Watchmaker Theory

[muhammad_isa]

There is a theological concept called " the open view of God",to which many theologians ascribe, and I do too, In a nutshell it is this. God cannot see the future, either by design or choice. Regardless of what occurs, God is perfectly ptepared to deal with what occurs. The only exception to this is when God reaches into history to influence events, such as prophecy. Thus, God does not know what ultimate choice I will make.

Mmm .. but does this make sense? What about all the apocalyptic texts>
Do you not think that 'Book of Revelations' is about the future? Prophets get their knowledge from Almighty God .. you agree with me that God is not part of the universe that he created .. the next step in understanding is to realise that time and space (as we perceive it) is what we observe in this universe. ie. God is OUTSIDE of space and time!

..If God knew exactly my life, a million years before I was born, then I don't have any free will, I might as well do whatever I want, because I will do exactly what God foreknew

That's not true .. God doesn't make the choices for us .. why should you think that He does?

 

[shmogie]

Mmm .. but does this make sense? What about all the apocalyptic texts>
Do you not think that 'Book of Revelations' is about the future? Prophets get their knowledge from Almighty God .. you agree with me that God is not part of the universe that he created .. the next step in understanding is to realise that time and space (as we perceive it) is what we observe in this universe. ie. God is OUTSIDE of space and time!



That's not true .. God doesn't make the choices for us .. why should you think that He does?

Prophecy is an instance of God proclaiming what he will do, it is based on what he will do, not what he knows. If I absolutely knew that my dog would turn right when he went out the door, he could choose nothing else, regardless of the illusion of free choice, he must do what I foreknew he would. Once again, my life will turn out exactly as God knew it would a million years ago, it is impossible for me to choose anything different from what God knew, whatever I choose is exactly what God foreknew. If God's foreknowledge is a like a video he has seen once in his mind, when he plays the disc ( history of everything in reality ) Every, word, every movement will exactly match what he foresaw, and actors on a video cannot change in any way what they do or say, and if God is omniscient, you and I are playing our role on the cosmic video disc.

 

[metis]

Yes, "no creation = no creator" was and still is a guiding principle of atheist cosmogony, in static, eternal, steady state, big crunch. All debunked, and still we are left with a specific singular creation event, inexplicable by any known natural cause.

Who says "eternal" has been "debunked"? Which scientific study?

Who says the "big crunch" has been "debunked? Mind you that most cosmologists lean against it, but I haven't read or heard any of them have "debunked" it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I've been using the 'watch' as a witnessing tool for 40+ years. It takes a mind to make a timepiece which are based on our solar system, so it takes a mind to make a watch just like it takes a mind to create planets and suns etc.

We know it takes human intelligence (i.e. a human mind) to make a watch. We can watch humans create watches, we can go to the factory where they are made, we have examples and evidence of humans (and machines) making watches. We've never seen any god(s) making any watches.

A watch has nothing in common with a plant, or suns, etc. So I'm not sure how you can conclude that because watches are created by (human) minds, that it follows that some mind would have to create planets and suns. And where is the evidence for this "mind" that creates suns and planets?

 

[Altfish]

Yes, "no creation = no creator" was and still is a guiding principle of atheist cosmogony, in static, eternal, steady state, big crunch. All debunked, and still we are left with a specific singular creation event, inexplicable by any known natural cause.

But, saying 'God created it' doesn't really help. You are just adding a step.
My question then is, "Who created God?"

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But, saying 'God created it' doesn't really help. You are just adding a step.
My question then is, "Who created God?"

As in the OP analogy: Adding a watchmaker to the scenario to account for the existence of a watch, is adding an extra step- so is am infinite probability machine that makes the watch accidentally.

'where did that come from?' The first cause paradox applies to any explanation does it not?- so it's a wash, and it is also a moot point, because here we are! Obviously there is a solution one way or t'other

what is not equal is the capacity of creative intelligence V blind chance to create the world we see around us.

Also- atheism requires that the laws of nature be ultimately accounted for by.. those very same laws- this is an infinite regression paradox unique to atheism.

 

[Shad]

Also- atheism requires that the laws of nature be ultimately accounted for by.. those very same laws- this is an infinite regression paradox unique to atheism.

Any atheist can firmly rest on the first cause without the need for God as said cause. Same argument minus the one step theists add. Nevermind that the theist first cause argument is based on fallacious logic as special pleading and equivocation are required to exclude God from the very argument theists make.

 

[shmogie]

But, saying 'God created it' doesn't really help. You are just adding a step.
My question then is, "Who created God?"

That is a question the answer to which you can never know. You are bound by the universe, you are only capable of knowing what is in the universe, you have no reference points outside the universe, no universal laws or forces exist outside the universe. So the fact that there was a first cause is as far as you can go. God may be the child of some cosmic dynasty who created the universe on his playroom floor, or he may be the eternal being, the only of his kind, as he describes himself to be............... you cannot and will not know

 

[muhammad_isa]

Prophecy is an instance of God proclaiming what he will do, it is based on what he will do, not what he knows..

Yes, well we'll have to agree to differ. I believe that Almighty God's omniscience is absolute.
I understand this to be the case as He is NOT part of the space-time continuum.
I won't continue this debate here, as it's not the topic of the OP

 

[Altfish]

That is a question the answer to which you can never know. You are bound by the universe, you are only capable of knowing what is in the universe, you have no reference points outside the universe, no universal laws or forces exist outside the universe. So the fact that there was a first cause is as far as you can go. God may be the child of some cosmic dynasty who created the universe on his playroom floor, or he may be the eternal being, the only of his kind, as he describes himself to be............... you cannot and will not know

I think that's called 'special pleading' - unfortunately, that's not allowed in science.

 

[shmogie]

I think that's called 'special pleading' - unfortunately, that's not allowed in science.

It is called scientific fact

 

[kaoticprofit]

We know it takes human intelligence (i.e. a human mind) to make a watch. We can watch humans create watches, we can go to the factory where they are made, we have examples and evidence of humans (and machines) making watches. We've never seen any god(s) making any watches.

A watch has nothing in common with a plant, or suns, etc. So I'm not sure how you can conclude that because watches are created by (human) minds, that it follows that some mind would have to create planets and suns. And where is the evidence for this "mind" that creates suns and planets?

Every timepiece on earth is timed by the sun, moon, and stars. They also use satellites to automatically correct many of earth's timepieces, but they are also calculated by the sun.

 

[Ouroboros]

Every timepiece on earth is timed by the sun, moon, and stars. They also use satellites to automatically correct many of earth's timepieces, but they are also calculated by the sun.

Yes and no.

The problem with using the sun, moon, etc to measure time is that it's not exact. A year is about 365.26 days long. A day isn't exactly 24 hours. The Moon revolves around Earth, but there's two different ways of measuring the time. One a bit more than 27 days and the other a bit more than 29 days (can't remember the terms for either right now). Also, the precession of Earth, the elliptical orbit of both Earth and Moon changing the measurements as well. There's no exact timepiece that can fit all these variances.

Secondly, no, they don't use satellites to correct earth's timepieces. It's true they can use the satellites to transfer the time data, but the time isn't measured by the satellites. Currently, the time that we have is set by a couple atomic clocks around the world. Every so often (last year it was around June something) they had to halt one second of it because of time drift compared to Sun/Earth/Moon/rotations/precession/revolution/etc... And this has to be done by somewhat irregular intervals.

 

[Gambit]

The watchmaker analogy has been thoroughly debunked.

of course, that won't stop the religious from bringing it up

Just for the sake a clarity. Are you saying the present of a watch does not qualify as evidence for some kind of creative intelligence to account for its presence?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just for the sake a clarity. Are you saying the present of a watch does not qualify as evidence for some kind of creative intelligence to account for its presence?

No, it's that the watchmaker argument is utterly insufficient to demonstrate that life or the earth must have a designer.

 

[shmogie]

No, it's that the watchmaker argument is utterly insufficient to demonstrate that life or the earth must have a designer.

Hmmm, so, you hold to the idea all the complexity of life and ecosystems we see today, were the result of inert chemicals, somehow combining to create not one, but at least two, at the same time, and these one celled creatures, some how, developed the ability to reproduce, and somehow, they imputed the drive to have their species survive, and given just enough time, they would create all living organisms and their ecosystems we see today, just blind stupid luck ??

 

[metis]

When subatomic particles, atomic particles, molecules, chemicals, etc., all get smushed together over billions of years, all sorts of new "creations" can emerge: Physics 101 & Chemistry 101.

 

[shmogie]

When subatomic particles, atomic particles, molecules, chemicals, etc., all get smushed together over billions of years, all sorts of new "creations" can emerge: Physics 101 & Chemistry 101.

Really, where is your proof of the very first step of the process ? The old adage of the monkeys and the everlasting typewriters apply here, same principle, give enough replicating monkeys, allowed to play with everlasting typewriters, enough time, and they will create a perfect, word for word copy of War and Peace, in spite of them being monkeys, eating the paper, not knowing how to put it in the typewriter, destroying what another monkey produced just for the hell of it, all of them getting bored with the whole process, no matter it just takes, time. Nonsense, reality 101

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hmmm, so, you hold to the idea all the complexity of life and ecosystems we see today, were the result of inert chemicals, somehow combining to create not one, but at least two, at the same time,

Why would it need to create two? The earliest lifeforms reproduced asexually.

and these one celled creatures, some how, developed the ability to reproduce,

Again, the earliest organisms were asexual and naturally replicated.

and somehow, they imputed the drive to have their species survive,

They didn't need the drive to survive and reproduce if they were simple, self-replicating cells.

and given just enough time, they would create all living organisms and their ecosystems we see today, just blind stupid luck ??

No. Through replication with mutations in an environment with natural, selective pressures. No "blind stupid luck" required.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Really, where is your proof of the very first step of the process ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-chemists-riddle-life-began-earth.html#ajTabs
https://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-ames-reproduces-the-building-blocks-of-life-in-laboratory

The old adage of the monkeys and the everlasting typewriters apply here, same principle, give enough replicating monkeys, allowed to play with everlasting typewriters, enough time, and they will create a perfect, word for word copy of War and Peace, in spite of them being monkeys, eating the paper, not knowing how to put it in the typewriter, destroying what another monkey produced just for the hell of it, all of them getting bored with the whole process, no matter it just takes, time. Nonsense, reality 101

Can you demonstrate that early life forms cannot have formed through natural, chemical processes? What evidence do you have other than "they are too complex" (which is an entirely baseless thing to assert)?