We all know the arguments for intelligent design the complexity of the (inside out, back to front) eye (which has a blind spot) but I want to hear your thoughts on what went wrong in this design. Like, that spot in the middle of your back that only a contortionist can scratch.
Disclaimer : I am in no way suggesting animal life or the universe is designed, but thought it would be a laugh to see your thoughts on what went wrong if there was a designer.
The human brain. High Intelligence in humans and the technology that has been created due to it ,causes an unrelenting disruptive effect on the ecology of all plant and animal life on this planet which will inevitably lead to its own extinction. This is the reason I do not believe in a God.Any thing that would create something with these capabilities is either incompetent or just doesn't give a shit
If you establish the argument for God on the basis of complexity of design, then the existential foundation of God is based on how you define or judge "complexity." First of all, complexity is purely subjective from a human perspective. How often has something that you thought was complex seemed simple a few years later after you got some education on the subject. Secondly, there is a reverse atheistic insinuation to this argument. If God only exists due to complexity, then if design were perceived as simple, then were would be no viable argument for God's existence. So, at what point on the continuum of simplicity/complexity does God therefore exist, and at what point does God become superfluous. This is an unanswerable question because no such line can be "intelligently" drawn. Thirdly, when this argument is made the example used is often something like a watch, which is a human design, not a divine design, and therefore a false analogy The example of a tree or a mountain is never used because it is realized that it is not convincing to say to a non-believer, "Of course God exists, just look at that tree." However, arguing from human design is not only a false analogy but is anthropomorphically making God in the image of mankind, rather than mankind in the image of God, which used to be considered blasphemy per the Bible. Fourthly, even if one does concede that the existential design of a tree does imply a creative force, that is ALL that it implies, and that creative force need not be anything other than Nature itself, certainly not Jehovah/Yaweh, or any other personal God of one's choosing. So, unless one wants to concede also that Nature is synonymous with God, then one hasn't really said anything intelligible.