The watchmaker

[A Vestigial Mote]

You can't find a shop in the universe marked "CREATOR", neither are you going to see a dinosaur start forming from the dust beneath your feet, but what you find both in the universe and here on earth, is evidence for a creator.

The jury is still out on your last statement. The true origins of what you point to as evidence of a creator are, as yet, unknown. If you claim 100% certainty that it was God and an instance of His creativity that spawned the universe, then I hold the opinion that you are deluded in that aspect of your perception of knowledge on the subject. You don't know, and can't know, and it stands that no one should accept your word on the matter without more substantial/sufficient evidence. It doesn't matter how much you wish for the contrary.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So?

If you and some friends were out camping in an isolated place, and you all saw an object fall from the sky, and land in the midst of all of you. After a split second, it took off almost at bullet speed, and disappeared in a flash of light.
Would you and your friends say you were hallucinating just because others didn't believe you, or care about, your unproven "dream"?

I wouldn't say "that must be supernatural." I've seen weird things in the sky I can't explain, but never have I yet assumed that they were supernatural events. Why would I?

I believe in an almighty supreme intelligent designer, and there is no skeptic thinker that will close my mouth, from saying that - there is evidence God is.

Good for you. What evidence do you have for this God? Surely it's more convincing than a watch on a beach.

I've never asked anyone on a forum to close their mouth from saying how they feel about something.

 

[nPeace]

I would believe I saw something that I did not have a reasonable explanation for. And this has what to do with a god????????

Of course, but would you believe that you were perhaps hallucinating, and maybe needed to see a psychiatrist, simply because most people thought you were loony, because you could not prove it?

 

[nPeace]

You don't have to assume. Flowers occur in nature. No assumption is necessary to conclude that. The assumption only comes into the picture when you assert design.

No, the question was how do you know that flowers occur in nature without necessarily having inherent design.

How? If you have two objects, neither of which you have ever seen before and neither of which you have any knowledge of the formation of, and I told you one was designed and one was not, what could you do to tell them apart?

If I did what you are doing with a 5 year old, they would tell me the difference, and they don't even need a high IQ to do so. How? Simply look at and observe the features.

If a house isn't put together with nails, it's put together with strings, if not - some other binding mechanism.
There are groves, slots, etc. etc, some feature that will click with familiarity in the mind - because children play with toys, and draw.

Apparently that "peg" doesn't seem to fit your "hole", either.
Or are you making a peg that says, "I have now awaken to the world, and have never seen or experienced anything in life."? If so, that would be unreasonable, and not even near what I have said.

Note. I said clearly

They come to the conclusion, by using experience, and logic, that what they see around them is a grander picture of what they know and observe.

But design isn't a logical conclusion when applied to nature.

Give one reason why. Is it because you have convinced yourself of that?

And how does the evidence suggest design?

I'll just give you one. See here.

You're really not being reasonable. You're asserting you can identify design independent of prior knowledge,

What? Where did you see that?

and yet literally everything you have said contradicts that. You've asserted design as an inherent facet of the complexity of a thing, yet shown no actual reasoning behind how you come to that conclusion. It's really quite simple:

What? It looks as though you are not reading most of the post in this thread, or you just simply close your eyes, and refuse to see beyond what you want to believe.

We recognize design by contrasting it with nature. Without nature for comparison, assertions of design are meaningless. So how can you, without clear and unambiguous evidence of its creation process involving design or any evidence of a designer, assert that nature is designed?

You recognize design by contrasting it with nature. Contrasting what with nature. Design? Can you demonstrate that. I'm a bit confused, and you completely lost me with the last question, so if you can rephrase it, I would appreciate that, thanks.

 

[nPeace]

So you aren’t arguing that a song, say, needs a designer?

Irrelevant to the discussion imo.

But both are physical phenomena. They aren’t objects themselves, but they are objects doing things.

But the only things we can make justified claims about are the things we know. You’re claiming to know that God exists and that we can deduce this from “design” in nature. This leaves us with two options:

- say that your position might be justified, in which case we can say that God’s existence and his design of his creation are within the scope of human rational inquiry, or

- say that God is beyond human inquiry and dismiss your argument as nothing more than you just making stuff up.

Which is it?

Oh? Could you show where exactly I claimed

to know that God exists

I wouldn't say "that must be supernatural." I've seen weird things in the sky I can't explain, but never have I yet assumed that they were supernatural events. Why would I?

Good for you. What evidence do you have for this God? Surely it's more convincing than a watch on a beach.

I've never asked anyone on a forum to close their mouth from saying how they feel about something.

The example had nothing to do with supernatural.
The example was simply used to show why it's not unreasonable for me to speak of something that is real to me, even if it's not real to you - To speak of something that I understand, even if you don't understand.

I wasn't accusing you though. I just thought the expression was fitting, but it was meant to be general.

 

[Milton Platt]

Of course, but would you believe that you were perhaps hallucinating, and maybe needed to see a psychiatrist, simply because most people thought you were loony, because you could not prove it?

That would be one possibility among several I can think of. But there would be no reason for me to equate what I saw with an alien space craft because I have never actually seen an alien space craft and would have no way of knowing what one would look like or how it would behave.

 

[nPeace]

That would be one possibility among several I can think of. But there would be no reason for me to equate what I saw with an alien space craft because I have never actually seen an alien space craft and would have no way of knowing what one would look like or how it would behave.

The alien thingy is way outside of this simple question. So you would say yes?

 

[Milton Platt]

The alien thingy is way outside of this simple question. So you would say yes?

Okay, I would have no reason to believe it was supernatural. I have never seen anything supernatural that has been positively identified as such, and would have no idea what a supernatural "thing" would look like or how it would behave. And if I wanted to investigate whether it was something supernatural, I have no tools to do so. I would simply have seen something that I have no explanation for.

If you want to get specific and just talk about your example of something that fell from the sky and then flew back up, then the answer is still the same. I have no idea what the thing was or why it did what it did. Heck, at that point in time, I don't even know if he thing was real or imagined.

 

[Milton Platt]

So you aren’t arguing that a song, say, needs a designer?


But both are physical phenomena. They aren’t objects themselves, but they are objects doing things.


But the only things we can make justified claims about are the things we know. You’re claiming to know that God exists and that we can deduce this from “design” in nature. This leaves us with two options:

- say that your position might be justified, in which case we can say that God’s existence and his design of his creation are within the scope of human rational inquiry, or

- say that God is beyond human inquiry and dismiss your argument as nothing more than you just making stuff up.

Which is it?

Furthermore, he is assuming that it happens to be his particular version of a god.

 

[nPeace]

Okay, I would have no reason to believe it was supernatural. I have never seen anything supernatural that has been positively identified as such, and would have no idea what a supernatural "thing" would look like or how it would behave. And if I wanted to investigate whether it was something supernatural, I have no tools to do so. I would simply have seen something that I have no explanation for.

You seem to have missed the point of the question. Why? Simply because you have your mind set on your argument.
That happens. We are only human.

Please, for a moment take your mind off the supernatural, aliens... and focus on my words, and what I am saying.

You and your friend witnessed something strange. Do you believe you are hallucinations, or maybe there is something wrong with your head, simply because you have no proof, and people don't believe a word you say.

 

[Milton Platt]

You seem to have missed the point of the question. Why? Simply because you have your mind set on your argument.
That happens. We are only human.

Please, for a moment take your mind off the supernatural, aliens... and focus on my words, and what I am saying.

You and your friend witnessed something strange. Do you believe you are hallucinations, or maybe there is something wrong with your head, simply because you have no proof, and people don't believe a word you say.

I said that was one of a number of possibilities. I have no doubt people witness strange things. I have no doubt sometimes it was an hallucination. I have no doubt sometimes it was something real but they have no rational explanation for it because it is outside their current framework of education, and experience, and maybe outside the framework of the collective human education and experience,

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, the question was how do you know that flowers occur in nature without necessarily having inherent design.

We don't know - but we have no reason to assume design is inherent or involved. That's the point.

If I did what you are doing with a 5 year old, they would tell me the difference, and they don't even need a high IQ to do so. How? Simply look at and observe the features.

"Simply look at and observe the features" is not a specific answer. I'm asking how do you identify inherent design without prior knowledge of the object's formation. Why can't you answer that if it's so simple?

If a house isn't put together with nails, it's put together with strings, if not - some other binding mechanism.
There are groves, slots, etc. etc, some feature that will click with familiarity in the mind - because children play with toys, and draw.

But, once again, that is based entirely on observed prior knowledge of a design process. If you aren't already aware of the design process, how do you conclude design?

Apparently that "peg" doesn't seem to fit your "hole", either.
Or are you making a peg that says, "I have now awaken to the world, and have never seen or experienced anything in life."? If so, that would be unreasonable, and not even near what I have said.

Note. I said clearly

And it's still baseless and unreasonable.

Give one reason why. Is it because you have convinced yourself of that?

Because not once in the entirety of human history have we witnessed any kind of intelligent agency formulating something that we otherwise observe forming through natural process.

I'll just give you one. See here.

How do "patterns" indicate God? Why can patterns not be the result of inherent natural processes?

What? Where did you see that?

When you assert you can identify design by simply observing complexity, that's what you are doing.

What? It looks as though you are not reading most of the post in this thread, or you just simply close your eyes, and refuse to see beyond what you want to believe.

Every single time I have asked you how you identify design, you keep making references to objects that you already know from direct experience and observation are designed. I'm asking you how you can identify design without prior knowledge of the process, and if all you can do is bring up examples of things you know that WERE designed then you're not actually answering the challenge. You have not observed the Universe's formation, so you have no similar frame of reference to assert it as a product of design. This is is simple logic. Saying "x is designed, therefore y is also designed" is baseless unless you can actually demonstrate how and why you determined it to be so.

You recognize design by contrasting it with nature. Contrasting what with nature. Design? Can you demonstrate that. I'm a bit confused, and you completely lost me with the last question, so if you can rephrase it, I would appreciate that, thanks.

I don't really know that I can rephrase it that makes it any more clear than it already is. The point is that you can only assert design by prior knowledge of what is observed in nature. To assert that nature is designed, without evidence of an actual design process, makes no sense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Irrelevant to the discussion imo.





Oh? Could you show where exactly I claimed




The example had nothing to do with supernatural.
The example was simply used to show why it's not unreasonable for me to speak of something that is real to me, even if it's not real to you - To speak of something that I understand, even if you don't understand.

I wasn't accusing you though. I just thought the expression was fitting, but it was meant to be general.

Then why did you bring it up when I was asking you about the supernatural? Perhaps you could bring something up that's on topic then.

 

[nPeace]

We don't know - but we have no reason to assume design is inherent or involved. That's the point.

As far as I know, I did give the reason.

"Simply look at and observe the features" is not a specific answer. I'm asking how do you identify inherent design without prior knowledge of the object's formation. Why can't you answer that if it's so simple?

Prior knowledge of the objects formation is not required to know that something was designed.
We do not need prior knowledge of a computer's formation, in order to know how to build a computer - otherwise, one would never be built. All we need is prior knowledge of how electronics work, and perhaps basic knowledge of electronic devices.
Knowledge of, and experience with objects help us to analyze and understand other objects which we may not be familiar with, or have never seen.
I did answer the question, in a very simple way. I hope the above is simpler.

But, once again, that is based entirely on observed prior knowledge of a design process. If you aren't already aware of the design process, how do you conclude design?

Excellent!

And it's still baseless and unreasonable.

Explain why.

Because not once in the entirety of human history have we witnessed any kind of intelligent agency formulating something that we otherwise observe forming through natural process.

Reminder. You said above, 'You do not know.' Thank you.
You only assume it is forming through natural processes.

How do "patterns" indicate God? Why can patterns not be the result of inherent natural processes?

Why can't it indicate God - A creator, and designer?

When you assert you can identify design by simply observing complexity, that's what you are doing.

It's not about complexity. Complexity came in as a contrast of the level of intelligence, not as a basis for assuming a designer. I always find that this seems to be a misunderstanding in communication.

Every single time I have asked you how you identify design, you keep making references to objects that you already know from direct experience and observation are designed. I'm asking you how you can identify design without prior knowledge of the process, and if all you can do is bring up examples of things you know that WERE designed then you're not actually answering the challenge. You have not observed the Universe's formation, so you have no similar frame of reference to assert it as a product of design. This is is simple logic. Saying "x is designed, therefore y is also designed" is baseless unless you can actually demonstrate how and why you determined it to be so.

Thanks for making yourself clearer.
Thanks for reminding me that I have not observed the universe forming. It might have been better if you said we, so it is clear we are on the same page, in that regard.

The universe had a beginning. The universe is ordered - governed by laws. The universe seems to be purposefully arranged, from all that is observed in the universe, including our ecosystem... The "language" of DNA - what we call the blueprint of life - that gives instructions, did not come about on its own... far as we know....
I could go on...

We have evidence - we observe - that all these things require a cause. What is the cause for the creation of the universe?
We have evidence - we observe - that laws come into existence by a lawgiver - causation again.
The laws are fixed, not random. Randomness is not fixed. Why do universal laws exist?
We have evidence - we observe - that there is intent and reason, in purpose, and this comes from intelligence. Why does the universe seem to be purposefully created?
We have evidence - we observe - that language is a system of communication associated with the mind. Why is there language, and instruction in DNA?
You have a clue - not an inkling.

Logic, sensibility, reason - all based on our experience, and observation - leads to, not a baseless conclusion, but I believe, a reasonable one. For now, I will not mention the Bible, which give us I believe, reliable evidence.

I don't really know that I can rephrase it that makes it any more clear than it already is. The point is that you can only assert design by prior knowledge of what is observed in nature. To assert that nature is designed, without evidence of an actual design process, makes no sense.

Thank you.

 

[nPeace]

Then why did you bring it up when I was asking you about the supernatural? Perhaps you could bring something up that's on topic then.

Why did I bring up what?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why did I bring up what?

 

[nPeace]

Okay, Okay. I'll go look for it. You are the one brought it up, but it's too much to mention it. I'm not lazy.

 

[nPeace]

@SkepticThinker

So you aren’t arguing that a song, say, needs a designer?

Are you serious? Where did I bring up a song?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as I know, I did give the reason.



Prior knowledge of the objects formation is not required to know that something was designed.
We do not need prior knowledge of a computer's formation, in order to know how to build a computer - otherwise, one would never be built. All we need is prior knowledge of how electronics work, and perhaps basic knowledge of electronic devices.
Knowledge of, and experience with objects help us to analyze and understand other objects which we may not be familiar with, or have never seen.
I did answer the question, in a very simple way. I hope the above is simpler.



Excellent!


Explain why.



Reminder. You said above, 'You do not know.' Thank you.
You only assume it is forming through natural processes.



Why can't it indicate God - A creator, and designer?


It's not about complexity. Complexity came in as a contrast of the level of intelligence, not as a basis for assuming a designer. I always find that this seems to be a misunderstanding in communication.


Thanks for making yourself clearer.
Thanks for reminding me that I have not observed the universe forming. It might have been better if you said we, so it is clear we are on the same page, in that regard.

The universe had a beginning. The universe is ordered - governed by laws. The universe seems to be purposefully arranged, from all that is observed in the universe, including our ecosystem... The "language" of DNA - what we call the blueprint of life - that gives instructions, did not come about on its own... far as we know....
I could go on...

We have evidence - we observe - that all these things require a cause. What is the cause for the creation of the universe?
We have evidence - we observe - that laws come into existence by a lawgiver - causation again.
The laws are fixed, not random. Randomness is not fixed. Why do universal laws exist?
We have evidence - we observe - that there is intent and reason, in purpose, and this comes from intelligence. Why does the universe seem to be purposefully created?
We have evidence - we observe - that language is a system of communication associated with the mind. Why is there language, and instruction in DNA?
You have a clue - not an inkling.

Logic, sensibility, reason - all based on our experience, and observation - leads to, not a baseless conclusion, but I believe, a reasonable one. For now, I will not mention the Bible, which give us I believe, reliable evidence.


Thank you.

A mix of arguments from ignorance, conflating a cause with an intent, and blatant falsehoods. Perhaps if you learned what evidence is you would not at least keep making the false claim of having evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

@SkepticThinker

Are you serious? Where did I bring up a song?

I didn't write that post.