Do you think/believe that your body was designed/created?

[illykitty]

Created by my parents, yes, but by a god? No. And I don't think it was designed, otherwise I'd say it's a BAD design. So much is wrong with the human body I wouldn't know where to start, and then there's mine, which has unique flaws too.

There's evolution to explain how we got here, and when it comes to early life, as in how it started, there's various theories. Perhaps someday we will be more certain about what happened. But just because we don't know somethings yet, doesn't mean the conclusion is god. It takes time to research and test, in time, perhaps, we will find the answer. Science constantly updates, with new evidence you get new theories and either update or scrap old outdated ones. That is what is great about this process, is that the search is for truth, and if you're wrong, you don't just set things in stone, you admit you're wrong and update things.

I feel that the god answer is often a lack of understanding of science, either by simply not knowing or being misinformed. Also, I suppose some people feel uncomfortable with gaps in knowledge, so they would rather have an answer for everything even if it's not accurate. I'd prefer to say I don't know and search for the answer than make up an answer. It's ok to not know and not have answers to everything right now.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I don't care about if they true,or not, get it ?
they are majority.

You are seriously saying you don't care if your religion is true so long as it has the most people?

The watchmaker argument has been refuted for years now hence why it is used as a lesson in philosophy and logic classes to teach student how to spot faulty logic.

Yeah, I can watch a watchmaker make a watch. What I want to see is a treemaker make a tree or a rockmaker make a rock.

I do believe theism is believing in Creator and creation."God/Gods".

Not everyone has creator gods, though. Even in the bible, God only speaks light into existence. Everything else is just "ordered", really, from stuff that was already there.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Created by my parents, yes, but by a god? No. And I don't think it was designed, otherwise I'd say it's a BAD design. So much is wrong with the human body I wouldn't know where to start, and then there's mine, which has unique flaws too.

There's evolution to explain how we got here, and when it comes to early life, as in how it started, there's various theories. Perhaps someday we will be more certain about what happened. But just because we don't know somethings yet, doesn't mean the conclusion is god. It takes time to research and test, in time, perhaps, we will find the answer. Science constantly updates, with new evidence you get new theories and either update or scrap old outdated ones. That is what is great about this process, is that the search is for truth, and if you're wrong, you don't just set things in stone, you admit you're wrong and update things.

I feel that the god answer is often a lack of understanding of science, either by simply not knowing or being misinformed. Also, I suppose some people feel uncomfortable with gaps in knowledge, so they would rather have an answer for everything even if it's not accurate. I'd prefer to say I don't know and search for the answer than make up an answer. It's ok to not know and not have answers to everything right now.

Earthquakes, volcanoes, meteors were once considered evidence of 'bad design' until we understood their critical roles in supporting life. There will always be mysteries we don't understand, shadows where the light of science has not yet shone, where we can point and say 'bad design!'

a.k.a atheism of the gaps..

 

[Godobeyer]

You are seriously saying you don't care if your religion is true so long as it has the most people?

Back to post , you will figure out that they talk it's about Bible scientific error "earth is flat".

My point is which more believers of "creation/Creator" or disbelievers. ,full stop.

 

[Kirran]

The point was about the democracy of truth, he is very fixated on the flat-Earth example used to illustrate the point. @Kelly of the Phoenix if you can find a way to shake that and get him to see the point, hats off to you.

 

[Godobeyer]

The point was about the democracy of truth, he is very fixated on the flat-Earth example used to illustrate the point. @Kelly of the Phoenix if you can find a way to shake that and get him to see the point, hats off to you.

Dishonesty is ON ?

You and others which bring that argument to refute the point of "creation"

 

[Kirran]

Dishonesty is ON ?

You and others which bring that argument to refute the point of "creation"

Incorrect. It was regarding the democracy of truth.

 

[Godobeyer]

Yes. You said that theists were inevitably creationist, so I pointed out an exception. That exception being religions and philosophies which hold to cyclic understandings and yet are theistic. There are other exceptions too, in particular in relation to many polytheistic traditions.

You said the majority of people believe in creation as if it has some kind of bearing on it being correct. I commented in refutation of this. That is all.

Yes most of world population believe in creation and Creator, include you.

exception are exist in everything, but not effective in general rate.

 

[Godobeyer]

Incorrect. It was regarding the democracy of truth.

No sense.

That's democarcy of dishonesty and hypocrisy .

 

[Kirran]

Yes most of world population believe in creation and Creator, include you.

exception are exist in everything, but not effective in general rate.

True, but my understanding of it is very different to yours, as is true regarding huge numbers of people who might head-bobbingly agree.

Anyway, as you seem to be ignoring (what was that about dishonesty) I said that to challenge your saying that theism and creationism always went together.

No sense.

That's democarcy of dishonesty and hypocrisy .

If you don't understand what people are saying, it is perfectly OK to say so.

 

[Godobeyer]

True, but my understanding of it is very different to yours, as is true regarding huge numbers of people who might head-bobbingly agree.

Anyway, as you seem to be ignoring (what was that about dishonesty) I said that to challenge your saying that theism and creationism always went together.

"True !!"

And I always ask you "what theism religions are disagree with creationism !"

If you don't understand what people are saying, it is perfectly OK to say so.

I understand that you are believe in creation and Creator, but critizise other religion's point."Judaims and Christianity",to please the others, because of dishonesty was ON.

 

[Kirran]

"True !!"

And I always ask you "what theism religions are disagree with creationism !"

Yes, so I told you - those which subscribe to cyclic or otherwise non-linear understandings of time.

I understand that you are believe in creation and Creator, but critizise other religion's point."Judaims and Christianity",to please the others, because of dishonesty was ON.

I don't know how you got this understanding. But you do seem to like it.

 

[viole]

It's okay, just as you think/claim so, based on simply mentioning names of some philosophies with some related nerdy terminologies believing they are the true answers. I'm having the exact same thought about your opinion and view. Don't let it bother you so much to make you worked up.

I like the watchmaker argument. It provides evidence that the environment surrounding the watch is obviously not designed.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

It's not my claim, but I heard about that before, I do believe humans are damage this world by produce DMW and diseases by drug companies. and also done by dirtness and polution.


http://www.westernjournalism.com/u-s-government-patented-ebola/

Same as PC anti-virses ,and Virsus.

Do you believe there was no Ebola before pharmaceutical companies existed at all?

Or do you think that things like the Black Death bacterium was created in some medieval genetic engineering lab, as well?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Earthquakes, volcanoes, meteors were once considered evidence of 'bad design' until we understood their critical roles in supporting life. There will always be mysteries we don't understand, shadows where the light of science has not yet shone, where we can point and say 'bad design!'

a.k.a atheism of the gaps..

My I suggest a design improvement? Something like a timer that stops all those catastrophies when life is well estabilished.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Smart_Guy]

I like the watchmaker argument. It provides evidence that the environment surrounding the watch is obviously not designed.

More weird philosophies and terminologies? Those philosophers sure had so much free time at hand. Interesting how they decide to come up with those when they see something they don't like

 

[viole]

More weird philosophies and terminologies? Those philosophers sure had so much free time at hand. Interesting how they decide to come up with those when they see something they don't like

Mmmh, nope. Think about it. And please, do not assume I would not like evidence of a designer, since I am quite emotionless in this area.

If someone finds a watch in the forest and thinks "wow, it is obvious that this watch was designed!", she automatically implies that the forest is not so obviously designed.

After all, it would look silly saying " wow, it is ovious that the forest is designed" while ignoring the watch.

Therefore, the argument makes sense only if we can distinguish between designed and not designed things. Ergo, only when we know that something is not designed to start with.

By the way, why someone would design trees in a forest so complicated in order to get sunlight, when they could settle for a lower and less demanding height, is left as simple excercise to the reader.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Smart_Guy]

Mmmh, nope. Think about it. And please, do not assume I would not like evidence of a designer, since I am quite emotionless in this area.

If someone finds a watch in the forest and thinks "wow, it is obvious that this watch was designed!", she automatically implies that the forest is not so obviously designed.

After all, it would look silly saying " wow, it is ovious that the forest is designed" while ignoring the watch.

Therefore, the argument makes sense only if we can distinguish between designed and not designed things. Ergo, only when we know that something is not designed to start with.

Ciao

- viole

Sorry, it does not make sense either way. It sounds like a straw hat argument. Who came up with that argument seems to have had so much brain storming to speciffically end up with a watch in this. And I'm not assuming anything really.

 

[viole]

Sorry, it does not make sense either way. It sounds like a straw hat argument. Who came up with that argument seems to have had so much brain storming to speciffically end up with a watch in this. And I'm not assuming anything really.

The brain storming remark is very magnanimous. I would have rated it as simple storming, pending additional evidence that the issuer has an actually functioning brain.

So, you agree that the this piece of natural theology is nonsense?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Godobeyer]

Do you believe there was no Ebola before pharmaceutical companies existed at all?

Or do you think that things like the Black Death bacterium was created in some medieval genetic engineering lab, as well?

Ciao

- viole

I don't know for sure,it's rumor or real.
Everthing is possible especially in this era.

for
Black death bacteria, caused by rats.