The watchmaker

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why assume the beach isn't designed? You already assumed the beach isn't designed, and, the watch you found was obviously something made somewhere that you would assume its just lost, or something.
You put various things into the premise, that are pre-concluded.

Consider an alternate version of the analogy:
You're walking along a beach when you come across a watch. You move the watch aside, scoop up a handful of sand, and recognize that the sand was designed.

Does that analogy work?

The watchmaker analogy assumes that there are "hallmarks" of design that a watch has but the things around it doesn't. If you are telling us that there everything is designed, then this means we have no hallmarks to tell a designed thing from an undesigned thing, which makes the analogy fail.

 

[ERLOS]

Consider an alternate version of the analogy:
You're walking along a beach when you come across a watch. You move the watch aside, scoop up a handful of sand, and recognize that the sand was designed.

Does that analogy work?

The watchmaker analogy assumes that there are "hallmarks" of design that a watch has but the things around it doesn't. If you are telling us that there everything is designed, then this means we have no hallmarks to tell a designed thing from an undesigned thing, which makes the analogy fail.

Again, only if you deliberately choose to ignore the spirit of the analogy by trying to be smart with words.

The universe originated out of nothing, an infinite singularity, and 13.7 billion years later, you are here with consciousness to perceive and consider it.

And you can still believe that physical man is the highest intelligence in the universe?

Use another analogy from Einstein's, if you like. The object stays the same

 

[Desert Snake]

Consider an alternate version of the analogy:
You're walking along a beach when you come across a watch. You move the watch aside, scoop up a handful of sand, and recognize that the sand was designed.

Does that analogy work?

The watchmaker analogy assumes that there are "hallmarks" of design that a watch has but the things around it doesn't. If you are telling us that there everything is designed, then this means we have no hallmarks to tell a designed thing from an undesigned thing, which makes the analogy fail.

But you do have the hallmarks of design, if you are using equational and consistent logic.

 

[Ponder This]

You find a watch on a deserted beach. You pick it up, and notice all the intricate parts. That's an interesting watch...

Deserted Beach = Deserted watch? I guess it's mine now.
I wonder if it's waterproof.
Should I break the watch to see what makes it tick?
Would I scrape paint off the Mona Lisa to see the strokes that Leonardo made?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The direct evidence is the watch, however all you know or figure, is that it was made.
Then, you notice similar concept, and assume it isn't made. Where is the logic?

No, upon coming in contact with a watch FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, a human being would only be able to guess that it was made - and even then ONLY based on (surprise surprise) comparison to all of the other objects in the world that we have experience with and understand were NOT MADE in the way a watch is "made". People have been trying to drill this point into your head in various ways throughout this thread, but the reply above implies that you still don't get it. YOU know a watch is made, because you have direct experience with watches in particular, but in general you have experience with many man-made, and many not man-made things... so you are able to tell the difference. Do you think a BABY could tell the difference (to communicate which was man-made and which wasn't) between a watch and a rock? If so, why do you think so?

So here we all are, all babies with respect to knowledge of the origin of the universe, and yet you come in asserting that the universe was created. That's the problem.

 

[Milton Platt]

Oh, forget the watch. Deliberate misunderstanding is always the sign of defeat in a discussion.

A naked Amazon indian out hunting birds with a blowpipe is suddenly confronted with a Google driverless car. Does he think it's just another animal?

You can substitute any object you want for the watch and the analogy is the same and it always fails. Any reasonably well informed apologist will tell you that, by the way.
If the argument is that something is designed because it has some level of complexity, then there is no reason to pick out manmade objects. You are contrasting them to naturally occurring objects. At what specified level of complexity does something become a "created" object?
I am atheist, yet I would argue that the natural world around the watch is much more complex than the watch. Yet you decided the watch was the basis of your argument. Doesn't make sense.
Complexity is not how we determine if something is created. We establish the existence of the creator, like in the watch.

 

[ERLOS]

No, upon coming in contact with a watch FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, a human being would only be able to guess that it was made - and even then ONLY based on (surprise surprise) comparison to all of the other objects in the world that we have experience with and understand were NOT MADE in the way a watch is "made". People have been trying to drill this point into your head in various ways throughout this thread, but the reply above implies that you still don't get it. YOU know a watch is made, because you have direct experience with watches in particular, but in general you have experience with many man-made, and many not man-made things... so you are able to tell the difference. Do you think a BABY could tell the difference (to communicate which was man-made and which wasn't) between a watch and a rock? If so, why do you think so?

So here we all are, all babies with respect to knowledge of the origin of the universe, and yet you come in asserting that the universe was created. That's the problem.

But the fact remains you are ignoring the purpose of Einstein's analogy. He believed the universe to be zillions of times more intricate than a watch. He believed he was unravelling a little bit of the 'mind of God.' So did Newton. Even Richard Feynman spoke of nature as 'she' and treated the world with wonder.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

You find a watch on a deserted beach. You pick it up, and notice all the intricate parts. That's an interesting watch...

Do you understand how natural selection works to give the appearance of design?

 

[ERLOS]

You can substitute any object you want for the watch and the analogy is the same and it always fails. Any reasonably well informed apologist will tell you that, by the way.
If the argument is that something is designed because it has some level of complexity, then there is no reason to pick out manmade objects. You are contrasting them to naturally occurring objects. At what specified level of complexity does something become a "created" object?
I am atheist, yet I would argue that the natural world around the watch is much more complex than the watch. Yet you decided the watch was the basis of your argument. Doesn't make sense.
Complexity is not how we determine if something is created. We establish the existence of the creator, like in the watch.

No, it does make sense. It made sense to Einstein. But I suppose you know better?

 

[ERLOS]

Do you understand how natural selection works to give the appearance of design?

Yes. I do understand natural selection. No-one's arguing against evolution. It's the first cause being addressed. Where did the Big Bang come from? Can you answer that?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Yes. I do understand natural selection. No-one's arguing against evolution. It's the first cause being addressed. Where did the Big Bang come from? Can you answer that?

No, I can't. No one can that I'm aware of.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

But the fact remains you are ignoring the purpose of Einstein's analogy.

Wait, what was Einstein's analogy? You lost me here...

He believed the universe to be zillions of times more intricate than a watch.

So, if we're talking about the classic "Watchmaker Analogy" (which I am unsure of now, due to your bringing Einstein into it), the main subject is the watch, but that leaves the implied subjects that surround the watch, that stand in difference to the watch as the "uncreated," so that they can be easily distinguished by the mind from the watch. Now tell me... if in the analogy the watch represents the universe (which, according to the analogy God supposedly created, as man created the watch) then what, pray tell, is left over as the "un-created" stuff by which we are supposed to discern the created from the natural (not-created)? What in the hell is LEFT after you insert "the universe" into the analogy? So we still have the problem of not even being able to understand that the universe is created, because we have NOTHING LEFT TO COMPARE IT TO that we can differentiate as "un-created."

Really, there is just a whole host of problems with the analogy. It really is unbelievably crappy and uninsightful.

...and treated the world with wonder.

And you believe it is less possible to view the world with wonder without a god in the picture, is that it?

 

[ERLOS]

Wait, what was Einstein's analogy? You lost me here...

Sorry to repeat myself everybody ...

 

[Milton Platt]

No, it does make sense. It made sense to Einstein. But I suppose you know better?

I don't think Einstein ever used the watchmaker analogy in his computations...

 

[ERLOS]

I don't think Einstein ever used the watchmaker analogy in his computations...

Sigh ...

 

[Milton Platt]

View attachment 22915Sorry to repeat myself everybody ...

So, in essence, it is impossible to conceive of such a god?....and yet theists claim they can conceive of such a god?
So are you a pantheist, then? Because Einstein was a believer in the pantheist god of Spinoza.

 

[ERLOS]

So, in essence, it is impossible to conceive of such a god?....and yet theists claim they can conceive of such a god?

Oh, you are so scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

[Milton Platt]

Oh, you are so scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Why? That is what the Einstein meme states. And theists say they have a concept of such a god. They did what Einstein could not.
However, Einstein believed in the god of Spinoza, which would make him a pantheist at best.

 

[Desert Snake]

So, in essence, it is impossible to conceive of such a god?....and yet theists claim they can conceive of such a god?
So are you a pantheist, then? Because Einstein was a believer in the pantheist god of Spinoza.

Yes, God can be experienced, in more than one way. That is the difference between not knowing or caring about the markings on the watch, and, finding the watchmakers signature, so forth, on the watch. If you want to think of it that way.

 

[Milton Platt]

Sigh ...

Yeah, it was a hasty post borne out of frustration.