• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Watchmaker Argument - Discussion

ArtemisBarca said:
That is because “complex” and “simple” are both relativistic terms dependent on the POV of the user. They are not objective terms with a specific definition like the word “three”.


Three means 3 no matter who is looking at it..


However, what is Complex and simple do change depending on who is looking..


You cannot pull the equivalent of a “mathematical proof” out of relativistic words..

Those are word games meant to fool stupid people..


Similar to the way the religious intentionally swap the definitions of a layman’s term “theory” and a “scientific theory”... not even remotely the same things..


A scientific theory is a fact..


A layman’s “theory” is a guess... less than a hypothesis.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Fully agree.

I also accept that what may appear designed to one person may appear chaotic to another.

A solar system appears ordered. Not random. Everything appears to work in conjunction with everything else. Perhaps even symbiotic?
Some would say that if there's an appearance of order, there's at least an appearance of design.
 
Dragonfly said:
Watchmaker analogy - Wikipedia

Or: Teleological argument - Wikipedia

So let's boil it down to the simplest form for the discussion. At least to start.

The concept is rather clear:



That which is complex, requires a design, which obviously implies something designed it.

A watch doesn't exist without a designer.
Therefore the Universe couldn't exist without a designer.

First question right from the gate, if you presume the concept has merit, that a design implies a designer, why then jump to the conclusion (in the case of the universe/life as we know it) that the designer must be one specific "god"? Or any "god"/"gods" at all?

Does the watchmaker analogy (in terms of God/universe/life) hold water, or fall apart rather quickly?
Click to expand...

If intelligence was involved in the origin of the universe and life on earth, then why the obtuse objection to theorizing about the possibility of God?
 
marke said:
If intelligence was involved in the origin of the universe and life on earth, then why the obtuse objection to theorizing about the possibility of God?
Click to expand...

How do you know/prove intelligence was involved? You did say "if" by the way. Why assume it with no proof?

Also, if there was, who says it has to be intelligence from "god"? Especially the biblical god?
 
Dragonfly said:
How do you know/prove intelligence was involved? You did say "if" by the way. Why assume it with no proof?

Also, if there was, who says it has to be intelligence from "god"? Especially the biblical god?
Click to expand...

Let's suppose intelligence was not involved. What kind of sense does that make? Surely no educated human would try to prove ignorance was involved instead of intelligence.
 
marke said:
Let's suppose intelligence was not involved. What kind of sense does that make?
Click to expand...

A lot more than saying it was designed intelligently.
 
marke said:
Let's suppose intelligence was not involved. What kind of sense does that make? Surely no educated human would try to prove ignorance was involved instead of intelligence.
Click to expand...

Simply because something "doesn't make sense" should not then determine a default to "god did it".

If I play your game, and accept your notion that intelligence was involved, you still have zero proof that the intelligence involved was a "god", let alone the biblical god.
Would you agree with that?
 
Dragonfly said:
All I was doing with the original post was replying to someone who stated there's no appearance of design in the Universe.


It's rather obvious there's things that can "appear" to be designed. That doesn't mean they are/were. Just that there's an appearance.
Something that has a natural and eye catching beauty to it has an appearance of being designed even if it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get it. I was just chuckling over the idea that what we find pleasing to the eyes must have been designed. I found it especially funny when I considered that no one even really saw Saturn in all its beauty until someone put a telescope up in space to see the unblurred version of it.
 
Dragonfly said:
Simply because something "doesn't make sense" should not then determine a default to "god did it".

If I play your game, and accept your notion that intelligence was involved, you still have zero proof that the intelligence involved was a "god", let alone the biblical god.
Would you agree with that?
Click to expand...

Rejecting any speculation that God may have been involved is not only unscientific but stupid as well.
 
calamity said:
Yeah, I get it. I was just chuckling over the idea that what we find pleasing to the eyes must have been designed. I found it especially funny when I considered that no one even really saw Saturn in all its beauty until someone put a telescope up in space to see the unblurred version of it.
Click to expand...

Great minds still wonder how Saturn ended up twirling in orbit in a precise pattern with no apparent logical explanation apart from God for its origin.
 
calamity said:
Yeah, I get it. I was just chuckling over the idea that what we find pleasing to the eyes must have been designed. I found it especially funny when I considered that no one even really saw Saturn in all its beauty until someone put a telescope up in space to see the unblurred version of it.
Click to expand...

Points to the crux of some of this debate.

The "appearance of design" and equally the "appearance of chaos" is nothing but a highly subjective and completely human interpretation of the universal reality.
 
Dragonfly said:
Points to the crux of some of this debate.

The "appearance of design" and equally the "appearance of chaos" is nothing but a highly subjective and completely human interpretation of the universal reality.
Click to expand...

One thing is certain and that is the fact the universe is so vast and the number of stars and planets so great that miraculous is the best adjective to describe the way in which it originated.
 
marke said:
One thing is certain and that is the fact the universe is so vast and the number of stars and planets so great that miraculous is the only word which adequately describes how the universe originated.
Click to expand...

"Miraculous" does not equate to "god did it".

"Miraculous" can be just as easily applied to "it all came from nothing".
 
marke said:
Rejecting any speculation that God may have been involved is not only unscientific but stupid as well.
Click to expand...

There is no god
 
marke said:
It is easier to defend the possibility of God than it is to defend the impossibility of God.
Click to expand...



What's not easy is for a person to honestly question the beliefs that have been infused into their head since birth.
What's not easy is to honestly question if what's you've been taught is perhaps wrong.
What's not easy is to honestly question if your parents, family, and friends might all be wrong.
What's not easy is to step out of your comfort zone and honestly be open to concepts and ideas that might be the polar opposite of what you've believed and been told all your life.
 
marke said:
Millions of people share your speculation, but that does not make speculations like that scientific.
Click to expand...

Ironic post is ironic
 
marke said:
Millions of people share your speculation, but that does not make speculations like that scientific.
Click to expand...

Do you fully understand that the exact thing you just said applies directly to Christianity?
 
marke said:
Let's suppose intelligence was not involved. What kind of sense does that make? Surely no educated human would try to prove ignorance was involved instead of intelligence.
Click to expand...

I would appreciate it if you'd attempt to answer my question. See below.


Dragonfly said:
Simply because something "doesn't make sense" should not then determine a default to "god did it".

If I play your game, and accept your notion that intelligence was involved, you still have zero proof that the intelligence involved was a "god", let alone the biblical god.

Would you agree with that?
Click to expand...
 
All it should require to have a secular and temporal Commune of Heaven on Earth, is faith. Ten simple Commandments from a God not the Expense of Government on Earth.
 
maquiscat said:
The problem is that many who point out this false premise then go on to claim a premise that a designe/creator cannot exist. Also a false premise. Or more to point neither premise can be proven.



I disagree. Personally, while I have my belief, it is based upon my personal experience. Events that evidence to me that my belief has foundation. Furthermore, I constantly question the basis, and even the details of my faith. The majority of people of faith (not just Christian) do so also, in my experience. Science explains how the universe works, and does not one thing to show (currently at any rate) how the workings were put into place. Science and religious faith are not incompatible.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Science does not say a designer/creator cannot exist. Only that there is no scientific proof of such.

Science and faith can coexist as they are mutually exclusive.

To question one's faith or the existence of God as needing or looking for a scientific answer is to not have faith. To question whether or not one possesses faith, has faith at all, is a standard question of one's self and of human struggle within one's own self, not a scientific question, and looks to faith or one's self for an answer. One can see there is no scientific reason to believe, but still have faith because faith is a belief that does not require fact to have whereas a scientific belief requires evidence of fact for support. One can "lose" faith w/o basing such on science or fact outside of one's own faith.
 
marke said:
If intelligence was involved in the origin of the universe and life on earth, then why the obtuse objection to theorizing about the possibility of God?
Click to expand...

Probably because of the baggage that comes with claiming a specific entity..

Where the overall concept of a god cannot be debunked presently at least , the specific claims of a specific religion absolutely can be debunked.

For example:

And I am 100% not picking on Christianity.. it applies to all religious, Christianity is just most familiar to me as an American..


The Bible makes many testable claims. Claims that even thousands of years later would have left a mark, but the Bible got every single one of those claims wrong....

Every single one..



There was no global flood 10,000 years ago.. isn’t even enough water to flood the whole planet..

DNA would show it if humanity was incested into existence by Noah’s family..


7 day creation is crazy wrong, yes including the sequence ...


There was no census in Rome requiring everyone to their ancestral homeland..



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The goal is knowledge

marke said:
Rejecting any speculation that God may have been involved is not only unscientific but stupid as well.
Click to expand...

speculation isn't the goal of science as an endeavor. The goal is knowledge - learning something more about the World - how it works, how it moves, how it behaves under given conditions. Speculation is useful @ the point that you're designing an experiment to confirm or negate an observation about the World - but it's not the point of the exercise.

& in any design work, when you're finalizing the design, you have to end the speculation in order to get going on the actual work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom