Watchmaker Argument - Discussion

[ArtemisBarca]

WTF? Duuuuude, it's not a "thinly-disguised case for a god-created universe", it is a case for a God-created Universe. Have you ever taken any college-courses in philosophy? Man & Religion? Anything like that?

Yes, it's a non-scientific theory, but post a single valid scientific theory of what caused the Big Bang. You can't because they don't exist. Lots of theories, ZERO proof. That's the big f***ing mystery, man. That's why we can discuss this s**t all day long and no one can disprove or prove another person's ideas because there is no proof.

But they ain’t tryin to prove the overall concept of a creator of some kind..


They are claiming that the fact we do not know what caused the Big Bang is proof of Christianity specifically. Which is patently ridiculous..

The Bible makes 100s of claims that can and have been tested today... all fail miserably..

For not knowing what caused the Big Bang to be proof of Christianity, it would have had to have gotten everything else right, THEN CLAIM THAT PRE BIG BANG IS WHERE GOD COMES IN!!!

bUt that is not the case...


The Bible got the time scale and sequence of creation TOTALLY wrong..


There was no global flood..

No Noah’s family did not spawn modern humanity through incest.. DNA would show it.

Even in the NT there are laughable errors..
The Roman census, arguments over the date of the crucifixion AND if Jesus was forewarned of his fate...










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ArtemisBarca]

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

BWAHAHAHAHA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Divine_Wind]

But they ain’t tryin to prove the overall concept of a creator of some kind..

They are claiming that the fact we do not know what caused the Big Bang is proof of Christianity specifically. Which is patently ridiculous..

The Bible makes 100s of claims that can and have been tested today... all fail miserably..

For not knowing what caused the Big Bang to be proof of Christianity, it would have had to have gotten everything else right, THEN CLAIM THAT PRE BIG BANG IS WHERE GOD COMES IN!!!

bUt that is not the case...

The Bible got the time scale and sequence of creation TOTALLY wrong..

There was no global flood..

No Noah’s family did not spawn modern humanity through incest.. DNA would show it.

Even in the NT there are laughable errors..
The Roman census, arguments over the date of the crucifixion AND if Jesus was forewarned of his fate...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm writing about the Watchmaker theory of God, not the "modern Christian" theory which, after killing off all other Christian ideas for well over a thousand years, have asserted themselves as the one true version of Christianity. Obviously that's not true since more civilized times allowed other ideas to spring up, such as the Reformation, but all of those sprang from the only tree that was left standing after over a thousand years of burning "heretics".

I know what they are claiming. I disagree with them but since I can't prove my position anymore than you can, I hesitate to call their claims "ridiculous". I prefer words like "unlikely". You can often pick apart their arguments from the sides instead of a full frontal "You're f***ing wrong!" Things like Adam & Eve, Noah and Jonah as you partially pointed out. Even Job is a good way in. Discuss that aspect since you do have science on your side. Discussing Creation is a loser IMO because no one can prove it.

 

[Individual]

With the sole exception of providing a basis for the promotion of religious belief(s) to what end would a God be found to be an exigency?
While the result of evolutionary processes may give the appearance of design, it is ONLY because of the rapid demise of faulty natural creations leaving us with what is most capable of surviving and enduring as a result of adapting to the environment nature has and continues to produce.
Without questioning we would remain ignorant. Gods have never been an answer to any questions, but used simply as an obstinate refusal to look beyond what is currently known.

 

[Angel]

Evolution is evidence of trial and error not intelligent design.

Trial and error is evidence of design.

 

[Angel]

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.

"Gish gallop," eh? Now there's sincere discussion. yes?

 

[Angel]

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.

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

He (Dawkins) said you might as well say that, and nature implies design.
And the design hypothesis is based on no assumption -- it's based on observation and inference.
Flattened crops are evidence of design, not aliens.
Natural selection is evidence of design.

 

[Angel]

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.

No assumption. Observation of design/ Inference to designer. Complexity -- you introduce it here -- is just deeper design.

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.

The watchman's father is not part of the analogy, Nor is God's provenance part of any conclusion reached by the analogy. This argument is mere supererogation on your part and Dawkins'. "Special pleasing" exempts something from a class without justification. God is in a class by itself -- not in the class of things included in the universe.

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.

The argument doesn't assume the universe was created, it infers to a conclusion from empirical observations.
Science offers science fiction in this regard.
If your post is a "confused mess" it is not my fault.

 

[Angel]

BWAHAHAHAHA

You should have this sudden pointless guffawing checked out.

 

[Dragonfly]

Discussing Creation is a loser IMO because no one can prove it.

First off - holy name change Batman???? You're no longer PITA? ( I guess we'll see - time will tell :mrgreen: )

Second, if "discussing creation" is a loser, why do so many try to tell us they know it was god that did it, and that if we don't "believe" it we'll burn in hell for all eternity?


The one's who mostly drive the "creation" verses "not creation" discussion are the ones on the creation side, because along with the the creation part comes a whole crap-ton of other absurdities.

 

[ArtemisBarca]

I'm writing about the Watchmaker theory of God, not the "modern Christian" theory which, after killing off all other Christian ideas for well over a thousand years, have asserted themselves as the one true version of Christianity. Obviously that's not true since more civilized times allowed other ideas to spring up, such as the Reformation, but all of those sprang from the only tree that was left standing after over a thousand years of burning "heretics".

I know what they are claiming. I disagree with them but since I can't prove my position anymore than you can, I hesitate to call their claims "ridiculous". I prefer words like "unlikely". You can often pick apart their arguments from the sides instead of a full frontal "You're f***ing wrong!" Things like Adam & Eve, Noah and Jonah as you partially pointed out. Even Job is a good way in. Discuss that aspect since you do have science on your side. Discussing Creation is a loser IMO because no one can prove it.

The problem is it wasn’t Christianity that led to the kinder gentler Christianity..

It was science and secularism...

Technology processed at a snails pace u til the instant we stopped letting Christianity run society..



I have seen very good cases by academics claiming monotheism specifically is responsible for the plateau and backslide after the fall of the Roman Empire...

See the Greek/Roman pantheon was not made up of omnipotent beings and history was not all part of their plan..

The gods were fallible , they could be tricked and beaten. So under that dynamic humanities fate was its own.. and problems humanity faced were ours to fix.


Monotheism it is the opposite, you can’t beat god and he already has a plan. So no need in making your own plans.. if you ever wanna make god laugh, make plans after all..

A good examples are where the English failed to unite against the Vikings, Attila AND Ghengis Khan because it was gods wrath..

That said uniting against genghis likely just gets everyone killed lol..







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ArtemisBarca]

You should have this sudden pointless guffawing checked out.

Oh no, the is a well understood stimulus that is causing it..

When faced with the ridiculous I break out in involuntary bouts of laughter...

It is a problem...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Divine_Wind]

First off - holy name change Batman???? You're no longer PITA? ( I guess we'll see - time will tell :mrgreen: )

Second, if "discussing creation" is a loser, why do so many try to tell us they know it was god that did it, and that if we don't "believe" it we'll burn in hell for all eternity?


The one's who mostly drive the "creation" verses "not creation" discussion are the ones on the creation side, because along with the the creation part comes a whole crap-ton of other absurdities.

LOL. I'm still a PITA to some, but "Dutch Uncle" is more positive overall whereas Royal PITA can be seen as mostly negative.


As for creation, religious believers are not logical. It's a faith. While some can admit we don't know and it's a matter of faith, those who claim the universe is only 6000 years old are fanatics with whom no one can have a rational discussion.

I'm not sure what you last sentence means. Obviously the Universe came into being, was "created", but the big question is was this "creation" by chance, by accident? Or was it intentional? That question is impossible to answer. What we have are the results of that creation, not the cause.

 

[Divine_Wind]

...Technology processed at a snails pace u til the instant we stopped letting Christianity run society...

Sorry, but IMO that's a false take on history. Technology has proceeded at a snail's pace for all of history until the industrial age. Even though I disagree with it for the same reasons as your comment, I think Christians can make a better case by stating the spreading of Christianity spread technology and created those advancements.

Note: "The accelerating growth of technology, which has doubled every 200 years since 1400. "

 

[Dragonfly]

LOL. I'm still a PITA to some, but "Dutch Uncle" is more positive overall whereas Royal PITA can be seen as mostly negative.


I'm not sure what you last sentence means. Obviously the Universe came into being, was "created", but the big question is was this "creation" by chance, by accident? Or was it intentional? That question is impossible to answer. What we have are the results of that creation, not the cause.

Careful now, uncles don't always have sparkling clean reputations either....:2razz:

And yeah, I botched that lest part a bit. You got the drift though. Intelligent Design (god) verses natural causes (no god, no supreme being, no supernatural....)

eace

 

[Divine_Wind]

Careful now, uncles don't always have sparkling clean reputations either....:2razz:

And yeah, I botched that lest part a bit. You got the drift though. Intelligent Design (god) verses natural causes (no god, no supreme being, no supernatural....)

eace

LOL. A "Dutch Uncle" isn't the same as someone's "Uncle Harry" who drinks too much on Thanksgiving and loudly proclaims how "big" his niece has become.

 

[Yasureoktoo]

As a Hindu I prefer the automakers comparison.
It took many to make the car.

 

[Quag]

As a Hindu I prefer the automakers comparison.
It took many to make the car.

It still fails as a proof of Gods

 

[Angel]

Oh no, the is a well understood stimulus that is causing it..

When faced with the ridiculous I break out in involuntary bouts of laughter...

It is a problem...

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.

 

[ArtemisBarca]

Sorry, but IMO that's a false take on history. Technology has proceeded at a snail's pace for all of history until the industrial age. Even though I disagree with it for the same reasons as your comment, I think Christians can make a better case by stating the spreading of Christianity spread technology and created those advancements.

Note: "The accelerating growth of technology, which has doubled every 200 years since 1400. "

A) just to specify it was the time period where the church also dominated government and such..
I’m not buying that graph at ALL ... for sure there was a societal decline after the fall of the Roman Empire...

Where is that on the graph???

One generation knew how to build and maintain aqueducts, 2 generations later they did not..

The Roman Empire doesn’t even record an invasion of 15,000 barbarians, because they probably wouldn’t even have needed to activate a whole legion, , less than that conquered a big chunk of Europe...

Did every single sector of society regress ??? Absolutely not.. art continues to improve for one.. I mean it is almost only Christian themed art, but still..

So architecture continues to progress, but overall on a societal level??

Hell no.


Europe became a shadow of its former self under Christian rule.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ArtemisBarca]

I'm writing about the Watchmaker theory of God, not the "modern Christian" theory which, after killing off all other Christian ideas for well over a thousand years, have asserted themselves as the one true version of Christianity. Obviously that's not true since more civilized times allowed other ideas to spring up, such as the Reformation, but all of those sprang from the only tree that was left standing after over a thousand years of burning "heretics".

I know what they are claiming. I disagree with them but since I can't prove my position anymore than you can, I hesitate to call their claims "ridiculous". I prefer words like "unlikely". You can often pick apart their arguments from the sides instead of a full frontal "You're f***ing wrong!" Things like Adam & Eve, Noah and Jonah as you partially pointed out. Even Job is a good way in. Discuss that aspect since you do have science on your side. Discussing Creation is a loser IMO because no one can prove it.

A) there is not only one flavor of Christianity today... you rarely even have 2 individuals agree on theology.

B) I do not know what tree you are claiming was left standing through out...

1) Jesus was a Jew who believed in and upheld Jewish traditions... modern Christianity does not uphold Jewish tradition..

2) the Pauline letters are specifically Paul arguing theology with the previous Christian establishment, aka the people who actually knew Jesus in life, maybe his family members..






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ArtemisBarca]

I'm writing about the Watchmaker theory of God, not the "modern Christian" theory which, after killing off all other Christian ideas for well over a thousand years, have asserted themselves as the one true version of Christianity. Obviously that's not true since more civilized times allowed other ideas to spring up, such as the Reformation, but all of those sprang from the only tree that was left standing after over a thousand years of burning "heretics".

I know what they are claiming. I disagree with them but since I can't prove my position anymore than you can, I hesitate to call their claims "ridiculous". I prefer words like "unlikely". You can often pick apart their arguments from the sides instead of a full frontal "You're f***ing wrong!" Things like Adam & Eve, Noah and Jonah as you partially pointed out. Even Job is a good way in. Discuss that aspect since you do have science on your side. Discussing Creation is a loser IMO because no one can prove it.

Oh I can prove my position concerning the claims the Bible makes....

I only sited the low hanging fruit that is provable..

There is not enough water on the planet to cover the landmass completely..

We can check our DNA to see if we are all descendants of Noah..

Those things are not subjective.. I avoided the things that were ridiculous, but maybe possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[weaver2]

Why do you think the "Watchmaker" theory is DOA?

Because there is simply too much evidence of evolution to support the concept of an identified anthropomorphic designer putting together specific interlocking parts to accomplish a preconceived and tangible article over a period of billions of years.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Because there is simply too much evidence of evolution to support the concept of an identified anthropomorphic designer putting together specific interlocking parts to accomplish a preconceived and tangible article over a period of billions of years.

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.

 

[devildavid]

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 is no Watchmaker theory, just an analogy.