended purpose of the human is?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10685
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:51 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Omniscience implies knowing how the design will work out in practice, prior to actually building it
I accept that. Please explain how it is possible to determine "how well" something works out without knowing how it is supposed to work out?

(Example: If an airplane is supposed to go 200 mph, but it only goes 100 mph, then we can say it didn't work out well in practice. But if the design objective was to get good fuel efficiency at 100 mph, then failure to go 200 mph is not a defect. Rule of thumb: For an airplane to go twice as fast, it requires eight times as much power.)
The failure in your example is not with the design department, but the marketing department for advertising the plane's capabilities incorrectly.


That is not a correct interpretation of my example, which may mean I did not explain it clearly enough. Let me try again.

Example: If the intended purpose (as determined by the designer) of an airplane is to go 200 mph, but it only goes 100 mph, then we can say it didn't work out well in practice. It failed to live up to its intended purpose, as defined by the creator.

But if the intended purpose (as determined by the designer/creator) was to get good fuel efficiency at 100 mph, then it is not valid to claim that the intended purpose was to go 200 mph and then declare the design a failure. In this case the design did in fact work out well in practice and lived up to its intended purpose and thus it is not valid to declare the design to be flawed.

None of this has anything to do with the marketing department. Unless you are claiming that the (hypothesized) creator of humans failed to inform us of the actual intended purpose. You might have a point there, but then that point supports my point that you do not know the intended purpose of the human design and thus are not in a position to evaluate whether it lives up to the creator's intended purpose in practice.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10685
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:52 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Omnipotence implies the ability to create materials with properties appropriate to the task for which the design is intended
That's exactly my point (and one I have been making all along). Please explain how you know what the designer's intentions were?
An examination of the human digestive system makes it clear that teeth are intended for masticating food into smaller pieces, yes? . . . [details stipulated and snipped] . . . Poor design for the intended use.


I do not know what the creator's intended purpose is. Are you making the claim that you do know?


Nikki Nyx wrote:How does "perfect, unlimited goodness" and "kind and generous toward everyone" synch with migraine headaches, cancer, chronic pain disorders, autoimmune diseases, birth defects, mood disorders, anaphylactic allergies...or even dental cavities, menstrual cramps, ulcers, erectile dysfunction, and labor pain?


I do not pretend to know what the creator's intended purpose was. How do you justify saying that the creator did not have a higher "good" in mind by making the design that way?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10685
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:00 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

If I, in my definitely limited nature, can posit an improvement to the design of the human body, then it is inadequately designed.
Suggestion. Do away with the appendix.
That is an improvement, and the suggestion came from me, who is not a genius. Thus the body is inadequately designed.


Please justify why the (hypothetical) creator must accommodate your personal requirements instead of the creator's requirements?

It is not valid to judge the merits of someone else's design based on your personal requirements. The design can only be (legitimately) evaluated with respect to the creator's purposes, not yours.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:01 am

xouper wrote:Please justify your assertion that there exists a "perfect design"?
In the context of a creator who knows everything there is to know, and has every power possible? Why would there be limits on such a creator's design?
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:03 am

xouper wrote:How do you justify your assertion that for any given design requirement there always exists a perfect material to make it from?
Same answer. A perfect material doesn't need to exist; a creature with unlimited power and knowledge can envision and create a perfect material.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10685
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:08 am

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote: ... When you judge a design to be "poor", then you are implicitly speaking to the design objectives, because it is not possible to judge a design without knowing the design objectives (i.e the intent of the designer/creator). ...


I disagree. A design can be poor because the requirements have changed, or better designs have been identified. The horse and buggy was a very good transportation design over the alternatives - walking or double on a horse in its day, but is a poor design for today.


Not necessarily. It is still a good design for modern day tourists who want a leisurely ride around town in an old fashioned horse and buggy. :P

Image

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:13 am

xouper wrote:In military boot camp, the drill instructors often make life a living hell for the recruits. The intended purpose is for the long term "good" of the soldier and of the military, despite the short term "discomfort".
Well, it's questionable whether the actions of DIs serve the long-term good of their recruits. I don't think analogies will serve your argument, since there's no earthly comparison to omni-benevolence.

xouper wrote:Secondly, it is not possible to be kind and generous to everyone and everything. If you try, someone won't like it. ;)
You can make this blanket assertion about a being that is also omniscient and omnipotent? :mrgreen:

xouper wrote:This point wanders into a philosophical discussion (going back some 2500 years at least) about what is "good". It is not my intention go into it that deeply here. My only intention here is to ask how you justify claiming that the (hypothetical) creator must adhere to your opinion of what is "good, kind, or generous"?
It's not my opinion; it's the dictionary definition of omni-benevolence, which does not speak to "doing things for your own good, even if you dislike it," but "kindness and generosity."
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10685
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:15 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:Please justify your assertion that there exists a "perfect design"?
In the context of a creator who knows everything there is to know, and has every power possible? Why would there be limits on such a creator's design?


I already explained why there is no such thing as a perfect design, because sometimes there are competing or contradictory requirements.

Can such a creator make a rock he cannot lift? No. There are logical limits to what such a creator can do.


Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:How do you justify your assertion that for any given design requirement there always exists a perfect material to make it from?
Same answer. A perfect material doesn't need to exist; a creature with unlimited power and knowledge can envision and create a perfect material.


Again, there is no such thing as a perfect material. For the same reason I gave above, it is a logical contradiction.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:16 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

If I, in my definitely limited nature, can posit an improvement to the design of the human body, then it is inadequately designed.
Suggestion. Do away with the appendix.
That is an improvement, and the suggestion came from me, who is not a genius. Thus the body is inadequately designed. Not an issue when we consider evolution. But definitely an issue when we consider a deity as creator. After all, a God, by definition , is superior to a human.
This may have changed, but didn't we discover fairly recently that the appendix is a "safe house" for gut bacteria? That is to say, in the event of an infection that depletes the digestive system of its necessary good bacteria, the appendix houses a supply in order to repopulate the gut?
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10685
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:36 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:In military boot camp, the drill instructors often make life a living hell for the recruits. The intended purpose is for the long term "good" of the soldier and of the military, despite the short term "discomfort".
Well, it's questionable whether the actions of DIs serve the long-term good of their recruits.


That depends on the intended purpose, no? The opinion of the recruits does not matter, since they do not get to define what the military's intended purpose is.


Nikki Nyx wrote: I don't think analogies will serve your argument, since there's no earthly comparison to omni-benevolence.


OK, then I will ask you to demonstrate that ominbenevolence exists at all by anyone or anything anywhere. If you want to postulate it for the sake of argument, then I will say it is a self-contradictory postulate and thus cannot exist. Stalemate. Is that where you want to take this discussion? ;)


Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:Secondly, it is not possible to be kind and generous to everyone and everything. If you try, someone won't like it. ;)
You can make this blanket assertion about a being that is also omniscient and omnipotent? :mrgreen:


Same answer.


Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:This point wanders into a philosophical discussion (going back some 2500 years at least) about what is "good". It is not my intention go into it that deeply here. My only intention here is to ask how you justify claiming that the (hypothetical) creator must adhere to your opinion of what is "good, kind, or generous"?
It's not my opinion; it's the dictionary definition of omni-benevolence, which does not speak to "doing things for your own good, even if you dislike it," but "kindness and generosity."


OK, then please define kindness and generosity. Are you suggesting there is an objective definition of such things and that you can state that definition without resorting to your personal subjective opinions?

In any case, it seems we're getting off track here. Quibbling about these semantics does not address the flaw in your argument.

And that fundamental flaw is that you have still not explained what the creator's intended purpose is. Until you do that, it is not reasonable to judge the merits of the design.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10685
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:48 am

This conversation is beginning to feel a little weird.

In the big picture I am on the same side as Lance and Nikki and Matthew an others in that I agree there is no creator and that humans arrived here through evolution.

Also, I like Lance and Nikki and Matthew and others because they are smart, knowledgeable, personable, and well-intentioned people and I wish them no harm here.

So why am I doing this?

Because this is a forum where people can practice their skills in critical thinking. When I see a fallacy in someone's thesis, that becomes a legitimate topic for discussion. No?

Sometimes this might result in someone wearing the Devil's Advocate hat.

Hopefully we can all remain friends. :D


Return to “Belief, Nonbelief, and Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest