Watchmaker Theory

[Quintessence]

Humans come into being from an outside interference.

Nothing ever simply comes into existence without an outside trigger.

Therefore the universe must be eternal or else it would have to be created by something that was created.

That's one way of looking at it, for certain. I would challenge us to deconstruct our categories of "outside" and "inside" - or of "creator" and "creation" - as I said before. Do a thought experiment that doesn't presuppose dualism, and instead thinks in terms of gray, amorphous blobs... sees the connections and interrelation, the both/and instead of the either/or and this/that.

 

[Altfish]

When I see watches interbreeding and passing their genes on to the next generation of watches I will look at The Watchmaker Theory (really!! A theory!!) again. Until then it has been thoroughly debunked.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

That's one way of looking at it, for certain. I would challenge us to deconstruct our categories of "outside" and "inside" - or of "creator" and "creation" - as I said before. Do a thought experiment that doesn't presuppose dualism, and instead thinks in terms of gray, amorphous blobs... sees the connections and interrelation, the both/and instead of the either/or and this/that.

You are basically saying: "If you don't take the words I say by their definitions it makes sense."

I would suggest finding a way to convey your topic with words.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The big-bang (which is the point the universe rapidly expanded) and the theory of relitivty (proof that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers) has nothing to do with the idea that an deity no one has evidence for created the universe.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. Many atheists argue that the universe has probably always existed .. they also argue that something non-physical needs a beginning.

Just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean that the points I raise are not significant to the discussion.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. Many atheists argue that the universe has probably always existed .. they also argue that something non-physical needs a beginning.

Just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean that the points I raise are not true.

First of all I could care less what many atheist argue.

Second of all, I never said that was why it was incorrect, I am saying your belief in god is invalid because what you are saying is incorrect.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. Many atheists argue that the universe has probably always existed .. they also argue that something non-physical needs a beginning.

Just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean that the points I raise are not significant to the discussion.

Now can you offer evidence or not?

 

[Quintessence]

You are basically saying: "If you don't take the words I say by their definitions it makes sense."

I would suggest finding a way to convey your topic with words.

Not really, and if you don't understand, if there some way I might help clarify what I mean for you? How familiar are you with non-dualistic models of thought? Given how prevalent dualistic thinking is in Western culture, I'd hardly blame anyone for having trouble with it.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Not really, and if you don't understand, if there some way I might help clarify what I mean for you? How familiar are you with non-dualistic models of thought? Given how prevalent dualistic thinking is in Western culture, I'd hardly blame anyone for having trouble with it.

I hope you know I am a Monist.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Not really, and if you don't understand, if there some way I might help clarify what I mean for you? How familiar are you with non-dualistic models of thought? Given how prevalent dualistic thinking is in Western culture, I'd hardly blame anyone for having trouble with it.

I literally think the universe is made of one substance.

 

[Quintessence]

I hope you know I am a Monist.

Interesting! Thanks for letting me know. Curiously enough, it's possible to be a substance monist and still hold to dualistic paradigms for other things, such as regarding "creator" and "creation" as separate (heck, it's also possible to be a substance monist and be a polytheist, theologically!).

Maybe if we frame it this way - you feel the universe is made of one substance, right? If that is the case, you could think about how "creator" and "creation" are also the same substance - they are not different from each other. The human body self-creates because there isn't really a meaningful distinction between "person" and "environment." When there's not a "creator" separate from "creation" and it puts a different spin on the watchmaker analogy. Watchmaker assumes there is a "creator" separate from "creation" right? That's the main thing I wanted to point out in this thread - that the watchmaker analogy doesn't work well if we deconstruct the idea of "creation" and "creator" being categorically distinct. That breakdown might happen because one is a substance monist, or because one is a pantheist, or some other reason.

I don't know if I'm communicating any of this well. Understand that I'm not asking you to abandon dualistic "creator vs creation" ideas if you hold to them... I'm mostly posing a question for us to think about as a thought experiment particularly for those who do hold to the watchmaker analogy. I ask of them: why presume "creator" is separate from "creation?"

 

[Scott C.]

What are the opinions out there on the beginning of the universe and the Earth and that if they surely must have had an intelligent creator then how did the intelligent creator come about?

I've used the watchmaker theory as evidence for the existence of an intelligent creator also. And, I think the argument has merit. It's hard to imagine all of the order of the universe, which is mind boggling, falling into place over time with no intelligent force behind it.

But, I also believe that no religion, philosophy, or atheism answers the question as to what was the first thing to exist and how did it come into existence. My simplistic thoughts are:

1. Traditional Christianity: God has always existed outside of time and space. He had no beginning and no end. He created all other things, which have beginnings and in some cases, ends. There is no explanation as to how or why such a Divine Being exists. Christians accept this as a matter of faith.

2. Mormons (also Christians, which I am). We have a variation on the above, it that we believe that matter and intelligence exist eternally with God. Our scriptures teach very, very, very little about this and we don't spend much time in our church on the subject. Nevertheless the idea exists among us. Our theology has no answers as to how or why God, matter, and intelligence are co-eternal.

3. Atheists: There is no Divine Creator. I've heard no satisfactory answer as to how anything came into existence from nothing. You usually end up in discussions on what is "something" and what is "nothing", etc. I've heard it postulated that something came from nothing. None of those discussions work for me to explain anything on the subject on where stuff came from. Sometimes I think maybe I'm not as smart as those who think they can answer these questions, but then I think "Nah", I'm as smart as they are.

4. I left out many faiths obviously.

I believe that God created the world and the universe (from existing matter in some form), that I'm one of his children, and that my life has divine purpose. I believe this without knowing much, if anything, about the beginning of all things or even what that question means.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

When I look at a periodic table of the elements ( written by scientists - not creationists ) it shows the universe is made of many substances. So someone who believes the universe is made of only one substance has obviously not seem much scientific information.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Now can you offer evidence or not?

Are you referring to evidence to prove the watchmaker theory being correct, or what?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

"If you found a watch on the floor eventually you would have to accept that it had a maker or maker(s), would you not?"

My issue with this little analogy is that we're talking about an obviously man-made thing. Given each of our lifetimes of coming in contact with objects of all shapes, sizes and origins, you come to know what is "organic"/"life"/"natural" vs. what is man-made. I guess another way to put this is - no one in history ever came across a bird and wondered "I wonder what human made this?" And the reason they didn't is because the object in question - while only arguably more complex than a watch - was a living thing - a part of nature - organic in totality. The universe functions in only organic ways - never with an "ultimate purpose" except one that someone makes up or imagines. The rules themselves are organic. So why come across "gravity" on a beach and surmise that it had to have had a creator? You don't assume a rough chunk of stone had a human hand behind it's fashioning - not like you would a watch. I guess I'm trying to say that I feel the "ideal" of the watch and the "ideal" of the universe exist in completely different, and incomparable realms.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

When I look at a periodic table of the elements ( written by scientists - not creationists ) it shows the universe is made of many substances. So someone who believes the universe is made of only one substance has obviously not seem much scientific information.

Unfortunately, you're discounting all scientific discoveries within the sub-atomic realm of matter. For instance, even all those elements you see on the periodic table are made from the same, basic stuff - electrons, protons and neutrons - just in differing quantities. So, at some point, I could definitely imagine you reach a level from which your search for "what makes up what" goes no further. That is - a single substance from which all other matter is formed.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The bottom line is that almost everyone agrees that if you see a watch, you would assume that there was someone or something that designed and built that watch. But a human brain is a million times more complex than a watch and you assume that it just happened by chance without any designer or maker. Just that alone should be enough to make you realize there is some greater power in the universe, whether you call it God or something else unless your eyes have been blinded and that very God does not want you to see His existance.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Interesting! Thanks for letting me know. Curiously enough, it's possible to be a substance monist and still hold to dualistic paradigms for other things, such as regarding "creator" and "creation" as separate (heck, it's also possible to be a substance monist and be a polytheist, theologically!).

Maybe if we frame it this way - you feel the universe is made of one substance, right? If that is the case, you could think about how "creator" and "creation" are also the same substance - they are not different from each other. The human body self-creates because there isn't really a meaningful distinction between "person" and "environment." When there's not a "creator" separate from "creation" and it puts a different spin on the watchmaker analogy. Watchmaker assumes there is a "creator" separate from "creation" right? That's the main thing I wanted to point out in this thread - that the watchmaker analogy doesn't work well if we deconstruct the idea of "creation" and "creator" being categorically distinct. That breakdown might happen because one is a substance monist, or because one is a pantheist, or some other reason.

I don't know if I'm communicating any of this well. Understand that I'm not asking you to abandon dualistic "creator vs creation" ideas if you hold to them... I'm mostly posing a question for us to think about as a thought experiment particularly for those who do hold to the watchmaker analogy. I ask of them: why presume "creator" is separate from "creation?"

I do not believe that anything is created, only converted.

So I do not believe in a creator OR a creation.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

...you assume that it just happened by chance...

I do not assume this. If there is no God, then I feel that life is imminent - that it is always "striving to be" - as it is a desirable/stable configuration within which matter seeks the betterment of itself. In other words, "life" is one of the laws of nature. Where circumstances allow, it sees rise. Again, only an opinion/belief that I hold - but it is at least based upon what I have witnessed and been witnessed to based on observable/sensible reality. For instance the thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean - life is there, ready to take hold and flourish when the heat arrives. Once it is gone though, the former "city" of underwater life is left a barren wasteland. Granted, there isn't any sort of "abiogenesis" at work here - since the beings either lie dormant, or are floating in the under-currents waiting for the appropriate set of circumstances to spring back to full-on "life". But, in principle, this is what I feel happens. Where there are the right mix of elements, plenty of water, a sustaining atmosphere and proper warmth - life comes into play. We already have chemical reactions that go about their business happening due to elements seeking more stable relationships with other elements - we already have viruses, that technically aren't "alive" in the sense that we view most living organisms, and yet they are able to do unbelievably "complex" things. So much in the nature of the universe is matter seeking more stable/beneficial relationships - and it all simply happens, without the need for a hand intervening or setting it on course. Why not what we call "life"?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I've used the watchmaker theory as evidence for the existence of an intelligent creator also. And, I think the argument has merit. It's hard to imagine all of the order of the universe, which is mind boggling, falling into place over time with no intelligent force behind it.

But, I also believe that no religion, philosophy, or atheism answers the question as to what was the first thing to exist and how did it come into existence. My simplistic thoughts are:

1. Traditional Christianity: God has always existed outside of time and space. He had no beginning and no end. He created all other things, which have beginnings and in some cases, ends. There is no explanation as to how or why such a Divine Being exists. Christians accept this as a matter of faith.

2. Mormons (also Christians, which I am). We have a variation on the above, it that we believe that matter and intelligence exist eternally with God. Our scriptures teach very, very, very little about this and we don't spend much time in our church on the subject. Nevertheless the idea exists among us. Our theology has no answers as to how or why God, matter, and intelligence are co-eternal.

3. Atheists: There is no Divine Creator. I've heard no satisfactory answer as to how anything came into existence from nothing. You usually end up in discussions on what is "something" and what is "nothing", etc. I've heard it postulated that something came from nothing. None of those discussions work for me to explain anything on the subject on where stuff came from. Sometimes I think maybe I'm not as smart as those who think they can answer these questions, but then I think "Nah", I'm as smart as they are.

4. I left out many faiths obviously.

I believe that God created the world and the universe (from existing matter in some form), that I'm one of his children, and that my life has divine purpose. I believe this without knowing much, if anything, about the beginning of all things or even what that question means.

Way to generalize about people even falsely in many ways.

Science shows that the universe is eternal not tat it came from nothing and the majority of the nonreligious believe that, so did you not know that or are you trying to straw man an argument?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Are you referring to evidence to prove the watchmaker theory being correct, or what?

That a deity created the universe.