• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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

Wow.

Intelligent and educated people, regardless if they are atheist or theist, understand that the Watchmaker theory is compatible with the scientific view of our Universe.

lol...yeah, right. :roll:
 
Wow.

Intelligent and educated people, regardless if they are atheist or theist, understand that the Watchmaker theory is compatible with the scientific view of our Universe.

There have been 60 pages of where intelligent and educated people have been disagreeing, and giving precise reasons why it is a logical fallacy and a poor analogy.
 
...in your opinion.

Which is informed by understanding of science, probabilities , emergent qualities, and statistics. In other words, it is an informed opinion.
 
Which is informed by understanding of science, probabilities , emergent qualities, and statistics. In other words, it is an informed opinion.
That sounds really nice and logical until someone pulls back the curtain and sees there is nothing there.

When you actually have proof about what caused the Big Bang or whence it came, let me know.
 
Wow.

Intelligent and educated people, regardless if they are atheist or theist, understand that the Watchmaker theory is compatible with the scientific view of our Universe.

No it's not, because it starts with the assumption that complexity requires design. That's an unscientific assumption; there's no reason to believe that.
 
No it's not, because it starts with the assumption that complexity requires design. That's an unscientific assumption; there's no reason to believe that.
You are free to believe the Universe just magically originated from nowhere. I admit I have no idea how it originated, but I'm not going to declare there is nothing behind the curtain without proof just like I'm not going to believe there is something behind the curtain without proof. YMMV
 
You are free to believe the Universe just magically originated from nowhere. I admit I have no idea how it originated, but I'm not going to declare there is nothing behind the curtain without proof just like I'm not going to believe there is something behind the curtain without proof. YMMV

That wasn't my point. For the Watchmaker analogy to be scientific, you would need to prove that complexity cannot be spontaneous. Beyond that, for the Watchmaker analogy to lead to the Christian God, you would need to prove a creator must be supernatural, and not simply aliens or somesuch, you would need to prove a single, supernatural creative force, rather than a pantheon, and then you would need to prove the single, supernatural force is the one in Christian mythology, and not any other, and that the single, supernatural force is not complex.
 
That wasn't my point. For the Watchmaker analogy to be scientific, you would need to prove that complexity cannot be spontaneous. Beyond that, for the Watchmaker analogy to lead to the Christian God, you would need to prove a creator must be supernatural, and not simply aliens or somesuch, you would need to prove a single, supernatural creative force, rather than a pantheon, and then you would need to prove the single, supernatural force is the one in Christian mythology, and not any other, and that the single, supernatural force is not complex.

Ahh, I see where you screwed up. You assumed I meant a scientific theory rather than a philosophical theory. It's a common problem of people who would rather talk than listen, who leap to conclusions without having all of the facts. It's really common among young people, but remains common among those of lesser intelligence and/or education. If you ever go to college, I respectfully suggest you take a class in Philosophy. Some universities even require it.

Here, let me help you: Philosophy 101: The Basic Theories You Should Know
Philosophy is a broad and complex subject, encompassing an enormous amount of sub-disciplines. For example, while moral philosophy is concerned with what’s right, epistemology focuses on the nature of knowledge. Metaphysics, on the other hand, deals with determining what exists.

However, you don’t need to do a Ph.D. to obtain a grasp of philosophy that’s adequate for engaging people at a dinner party, impressing co-workers and helping you understand the universe a little bit better.

Here’s a layperson’s explanation of the fundamental philosophical theories you should know, along with some ideas for how you can use them in your manifestation work....
 
That sounds really nice and logical until someone pulls back the curtain and sees there is nothing there.

When you actually have proof about what caused the Big Bang or whence it came, let me know.

People who actually understand thing know that 1) The "Big Bang" theories are not theories about creation, but rather historically what happened in the early part of space time. There is also this 'proof' thingy that isn't used by anybody that does science. Of course, that also does not eliminate the argument from ignorance of 'We don't know why the big bang happened, therefore the watchmaker analogy is right'. The leap of logic there with no validity is astounding. It's quite the diversionary tactic, but it does not support the concept the 'watchman' either. What has been pointed out is that you can get complex structures through the interaction of different things that have slightly different properties. That shows that complexity does not require an 'intelligent designer'.
 
People who actually understand thing know that 1) The "Big Bang" theories are not theories about creation, but rather historically what happened in the early part of space time. ...

Awesome. I'm glad you got that part straight. You seemed confused earlier.
 
Ahh, I see where you screwed up. You assumed I meant a scientific theory rather than a philosophical theory. It's a common problem of people who would rather talk than listen, who leap to conclusions without having all of the facts. It's really common among young people, but remains common among those of lesser intelligence and/or education. If you ever go to college, I respectfully suggest you take a class in Philosophy. Some universities even require it.

Here, let me help you: Philosophy 101: The Basic Theories You Should Know
Philosophy is a broad and complex subject, encompassing an enormous amount of sub-disciplines. For example, while moral philosophy is concerned with what’s right, epistemology focuses on the nature of knowledge. Metaphysics, on the other hand, deals with determining what exists.

However, you don’t need to do a Ph.D. to obtain a grasp of philosophy that’s adequate for engaging people at a dinner party, impressing co-workers and helping you understand the universe a little bit better.

Here’s a layperson’s explanation of the fundamental philosophical theories you should know, along with some ideas for how you can use them in your manifestation work....

Well, that means it's an analogy, and actually, it is an apologetic argument to try to prove the existence of God, and it fails drastically.
 
Awesome. I'm glad you got that part straight. You seemed confused earlier.

I never stated otherwise. that is your assumptions putting concepts into what I wrote that aren't there.
 
Well, that means it's an analogy, and actually, it is an apologetic argument to try to prove the existence of God, and it fails drastically.

Potato, potahto. I've seen it listed as both an analogy and a philosophical theory. Tell me you've never, ever see it listed as the "Watchmaker theory".
 
I never stated otherwise. that is your assumptions putting concepts into what I wrote that aren't there.

What assumptions? Aren't you the one who made assumptions about me?

Here's a reminder of where you assumed I was talking about after the Big Bang and not the origin of the Big Bang:
You certainly don't know much about cosmology, do you? Yes, there is plenty of evidence for cosmological inflation, aka 'the big bang'. It includes 1) CMB back ground radiation, 2) Red shift. 3) Abundance of primordial elements 4) The evolution and distribution of galaxies (evolution in the non-biological sense of course)
 
That wasn't my point. For the Watchmaker analogy to be scientific, you would need to prove that complexity cannot be spontaneous. Beyond that, for the Watchmaker analogy to lead to the Christian God, you would need to prove a creator must be supernatural, and not simply aliens or somesuch, you would need to prove a single, supernatural creative force, rather than a pantheon, and then you would need to prove the single, supernatural force is the one in Christian mythology, and not any other, and that the single, supernatural force is not complex.

I'm interested in that very last part of your post.

The need to prove the supernatural force is not complex part.

Why would that be? Why does the supernatural force need to be "simple" rather than complex?

Is it simply to break the cycle of the conceptual idea that complex things need to have a designer?

Or is it something else?
 
I'm interested in that very last part of your post.

The need to prove the supernatural force is not complex part.

Why would that be? Why does the supernatural force need to be "simple" rather than complex?

Is it simply to break the cycle of the conceptual idea that complex things need to have a designer?

Or is it something else?

No, that's all it is. There's no reason a complex god would be excluded from requiring a creator, which is what the Gnostics believed.
 
I take it you don't proofread your posts then. Just as well. Remove the guffaws and there's scarcely any content to them.
Have a delightful afternoon, boss.

BWAHAHAHAHA

ONLY replying to you after a forum full of people ave been pointing and laughing for days.. lol







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Wow.

Intelligent and educated people, regardless if they are atheist or theist, understand that the Watchmaker theory is compatible with the scientific view of our Universe.

True...nothing short of a Divine Creator can explain how the universe runs like a fine tuned watch...happenstance is beyond silliness...
 
True...nothing short of a Divine Creator can explain how the universe runs like a fine tuned watch...happenstance is beyond silliness...

That's a belief, not a fact. The origin of the Singularity is unknown at present therefore any thoughts about it are a matter of faith, not fact. That goes for the atheists too who have faith it was always there.
 
That's a belief, not a fact. The origin of the Singularity is unknown at present therefore any thoughts about it are a matter of faith, not fact. That goes for the atheists too who have faith it was always there.

Didn't know we were in the facts forum...:2razz:
 
Didn't know we were in the facts forum...:2razz:
People are free to post as they please. However, it's far more persuasive, if persuasion is the goal, to use facts than emotional rhetoric and insults.

Do you think the atheists who ridicule and insult theists are really changing minds? Encouraging critical thinking? Of course they aren't. They're just proving why most Americans don't trust atheists.

OTOH, do you think Bible Thumpers running around attacking anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do are any better? Of course they aren't. They're just proving why many Americans dislike dogmatic religions and religious hypocrites.
 
People are free to post as they please. However, it's far more persuasive, if persuasion is the goal, to use facts than emotional rhetoric and insults.

Do you think the atheists who ridicule and insult theists are really changing minds? Encouraging critical thinking? Of course they aren't. They're just proving why most Americans don't trust atheists.

OTOH, do you think Bible Thumpers running around attacking anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do are any better? Of course they aren't. They're just proving why many Americans dislike dogmatic religions and religious hypocrites.

Nope, so it's best to say what you think and move on, instead of bickerin' back and forth...
 
True...nothing short of a Divine Creator can explain how the universe runs like a fine tuned watch...happenstance is beyond silliness...

Precisely why and where Occam's Razor fails in religious context.

Because there's no other reasonable answer: "God did it"

Supernatural magic is beyond silliness....
 
Evidence and evidence of fact are two different things, at least for me. For example, one of the pieces of evidence I use in reconciling my faith is the various series of consequences, both positive and negative, that have placed me to where I want to be or otherwise left me better off. Now some can claim happenstance, but it just seems too frequent to be random. The events themselves are fact, but the faith is the meaning of them collectively.



I never attempt to convince others nor prove anything in my life. I have watched my kids exhibit evidence of paranormal abilities. My one daughter is just too damn good at prediction. Again some can sluff it off as subconscious intuition, but when she frequently stops in the middle of something and then goes to a different room to warn someone of something, I have my doubts. But as much as I have told such accounts what what my children have done, I don't try to convince anyone of them. They either believe or they don't. Same with my faith, even among other Christians. I don't believe all the things that many mainstream Christians, such as polygamy. It's my faith, not theirs. I don't care if they believe me or not. My salvation has nothing to do with their belief in what I believe



Exactly. We use faith daily, in all aspects of our lives. I take it on faith that F**kthatastain(Australia) exists and that people claiming to be from there are not lying to me.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk



Evidence and evidence of fact are two different things”

Yup.

“…events themselves are fact, but the faith is the meaning of them collectively.”

I’m not sure I know what you mean. Whatever are the events, consequences of action, that have found you where you are at any point in life and its meaning should have no bearing whatsoever on your faith, though you may have expressed and recognized your faith in your participation throughout.

If you have observed evidence of what might be the paranormal, though you have your doubts, I guess you’ve not internalized such as evidence of the supernatural that supports that of a being, such as a supernatural god. In any event, it has nothing to do with faith nor your salvation as a Christian.

I’m not sure you really believe polygamy is practiced by “many mainstream Christians”. (?)

“Exactly. We use faith daily, in all aspects of our lives. I take it on faith that F**kthatastain(Australia) exists and that people claiming to be from there are not lying to me.”

OK. Never heard Australia or any country named in that way nor know what you mean. Anywho, I’m well beyond relying on faith that Australia exists. And, I normally trust that people who tell me they are from there are, indeed, from there. To the degree that faith is trust, then I have faith they are who they say they are. But it doesn’t require religious faith for me to make that judgement.
 
Back
Top Bottom