Watchmaker Theory

[Taylor Seraphim]

I've heard some atheists explain that there was once nothing and through a process

And from hearing some (not even most you met) atheist say that you then say that is the main atheist argument?

 

[Scott C.]

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?

My point may have been lost in too many words. The point is that the existence of the universe is a grand mystery. Nobody can explain why there is anything out there whatsoever, as opposed to nothing at all. Not the religious, not the non-religious. I personally find "existence" to be mind blowing and can't fathom how anybody would not.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

My point may have been lost in too many words. The point is that the existence of the universe is a grand mystery. Nobody can explain why there is anything out there whatsoever, as opposed to nothing at all. Not the religious, not the non-religious. I personally find "existence" to be mind blowing and can't fathom how anybody would not.

If that is true does that mean that the Watchmaker "Theory" is in fact invalid?

 

[Scott C.]

If that is true does that mean that the Watchmaker "Theory" is in fact invalid?

I think the watchmaker argument makes a good point for intelligent design. But I can't answer where that intelligent designer came from. Which is more likely to exist, an Intelligent Designer with no beginning or a magnificently ordered cosmos with no creator? Beats me. But I don't rely on those answers for my belief in God.

 

[Scott C.]

And from hearing some (not even most you met) atheist say that you then say that is the main atheist argument?

See post #42.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I think the watchmaker argument makes a good point for intelligent design. But I can't answer where that intelligent designer came from. Which is more likely to exist, an Intelligent Designer with no beginning or a magnificently ordered cosmos with no creator? Beats me. But I don't rely on those answers for my belief in God.

Okay if it cannot answer where the designer came from and a cosmos having no creator is just as likely, then how is it a good starting point for intelligent design?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

See post #42.

That does not excuse doing so.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have been having a discussion with a local 'leader' of a religion, not about their religion but about the concept thereof. They brought up the watchmaker theory, that is to say, "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?". Now my argument to this is the age old "but where did the maker come from by the logic that all things do indeed have a maker/creator?".

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?

It's a very good question, but it is not specific to the watchmaker

where did the 'blind watchmaker' come from? the naturalistic mechanism that created the universe?

This apparent first cause paradox applies to any explanation- but not only is it a wash, it's also a moot point, because here we are! obviously there is a solution one way or another right?

But, what is NOT even, is the capacity of blind chance v intelligent design to create the world we see around us. We know the phenomena of creative intelligence exists, supernatural in it ability to create what nature alone never can. Arguably the only way anything can truly be created.

Without this unique capability of ID, you have an additional paradox unique to atheism, that the laws of nature must ultimately be accounted for by... those very same laws.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

It's a very good question, but it is not specific to the watchmaker

where did the 'blind watchmaker' come from? the naturalistic mechanism that created the universe?

This apparent first cause paradox applies to any explanation- but not only is it a wash, it's also a moot point, because here we are! obviously there is a solution one way or another right?

But, what is NOT even, is the capacity of blind chance v intelligent design to create the world we see around us. We know the phenomena of creative intelligence exists, supernatural in it ability to create what nature alone never can. Arguably the only way anything can truly be created.

Without this unique capability of ID, you have an additional paradox unique to atheism, that the laws of nature must ultimately be accounted for by... those very same laws.

First of all the fact that you think everyone that does not believe in a creator deity is atheist shows your ignorance.

Second, the fact that you would rather say an enteral being you cannot prove made the universe and is eternal has no proof.

Third, The laws of nature are logically methodized accounts of the goings on of the universe, not speculated ramblings.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

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.

Enter the 3d printer.
Ever more capable of making more of themselves.
About 90% of the way there
So now you have to admit that you believe in argument from design 90%.
And in a few years 100%.
Or are we already there yet?

 

[muhammad_isa]

.. I am saying your belief in god is invalid because what you are saying is incorrect.

I said that the universe is a physical system, as is a watch, but saying that 'the watchmaker theory' applies to the Creator Himself is invalid. That is because God is not created .. not physical.

What exactly is incorrect?

 

[Scott C.]

That does not excuse doing so.

You're taking this too seriously.

 

[Altfish]

Enter the 3d printer.
Ever more capable of making more of themselves.
About 90% of the way there
So now you have to admit that you believe in argument from design 90%.
And in a few years 100%.
Or are we already there yet?

You are of course kidding? So a book can breed using a photocopier. You've led a sheltered life, breeding normally involves the exchange of genes.
3D printing is replication not breeding; its off-spring (and they aren't really off-spring) are the same, like a clone. Mutations aren't favoured and kept in future generations.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

You are of course kidding? So a book can breed using a photocopier. You've led a sheltered life, breeding normally involves the exchange of genes.
3D printing is replication not breeding; its off-spring (and they aren't really off-spring) are the same, like a clone. Mutations aren't favoured and kept in future generations.

It is quite easy to make a computer program that allows for a little 'random mutation' in how the 3d printer replicates.
This computer program would also be replicated, for all intents and purposes, this would be 'genetic information.'

Most subsequent offspring that mutated would not survive, but if the mutations occurred only, say, half the time,
then that would ensure the survival of the un-mutated 3d printers in normal conditions, but also cater for mutations that
had that small chance of being better suited for survival. Eventually a mutation that scavenged weaker mutations
would become the best at survival.

Why do you think it is impossible to to make 3d printers that replicated in such non-cloning fashion?

We could even develop 3d printers that observed the environment and deliberately ensured that some of their
offspring, were for example, waterproof, in case of a global flood. 3d printers that merely randomly mutated
would be inferior to those that had such deliberate intent to survive.

But the random part might ensure for contingencies that could not be foreseen by their creators.
Diversity would be a key facet in survival of this species.

Perhaps you have been sheltered from watching too many scary sci-fi movies?

 

[McBell]

The Creator is not part of the universe (space-time), and is spiritual (non-physical) .. being omniscient effectively means that He is aware of every aspect of the universe that He created ie. everything in space-time

This is nothing more than a blind man searching a dark cellar for a black cat that isn't there

As time starts when the universe was created, it makes no mathematical sense to talk about a beginning and an end for God

Making god an exception to the rule you use to get to god renders the rule useless and does not help evidence god.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I said that the universe is a physical system, as is a watch, but saying that 'the watchmaker theory' applies to the Creator Himself is invalid. That is because God is not created .. not physical.

What exactly is incorrect?

You are saying it exists because you cannot explain it.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

You're taking this too seriously.

Stereotyping people is not okay and should be taken seriously .

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

It is quite easy to make a computer program that allows for a little 'random mutation' in how the 3d printer replicates.
This computer program would also be replicated, for all intents and purposes, this would be 'genetic information.'

Most subsequent offspring that mutated would not survive, but if the mutations occurred only, say, half the time,
then that would ensure the survival of the un-mutated 3d printers in normal conditions, but also cater for mutations that
had that small chance of being better suited for survival. Eventually a mutation that scavenged weaker mutations
would become the best at survival.

Why do you think it is impossible to to make 3d printers that replicated in such non-cloning fashion?

We could even develop 3d printers that observed the environment and deliberately ensured that some of their
offspring, were for example, waterproof, in case of a global flood. 3d printers that merely randomly mutated
would be inferior to those that had such deliberate intent to survive.

But the random part might ensure for contingencies that could not be foreseen by their creators.
Diversity would be a key facet in survival of this species.

Perhaps you have been sheltered from watching too many scary sci-fi movies?

These kinds of comments are proof that we need better education systems.

 

[Scott C.]

Stereotyping people is not okay and should be taken seriously .

Are you referring to my statement, in relation to atheists, that "I've heard it postulated that something came from nothing"? I've had discussions on this site where people have expressed their scientific view that there was a time when there was nothing. Then through a scientific process, which I do not understand, "something" came into existence. I didn't say this is the view of most atheists. It is "a" view that explains a world with no God. Obviously another view is that there has always been something. None of this changes the point I was trying to make that we all share in the grand mystery of life and where it all came from. If you don't care to marvel with me, that's fine.

 

[Scott C.]

And from hearing some (not even most you met) atheist say that you then say that is the main atheist argument?

I didn't realize I posted the half sentence that you quoted. I started a thought and then thought I had exited.