No, but it connotes
probability. And if there is probability that the things around us were designed, given the criteria that leads to the suggestion of a designer, then there must be probability that the designer was designed. And so on.
The way I see it, the probability of a designer's designer, and a designer's designer's designer, and so on, ad infinitum, is pretty low. The world we see around us is just too flawed.
Therefore, to me, the world around us actually suggests that there is NOT a designer.
Something quite small setting something sightly bigger into motion. Infinitesimally small things in inconceivably big numbers, adding up to something very big.
Our brains don't process big numbers. They have not yet evolved to do that. They have evolved and developed to conceive a relatively small area in a world that comes towards us no faster than the 15 MPH or so that we can run, and that lasts about 75 years, give or take. We try to get the idea of infinite time and billions of changes over billions of years, and our brains go TILT, and we imagine God.
I don't have to do anything of the sort. In science, you accept that some things seem to just be because we haven't figured out the cause. But that doesn't mean there isn't one, or that the cause is an immortal guy who lives in the sky and demands your death if you talk back to your mother or bugger another man.
Well, by your rejection of a creator's creator, I'd say they don't suggest that at all. But a creator/designer is a good cop out. You seem fond of intellectualizing the most minor things, so it doesn't surprise me that when you come to something that does not stand up to intellectualization (if that's a word), you say "You just have to shrug and accept that some things just are."
Four paragraphs saying nothing at all. Hubbard would be proud!
Yes, it does. Inherently.
Then the creator or creators are fucking incompetent. Sorry, but I don't see how a being that is smart enough to create an entire interacting ecosystem could have made so many dumb-ass mistakes. The appendix? Eyes with a 50% defect rate that rises to nearly 100% within 50 years? The sheer numbers of diseases to which the human being is susceptible? To me, these things do not point to an intelligent designer. They point to a series of unintelligent processes that are constantly branching off, and some branches thrive and some die.
Look at how many different types of buildings can be designed from one type of brick and one type of window. Your point?
And just let them evolve? Then they aren't creators, they are supervisors. And they aren't even doing that job very well.
I think you do. You just don't want to connect the dots.
Nah. This is the one of the few places where I can speak Scientologese and be understood.
Or a nosebleed. Or food preparation. Or childbirth. Someone shaving, perhaps. Maybe there was a blood drive on my patio. Maybe a Red Cross helicopter was flying overhead and needed to shed some weight.
Then I didn't find my patio splattered with blood, did I?
And here I thought you were just spouting vacuous bullshit. My bad.
You're welcome.
