The argument from design is self defeating.

[Tank]

The argument from design posits that if an item appears designed there must be a designer. Lots of items within our universe have the appearance of design therefore they were designed therefore there is a designer IE 'God'.

The designer of an item has to understand its operation and structure. They would have to be able to manipulate physical matter to create the item they designed. The designer themself shows qualities of design e.g. knowledge, purpose and intent to mention just three.

As God shows qualities of design it must have been designed which according to the argument from design means what?

The argument from design is self defeating.

[The Magic Pudding..]

The argument from design is self defeating.

Ineffable
Atheists like you just don't understand 

[zorkan]

Yes, but it depends which god you are talking about here.
God himself may have been designed.
The universe has been designed as an electricity station where muons are being transitioned into electrons as a source of power for a megastructure called the Megalithon (1).

(1) Book of Zorka chapter 1 "In the Beginning".

[Tank]

[Tank]

The argument from design is self defeating.

Ineffable
Atheists like you just don't understand 

 

[The Magic Pudding..]

The argument from design is self defeating.

Ineffable
Atheists like you just don't understand 

 

Typical Atheist crass response to the learned.
With your inability to see what isn't there,
I question if you lot are actually human at all.

[Dark Lightning]

[Old Seer]

Well now, Be careful. You must define human, and reasonably show you are correct. 

[billy rubin]

The argument from design posits that if an item appears designed there must be a designer. Lots of items within our universe have the appearance of design therefore they were designed therefore there is a designer IE 'God'.

what chracteristics make something appear "designed?"

[billy rubin]

i m askibg because i honestly dont know how to say that something looks "designed."

what does "design" look like?

go back to old paley.

with his pocketwatch. i think he was full of shit, but i always have trouble knowing exactly why.

[Dark Lightning]

My take is from recent xtians. They can't conceive of how a human being could be in their current configuration without someone designing them. Adam and Eve as a start is the problem. Figure whatever mud or ocean or combination thereof held myriad chemicals what somehow formed into molecules and then into single-cell organisms. Religious people tend to equate abiogenesis with evolution, a basic misunderstanding. The vastness of those reactions that gradually lead to multicellular life is mind-boggling, but ignored for the creation story. Some religious person should come in and explain it...

[Tank]

The argument from design posits that if an item appears designed there must be a designer. Lots of items within our universe have the appearance of design therefore they were designed therefore there is a designer IE 'God'.

what chracteristics make something appear "designed?"

That's a good question. Structured with intent would cover it's meaning here. A crystal has structure but that is simply a function of its chemical  composition. There is no 'intent' in its structure. A snail shell has 'intent' in so much as it protects and encloses the organs of the snail. The crystal is a function of circumstance while a shell or organ is a function of intent all be it mindless evolution.

[Tank]

i m askibg because i honestly dont know how to say that something looks "designed."

what does "design" look like?

go back to old paley.

with his pocketwatch. i think he was full of shit, but i always have trouble knowing exactly why.

A watch is a perfect example of structure with intent. A snail is also a perfect example of structure with intent. But a watch is constructed as a finished entity, a snail on the other hand is a living growing organism. So there is the basic false equivalency between a 'dead' externally designed mechanism and a 'live' internally grown organism. This fundamental difference is the flaw in Paley's equivalency.

[Tank]

My take is from recent xtians. They can't conceive of how a human being could be in their current configuration without someone designing them. Adam and Eve as a start is the problem. Figure whatever mud or ocean or combination thereof held myriad chemicals what somehow formed into molecules and then into single-cell organisms. Religious people tend to equate abiogenesis with evolution, a basic misunderstanding. The vastness of those reactions that gradually lead to multicellular life is mind-boggling, but ignored for the creation story. Some religious person should come in and explain it...

And even if they can grasp what you say they are obliged to deny it.

[Tank]

Well now, Be careful. You must define human, and reasonably show you are correct. 

No I don't. If you just feel like trolling fine. But why not try to make a positive contribution to the discussion instead. It would make a change.