Watchmaker Argument - Discussion

[Angel]

BWAHAHAHAHA

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

Virtual laughter is so -- oh, how shall we put it? -- sophomoric. With particular internet emphasis on the moric.
Still, guffaws are better than guff.
Have an edifying day, wherever you're having it, chief.

 

[Angel]

Precisely why and where Occam's Razor fails in religious context.
Supernatural magic is beyond silliness....

"Remember the Remini!"

 

[maquiscat]

“…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.

By this I mean that I have experienced many factual events, when taken individually, mean little by themselves, but collectively provide evidence to me that some kind of controlling entity is providing for me and guiding me. The events are fact, but it is faith that makes the conclusion. But without those events, I would not have a foundation for the faith.

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

1% of a million is 10k, and that would still be many, even while not being a majority. And you'd probably be surprised how many Christians do practice polygamy, FLDS whacko types aside.

“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.

Sorry, inside joke among the family. With so many plants and animals that want to kill you, we've taking to using that name.

That is still faith. You may trust those sources, but if you have not experienced something directly you don't know. Mind you, I admit to the use of "knowledge" as loosely as any other. My point is of the nature of faith. Religious faith is simply one type, but all faith is the same. The difference is the amount of evidence we use to accept what we are told on said faith.

Oh and the funny of the day. I spent almost a quarter of an hour looking for this thread on my other debate site before remembering it was here.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[TypicalRussian]

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. "

I would rather argue that that is because of something called "the law of accelerating returns" rather than religious reasons

 

[Lisa]

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?

The idea that the Watchmaker fallacy is somehow evidence of any god is easily debunked.

The laws of science can be the designer just as easily and more logicallyu then some god.

 

[RAMOSS]

The idea that the Watchmaker fallacy is somehow evidence of any god is easily debunked.

The laws of science can be the designer just as easily and more logicallyu then some god.

Another thing that should be noted is that 'laws of science' are observational rather than prohibitive.

 

[Daisy]

Another thing that should be noted is that 'laws of science' are observational rather than prohibitive.

Not true...the entire universe, from atoms to galaxies, is governed by definite physical laws...there are laws for governing heat, light, sound and gravity...

“The more we examine the universe, we find it is not arbitrary at all but obeys certain well-defined laws that operate in different areas. It seems very reasonable to suppose that there may be some unifying principles, so that all laws are part of some bigger law.” - Stephen W. Hawking

 

[Daisy]

And to take it a step further...

“The natural laws of the universe are so precise that we have no difficulty building a spaceship to fly to the moon and can time the flight with the precision of a fraction of a second. These laws must have been set by somebody.” - Wernher von Braun

 

[RAMOSS]

And to take it a step further...

“The natural laws of the universe are so precise that we have no difficulty building a spaceship to fly to the moon and can time the flight with the precision of a fraction of a second. These laws must have been set by somebody.” - Wernher von Braun

And, how does that contradict what I say? The laws of science are descriptive. They describe what is observed. That quote does not contradict what I said.

 

[Daisy]

And, how does that contradict what I say? The laws of science are descriptive. They describe what is observed. That quote does not contradict what I said.

Was I quoting you? No...

 

[RAMOSS]

Was I quoting you? No...

The previous one was, and your comment, and since it started with 'and to take it a step futher', which indicates that it was a continuation of your last comment. I think you should stop being so dishonest.

 

[Daisy]

The previous one was, and your comment, and since it started with 'and to take it a step futher', which indicates that it was a continuation of your last comment. I think you should stop being so dishonest.

I think most can judge for themselves who is being dishonest here...I was not speaking to you...

 

[Integrityrespec]

Both arguments are rooted in the same motivation, taking what is discovered by system of process reasoning and bend those understandings to Bronze Age mythology. The criticisms of both arguments are accurate, the presumption of "designer" does not equate to the concept of Monotheism or Polytheism. If anything the origins of the universe create questions about time and dimension.

Time and dimension. You mean Rod Sterling?

 

[Daisy]

“Contemplation of these things disturbs cosmologists because it seems as if such particular and precise conditions could hardly have arisen at random. One way to deal with the question is to say the whole thing was contrived and lay it on Divine Providence." - Science News

 

[Divine_Wind]

I would rather argue that that is because of something called "the law of accelerating returns" rather than religious reasons

Agreed. How about a theory that the human race progresses best when it grows in every capacity such as intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, physically and, of course, technologically?

Spiritually does not equal religion since religion is dogma; a fixed set of rigid rules. Religions don't start out with set dogma, they grow into it and like a plant outgrowing its pot, the dogma eventually strangles it unless they can adapt and grow. I'm not religious but I do understand the fundamental human need for spiritual growth. Anyone who says they don't is either fooling themselves or have a mental defect like a person who doesn't experience emotions or sympathy for others.

 

[RAMOSS]

I think most can judge for themselves who is being dishonest here...I was not speaking to you...

Yes, they can .. and it appears your comment you got snotty about was a continuation of the comment you made to me.

 

[Dragonfly]

Yes, they can .. and it appears your comment you got snotty about was a continuation of the comment you made to me.

She's been that way a lot recently. She seems to be going out of her way to be combatively difficult. More so than what's normal for her.

 

[Dragonfly]

The idea that the Watchmaker fallacy is somehow evidence of any god is easily debunked.

The laws of science can be the designer just as easily and more logicallyu then some god.

What makes you think the "laws of science" as we currently know them, applied to anything prior to the Big Bang?

I'm not disagreeing with you, just wondering what your thoughts are about things prior to what's capable of being studied.

 

[ArtemisBarca]

Agreed. How about a theory that the human race progresses best when it grows in every capacity such as intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, physically and, of course, technologically?

Spiritually does not equal religion since religion is dogma; a fixed set of rigid rules. Religions don't start out with set dogma, they grow into it and like a plant outgrowing its pot, the dogma eventually strangles it unless they can adapt and grow. I'm not religious but I do understand the fundamental human need for spiritual growth. Anyone who says they don't is either fooling themselves or have a mental defect like a person who doesn't experience emotions or sympathy for others.

Spiritually does not equal real..

“Spirituality” means the same thing as “homeopathic” , absolutely nothing..

I can say I am spiritual about my money, or raping children or inspector gadget..

It is the equivalent of puffery in marketing and case law... everyone can claim to make the “worlds best”” hotdogs. Even though obviously only one person does (that person is me..jk lol) .

Spirituality means “I want to believe in woo woo, but don’t want a rule structure that comes with it.”

There is a reason every human being in human history has spent at least some portion of their lives trying to prove the supernatural and all have failed miserably...

No one repeatable prayer, spell, ghost, religion or whatever else case been proven through ANY form of experimentation...

Everyone in science and the legal system agree that human beings are the very worst eye witnesses.. yet the only proof of the supernaturalist testimonials with zero actual evidence to back it up..


Off subject a hair, but hopefully you get the point..

If you actually own a haunted house, that is literally the most valuable piece of property on the planet.. if you actually have enough “ghost activity) to be documented and cataloged you have more money and fame than god..

Scientists AND the religious would throw money at you for the chance to study the house..

Hell you could almost certainly start a religion to rival the big three!!!


So why don’t you see big wig corporations sparing no expense to purchase haunted houses??








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Divine_Wind]

Spiritually does not equal real..

“Spirituality” means the same thing as “homeopathic” , absolutely nothing..

I can say I am spiritual about my money, or raping children or inspector gadget..

It is the equivalent of puffery in marketing and case law... everyone can claim to make the “worlds best”” hotdogs. Even though obviously only one person does (that person is me..jk lol) .

Spirituality means “I want to believe in woo woo, but don’t want a rule structure that comes with it.”....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Disagreed. The problem for atheists such as yourself who believe "when you're dead, you're dead" is that you can't prove it. You are taking it as a matter of faith that there is nothing more to existence than what you can physically sense. Atheists have faith that the Universe came from nothing, that the Singularity was always there and they are not curious about anything that came before it....or themselves for that matter.

Ergo, as you alluded, if an atheist wanted to rob banks or rape children, there is nothing stopping him except the fear of getting caught and imprisoned. If they can do it and get away with it, they will.

Sent from my HAL9000 using SkyNet

 

[Daisy]

She's been that way a lot recently. She seems to be going out of her way to be combatively difficult. More so than what's normal for her.

:kissy::kissy:

 

[Individual]

Disagreed. The problem for atheists such as yourself who believe "when you're dead, you're dead" is that you can't prove it. You are taking it as a matter of faith that there is nothing more to existence than what you can physically sense. Atheists have faith that the Universe came from nothing, that the Singularity was always there and they are not curious about anything that came before it....or themselves for that matter.

Ergo, as you alluded, if an atheist wanted to rob banks or rape children, there is nothing stopping him except the fear of getting caught and imprisoned. If they can do it and get away with it, they will.

Sent from my HAL9000 using SkyNet

What's the problem with believing "when you're dead, you're dead"?
The answer I was given by a Buddhist monk when asked if he believed there was a God or an afterlife, IMO was the most reasonable and rational answer possible; "All that matters is HOW you lie your life."

We have no way of ever knowing what was happening during an infinite period of time prior to what we call the big bang event, but that in no way means we aren't curious about it.

Ergo, if a theist wanted to rob banks or rape children, there is nothing stopping him/her except the fear of being caught and imprisoned. And they to will do it if they feel they can get away with it, but will likely repent when caught to receive forgiveness or go to confession, if Catholic.

 

[bluesmoke]

By this I mean that I have experienced many factual events, when taken individually, mean little by themselves, but collectively provide evidence to me that some kind of controlling entity is providing for me and guiding me. The events are fact, but it is faith that makes the conclusion. But without those events, I would not have a foundation for the faith.




1% of a million is 10k, and that would still be many, even while not being a majority. And you'd probably be surprised how many Christians do practice polygamy, FLDS whacko types aside.



Sorry, inside joke among the family. With so many plants and animals that want to kill you, we've taking to using that name.

That is still faith. You may trust those sources, but if you have not experienced something directly you don't know. Mind you, I admit to the use of "knowledge" as loosely as any other. My point is of the nature of faith. Religious faith is simply one type, but all faith is the same. The difference is the amount of evidence we use to accept what we are told on said faith.

Oh and the funny of the day. I spent almost a quarter of an hour looking for this thread on my other debate site before remembering it was here.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

“By this I mean that I have experienced many factual events, when taken individually, mean little by themselves, but collectively provide evidence to me that some kind of controlling entity is providing for me and guiding me. The events are fact, but it is faith that makes the conclusion. But without those events, I would not have a foundation for the faith.”

That you experienced an event you say was paranormal does not make it a fact. That you can’t find scientific explanation for what you experience does not mean the paranormal is a factual explanation.

That you explain your experience as being what only has given you faith is a presumption, which is to “take upon oneself without permission." It is only by the word of God and his allowance that one gains faith. If you believe that your paranormal experience was a religious one, that you heard the word of God by Him using the paranormal to allow you that faith does not make the paranormal the foundation for your faith. Only God and His word, the Bible, is the foundation of Christian faith.

“1% of a million is 10k, and that would still be many, even while not being a majority. And you'd probably be surprised how many Christians do practice polygamy, FLDS whacko types aside.”

There are Christians who are polygamist, mostly in Africa, who typically had multiple wives before becoming Christian. However, there is no Christian practice of polygamy except as described in the following excerpt, the link further below:

“…a small group of evangelical Christians in the West numbering 50,000 persons practice Christian polygamy, believing that the Bible glorifies this form of marriage, citing the fact that many biblical prophets had multiple wives, including David, Abraham, Jacob and Solomon”.

(page down 10x to the “Other views” section):

Polygamy in Christianity - Wikipedia

You can say 50,000 persons are “many”. In some context or other you can say that 10 people are many. In the context of Christianity, I don’t see how you can say 50,000 out of approximately 2,000,000,000 is “many”. All of .000025%.

“Sorry, inside joke among the family. With so many plants and animals that want to kill you, we've taking to using that name.”

Thx. And you left me out of it.

“That is still faith. You may trust those sources, but if you have not experienced something directly you don't know. Mind you, I admit to the use of "knowledge" as loosely as any other. My point is of the nature of faith. Religious faith is simply one type, but all faith is the same. The difference is the amount of evidence we use to accept what we are told on said faith.”

Faith is not based on fact. If you require fact to have faith, you have no faith. Faith leads you to evidence, fact and finally to the truth. Fact does not give people faith.

“Oh and the funny of the day. I spent almost a quarter of an hour looking for this thread on my other debate site before remembering it was here.”

I hate it when that happens.

 

[Divine_Wind]

What's the problem with believing "when you're dead, you're dead"?
The answer I was given by a Buddhist monk when asked if he believed there was a God or an afterlife, IMO was the most reasonable and rational answer possible; "All that matters is HOW you lie your life."

We have no way of ever knowing what was happening during an infinite period of time prior to what we call the big bang event, but that in no way means we aren't curious about it.

Ergo, if a theist wanted to rob banks or rape children, there is nothing stopping him/her except the fear of being caught and imprisoned. And they to will do it if they feel they can get away with it, but will likely repent when caught to receive forgiveness or go to confession, if Catholic.

The problem is they are denying it's their faith while claiming it as fact. What makes them any different from a Bible Thumper? Neither can prove their position even though both claim it as fact.

Freudian slip from the monk or from you?

Agreed about infinite time, but it's even more far reaching than you are saying since Space-Time began with the Big Bang. If, and probably when, the Universe ends in the "Big Chill", then we'd have infinite time. However, outside the Universe of "before" (a temporal word) the Universe came into existence, there was no "time". What was, if anything, was eternity. A completely different meaning than "infinite". The problem, of course, is that there are no common English words for "no time" or "non-time". Everything we know and relate to involves Space-Time.

Now you are getting it. People justify their actions however they like. There is no such thing as a universal morality code. Human beings are capable mass murdering each other cold-bloodily. There is no superiority of atheist or theist since it's the people who are doing it that justify their own ends. This is why, IMO, it's f***ing stupid for atheists and theists to run around pointing fingers at each other. If a theist points out how they are superior to atheists, I'll point out the barbarous actions of theists. If an atheist does it, I'll do the same. Neither can prove they are superior since each of their beliefs are a matter of faith. The finger-pointing is silly and non-productive.

 

[ArtemisBarca]

Disagreed. The problem for atheists such as yourself who believe "when you're dead, you're dead" is that you can't prove it. You are taking it as a matter of faith that there is nothing more to existence than what you can physically sense. Atheists have faith that the Universe came from nothing, that the Singularity was always there and they are not curious about anything that came before it....or themselves for that matter.

Ergo, as you alluded, if an atheist wanted to rob banks or rape children, there is nothing stopping him except the fear of getting caught and imprisoned. If they can do it and get away with it, they will.

Sent from my HAL9000 using SkyNet

A) You do not have to prove the norm..the norm would be death being the end, just like with animals and such.

You are claiming there is some alternative dimension where the souls of humans go, when there is ZERO evidence for a soul or other dimensions...

The burden of proof ABSOLUTELY falls on you.. you are making the extraordinary claim..

I Can’t speak for you specifically on the animal tip, , but science does not recognize a soul or the human race being anything more than intelligent animals, and the human condition backs that up.. I cannot think of any thing besides our intelligence you cannot find in the animal kingdom..

B) ONLY Christians seem to think their religion is required for them to not rape and murder with abandon...


Atheist/agnostics do not need a fairytale I keep them from molesting children and such.. it is kinda sad christians think they do..




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk