A question for creationists

[The_Evelyonian]

By way of an analogy, the argument states that design implies a designer.

Define "design".

How would you contrast a "designed" object from a "non-designed" object?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Here is my problem with that, ( Jesus based his beliefs on scripture.) How do you know this? (because the Bible told me so) How do you know it is the word of God,(because Jesus told Me so) How did he tell you? ( In the Bible) Do you see the problem with that? ( I believe in the bible because the bible tells me to)

Reminds me of this:

 

[Tristesse]

Every thing that explains anything more than likely will bring up more questions. The universe is govered by laws that were designed in to place. I hate to bring up an old ideal, however , The watchmaker analogy, or watchmaker argument, is a teleological argument for the existence of God. By way of an analogy, the argument states that design implies a designer. William Paley had a very good thought here.

The watchmaker arguement is so badly flawed. You recognize the watch had a maker, not because it's complex or any precieved design. You actually recognize that it's designed because everything we know about watches come from designers and none of them occur naturally. And the occurring naturally is the key element here. Humans occur naturally, trees occur naturally, planets occur naturally. Watches and buildings don't, the analogy makes a category error.

 

[riley2112]

Define "design".

How would you contrast a "designed" object from a "non-designed" object?

That would be the million dollar question. The way I understand it would be that an object with purpose would in turn mean design. The problem with that is how would we define purpose. If you just rely on Paley which seems easy enough , I mean anyone with a mind would see purpose and design in a watch, but what about things that are not so easy to see purpose in. I have a lot more questions than I do answers.

 

[camanintx]

You speak of 'natural laws.' But where does law come from? Can there be laws without a lawgiver? These 'natural laws' are, in fact, evidence of a great Lawgiver who set these laws into operation and continues to enforce these laws. (Jeremiah 33:25)

We may never know where natural laws come from, but nothing even begins to suggest that any cause would be an intelligent agent, much less one of the multitude of "Gods" which man has invented over the millennia.

 

[Tristesse]

You have no explanation that pleases you, but the logical and correct explanation is that laws demand a lawgiver. Universal laws demand a universal Lawgiver. It is not magic. It is a clear statement of fact that "God created the heavens and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1)

It's not a clear statement of fact, nor you asserting that it is, does it make it a fact. The laws that govern the universe are not proscriptive laws that need a law giver, but rather descriptive laws that describe the way in which the universe works. Once we understand how gravity works, the answer, "angels are holding our feet to the ground" no longer works as an explanation.

 

[camanintx]

Every thing that explains anything more than likely will bring up more questions. The universe is govered by laws that were designed in to place. I hate to bring up an old ideal, however , The watchmaker analogy, or watchmaker argument, is a teleological argument for the existence of God. By way of an analogy, the argument states that design implies a designer. William Paley had a very good thought here.

Without knowing anything about why natural laws are as they are, I see three possible explanations:

1. They could not have been otherwise (determinism)
2. Pure random chance (probability)
3. By design (theism)

Before we can begin to consider #3, wouldn't we have to show how a designer is even possible, much less responsible for the design?

 

[riley2112]

The watchmaker arguement is so badly flawed. You recognize the watch had a maker, not because it's complex or any precieved design. You actually recognize that it's designed because everything we know about watches come from designers and none of them occur naturally. And the occurring naturally is the key element here. Humans occur naturally, trees occur naturally, planets occur naturally. Watches and buildings don't, the analogy makes a category error.

How do you define naturally? Do you really mean to tell me that the universe, the planet we live on , the plants that give us air to live on the very things that make life possible just happened. Just by sheer luck. A toss of the dice? The watchmaker argument is one of the best ones to come along. Yes you recognize the watch had a designer because of the complex design, even if the watch were found by some one that had never seen one before , the sheer complexity of the gears working together, the very shape of the metal. everything about it would show that it was designed by an intelligent being. What are you going to try and make me believe that over great time the watch became the way it is because lighting stuck the ground and forged the metal. Then the rain and wind over many more years ground down the metal into gears that set within each other to work in the way it now works. Come on even you would not believe that,

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Yes you recognize the watch had a designer because of the complex design, even if the watch were found by some one that had never seen one before , the sheer complexity of the gears working together, the very shape of the metal. everything about it would show that it was designed by an intelligent being.

Begs the question: What designed the Designer?

 

[riley2112]

It's not a clear statement of fact, nor you asserting that it is, does it make it a fact. The laws that govern the universe are not proscriptive laws that need a law giver, but rather descriptive laws that describe the way in which the universe works. Once we understand how gravity works, the answer, "angels are holding our feet to the ground" no longer works as an explanation.

Just to be fair here, I am not sure that "angels holding our feet to the ground" was ever proven

 

[camanintx]

That would be the million dollar question. The way I understand it would be that an object with purpose would in turn mean design. The problem with that is how would we define purpose. If you just rely on Paley which seems easy enough , I mean anyone with a mind would see purpose and design in a watch, but what about things that are not so easy to see purpose in. I have a lot more questions than I do answers.

How does purpose indicate design if it doesn't preceed it? I can use a rock and a tree branch as a lever, yet neither were designed with that purpose in mind.

 

[camanintx]

Just to be fair here, I am not sure that "angels holding our feet to the ground" was ever proven

Not after they discovered Intelligent Falling.

 

[riley2112]

Begs the question: What designed the Designer?

One step at a time, that old saying, cart before the horse , comes to mind, Before we could even begin to start on that question, would we not have to learn more about the designer that may have designed this universe before we could even begin to question how he came to be? No one know who are what the designer of our universe is yet. One thing at a time.

 

[riley2112]

How does purpose indicate design if it doesn't preceed it? I can use a rock and a tree branch as a lever, yet neither were designed with that purpose in mind.

I can use a car to run over my ex wife, I can use a stove as a door stop, but neither were designed with that purpose in mind either, so I do not get your point , with all due respect.

 

[Tristesse]

How do you define naturally? Do you really mean to tell me that the universe, the planet we live on , the plants that give us air to live on the very things that make life possible just happened. Just by sheer luck. A toss of the dice? The watchmaker argument is one of the best ones to come along. Yes you recognize the watch had a designer because of the complex design, even if the watch were found by some one that had never seen one before , the sheer complexity of the gears working together, the very shape of the metal. everything about it would show that it was designed by an intelligent being. What are you going to try and make me believe that over great time the watch became the way it is because lighting stuck the ground and forged the metal. Then the rain and wind over many more years ground down the metal into gears that set within each other to work in the way it now works. Come on even you would not believe that,

When did I say "just happened?" Just happened is an inaccurate representation of the natural process of evolution. Again, you don't recognize design in the watch because of intricacies, you recognize design because every example of a watch we have has beed designed and not naturally occurring. I don't recognize design in the watch because of the gears etc... I recognize design because watches are known to be manufactured, if they occurred naturally, we'd be having a different discussion. Your last statement was so rediculous I'm not sure it warrants a reply, but I'll do it anyways. I'm not proposing anything about the watch, you are. I'm talking about naturally occurring versus manufactured and pointing out a category error in the analogy, this is one among many errors in the watchmaker analogy.

 

[fantome profane]

Every thing that explains anything more than likely will bring up more questions. The universe is govered by laws that were designed in to place. I hate to bring up an old ideal, however , The watchmaker analogy, or watchmaker argument, is a teleological argument for the existence of God. By way of an analogy, the argument states that design implies a designer. William Paley had a very good thought here.

At the time that Palely wrote his watchmaker argument there really was no explanation for the origin of living organisms like humans. Four years after William Paley died Charles Darwin was born. Darwin was able to demonstrate that species could come into being without having to resort a “designer” as an explanation. And over 150 years of scientific research has shown that Darwin was right and Paley was wrong.


With all due respect to William Paley I have to say that to pull out his argument now (almost 2012), an argument that predates Darwin, is incredibly pathetic.

 

[Tristesse]

Just to be fair here, I am not sure that "angels holding our feet to the ground" was ever proven

Neither has a god, but that doesn't stop people from believing in one.

 

[camanintx]

I can use a car to run over my ex wife, I can use a stove as a door stop, but neither were designed with that purpose in mind either, so I do not get your point , with all due respect.

You say we can detect design by looking for purpose but how would we know that the purpose preceded the design? Your examples, like mine, depict pre-existing objects being used for a new purpose.

 

[riley2112]

At the time that Palely wrote his watchmaker argument there really was no explanation for the origin of living organisms like humans. Four years after William Paley died Charles Darwin was born. Darwin was able to demonstrate that species could come into being without having to resort a “designer” as an explanation. And over 150 years of scientific research has shown that Darwin was right and Paley was wrong.


With all due respect to William Paley I have to say that to pull out his argument now (almost 2012), an argument that predates Darwin, is incredibly pathetic.

What has Darwin got to do with intelligent design?

 

[riley2112]

Charles Darwin evolution Theory and creation are two different topic, or am I wrong here?