• 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

Elvira said:
Really? What's this thread about?:screwy
Click to expand...

Its about the design argument for the existence of god. How does life show it was designed? Is finding the parts of a watch scattered in a field the sign of a designer? That would be a more appropriate analogy with life. There is no apparent design to life except for what we choose to impose on it
 
devildavid said:
Its about the design argument for the existence of god. How does life show it was designed? Is finding the parts of a watch scattered in a field the sign of a designer? That would be a more appropriate analogy with life. There is no apparent design to life except for what we choose to impose on it
Click to expand...

So, you were playing dumb...figures...:roll:
 
Elvira said:
So, you were playing dumb...figures...:roll:
Click to expand...

Do you constantly insult because your free will choices have turned you into a person who resorts to insults? Or have you always been like this?
 
devildavid said:
Do you constantly insult because your free will choices have turned you into a person who resorts to insults? Or have you always been like this?
Click to expand...

Nah, I used to be much worse...
 
marke said:
The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy does not prove matter has always existed. It may be taken to affirm that, once matter originated in the beginning, it has never been destroyed from then until now, as far as we know. But it does not prove matter has always existed, and it certainly does not prove how that could even be possible.
Click to expand...

The Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy states Matter/Energy cannot be created. If it cannot be created, then how could it be created? The only logic conclusion is that it must have always existed in one form or another.
 
marke said:
I have already looked. There is not a science report in the world which proves matter has always existed and never had a beginning.
Click to expand...

Matter/energy always existed. You get that matter/energy are things that can convert back and forth between each other yes?
 
ArtemisBarca said:
Then why don’t you post some credible establishment reporting that....

Something not a Christian conspiracy site or pop culture clickbait site???

You can’t , because that is SO LAUGHABLE that literally science and or universities spent CENTURIES trying to find ANYTHING to back that up. Failed miserably abs had to be drug kicking and screaming conceding the universe obviously had secular origins..


It is not like science did not try Christianities claims!?!

They started there... it failed miserably. So they had to actually figure it out..


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

Atheist: 'I refuse to consider evidence that is not published by an atheist site to meet atheist standards.'
 
Dragonfly said:
As you've been told...you won't find that. It's really not a problem either.

You've been told a dozen times at least.

Science can't go back BEFORE the Big Bang. It can't.

Therefore Science won't ever provide definitive proof that matter has existed forever.

Nobody knows what was around before the Big Bang or what form it took.

You've been told this over and over again.

Have you offered any proof at all that "god did it" ???
Just saying "well, where did it come from" isn't proof of "god".
Click to expand...

Let's start with the big bang and move forward. Does science tell us what caused the big bang and whether or not all the massive planets and stars appeared at one time? Or did it take long periods of time to finish and were the emerging stars and planets originating from one point in the universe or from many? Or did they all just pop into their current places as they suddenly appeared?
 
Questerr said:
The Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy states Matter/Energy cannot be created. If it cannot be created, then how could it be created? The only logic conclusion is that it must have always existed in one form or another.
Click to expand...

Science cannot prove matter has always existed but that does not stop theorists from taking science theories which only apply to matter after it originated to draw unproven assumptions that matter must have therefore always existed. That is not a proven fact of science but it is a theory which is proven to have been drawn in conclusion to arguments based upon speculative interpretations of science.
 
Questerr said:
Matter/energy always existed. You get that matter/energy are things that can convert back and forth between each other yes?
Click to expand...

I do. I also know the difference between an unproven conclusion drawn from observations of matter and energy in the present and proven scientific observations from the ancient past. Assuming matter and energy have always existed because current scientific observations of their unchangeable nature gives rise to tempting speculations of that nature does not prove those speculations to be irrefutable verified scientific facts.
 
bluesmoke said:
Good point to make clear that they mutually exist in spite of each other. Neither has to do with the other. According to science, there is no proof of the existence of the supernatural. Only the observable natural. The physical world. Physics. Science is not necessary to prove faith in the supernatural. That’s the essence of faith. Fact is not required to support a belief of faith, only to support a belief of science.
Click to expand...

Facts are irrelevant to science. They exist whether or not science has developed to prove them. Uranium has always given off radiation even before science could prove it.

As an aside, I would say that the supernatural/paranormal is simply natural things that we can't scientifically detect/prove yet, or at least potentially so.

I think that’s a “yup”. I’m just saying that faith does not require scientific justification whatsoever. That for a person to search for scientific support of one’s faith IS NOT FAITH. An intellectual exercise, perhaps.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't mean it doesn't require some kind of evidence. It can be as simple as observation, but since you're the only one who saw it, how do you prove it to others? They have to have faith in the truth of your words. Their evidence is probably your history of truthfulness. Your evidence is what you saw. It's faith that what you saw was real, since it can't be proved or repeated.

One of the things I have always remembered from the show Touched By An Angel was the idea that angels have no faith. They don't need it because they have seen God, and know. We have to have faith, because we can't know, yet. In a similar vein, I have faith that you exist. For all I know, you are a made up personality that doesn't actually exist. But I have enough evidence, for me at least, to believe the conclusion that you exist. Faith doesn't have to be blind.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
RAMOSS said:
Or, were you destined to learn? How can you tell?
Click to expand...

I can tell because it is a fleshly tendency I constantly have to fight but don't always win...like Paul...

"For I do not do the good that I wish, but the bad that I do not wish is what I practice. If, then, I do what I do not wish, I am no longer the one carrying it out, but it is the sin dwelling in me. I find, then, this law in my case: When I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me. I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within, but I see in my body another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my body." Romans 7:19-23
 
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...

Dawkins eviscerated the watchmaker argument over 30 years ago: The Blind Watchmaker - Wikipedia
 
Overitall said:
It’s one of the best arguments I’ve come upon. It takes, imo, a true leap of faith to believe something as highly sophisticated as the human body came about by chance. The miracle of birth demonstrates over and over again that happenstance is a belief without a solid foundation.
Click to expand...

If you think evolution is nothing but chance, then you don't know anything about it. Gene mutations are random, but natural selection is not random at all, it is anything but random.
 
Questerr said:
The Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy states Matter/Energy cannot be created. If it cannot be created, then how could it be created? The only logic conclusion is that it must have always existed in one form or another.
Click to expand...

Existing matter is not destroyed but can be changed. That in no way proves that matter has always existed like God has always existed, except in the minds of those who want that to be true. Atoms are not being created now but what does that mean? That means to atheists that all the atoms in the universe once existed in some unknown form before the planets and stars were formed, but science does not help them prove that was true.
 
bluesmoke said:
Without fault (bad) we wouldn't know what good was. Even the Eloi didn't have it all "good".
Click to expand...

Good and bad are subjective assessments. Is mortality good or bad? We can know what it is to be happy or sad independently of each emotion.
 
marke said:
Atheist: 'I refuse to consider evidence that is not published by an atheist site to meet atheist standards.'
Click to expand...

BWAHAHAHAHA

Says the guy who refuses to consider evidence FROM the mainstream and only trusts conspiracy sites...

Hilarious



AGAIN...

You cannot point to one or two cases that appear to back up Christianity’s claims


Christianity’s claims have to match EVERYTHING WE SEE...

Creationists point to some sector of reality that is not well understood and claim that is proof.


IT HAS TO MATCH EVERYTHING WE DO UNDERSTAND TOO!

Duh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom