Watchmaker Argument - Discussion

[Divine_Wind]

I'm having to remind you again that religion is no part of my brief here. Why is that?

Ahhh, thanks for the reminder you are not a 24/7 Christian, that you're only a Christian when it suits you. That actually explains a lot about your posts. Thank you for the insight.

 

[Divine_Wind]

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)

You certainly don't know much about English reading and comprehension, do you? If English is a second language to you, then I can forgive you for misunderstanding the conversation Senor Ramoss.

 

[Angel]

Ahhh, thanks for the reminder you are not a 24/7 Christian, that you're only a Christian when it suits you. That actually explains a lot about your posts. Thank you for the insight.

What is this? You're baiting me now? What's your deal, man? I tell you I'm not talking about religion, and you resort to smack! You need to take stock, pilgrim.

 

[RAMOSS]

You certainly don't know much about English reading and comprehension, do you? If English is a second language to you, then I can forgive you for misunderstanding the conversation Senor Ramoss.

You said, and I will quote 'There is zero evidence for the big bang'. I have you the evidence for the big bang. That's English. You do know what the phrase 'There is zero evidence of the big bang' means, don't you? If you don't, why did you use it?

 

[NWO_Spook]

This is a perfect example of what I meant in another thread:

Paley's analogy is right on the money.

Mere contrary assertion without demonstration, yet I adequately demonstrated why it is false. This response is meaningless.

Dawkins' criticism of Paley's analogy is merely a matter of contrary assertion.

Obviously someone didn't read, or comprehend his explanation. Again, another assertion without any supporting evidence, yet the passage itself plainly espouses why the argument fails. This merely asserts the opposite of what is before your eyes, and you have the temerity to accuse Dawkins of contrarianism? The hypocrisy is blatant and I suggest you read it again:

'Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.'

Can you not see the distinction he makes here, or does your prejudice regarding this man influence your judgment?

NWO_Spook's criticism of Paley's analogy misses the point of analogy generally and of Paley's analogy in particular.

Obviously I didn't miss the point, as I clearly provided a detailed examination of why the analogy is questionable, and it is quite telling that you failed to show why I supposedly failed. Why would I even consider such an empty response to have any validity? This is not debate, this is like a kid saying 'no it isn't' despite the evidence, and then sticking his fingers in his years while yelling 'nyah, nyah, nn, nyah, nyah'.

You said absolutely nothing, and this would be the way of any future debate, and yet you wonder why I rejected your challenge. This form of debate is worthless and every attempt to debate with you is constantly littered with the same verbose, yet meaningless responses, and this is only one example of your weak style. Your challenge would be an exercise in futility owing to your tactics.

 

[Divine_Wind]

What is this? You're baiting me now? What's your deal, man? I tell you I'm not talking about religion, and you resort to smack! You need to take stock, pilgrim.

Was I wrong? Aren't you a part-time Christian? This thread is about the Watchmaker theory, a Deist theory which is contrary to most "modern" Christian ideologies. Atheists have one point of view but the points of views of Theists vary depending upon their religion.

Feel free to report me. You've done it before, I have little doubt your "ethics" will stop you from doing it again. That said, a person can't separate their religion from discussions like this. If they do, then how can they really be a believer in that religion? Short answer: they can't.

Meanwhile, the Watchmaker theory has more validity behind it than the "modern" Christian beliefs in "the power of prayer" since it still allows for an all-powerful creator, but one who doesn't interfere in that creation. This explains why, much to the consternation of atheists, why tens of thousands can die in plagues and tsunamis despite all prayers for help.

 

[Divine_Wind]

You said, and I will quote 'There is zero evidence for the big bang'. I have you the evidence for the big bang. That's English. You do know what the phrase 'There is zero evidence of the big bang' means, don't you? If you don't, why did you use it?

Please cite the actual quote or have the honesty to admit you are lying.

OTOH, a sincere apology and admission you were wrong will do too.

 

[RAMOSS]

Please cite the actual quote or have the honesty to admit you are lying.

OTOH, a sincere apology and admission you were wrong will do too.

AH, you said 'proof' not evidence.

That is showing a weakness that when it comes to science, there is no 'proof', but rather a preponderance of evidence. You do know that, don't you?

 

[Angel]

Was I wrong? Aren't you a part-time Christian? This thread is about the Watchmaker theory, a Deist theory which is contrary to most "modern" Christian ideologies. Atheists have one point of view but the points of views of Theists vary depending upon their religion.

Feel free to report me. You've done it before, I have little doubt your "ethics" will stop you from doing it again. That said, a person can't separate their religion from discussions like this. If they do, then how can they really be a believer in that religion? Short answer: they can't.

Meanwhile, the Watchmaker theory has more validity behind it than the "modern" Christian beliefs in "the power of prayer" since it still allows for an all-powerful creator, but one who doesn't interfere in that creation. This explains why, much to the consternation of atheists, why tens of thousands can die in plagues and tsunamis despite all prayers for help.

Not only are you wrong, you're completely out of line.

And I've never reported anyone in 15 years and five chat forums.

What's your problem with me? If you don't understand my views, that's on you. You can always ask for clarification. This tack you've adopted of attacking my religious convictions -- which I keep out of my posts, mind you -- is shabby behavior.

 

[Divine_Wind]

AH, you said 'proof' not evidence.

That is showing a weakness that when it comes to science, there is no 'proof', but rather a preponderance of evidence. You do know that, don't you?

You lied when you posted this:

You said, and I will quote 'There is zero evidence for the big bang'....

While you may not know it, everyone on this thread knows what that makes you.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Not only are you wrong, you're completely out of line....

Disagreed on both points. My point stands:

...the Watchmaker theory has more validity behind it than the "modern" Christian beliefs in "the power of prayer" since it still allows for an all-powerful creator, but one who doesn't interfere in that creation. This explains why, much to the consternation of atheists, why tens of thousands can die in plagues and tsunamis despite all prayers for help.

 

[Angel]

Disagreed on both points. My point stands:

You have no point. You're just baiting.

 

[Divine_Wind]

You have no point. You're just baiting.

Disagreed....again. Again, my point is on topic and still stands. You can't refute it so you keep playing your false accusation game. Sad.

...the Watchmaker theory has more validity behind it than the "modern" Christian beliefs in "the power of prayer" since it still allows for an all-powerful creator, but one who doesn't interfere in that creation. This explains why, much to the consternation of atheists, why tens of thousands can die in plagues and tsunamis despite all prayers for help.

 

[Angel]

Disagreed....again. Again, my point is on topic and still stands. You can't refute it so you keep playing your false accusation game. Sad.

Refute what? Your calumny about my religious practice or your calumny about my conduct as a member of the forum?

 

[Divine_Wind]

Refute what? Your calumny about my religious practice or your calumny about my conduct as a member of the forum?

Wow. You keep trying to derail even though I keep trying to stay on topic.

Please cite, precisely, these fanciful calumnies you are falsely claiming I made. I'll wait.

 

[Gina]

Moderator's Warning:

The personal back and forth between a few posters, Royal PITA and Angel in particular, needs to stop now. You all are not the topic. Moderation, is not the topic. If you see a violation, report it, don't discuss or discuss reporting. Do not quote and reply to any post that violates this warning. Thread closed for 5 so the warning is noticed.

 

[Gina]

Moderator's Warning:

Reopened. Please abide by the warning.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Dawkins embellishes the special pleading:

'To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like "God was always there", and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say "DNA was always there", or "Life was always there", and be done with it.' The Blind Watchmaker, 1986

 

[Angel]

This is a perfect example of what I meant in another thread:

Mere contrary assertion without demonstration, yet I adequately demonstrated why it is false. This response is meaningless.

Obviously someone didn't read, or comprehend his explanation. Again, another assertion without any supporting evidence, yet the passage itself plainly espouses why the argument fails. This merely asserts the opposite of what is before your eyes, and you have the temerity to accuse Dawkins of contrarianism? The hypocrisy is blatant and I suggest you read it again:

[Dawkins citation removed in order to fit the character limitation.]

Can you not see the distinction he makes here, or does your prejudice regarding this man influence your judgment?

Obviously I didn't miss the point, as I clearly provided a detailed examination of why the analogy is questionable, and it is quite telling that you failed to show why I supposedly failed. Why would I even consider such an empty response to have any validity? This is not debate, this is like a kid saying 'no it isn't' despite the evidence, and then sticking his fingers in his years while yelling 'nyah, nyah, nn, nyah, nyah'.

You said absolutely nothing, and this would be the way of any future debate, and yet you wonder why I rejected your challenge. This form of debate is worthless and every attempt to debate with you is constantly littered with the same verbose, yet meaningless responses, and this is only one example of your weak style. Your challenge would be an exercise in futility owing to your tactics.

Those "contrary assertions" are my opinions -- conclusions about Paley's, Dawkins', and your views reached by way of my reading and analysis of the watchmaker analogy. That analysis is offered in many posts in the course of the thread. Some are quoted below:

The assumption of the argument is that design implies a designer.
The conclusion of the argument is that God exists.
Where's the circle?
Even if you retreat to the penultimate conclusion, namely, that the design of the universe implies a designer God, where is the circle?

Who or what designed the designer?

This is not part of the analogy and instead changes the subject.

In both the cosmological argument and the watchmaker analogy argument, the whole point of the aeguments is to account for the existence of the universe. The "Everything has a cause" of the former argument and the "everything shows design" of the latter establish in each case the class of things that the argument attempts to account for. The class of things in both cases is the natural world, the universe. God does not belong to the class of things in need of explanation. God is not a member of the set these arguments set out to account for. To ask, at the conclusion of these arguments, the argument-question about a non-member of the set explained changes the subject -- it is an entirely different question which neither argument contemplates in its set-up.

I get it. So there's no such thing as a disordered universe. And no such thing as a water-filled pothole in anything but an ordered universe. How does the impossibility of a disordered universe negate the watchmaker analogy?

That the universe is ordered, that the universe must be ordered in order to exist, "makes any question of 'what' makes the universe ordered nonsensical"?
I don't follow your logic here at all. The question of the provenance of order arises from the very fact of order, it seems to me.

You think? I see a different universe from the one you see. I see sunrises and sunsets and seasons and orbits and revolutions and chemical bonding, etc. That some things are exploding does not seem to me to argue against the overall order. Basketball is an ordered game though there are fouls and missed free throws and a lot of improvisation within the rule-bound game. War appears chaotic to those caught in the crossfire and explosions but even war is an ordered affair.

Everything is what it is and not something else.
This is true.

What's more, some things are what they are necessarily.
This is also true.

But the truth of neither statement obviates the testament of design.
This is the third truth.

 

[Cordelier]

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?

How about this.... while we're so busy wondering about the watchmaker and the design of the watch he's making, we lose sight of the bigger picture. What's the purpose of the watch in the first place?

All of the gears and springs and jewels and everything else that goes into a watch movement is an artificial construct that we build to measure something which exists regardless. The watch itself is just man's feeble attempt to explain something which is both undeniable and unexplainable. We're all aware of the passage of time.... building a watch doesn't change that, nor does it control it - it just gives us the illusion that we can.

 

[Angel]

Dawkins embellishes the special pleading:

'To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like "God was always there", and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say "DNA was always there", or "Life was always there", and be done with it.' The Blind Watchmaker, 1986

Evolution is evidence of design. DNA cannot account for the existence of DNA.

 

[danielpalos]

Evolution is evidence of design. DNA cannot account for the existence of DNA.

Evolution is evidence of trial and error not intelligent design.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Those "contrary assertions" are my opinions -- conclusions about Paley's, Dawkins', and your views reached by way of my reading and analysis of the watchmaker analogy. That analysis is offered in many posts in the course of the thread. Some are quoted below:

I'll address that gish gallop when I have the time, but from what I can see there is nothing there to actually discredit my post and much of it is mere assertion.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Evolution is evidence of design.

That is quite a weak claim in the way that flattened crops are evidence of an alien visitation, however it is also evidence of natural selection and that case is far stronger. The design hypothesis is based upon the assumption of there being a designer, and that lacks credible evidence and is based upon nothing more than a belief system, whereas natural selection has been observed to be correct.

DNA cannot account for the existence of DNA.

He didn't say that, and nature cannot account for the presumption of a god.

 

[NWO_Spook]

The assumption of the argument is that design implies a designer.
The conclusion of the argument is that God exists.

Erroneously, as I have explained repeatedly. The argument assumes that nature has been designed owing to complexity, therefore the conclusion is based upon an assumption.

Who or what designed the designer? This is not part of the analogy and instead changes the subject.

This, however, is the example of special pleading as it breaks with the syllogism. It makes god exempt simply to make the argument work, do note that all watchmakers have a father.

To the circular claim:

' This argument is a circular argument. It assumes that the universe, black holes, stars, planets, snowflakes, life etc are created. Actually physics, chaos theory and evolutionary theory tell us how most complex things in the world could have evolved on their own, without any help from any "watchmaker".

Apologia Atheos: The Watchmaker argument refuted

I'll leave it there for a while, as it will turn into a confused mess addressing and replying to the entire gish gallop.