1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured The watchmaker

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Disciple of Jesus, Jul 9, 2018.

Tags:
  1. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,461
    Ratings:
    +12,314
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I can see how you are so easily confused since there is no evidence for the creation myth at all.
     
  2. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,674
    Ratings:
    +1,008
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Are you bullying me? It seems that way. Bye
     
  3. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,461
    Ratings:
    +12,314
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Hardly. I am trying to keep the discussion on track. You keep trying to make detours. How is keeping one's opponent honest "bullying"?
     
  4. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,529
    Ratings:
    +2,209
    Religion:
    ?
    I'm going to need you to take a look at your first question to me:
    And then juxtapose that with this specific part of your follow-up to the rest of what I responded with:
    Here you are, trying desperately to negate that we have experience with things that "occur naturally", and then just move right on in using your own assertions that we "know from experience" that particular things "require intelligence." Once again, making my point. How do we know from experience that particular things require intelligence? BECAUSE WE CAN CONTRAST THEM TO THOSE THINGS THAT WE DO NOT SEE AS REQUIRING INTELLIGENCE. From experience we understand what it means to create something, and how those things differ from the un-created - the stuff that was here before the creation - the materials that went into the creation for example. But we know for a fact that no human hand created the atoms of the basic elements that went into the creation itself. But that is exactly where our EXPERIENCE on the matter ends. You can't just go inserting a creator of things wherever you please. For one, you most certainly run into an infinite regression if you are to remain at all logical and rational in thought. Because the creator of one level of complexity has its own level of complexity to consider, and therefore (by your logic) we should posit that it also needs a creator. To arbitrarily suppose a cut-off - or a point at which no further "creator" is necessary and that the level you choose for it to stop was simply "not created" or "always was" is, quite frankly, ridiculous. You can't know that at all. Not even with any amount of certainty.

    I mean seriously... just think about it for a second... you ask me to "explain how we have evidence of objects that occur naturally" and yet you have the audacity to turn around and tell me that you have evidence for a creator because A BOOK TOLD YOU SO?
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  5. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    53,709
    Ratings:
    +12,684
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    What do you mean by “the beginning?”

    I’m trying to apply the argument you have consistently.

    You said “that objects far more complex would also require a builder - one more advanced in understanding.” A watchmaker is far more complex than a watch, so wouldn’t God need a creator as well?

    I mean, to extend the analogy further, the existence of the watch implies the existence of all sorts of precision machines and tools used to make the watch, right? We don’t look at a watch and say “the watch must have been created in one action by the magic spell of a very powerful wizard;” we would say that the existence of the watch implies the existence of mills, stamping presses, fixtures, etc.

    Here’s an example of one watch manufacturer describing all of the processes that go into making their watches:

    The existence of their watches points to the existence of many other machines - e.g. 3D printers that can print with metal, precision measurement tools, special custom fixtures and jigs, etc., all of which were designed themselves.

    ... and even in the case where we don’t know the specifics of how a particular watch was made, it would be foolish to assume that its manufacturing process involved nothing else that was designed.

    Do you understand what I’m getting at? If you’re going to argue that a watch requires a designer, it’s disingenuous for you to argue that a whole watchmaking factory doesn’t require an even more talented designer.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Kelly of the Phoenix

    Kelly of the Phoenix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    2,917
    Ratings:
    +2,630
    Religion:
    "Post" Christian, likely Deist
    Observation of the natural world.


    How nature does things

    How we do things in comparison

    It is what is there. Even manufactured things are technically nature so long as the constituent parts were natural.

    There is no such thing as supernatural.

    Things happen because of the constituent parts and their properties. A sphere doesn't drop through the spherical hole by design. It drops because a sphere CAN.

    If we, supposedly the highest life form on the planet, can't do it, then it is probably not designed. After all, God, at least as characterized in the bible, is rather incompetent to the point that even many humans with a decent IQ could do better.

    And religions have often been proven to be inaccurate ... like ... millennia ago.

    You say you know He did it. Now show us how you came to that knowledge. And please don't say scriptures, because the authors knew less than just about everyone around them. King Solomon, wisest of the wisest, had to outsource architects from foreign lands to build a brick rectangle with fancy decorations. Does that sound right to you?

    You know carpenters who made the wood? You know potters who made the clay or dirt? You know metalworkers that made the metal?

    LOL, Yes. Yes I did. God says He can do anything and yet if that were true, the bible would be a few paragraphs at most because nearly the entire drama revolves around God not being able to do anything any smart author would've written.

    God: Eve! I can't believe you not only misremembered the rule I gave you, but you disobeyed Me anyway!
    Eve: Uh, I wasn't even created yet when You gave out that rule. Only idiots just assume knowledge is going to spread. That's why teachers have to be invented.

    God of the bible is a literary character and can be analyzed as such. Clearly, God of the bible doesn't know what He's doing. This can be chalked up to bad writing if you don't want to think the real God is actually that way.

    Psalms was attributed to a child who looked after sheep, IIRC. The only education I ever see him get is what a prince looks like naked.

    But He does. He is an offspring by marriage or blood of El, who Himself is an offspring of Earth and Sky. The bible forgets to delete all the polytheistic parts.

    But history can be circular, which makes "beginning" and "end" irrelevant.

    Life doesn't require DNA. rNA will work just as well.

    Exactly. Whatever a real God may be capable of, the biblical character "God" is really, REALLY dense.

    Life isn't magic. Either the constituent parts' properties allow for it or they don't. The bible brags that God can make a man out of dirt and restore skeletons to life, but John the Baptist is still headless. All resurrection stories in the bible involve people with nebulous and vague causes of death. Bury Jesus in 6 feet of dirt instead of an air-filled tomb with easy access and see just how fast he comes back to life. Funny how stabbed people, beheaded people, eaten people, etc don't get to come back, isn't it? It suggests all resurrection stories, at least those in the bible (as other mythologies DO have divine or human or whatever characters pieced back together ... better hospitals, maybe?), involve poorly understood medical conditions and they probably buried a LOT of actually living people.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Ponder This

    Ponder This Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,001
    Ratings:
    +279
    Religion:
    i am not
    :confused:
    Your example appears to agree with Paley's assertion that you cannot easily infer lack of design from apparent lack of design. In what way do you disagree?
     
  8. Ponder This

    Ponder This Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,001
    Ratings:
    +279
    Religion:
    i am not
    A straw man is an intentionally misrepresented proposition set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
    An analogy is a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

    This is why the watch is chosen and also why your argument that the analogy is a straw man is ill-founded. Moreover, the analogy does not prove the universe was created. Conclusions based on analogical reasoning do not follow as a matter of logical necessity.
     
  9. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,529
    Ratings:
    +2,209
    Religion:
    ?
    Thank you. This is simply perfect, and I hope a lot of your fellow believers read this. You're absolutely correct - the watchmaker analogy IS NOT argument material in any way, shape or form. Though even you have to admit that this is how it is used, time and time again.

    I am honestly curious... when the analogy IS used as an argument, and IS used to attempt to prove the created aspect of the universe, what would you call this fallacious use of the analogy form?
     
  10. Milton Platt

    Milton Platt Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    5,653
    Ratings:
    +2,075
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I do not know that it was not designed, I also do not know that it was. Neither does anyone else.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,069
    Ratings:
    +3,650
    Why can they not be sufficiently explained by nature?

    The point is that the reason the analogy uses a watch rather than a flower - which you describe as also having complex, purposeful function - is because we know watches are designed while we know that flowers occur in nature without necessarily having inherent design. You don't identify design by checking for complexity, you identify design by contrasting with nature, so the analogy is fundamentally flawed to begin with. Hence, the watchmaker's fallacy.

    But the material is - paradoxically - immaterial. The reason we know houses are built is because we have seen houses being built and we know of no natural phenomenon that produces houses.

    To use your example, imagine you have never seen a house before and have no idea of what a house is made from. How can you deduce that the house you found was specifically designed, rather than simply arose naturally as a result of nature and/or physical laws?

    But the trees are far more complicated than the house, so why aren't they used in the analogy? And what if you found a tree from which houses were growing? Wouldn't that falsify your earlier assumption of design?

    Why not? Your logic here is essentially flawed. You're arguing that because design produced y, it is necessary for design to produce x, but that's clearly fallacious.

    How?

    Except there's no actual reasoning behind it.
     
  12. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    53,709
    Ratings:
    +12,684
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    Did you read my post? I just gave an example of an object that was designed but has an apparent lack of design (a decorative fake rock).

    Paley seems to assume that inferring design (or the lack of it) is straightforward, but when we actually get into it, we quickly see that it isn’t.

    What criteria would you use to determine whether or not something is designed?
     
  13. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    8,312
    Ratings:
    +3,431
    How do you know the supernatural even exists at all?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,674
    Ratings:
    +1,008
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    I don't think you addressed this
    It would be nice if you at least made an attempt.

    Particular things, from our knowledge and experience, do require intelligence. Laws, information, purpose...
    We don't know otherwise.
    If you know, please say how.

    un-created ?
    What is un-created, and how do you determine that something is un-created?

    The reason scientists are speculating that life may have been seeded by intelligent life forms, is because they are aware of the facts I mentioned. They themselves know that they can't just throw stuff in a container, and hope for the best. Careful thought must go int what they do. Intelligence is needed.

    I did not say that I have evidence for a creator because a book told me so.
    Did you honestly missed that?
     
  15. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,674
    Ratings:
    +1,008
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Question
    1. What is an object?
    2. Why must the designer be an object?
     
  16. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,529
    Ratings:
    +2,209
    Religion:
    ?
    No problem. Fundamentally, we have evidence of objects that occur naturally through use of our senses to detect and interact with them. A bit more abstractedly, we (humans) find ourselves in a unique position on the Earth in that we find ourselves both capable and interested in observing the world around us to come to conclusions of the why's and wherefore's regarding how the Earth and its living and non-living members function. And so, through this observation, we can come to conclusions about what it is that we consider "alive" and those things we consider "not alive", and within that framework, we can also come to conclusions about items that are "created" by something alive (for example, a seashell), and items that are, decidedly, "not created" because they have no creative/living/driving force behind their formation (for example quartz crystals). Anything that is not alive, and yet assumes some form without a living/creative hand in play is obviously something I would consider an object that occurs naturally. And on top of this, I would also consider living processes that are not under the creative/intellectual/imaginative control as also occurring naturally. This would include everything that happens in the process of reproduction after the moment of fertilization, the body's creation of natural fluids (oils, saliva, blood), the tying of bodily systems to one another via growth... and a whole host of other processes that occur FOR us without our having to voluntarily take any creative action to push the processes along. And as to how we have evidence of those things... well... if you are a human, how can you NOT have evidence for those things?

    If I know what? If I know how something like "laws" don't require intelligence? I never said they didn't. Laws most certainly require an intelligence to think them up, and then further intelligence to go about the business of enforcing them. So what? There is no such thing as laws without an intelligence to think on them and try to wrangle the idea.

    "Information" on the other hand, is too broad a topic to constrain to having a requirement of "intelligence." I would agree it requires an intelligence of some form to decipher or interpret information, but IN NO WAY is an intelligence required for information to present itself to an agent who can do that interpreting. That's just an asinine thing to believe, honestly. It takes only a single example to blow that out of the water. Take a mote of dust, for example. Using measurement devices, and having intelligence to decipher their output, there is a HUGE amount of information to be gleaned from that single dust particle. What is it composed of? How does it react to heat or light? What is its weight/mass? NONE of those things needed to be attributed to the particle of dust by an intelligence... and yet it is all INFORMATION about the dust particle, awaiting an intelligent agent to examine and interpret it.

    Anything that doesn't appear to require an intelligent/creative force to have caused a discernible formation. I'll refer back to the example of crystals. They form from inanimate matter - no life force, no hand guiding the formation - the elements involved simply do their thing, adhering to the underlying processes of the universe. No creative force necessary. Un-created.

    No matter how you slice it, it all must go back to some BASE form of reality though. Even God himself would have to have some explanation for His existence. In positioning that life on Earth was seeded from another planet you have DONE NOTHING AT ALL to explain how life arises in the first place. You still have to ask "where did the aliens who seeded Earth get the living material?" Just as, assumning God created the universe, you MUST ask yourself "what created God?"

    In the scenario where we posit that the material of the universe has simply always been in some form or another, and that life (being particular arrangements of the matter of the universe infused with self-renewable energy) is an imminent result of the right materials, circumstances and amounts of time coming together - then ALL of those issues simply disappear. You no longer have to wonder where the life on Earth came from. You no longer have to wonder where the matter of the universe came from. The question itself doesn't even make sense under those conditions.

    Well, you should probably adopt the whole "book" idea then... 'cause I would say that that "evidence" is at the very least more tangible and presentable than the notion that you instead simply tell people: "just look around you." That argument is going to get you nowhere fast.
     
    #256 A Vestigial Mote, Jul 17, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  17. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    53,709
    Ratings:
    +12,684
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    A thing.

    Well, it's either a thing or not a thing (i.e. nothing).
     
  18. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,674
    Ratings:
    +1,008
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    How do you know what's designed from what isn't?
    http://www.lovethesepics.com/2012/07/paradise-in-the-devils-garden-plitvice-waterfalls/
    https://www.homestratosphere.com/garden-waterfalls/

    So what is there is nature?
    You and I both know that is not true.
    We don't know everything that is there,because we have not traversed the entire universe and beyond, nor have we seen everything, nor do we know everything. So I can ignore the last statement.

    Huh? Why is there a sphere, and a spherical hole?

    Thanks for using the word probably. That argument is weak though.
    The highest life form on the planet - at least those who are honest - admit they know very little... about practically everything. Jesus has a message for the ones who imagine they know anything about his father, himself, or his father's written word.
    Matthew 13:13

    Why do you feel it necessary to compare religion? Is there somehow a competition?
    I don't see what religion has to do with scientists being wrong.
    Religion has nothing to do with what can be trusted to be true.

    Where did I say I know God did it?
    I believe, and I know, are two entirely different things.
    I believe the universe and life was created by an intelligence. I believe the Bible is authored by that intelligence - It identifies as God almighty. That's what I believe, and the evidence around me seems to harmonize with that.

    Matthew 13:1-23

    You sound just like those who didn't know what the uses were for certain DNA, and labeled it junk, until they discovered they had a use. Let's see you get life to work without DNA.

    At least we agree on something. Life isn't magic. :)
     
  19. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,674
    Ratings:
    +1,008
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Thank you.

    How do you know that
    unless you assume.


    If I had
    I could still come to the correct conclusion that the house was built, by the knowledge I have of other things - like a matchbox, a cardboard box, etc.
    The fact is, my experience is all I need to use my senses and come to a reasonable, and logical conclusion. If there is no verifiable evidence to show otherwise, then I have good reason to accept what the evidence suggests.

    I think I am being quite reasonable, hence why you guys are having such difficulty producing a reasonable counter argument.

    Never said I did. If I did, please point out the post. Thanks
     
  20. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,674
    Ratings:
    +1,008
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Here is how an automatic Mechanical Watch works.



    It was designed to work day after day - not by someone pushing a button, but by the energy stored within it.
    We did not see the designer, nor did we see him/her/it assemble the parts and set it in motion.

    This fact does not mean that the "natural" processes occurring were not the product of design.
    The "natural" things around us, could all simply be following natural processes put in place by their designer.
    This makes logical sense to me.

    So
    Without a cause, matter took form, and ignited. Uh huh.
     
Loading...