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. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,740
    Ratings:
    +2,348
    Religion:
    ?
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    8,619
    Ratings:
    +3,602
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    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?
     
  4. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    No, the question was how do you know that flowers occur in nature without necessarily having inherent design.


    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

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


    I'll just give you one. See here.


    What? Where did you see that?

    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.

    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.
     
  5. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    :laughing:Irrelevant to the discussion imo.

    o_O

    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, :smile: but it was meant to be general.
     
  6. Milton Platt

    Milton Platt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    5,929
    Ratings:
    +2,203
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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.
     
  7. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    The alien thingy is way outside of this simple question. So you would say yes?
     
  8. Milton Platt

    Milton Platt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    5,929
    Ratings:
    +2,203
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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.
     
    #288 Milton Platt, Jul 18, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2018
  9. Milton Platt

    Milton Platt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    5,929
    Ratings:
    +2,203
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Furthermore, he is assuming that it happens to be his particular version of a god.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    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.
     
  11. Milton Platt

    Milton Platt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    5,929
    Ratings:
    +2,203
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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,
     
  12. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,185
    Ratings:
    +3,782

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

    "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?

    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?


    And it's still baseless and unreasonable.

    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.

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


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

    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.

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    8,619
    Ratings:
    +3,602
    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.
     
  14. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    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.
     
  15. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Why did I bring up what?
     
  16. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    8,619
    Ratings:
    +3,602
    :facepalm:
     
  17. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    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.
     
  18. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    @SkepticThinker
    Are you serious? Where did I bring up a song?
     
  19. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    23,683
    Ratings:
    +13,046
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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.
     
  20. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    8,619
    Ratings:
    +3,602
    I didn't write that post.
     
Loading...