Why does the designer of the designer matter to this argument?

Not knowing if man has a designer does not affect whether or not is reasonable to argue that man designed cars/computers/etc. Not knowing if god has a designer does not affect whether or not it is reasonable to argue that god designed man.

You are introducing a premise that is not a part of my argument. I know that my argument does not require this premise. You have created a different argument than mine and said that different argument has a paradox. Since it is not my argument, I don't care.

You're welcome to elaborate on how your premise should be included in my argument ... but until you show the logical steps on why your different argument is actually identical to mine, I don't give any weight to your claim that my argument is invalidated by paradox.

Again, we can identify human designed objects without knowing the designer of humans (if such exists). We can identify god designed objects without knowing the designer of god (if such exists).

Do remember that I have the experience of our previous discussion, and I was not impressed with your ability to reason. I'm not impressed now, either. You regularly misread my points, and show no intellectual humility by acknowledging the errors and dropping the prosecutorial stance.

"Your code is semi-valid"

"Uh, does that mean it's valid?"

"Well, no, I like parts of it, but ... "

"So you mean it's broken and invalid then."

Say what you mean. If there are parts that are not correct, then break it and show that it's broke. That's what rational argument *is*.

It's either valid or invalid. If there's any part that is broken, then it is invalid. Otherwise, a failure to find broken parts indicates that the argument is valid.

I wasn't talking about origins. I was criticizing evolution as a design process. It boils down to try random things and see what fails to go extinct.

That's insufficient to build something intricately complex, based on our actual experience with software and computer engineering. It's an article of faith that throwing infinite time at a lousy process will allow it to create excellent outputs.

I know you did not. It was part of my overall point about the intricacy of human design and inadequacy of randomly driven evolution as an explanation for its existence.

... Theoretically. You have not actually performed that experiment, and the universe has existed for a finite duration of time, based on our current physics understanding and the constraints of thermodynamics.

That I could theoretically level a mountain by myself given an infinite amount of time does not indicate I have actually done so.

I said I would offer a rational argument for God. This fulfills the requirements. That you can come up with a counter argument does not negate the existence or rationality of the argument.

Please look at the italicized and bolded parts and think through your arguments more thoroughly.

Back to the main point, I don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DNA was designed. That's a standard of evidence used for criminal trials to avoid harming the innocent. We can and do use different standards for different topics.

Whether or not the "design" is actually from a designer does not change that designers are observed to create designs, and designers are a reasonable explanation for the existence of anything that has a "design".

1. Someone with the ability to create man and all other life has sufficient creative power to be considered god.

2. The existence of man is evidence for such a being's existence.

3. Thus, the existence of man is evidence for god existing.

I don't care how you feel about the argument. Either break it or accept that it is a valid argument, even if you don't like the conclusion.

Semi-valid is actually invalid. Come on, now. Break it or accept it.

As a design process, evolution is an undirected search over a design space, using an extremely weak filter of "does not die" to refine the design.

Popularity aside, it's not a serious answer to human origin. It could sort of past muster when cells were thought to be blobs of simple chemicals, but we now know they are complex nano-factories running off of digital blueprints.

Junk DNA has turned out to be nothing of the sort, and I believe "non-coding DNA" is related to control logic and error checking. And that's before we even start to look at symbiosis and ecosystems.

How many retards does it take to equal a single intelligent designer? How many monkeys randomly hitting buttons and clicking "Compile" will replicate your work as a SW engineer?

Bearing in mind that failure is an option, there being no finite number is a very real possibility.

The supposed natural origins of complex designs aren't anywhere close to being explanations. So we're left with the one known good explanation of design - intelligent design; one that was historically believed in, and consistent with any computer engineer's experience with information systems.

No, I do not. I don't have to know anything about the designer of man, to recognize that something like a computer or a car is a designed object, and that those were designed by man.

Extrapolating that true relationship to conclude that man too is a designed object is rational. Incomplete, perhaps, but working with incomplete information should not be anything new to an engineer. ("So you want me to buid you a widget but you don't know what you want ...")

Nothing about my argument says that every designer must have his own designer. It merely points out that man did not design himself and that man isn't even capable of designing himself; therefore this is evidence for the existence of a superior being that designed man.

And no, it's not the one acceptable argument for god. It's the one that I like, though, and one that every techie should acknowledge. To deny it is like denying the existence of lolcats and porn on the Interwebz.

/sigh. Knowing our previous discussion, I don't believe you. There's too much history of people thinking and arguing on the topic for you to have not found a single rational argument, if that's all you were looking for.

But I said I would offer one, and so here's one from a systems engineering point of view.

I work with computer systems and building up software/hardware to collect information, process it, and pass it around. I can recognize the complexity of a system, and the level of effort needed to build complex systems versus simple ones. There's an obvious difference in wht it takes to rendering realistic 3D graphics versus displaying the simple text "Hello World!", for example

As such, I can recognize that the human body far exceeds the functionality of any human built system in history. There are an estimated 37.2 trillion cells in your body, all working together to make you continue to live. Those trillions of cells are grouped into a dozen or so systems throughout your body. Those parts working together using many nested layers of feedback loops. All of that starts from a single cell, working from its DNA blueprint.

That's an amazing design, and we don't even understand it enough to replicate it, let alone build something better.

The fact that the human body operates from an amazing intricate design is evidence for a superhuman designer. That is, a being that is above humans in ability to create designs.

There is a benign reason for why the AIG link ended up on top of the list - that Google happened to use an algorithm that weighted it as the "best answer" (faultily?).

So evidence is there that AIG paid to manipulate search engine results and get their page at the top of the list?

I accept your apology. Posting here since that previous article is now locked to comments.

I guess this is as good a place to continue that previous discussion if you wish.

Then no man has any obligation to accept what "science" says, which makes your constant appeals to science pointless.

Yet again, your philosophy contradicts itself. You claim one stance, but act against it.

The following:

Followed by:

This is an insult to my intelligence, regardless of your intentions.

That you're still asking me to "prove God" demonstrates you had no such experience at all ... and yet you expect me to believe your lies just because I believe there is a god? Idiocy, all the way down.

That is not an apology. You claim ignorance and innocent intentions, and then say you're sorry for my feelings, which you are not responsible for.

The facts are that you made up a stupid lie and you expected me to believe it. Apologize for your actions, not for my feelings, and do so without excuses.

Because you don't have the intellectual integrity to handle it.

For example, you lied about getting a divine revelation and it was trivially easy to poke a hole in the claim.

When you think I'm bound by my religion to accept your lies because you added "god" into the sentence ... reasoned arguments are pointless.

If you can get why that was stupid, and then apologize for insulting my intelligence with such nonsense, I will provide an argument for the existence of god for you to critique.

You believe in science as a superhuman ("above, beyond"-human) source of knowledge, which takes the place of God in the absence of evidence for god.

Like I said, I know religion. I'm seeing it in you. You shouldn't assume that hatred of god and disbelief in god means you escape the religious nature of mankind.

For that to be true, Buddhism has to not be a religion.

And you'll note that even then, Buddhism variants everywhere have adopted various deities for worship.

What it comes down to is that religion is not actually defined by the object of the worship, it's defined by the practice. And faithful atheists like yourself practice an "Atheism" religion which apes monotheistic religions like Christianity ... badly.

Some treat hate as the opposite of love ... but they're still both emotions/actions.

Atheism may be the opposite of theism ... but as practiced, it can still take on a religious flavor, because no matter if god exists or not, man is a religious being.

You have done nothing of the sort. Your pathetic attempts at arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.

Not to be like you is reason enough to believe.

God: 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

So you live by faith in atheism. But you don't think you have a religion. Heh.

If you are an example of a faithful atheist, I pray to God that I never get that foolish.

This entire thread is exactly that.

You don't get it. That you don't get what I'm talking about is part of why your atheism has zero attraction to me. It's a stupid religion for the fools who hate religion (!).

Oh look, there's your dogmatic recitation of fatih in SCIENCE, again!

I know religion. You have religion. You made SCIENCE your god ... which is utterly inadequate for.

You lied to me about getting a revelation from god, I called out the lie, and now you're immediately changing the topic.

Are the words coming out of your mouth your security blanket?

Here, have a lollipop. Go cry yourself to sleep with your blankie, and learn a lesson that faith in atheism and science will not carry you through a rational argument.

Considering your religious level of faith in atheism ... that sounds like pure projection.

You made it up. That's what the evidence points towards.

Why? Because if you had an actual experience with some god, and wanted to pass on your revelation ... you would not be mocking religious faith as you are doing even now.

You would be humbled, rather than arrogantly accusing.

That you're not even smart enough to see how your lie falls apart is once again a demonstration of how foolish atheist thinking is. You do not understand faith, and so you belittle it, and then make utterly incompetent criticisms of it in ignorance.

Intelligence would be to criticize with knowledge and understanding, you idiot.

Idiot. You have no credbility because you're a liar (lied about being "nice"), you're a fool (doesn't understand distinction between religion/theology), and a self-described atheist (doesn't believe in god or the supernatural).

So when you claim you received a revelation, I don't have to believe you.

No I don't. For instance, I just rejected your claim of a revelation, "spoken by God".

Did you seriously not see that coming? Religious does not mean gullible, you ignorant fool.

Do you even have a girlfriend, let alone a wife who wants to make babies with you?

Mother Teresa's beliefs in the Bible are irrelevant to the points made in this discussion. Of course the topic is ignored.

And I do not accept your claim of fact, because you are irrational and cannot describe reality correctly.

So illiterate people cannot believe anything? Wrong, again.

Wrong question.

Evidence that we live in a moral universe: We care about morality.

How many times have you appealed to morality "defined by us" as a standard of behavior?

The absurdity is that "defined by us" morality is no morality at all.

You don't believe in self-defense, then. If a young girl is being attacked by a robber, a rapist, a murderer ... you would call her immoral for defending herself with a weapon and doing bad things to her attacker. She must submit to the robbery, the rape, to die ... or be called immoral by you.

Funny how you do nothing about the immoral robber, rapist, murderer. You help the immoral instead of the victim ... and you call this "morality"?

You confuse rebellion against a universal standard with an inability to find the universal standard.

Liar.

Liar yet again.

" Divorce represents one of the most stressful life events for both children and their parents."

Yes, there are an infinite number of wrong answers.

1+1 = 3 is wrong. 1+1 = 4 is wrong. 1+1 = 5 is wrong ....

That does not mean there is no right answer. That does not mean that it is impossible to find the right answer. People who argue what you just argued are beyond stupid, you are foolish.

The stupid can't help it; the foolish choose it. The upside is that you can choose to stop being foolish. Repent.