New Evidence Against the Existence of God: Antarctica, Arizona, Atlantic Ocean

Creatures don't have to prove the existence of their Creator. This is kind of silly, but perhaps still within the topic? http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/cbenzmueller/papers/C40.pdf The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Psalm 19:1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good. Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none who does good. Psalm 53:1 Dionisio

rvb8

there may indeed exist a Supreme Creator, judging me as I sit here.

At least you're open to the possibility. As the First Cause of all causes, the First Being of all subsequent being, I would think that would be your best answer thus far. A multiverse really won't do it. Beyond that, not just judging you (seeing only negative) but sustaining and assisting you. In that view, there's a lot to be grateful for and not just think about judgement. Silver Asiatic

rvb8 @51:

I stick by that modification to an old argument, because looking at our planet, if indeed it was intelligently designed, you have to ask the question; ‘Why so many areas where we can’t live?’

Sorry, but that is a terrible question. We might as well ask why a designer would want us to live in every corner and crevice of a planet? Better yet, we might ask why we were designed to be so incredibly adaptable -- being able to create tools and habitats and clothing to enable us to live far beyond our normal range and in hostile environments? Further, if we look at Earth's position and extremely favorable environment (compared with other planets in our Solar System) we might ask why God would want to give us so many places to live? The entire exercise is nonsense. The fact that you dig in your heels on such an irrational question, and the fact that you think it is some profound inquiry that calls into question the existence of a creator, speaks volumes.

Science on the other hand gives a satisfying (because it answers our evolved curiosity) answer to these questions, and rather neatly.

If you are referring to a materialistic or evolutionary perspective as providing a satisfying answer, then that is simply untrue. The evolutionary "explanation" is nothing more substantive than, "Well, stuff happens, and this is where it ended up." It is certainly not an answer. Worse, it masquerades as an answer to those who don't think too closely about it, thus preventing deep and meaningful inquiry. Another example of the evolutionary paradigm acting as a science stopper. ----- Look, I agree with you that if God were all powerful in the sense of being able to ignore the laws of physics and chemistry, and if he wanted to create a forever comfortable existence, and if he wanted us to easily access and live in every corner of the planet, and if he was able to do so -- then the fact that the world isn't that way might be a reasonable argument against God's existence, or at least against his ability. But why on Earth you would have such a strange perception about what God is or should be like? It certainly doesn't match up to the understanding of God presented in traditional theology, which you disdain so much. So you haven't spent time to understand the theistic position. You must have pulled your unusual perception of God out of your own mind or perhaps from the equally-distorted atheist talking points we so often see online. Eric Anderson

rvb8 @49:

Your third to last paragraph describes the childishness of atheists. However, it is not we that can not live without a celestial father! It is not we that are in constant fear of bringing down righteous (or more likely irrational) anger from a male God! It is not we who constantly look to the Father for advice and correction.

Of course you don't look for advice and correction. You assume you already know best. That is the deliciously ironic thing about the line of argumentation you have embarked on. You claim there is no God. And what is the support for your claim? Because you claim to know what God would be like and what God would do if God did exist. And because the world doesn't match up to some childish set of expectations -- peace and comfort for all; some subjective sense of perfection -- you conclude that there must be no God. Then you go even a step further and assume that this non-existent God must be the only possible designer of life. Ergo, you conclude, there is no design in life and no designer. ----- It's easy to reach the conclusion you reached: A misunderstanding of traditional theistic doctrine about God, a naive set of expectations, a haughty attitude about what should have been created in your opinion, a flawed and cursory analysis of biological systems, and a conflation of the existence and identity of a designer. That's all we need in order to conclude that life isn't designed under the line of argumentation you have proposed. That's what your argument rests on. Eric Anderson

Now, y'all may want to take a short break from your never-ending arguing and take a quick look at this: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/01/digging_deep_bi103438.html Where did that complex complexity come from? :) Dionisio

God doesn't need me or anybody to prove His existence.

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach[b] to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

It doesn't matter if y'all keep arguing until the end of this age of grace. But I pray that some among you will see the true Light and will believe. Tomorrow it might be too late for many.

Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Dionisio

I'm an atheist 'Q', but at the same time I know it is impossible for me to prove my acceptance of the position, that a God is an affront to nature; there may indeed exist a Supreme Creator, judging me as I sit here. I just find that idea to be unhelpful in understanding the natural world; I have made no secret of that here. I never knowingly mock religion, particularly religions beyond my culture, Hinduism, Taoism etc. This post was started when I was accused of making the 'bad design' argument in a different way. I said the wastefulness easily observable in the universe leads me to think it was not intelligently designed. There it is. I stick by that modification to an old argument, because looking at our planet, if indeed it was intelligently designed, you have to ask the question; 'Why so many areas where we can't live?' Perhaps there is a reason why God gave us so many spaces that are hostile to us, but it is unknowable to us. Science on the other hand gives a satisfying (because it answers our evolved curiosity) answer to these questions, and rather neatly. rvb8

Spoken by a person who thinks God was stupid in creating the oceans and cannot come up with a cogent reason why a certain type of animal protein cannot be used to save starving people. No, I don't think Atheists are necessarily childish. They just somehow reached a conclusion about God that would require them to be omniscient and omnipresent. They believe everything, including time and chance, could simply pop into existence out of non-existence, which would be a Miracle. Apparently, they think they're infallible and stand in front of mirrors a lot. Why, I don't know. Maybe it's to distract them from the possibility that God might exist after all. Could there be a universe among the billions and billions in the multiverse where God does indeed exist? :o -Q Querius

Your third to last paragraph describes the childishness of atheists. However, it is not we that can not live without a celestial father! It is not we that are in constant fear of bringing down righteous (or more likely irrational) anger from a male God! It is not we who constantly look to the Father for advice and correction. Your metaphor of childish behaviour is correct, you only need to stand in front of a mirror for it to be accurate. rvb8

Seversky @42:

I agree that appealing to bad design is a weak argument against the existence of God or a Designer. To know whether a design is good or bad you must first know what was the purpose in the mind of the designer. You must also know the means available to the designer for realizing his or her design.

Almost correct. No-one is requesting that anyone get in the mind of the designer. A reasonable, objective evaluation of the product can be done in the here and now. I, for one, would be very happy to see a single engineering-level analysis of a biological system and how it could be improved before someone starts claiming bad design. Instead what we get are juvenile assertions by evolutionists based on some superficial, cursory, knee-jerk evaluation of the system: things such as “the mammalian eye is wired backwards,” and the like. Then when serious people turn an engineering eye on the system and discover the system is actually quite ingenious, the evolutionist never issues a retraction or an apology. Worse, the blatantly false assertion of bad design just continues in the evolutionary literature and consciousness for decades – not because it is true, but because it is a convenient rhetorical tool.

However, those same arguments cut both ways. We cannot appeal to examples of what we judge to be good design as evidence for a designer without knowing the purpose of the designer or their means.

Not quite. You are conflating different issues. The question about whether there is a designer rests on whether there is design. Not on whether the design is “good” or “bad” according to some list of criteria we decide to impose.

There is also the problem that design implies limitations.

Nonsense, notwithstanding the eminent quote you provided. Design implies limitations? As opposed to what? If I want to create X and I create X, how is that a limitation? Furthermore, whether limitations exist for some particular designer is certainly not evidence against the existence of the designer. Again, the particular capabilities, identity, or “limitations” of a designer are second-order questions to whether a designer exists. Interesting as they may be in their own right, they can never address the central question of whether a designer exists in the first place.

A further question is whether or not a necessary, perfect being such as the Christian God could or would create an imperfect, contingent world such as ours.

Why in the world not? Indeed, the entire Judeo-Christian tradition asserts that he did – either directly or by allowance. We can debate whether or not the Judeo-Christian tradition is true or not, but the idea that we live in an imperfect world is certainly not in conflict with traditional theology.

Allowing that He could and that He does not act on a whim then we accept that our contingent, imperfect world, including all that we call evil therein, was created deliberately. We must also accept that we as flawed, imperfect even sinful beings were deliberately and knowingly thus created. In that case, by what standard of justice can we be held responsible and even punished for behaving in the way we were designed to behave . . .

I was going to give a flippant reply about the silliness of the question, because the very asking of the question implies a misunderstanding of traditional Judeo-Christian doctrine, as well as an ironic imposition of materialist thought on the same. However, this is actually a very important issue, so let's take at least a high level look. In short, let us keep in mind that, under the Judeo-Christian doctrine, human beings have agency, willpower, the ability to act for themselves. God did not create automatons to act only as he programmed us, without any will. The automaton without willpower, ironically, is the strong materialist viewpoint espoused by Will Provine, Dawkins’ Selfish Gene, and others of like mind. That is precisely the opposite of the Judeo-Christian doctrine. Furthermore (and it is critical to come to grips with this -- both logically and in one's own personal experience), the Judeo-Christian doctrine suggests that we are capable of learning, growing, improving – indeed, we are commanded to do so. The entire point of our existence is not to just flow along without any problems, sunshine and flowers every day, but to work, struggle, learn, experience, overcome challenges, wrestle with our imperfections, love, grow, and stretch. I don’t know if you have any children, or perhaps nieces and nephews, but if so, you can appreciate the foregoing. The oft-repeated atheist cry against the challenges and difficulties and problems in the world is oh so similar to the complaints of a little child about why she has to go to school, or do her homework, or get to bed on time. It's all so hard, and so mean, and so difficult. Yet a wise – and perfectly loving – parent would never keep their child protectively encompassed in a bubble of ease and luxury. Rather, it is precisely the wise parent who lovingly, but sufficiently firmly, makes the child go through the growing pains, even the skinned knees and the tears, knowing all the while that it is not the parent’s role to build a comfortable world for the child, but to build a child ready for the world. This is personal, this is profound, this is meaningful doctrine. It speaks to our heart. It matches up with our experience with our own children and loved ones. It is perfectly consistent and logical. The opposing position has no similar value. It is a “stuff happens” doctrine that asserts all is a big accident, all is happenstance, all is ultimately meaningless. Thankfully, only a small number of the most pathological ever actually adhere to the materialist doctrine. Most materialists are better than their own doctrine. They were created better than their own doctrine. Even if they haven't yet applied the principles to humanity more broadly, at least for themselves and their own families they recognize and appreciate the importance of experiencing, overcoming challenges, learning, loving, growing, improving, becoming – the very things that are anchored in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Eric Anderson

bb @21:

I would like to see a crowd of scientists cheer in amazement, like they did in the DARPA video over a robot climbing a few stairs, when they watch a toddler get on his feet and walk to mommy for the first time and see the mother grab, hold and even lift the toddler with the perfect combination of firm strength, enough to lift the shifting weight, and softness, so as not to damage the child.

Well said. Somehow when we actually have to do the engineering work we quickly become humbled by the incredibly knotty problems that have to be solved, grateful for the small successes that come after laborious effort, and more aware of the overall magnitude of the challenge. Teams of the best and the brightest working for decades to accomplish feats that we take for granted every day in biology. And yet in biology we are supposed to believe that all this engineering work came about through a long series of copying errors and the like. Yeah, that’s the ticket. ----- One of the great problems with the evolutionary storyline is that it makes a mockery of the actual work that is involved in engineering complex functional systems. Instead we just make up stories and make vague appeals to long periods of time and hypothetical things that might have happened in the distant hazy past, thereby fooling ourselves into thinking we have actually "explained" something. It isn’t just that the “explanation” is vague or incomplete. It is that it rests on a complete perversion of what we know and understand about how the world actually works. It isn’t just that the "explanation" is partial knowledge that will lead toward greater knowledge with more research and effort. In fact, it is worse than no knowledge. So much of the evolutionary story it is what I call “anti-knowledge” – it actually leads away from the truth. It is nonsense masquerading as truth. Rather than having learned something incomplete but useful, one is often worse off for even having been exposed to the idea. Eric Anderson

Sev

We must also accept that we as flawed, imperfect even sinful beings were deliberately and knowingly thus created. In that case, by what standard of justice can we be held responsible and even punished for behaving in the way we were designed to behave?

Life on earth for each person is relatively short, certainly in comparison with eternity. There are boundaries in the temporal life, one of which is its shortness, but others of which are moral boundaries. As St. Paul teaches us - "run the race". Or, in other words, play the game well. Like NFL football, (or European if you want), the field has boundaries. They deliberately created sidelines even knowing players would step over. So, why penalize players when knowing they would eventually go out of bounds? Because those are the limits of the action.

If Adam and Eve were created to have, amongst other things, the capacity for curiosity, how could an omniscient God have been surprised that they were tempted into trying the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

The omniscient God didn't need to be surprised in order to give Adam and Eve freedom of choice. From the human perspective, the choice is free, not pre-determined. It's on that basis that we merit reward for good actions and punishment for bad. Beyond that, we can learn things, achieve things and act for good purposes or bad (or act with purpose or with none).

Still less how could He, in justice, exile them from Eden or punish their descendants in perpetuity again for behaving how He designed them to behave?

While sin is a part of the human experience, so also is repentance and forgiveness. The person who sins can be redeemed towards the good -- and make progress towards God by ever-increasing moral and spiritual perfection. We admire that when we see it in people and in ourselves when we do it.

Since theists are so much better at rational argument than atheists, perhaps JAD can explain these matters.

Nobody is saying that theists are somehow better but merely that atheism lacks a rational basis for any kind of argument. It's an irrational construct. Some atheists openly admit that. Silver Asiatic

rvb8

Just to simplify the well presented point,

You oversimplified and took some jumps in logic.

If God is omniscient, He must have known His creation would sin. Therefore God created sin, and knew Adam would fall; he created Bad Design, and knew before hand it was a bad design.

I remind you of St. Augustine's classic phrase used within the Exultet which I'm sure you already know: "O felix culpa" -- "“O Happy Fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer!” So, first - God did not and cannot create sin which is a deprivation of goodness and therefore impossible for him. He created the potentiality for sin in a contingent, dependent creation, which far from a bad design actually gives creatures far more glory, happiness and potential than a design that lacked the opportunity to merit. We only know redemption (and Our Redeemer) by having the need to be redeemed. And that is greatness, not badness in design. Silver Asiatic

Seversky, red herring to switch the subject. RVB8: Piling on the evasion of the issue at stake, evidence of design, a process. BTW, Plantinga long since addressed the problem of evil in depth to the point where well-informed atheism advocates have backed away from it. As a first hint, by way of Boethius C 500 AD, in his Consolation of Philosophy (written while being under evidently unjust death sentence due to dirty court politics):

If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?

(For a skeletal outline of Plantinga, cf here. Notice, the order of virtue -- starting with love -- requires the order of freedom under moral government; the exact opposite of mechanical compulsion, mechanical or random blind forces and circumstances. So does the good of being capable of reason. So your challenge self-destructs -- you must presume what you object to. And obviously, God wants our reasonable, responsible, rational, freely given service, while that same responsible rationality instructs us that things of value should be treated with due respect. So, your talking point that God makes moral evil/sin collapses. And more, but that diverts the thread even more.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot but help noticing how for several weeks many objectors were "missing" on discussions of technical issues connected to the inference to design and when they show up they follow Darwin's rhetorical lead of distractions down the road of the problem of evils. That tells us much about what is a key motive for atheism, it is largely anti-theism. Bridging back to topic, evolutionary materialistic scientism cannot even account for responsible rational freedom, so logic and math much less virtue. And of course, evidence of design, even allegedly bad design, is evidence of design. Before hearing further dysteleological arguments, let us see the issue of the systems engineering tradeoffs and balances seriously addressed by objectors. Show us empirically grounded cause to know that you are capable of designing a superior cosmos and building it. The same for cell based life and body plan level novel forms. Not to mention, viable ecosystems. In the meanwhile evidence of design stands as evidence of design, pointing to designers capable of devising and implementing such. And, a cumulative case is a whole that needs to be faced as a whole. A rope is often made up from short, weak fibres twisted to make strands and counter twisted to lock together as a coherent, stable, long, strong rope. And BTW, just handling DNA as a long twisted string, is a non-trivial issue, as anyone who has ever had to deal with a tangled fishing line will attest. Then, as Crick pointed out Mar 19, 1953, it contains TEXT. Thus, code, symbols and rules of meaning, thence, LANGUAGE, expressing algorithms. Objectors to design need to show cause that such things can and per empirical observation, come about by blind chance and mechanical necessity. KF kairosfocus

Just to simplify the well presented point, If God is omniscient, He must have known His creation would sin. Therefore God created sin, and knew Adam would fall; he created Bad Design, and knew before hand it was a bad design. There is absolutely nothing in that creation myth that gives Adam any free will at all; all was pre-ordained in the original poor design. rvb8

I agree that appealing to bad design is a weak argument against the existence of God or a Designer. To know whether a design is good or bad you must first know what was the purpose in the mind of the designer. You must also know the means available to the designer for realizing his or her design. However, those same arguments cut both ways. We cannot appeal to examples of what we judge to be good design as evidence for a designer without knowing the purpose of the designer or their means. There is also the problem that design implies limitations. A designed world could be construed as evidence against an omnipotent creator like the Christian God. In one of his Three Essays on Religion, the 19th century English philosopher John Stuart Mill argued as follows:

It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. For what is meant by Design? Contrivance: the adaptation of means to an end. But the necessity for contrivance—the need of employing means—is a consequence of the limitation of power. Who would have recourse to means if to attain his end his mere word was sufficient? The very idea of means implies that the means have an efficacy which the direct action of the being who employs them has not. Otherwise they are not means, but an incumbrance. A man does not use machinery to move his arms. If he did, it could only be when paralysis had deprived him of the power of moving them by volition. But if the employment of contrivance is in itself a sign of limited power, how much more so is the careful and skilful choice of contrivances? Can any wisdom be shown in the selection of means, when the means have no efficacy but what is given them by the will of him who employs them, and when his will could have bestowed the same efficacy on any other means? Wisdom and contrivance are shown in overcoming difficulties, and there is no room for them in a Being for whom no difficulties exist. The evidences, therefore, of Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under limitations; that he was obliged to adapt himself to conditions independent of his will, and to attain his ends by such arrangements as those conditions admitted of.

A further question is whether or not a necessary, perfect being such as the Christian God could or would create an imperfect, contingent world such as ours. Allowing that He could and that He does not act on a whim then we accept that our contingent, imperfect world, including all that we call evil therein, was created deliberately. We must also accept that we as flawed, imperfect even sinful beings were deliberately and knowingly thus created. In that case, by what standard of justice can we be held responsible and even punished for behaving in the way we were designed to behave? If Adam and Eve were created to have, amongst other things, the capacity for curiosity, how could an omniscient God have been surprised that they were tempted into trying the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Still less how could He, in justice, exile them from Eden or punish their descendants in perpetuity again for behaving how He designed them to behave? Since theists are so much better at rational argument than atheists, perhaps JAD can explain these matters. Seversky

EA, a LOT of engineering decision-making and the like is striking compromises. The classic is the iron triangle, where once a threshold of acceptable quality is there, we face issues of scope, costs and time -- pick any two, pay for it with the third. Purpose, priorities, compromises, need for deep insight. KF kairosfocus

kf, interesting how often in the Systems Engineering Handbook they talk about tradeoffs. There is a constant and pervasive need to analyze and make decisions regarding tradeoffs, whether we are talking about cost, complexity, safety, effectiveness, technical risk, and so on. This ties back nicely to the very concept of intelligence: to choose between contingent options. Much of the entire engineering process is dependent upon understanding the various parameters and then making a decision -- an intelligently informed choice -- about the tradeoffs. No purely natural process can perform this critical task. It cannot recognize, much less make an informed decision between, contingent alternatives. Eric Anderson

NASA Systems Engineering handbook: http://www.acq.osd.mil/se/docs/NASA-SP-2007-6105-Rev-1-Final-31Dec2007.pdf KF kairosfocus

JAD, of related interest to your post:

Cogito; Ergo Deus Est Philosophy Still Lives Because God Isn't Dead by Charles Edward White - Winter 2017 Excerpt: Atheists, having strapped on the skis of physically caused thought, cannot stop anywhere on the mountain of rationality, but must descend into the valley of non-rationalism. But here they encounter a problem. If there is no criterion of rationality, how does one evaluate his thoughts? When John Nash, whose story is told in A Beautiful Mind, was overcome by phobias and obsessions, he thought his way back to health by rational therapy. He tested each thought by the outside standard of reason and thereby decided which thoughts to trust and which to dismiss.4 Atheists, however, have no outside standard.,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo39/cogito-ergo-deus-est.php

bornagain77

Eric Anderson responding to rvb8,

rvb8: “Paraphrasing: ‘If we don’t understand the design it does not mean bad design.’” Eric Anderson: “Correct. This is a matter of simple logic. Yet, do you acknowledge this? Or will you just continue spouting unfounded claims about bad design? Neither you nor any other claimant on your side has ever put forth a sound analysis or detailed explanation of how a biological or cosmological system could have been objectively designed better…” rvb8: “To date the evidence supports the notion that if there is a supreme being, S/He, It, has done a poor job on our bodies, the planet, and the universe.” Eric Anderson: “You assert, yet again, without a shred of actual engineering analysis of the systems in question. I get the sense that you have very little engineering experience. Or perhaps your materialistic philosophy is just overwhelming any ability to rationally approach the issue.”

It appears to me that rvb8, as well as most of our other atheist interlocutors, don’t understand the first thing about basic logic or have a clue how to make a logical argument. Apparently they think that just stating their personal opinion and/or making a baseless assertions is equivalent to making an argument. Do they even understand the difference? But why should I even consider accepting their opinions and baseless assertions? I personally don’t accept non-arguments as arguments. I could speculate why they “reason” this way but I won’t. (They would probably be insulted.) However, there is a simple way that they could win the argument: Prove that atheistic naturalism is true. I have offered this challenge before… https://uncommondescent.com/mind/religious-fervor-or-mental-illness-sciam-guest-blogger-wonders-how-to-tell/#comment-623174 But so far there have been no takers. Why is that? Most of our atheist interlocutors show up here posturing as self-appointed-defenders-of-science. Their world view, at least for those who admit they have a worldview, is supposedly based on science. At least that is how it is defined by naturalists themselves:

Worldview Naturalism Naturalism… is a comprehensive, science-based worldview, premised on the idea that existence in all its dimensions and complexity is a single, natural realm, not split between the natural and the supernatural.

http://www.naturalism.org/worldview-naturalism If the naturalist can use science to prove anything that is meaningful and true about the universe, life and human existence, shouldn’t they be able to prove that naturalism is true? If they can’t prove scientifically that atheistic-naturalism is true, why should I give any credence to what they are saying? Do they want me to accept it by faith? That would be bizarre, wouldn’t it? john_a_designer

Eric, I just came across this recent article by Hugh Ross:

The Known Habitable Zones (For a Planet) – Hugh Ross – December 2016 Excerpt: in addition to the water habitable zone, there are seven other known habitable zones. 1. Water habitable zone 2. Ultraviolet habitable zone 3. Photosynthetic habitable zone 4. Ozone habitable zone 5. Planetary rotation rate habitable zone 6. Planetary obliquity habitable zone 7. Tidal habitable zone 8. Astrosphere habitable zone ,,, Typically, these zones do not overlap,,, A planet is a true candidate for habitability only if it simultaneously resides in all eight habitable zones. So far, the only known planet that dwells in all eight is Earth.,,, Now, a ninth habitable zone has been discovered— 9. Electric wind habitable zone.6 http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo39/zone-9-in-outer-space.php

bornagain77

Rvb8 @22:

Wow, that’s a lot of refutation for a short post.

Don’t be too flattered. It was your short post that started the thread, but the failed, illogical argument you put forth is a staple of materialistic thought. Indeed, the claim of suboptimal design is probably the most common argument against design generally, or against God specifically, that is put forth by materialist evolutionists and atheists. Darwin himself in The Origin relied primarily on this argument.

Paraphrasing: ‘If we don’t understand the design it does not mean bad design.’

Correct. This is a matter of simple logic. Yet, do you acknowledge this? Or will you just continue spouting unfounded claims about bad design? Neither you nor any other claimant on your side has ever put forth a sound analysis or detailed explanation of how a biological or cosmological system could have been objectively designed better. Furthermore, the bad design argument has a terrible track record. Will you, or any of your materialist colleagues, ever stand up and admit that you were wrong about the panda’s thumb, or the mammalian eye, or some of the other staples of the bad design line of thinking that have turned out to be wrong? More importantly, do you acknowledge the critical logical point that “bad design” (however subjectively defined) does not mean that there is no designer? This is absolutely key to any rational, logical understanding of the issues. -----

What about the absurd, hurricane in a junkyard ID argument against evolution. Might I point out that there are no redundent parts on planes and that planes also went through a trial and error form of manmade evolution themselves. Man has removed the redundent parts and no part of a modern plane has no purpose.

This is embarrassing. There are plenty of redundant parts on planes. It is designed that way. And redundancy does not mean "no purpose." Furthermore, if you think that planes went through a trial and error process in the same sense that natural selection supposedly does, then you don’t have a clue how systems engineering works. Like the failed Berra’s Blunder, you can’t help but point to something that was in fact designed when trying to argue for how non-designed things come about. Why is this? Very simple. No purely natural process can produce complex, specified, integrated functionality. Thus, like Berra, the only examples you will ever be able to cite are those of known, real design. Then the examples are twisted in an attempt to show that the know, real design was somehow like non-design.

Suffice to say if the ocean is necessary to calibrate the climate (and it is), then perhaps God should have made the earth 80% ocean so it too could do a better job. All those extreme weather events point to a lack of enough regulating ocean, perhaps.

What?! You don’t have a clue what you are saying. You haven’t the slightest idea what or whether that would have any meaningful impact. Again, you are just spouting baseless accusations.

To date the evidence supports the notion that if there is a supreme being, S/He, It, has done a poor job on our bodies, the planet, and the universe.

You assert, yet again, without a shred of actual engineering analysis of the systems in question. I get the sense that you have very little engineering experience. Or perhaps your materialistic philosophy is just overwhelming any ability to rationally approach the issue.

The Bad Design argument, as more evidence is uncovered will only strengthen, as the purposelessness of Nature is revealed.

Yet you stand on the wrong side of the trajectory of the evidence. The bad design argument has enjoyed a terrible track record over the past century and half. Yet you still hitch your wagon to it? Furthermore, as we learn about new systems, whether in biology or in the cosmos, the only thing we can discover is more functionality, not less. Ten years or a hundred years from now we will not know about fewer complex, functionally-integrated systems. The only direction the arrow of knowledge can flow is toward more. You are standing on the wrong side, fighting uphill, striving toward less knowledge.

All of this in no way argues against my Humanist credentials. I love life and believe justice, education, and good health care should be mandatory on this planet. I strongly support Free Speech, and believe the privacy of the home, and what you do there (legally) are sacrosanct.

Thank you for mentioning this. I’ll leave it to others to discuss whether any of your sensibilities make sense in an undesigned, purposeless universe. But I am glad to see that you have at least some sensibilities that many of us could agree to broadly. There are important nuances that would be worth discussing and correcting/clarifying, but at least it is a start. Eric Anderson

Even though theists do not claim that God created a perfect world we do believe that there are unequivocal examples of God’s goodness revealed in His creation. Take a look at the first four minutes of this episode of Nature. I don’t know the back story but this cameraman’s encounter with a wild wolf pack is unbelievable, whatever the behind the scenes story is. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/snow-bound-animals-winter-full-episode/14893/ john_a_designer

Correction on 31. The following should read: "Good is not perfect. Theists don’t claim that God created a perfect world. So, we shouldn’t be surprised if we look at the world, and the things that make up the world, and find that they are not perfect." Because God is perfect it doesn't necessarily follow that everything He creates is or must be perfect. john_a_designer

Rvb8, Here is one of my favourite examples of "bad design"-the immortal jellyfish... ... The seaside town of Shirahama, in Japan, one man thinks he knows what holds the key to everlasting life: jellyfish. Shin Kubota is a professor at Kyoto University's Seto Marine Biological Laboratory. He began studying the gelatinous sea creatures in 1979, and there's one type with which he's particularly preoccupied: the scarlet jellyfish. "They don't die," Kubota says, "they rejuvenate." He adds that they are one of three jellyfish species in japan that are considered "immortal... http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/28/world/asia/can-immortal-jellyfish-unlock-everlasting-life/ Why do you think God/ID would create such a bad design? In theory, the rejuvenation process of the scarlet jellyfish can go indefinitelly making it immortal... Could you possibly do a better job in the designing the poor, suffering jellyfish? If you happened to be to be too busy to redesign the faulty sucker, maybe you can find an alternative explanation how the jellyfish badly design rejuvenation process came about and why... I'm all ears... ;-) J-Mac

I think a lot of atheists have bought into a theology which no traditional theist (at least Jew or Christian) believes in or would ever espouse. The Creator according to the Genesis account did not create a perfect world.

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Good is not perfect. Theists don’t claim that God created a perfect world. So, we shouldn’t be surprised if we look at the world, and the things that make up the world, and fail to find that they are not perfect. So to say that “it’s not perfect, therefore God did not create it,” is a fallacious strawman argument. Carl Sagan wrote:

“How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?’ Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’ A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.”

--Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space Once again, notice (as I wrote on the other thread) that Sagan has no problem having a sense of awe and wonder even “reverence” because of “the magnificence of the Universe.” Why would the belief that the Creator is an eternal, transcendent mind make any difference? I also disagree with Sagan that theists have tried to keep God small. I have no doubt that young David watching over his father’s flocks of sheep at night was awe struck by the star filled sky. Indeed, that is what he said. In a Psalm 8 he wrote: When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? He marveled then at the immensity of the universe. I have no doubt he would have marveled even more if he knew what we living today know. After all I am a theist that is how I feel. john_a_designer

And then there's this: People who make Bad Design arguments are making thinly veiled theological statements. An Atheist can't make theological statements (what God would or wouldn't do) about what they hold to be an impossibility (God). It's a ploy to make God look bad, which is their real intention with Bad Design. (Added: In the world of Atheists there is no such thing as Design that could be Bad) Andrew asauber

Here is the basic argument I was trying to make above @ 19:

If someone argues that something in nature is poorly designed he has the burden of proof to demonstrate how he (or anyone else) could design it better. He is unable to demonstrate how he could design it better. Therefore, his argument that what we have found in nature is poorly designed is not logically valid or supported.

This argument has the logical from of modus tollens:

If p then q Not q Therefore, not p

Baseless opinions based on one’s personal feelings or prejudices are not valid arguments and therefore prove nothing. In other words, who are you to say what is better based on your personal subjective opinions? Who are you to set a standard for everyone else? Any objective standard of good or bad design must be based facts and reason not personal opinion, beliefs and prejudices. However, even if we do find something in nature that appears to be poorly designed it does not necessarily follow that it was not intelligently designed. Humans make and build things that are poorly designed but poorly designed doesn’t mean that they weren’t designed. Take for example the Tacoma Narrows Bridge that was destroyed in a wind storm in 1940: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFzu6CNtqec There is no doubt that it was poorly designed. Nevertheless, IT WAS DESIGNED. john_a_designer

Eric Anderson: The attempts to claim poor design in biology or in the cosmos have an extremely terrible track record. Such arguments are inevitably based on the twin pillars of ignorance and pride.

History repeats itself:

Rvb8: The appendix evolved to digest plant and seed material we no longer can digest; useless!

The dietary hypothesis has been recently debunked by new research:

Looking at ecological factors, such as diet, climate, how social a species is, and where it lives, they were able to reject several previously proposed hypotheses that have attempted to link the appendix to dietary or environmental factors. [source: sciencedaily.com]

Rvb8: Oh, and the, ‘it is a repository for good bacteria should an infection wipe out our stomach’s good bacteria’, doesn’t work as that is not its evolved function that is ancillary.

If you are trying to say that the appendix was not intended as an immune organ, then you are wrong again:

Instead, they found that species with an appendix have higher average concentrations of lymphoid (immune) tissue in the cecum. This finding suggests that the appendix may play an important role as a secondary immune organ.

[source: sciencedaily.com ; paper ] Origenes