The clock

[muslimphotos.net]

If you walk in the dessert, and suddenly find a ticking clock, showing the time and date correctly.

Would you beleive that

1) that a company had created it, a consumer bought it, and somehow it was left, lost, thrown away or something, in the dessert

or

2) that it appeared in the dessert after 1000's of years of different processes that was carried on in the dessert, with combination of lightening, pressure, heat and so on?

I guess most people would say 1 - that it was created.

So why do the same people say that the solar system was not created? But just happened to be?

 

[Zephyr]

Cause life aint a clock.

Remember, the odds of intelligent life forming may seem extremely slim, but the odds are even with anything else. Think of it like rolling a D20. No matter what you roll, its a 1/20 chance that that's what you would have gotten.

Note to self: Dnd and Ragnar's not good for nighttime.

 

[eudaimonia]

So why do the same people say that the solar system was not created? But just happened to be?

Are you thinking about life in the solar system? Then let me expand your story.

Let's say that I was an astronaut who had landed on an unfamiliar planet. I discover something sort of like a clock. I am amazed, and my first thought is that it was a creation of some alien intelligence.

I then notice another clock crawl close to the first clock, and they start mating. My next thought would be that this is an alien lifeform that has achieved its complexity through Evolution.

The lesson of the story -- clocks don't reproduce and don't have anything like DNA, and so they can't evolve. It's a bad analogy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jaymes]

If you could create pre-clock compounds from stuff sitting around plus electricity, I'd be inclined to think that the clock was a result of millions of years of pre-clock compounds becoming more and more complex.

Unfortunately the clock is not like a living thing, so this is a bad analogy. And a logical fallacy, at that.

I have to wonder why the clock is always in the desert. Why can't it be in a tropical rainforest? A nice temperate forest? Taiga?

 

[anikan]

If you walk in the dessert, and suddenly find a ticking clock, showing the time and date correctly.

Would you beleive that

1) that a company had created it, a consumer bought it, and somehow it was left, lost, thrown away or something, in the dessert

or

2) that it appeared in the dessert after 1000's of years of different processes that was carried on in the dessert, with combination of lightening, pressure, heat and so on?

I guess most people would say 1 - that it was created.

So why do the same people say that the solar system was not created? But just happened to be?

I guess the clocks buried under your clock (numbered only to 11, only one hand, anticlockwise etc) must be prototypes

 

[athanasius]

If you could create pre-clock compounds from stuff sitting around plus electricity, I'd be inclined to think that the clock was a result of millions of years of pre-clock compounds becoming more and more complex.

Unfortunately the clock is not like a living thing, so this is a bad analogy. And a logical fallacy, at that.

I have to wonder why the clock is always in the desert. Why can't it be in a tropical rainforest? A nice temperate forest? Taiga?

The question would be where did all the "stuff sitting around"(Matter in the universe) even come from if everthing "material" in the known universe exist from a prior cause! Must have been somthing outside of the material universe ie...spiritual, from the spiritual order to create or be the first cause to even have the matter to begin with to evolve the clock. The clock is a great analogy. Its complex, and no complex clock on earth that we know of has ever formed itself by chance with no help? A clock always has a clockmaker. Sorry thats just a lived reality. Did big Ben just form herself?

The body is far more complex than a clock. Evolution yes! No problem there. But is absurd and illogical to assume that there was no intelligent spiritual force that had a hand in creating(Even through evolution) matter as the primary cause. Evolution being the secondary cause. Especially since human logic, and reason have shown that everthing "material" thing has a prior cause, and and every extremely complex thing(Such as a computer or watch) has has a creator(Such as Bill Gates or Machintosh). Then its only logical and reasonable to beleive that a Infinite, Spiritual, Intelligent being has a hand in the evolution process.:yes:

 

[Jaymes]

The question would be where did all the "stuff sitting around"(Matter in the universe) even come from if everthing "material" in the known universe exist from a prior cause! Must have been somthing outside of the material universe ie...spiritual, from the spiritual order to create or be the first cause to even have the matter to begin with to evolve the clock. The clock is a great analogy. Its complex, and no complex clock on earth that we know of has ever formed itself by chance with no help?

No, it's a horrible analogy because life doesn't work like a clock. :areyoucra You get small organisms that are simple, huge ones that are complex, small ones that are complex, huge ones that are simple... and they don't work like clocks. Because they aren't clocks. Life doesn't just go tick tick tick stop. It mutates, it changes, it has variability, it's subject to environmental change... none of which is even touched by the clock analogy.

 

[athanasius]

No, it's a horrible analogy because life doesn't work like a clock. :areyoucra You get small organisms that are simple, huge ones that are complex, small ones that are complex, huge ones that are simple... and they don't work like clocks. Because they aren't clocks. Life doesn't just go tick tick tick stop. It mutates, it changes, it has variability, it's subject to environmental change... none of which is even touched by the clock analogy.

I understand you what you are saying. But I think your missing the point of the analogy. This comparison does not look at the clock as a living thing, we know clocks do not live, but, only as a complex thing that did not create itself. The "material" universe is far more complex than a computer or clock. It would only stand to reason that it(The Body or the material universe and all the matter in it) also had a intelligent creator.

I hope that helps.

 

[Jaymes]

It would only stand to reason that it(The Body or the material universe and all the matter in it) also had a intelligent creator.

I hope that helps.

I get what you're saying now. And now I'm going to play devil's advocate: It does make sense, but you've got it wrong. There's actually several creators. Because really, how does it make sense that one being could do that all on its own? That's counter-intuitive. Also, I think these beings are the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the world was actually created last Thursday by Him) and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. A couple of Greek gods helped, but it was mostly them.

How does my statement make any less sense than yours?

 

[Mr. Hair]

If you walk in the dessert, and suddenly find a ticking clock, showing the time and date correctly.

Quick question; how would one know whether or not the time displayed was accurate? More to the point, why would it matter if it were or not?

Besides, the concept of a 'clock' and 'clockness' is an abstracted subjective one, based on societal-ascribed form and function. One would not identify such an object as a 'clock' unless one had previous experience of 'clocks', both as how they were and how they were constructed. In other words (and for more reasons then this), it's a bad analogy.

Show a sundial to a Martian, or indeed a cricket bat to an American, and polite befuddlement would inevitably ensue.

Would you beleive that

1) that a company had created it, a consumer bought it, and somehow it was left, lost, thrown away or something, in the dessert

or

2) that it appeared in the dessert after 1000's of years of different processes that was carried on in the dessert, with combination of lightening, pressure, heat and so on?

Neither, actually. Had I been wandering aimlessly for some time within a desert devoid of all other signs of human existence (as is implied by your scenario), and then miraculously stumbled across this one (perfectly working) aspect of civilisation; I'd seriously doubt my ability to perceive things accurately and honestly, and presume insanity.

So why do the same people say that the solar system was not created? But just happened to be?

Firstly, few people of any religious/philosophical/scientific variation believe that the solar system, or anything else, "just happened to be".

Secondly, there is no compelling and inherent evidence to support the assertion that the solar system was intentionally constructed, whilst there is quite a bit for the assertion that clocks were, both in their actual and conceptual existence. Given that we do live in a finite universe, we cannot consistently proceed from the position that an assertion is true until proven false, as otherwise we'd have to accept the existence of practically anything that could be imagined. Doing so might make things a little cramped.

I have to wonder why the clock is always in the desert. Why can't it be in a tropical rainforest? A nice temperate forest? Taiga?

I suspect it's at least partly intended to emphasise the creative power of a/the God(s), in order to make it appear more remarkable and seeming self-evident. A rainforest would field a whole host of aesthetic and logical distractions for such a hypothetical.

 

[Jaymes]

I suspect it's at least partly intended to emphasise the creative power of a/the God(s), in order to make it appear more remarkable and seeming self-evident. A rainforest would field a whole host of aesthetic and logical distractions for such a hypothetical.

Clearly these people have never seen how full of life and beauty a desert is, then.

 

[athanasius]

I get what you're saying now. And now I'm going to play devil's advocate: It does make sense, but you've got it wrong. There's actually several creators. Because really, how does it make sense that one being could do that all on its own? That's counter-intuitive. Also, I think these beings are the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the world was actually created last Thursday by Him) and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. A couple of Greek gods helped, but it was mostly them.

How does my statement make any less sense than yours?

I understand you point. I cannot show you how only one God is responsible at this stage. But you have at least admitted the crucial point, that it is reasonable to believe in a intelligent designer(Designers). This is what natural revelation shows us. To be concivneced of only One God, then you would need divine or supernatural revelation to show you that. Since this post is not about proving what God or Gods exist, only proving that its reasonable to believe in higher intellgient beings or being that created the universe(Event through evolution) then I have doen my job.

However, I beleive thast you are a great thinker. and I enjoy talking to you.
Yo u will have to study more to come to the conclusion that only one God exist. I cannot prove that to you in the same way. This must be something that you reach by your own objective study of Diety. Although I would sugges that Christianity has what I would call either the greatest answer or the biggest most craziest lie ever perpetuated.

You'll have to study these issues separately. great to talk to you. Good mind you have. God bless.

 

[Mr. Hair]

Clearly these people have never seen how full of life and beauty a desert is, then.

*smiles*

True, but generally whenever someone asks me to picture a desert (admittedly it doesn't happen as often as I'd like) my mind tends to focus on concepts of formless, empty nothingness...

I could well be making a duck's bottom of myself though... :cover:

 

[Zephyr]

The Gods clearly guided life in creation. After all, humans are VERY complex. How could we have formed without Odin creating us from Ask and Emblu? If the gods didn't creat us from trees, how could we have possibly existed?:no:

 

[Jaymes]

I understand you point. I cannot show you how only one God is responsible at this stage. But you have at least admitted the crucial point, that it is reasonable to believe in a intelligent designer(Designers).

I've admitted nothing; I'm trying to get across the point that it's inane to say that God created it when the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn could just have easily as done so under that logic. Or hell, even aliens if we're talking about superintelligent beings.

Yo u will have to study more to come to the conclusion that only one God exist. I cannot prove that to you in the same way. This must be something that you reach by your own objective study of Diety. Although I would sugges that Christianity has what I would call either the greatest answer or the biggest most craziest lie ever perpetuated.

Unless something very dramatic happens, I'm no more likely to come to the conclusion that the Christian god is real than I am to come to the conclusion that I think the Hindu gods or Shinto gods are real. It's all myth to me.

You'll have to study these issues separately. great to talk to you. Good mind you have. God bless.

I spent the first 18 years of my life trying to do that and reconcile what I wanted to be true with what I felt to be counter-intuitive and no more likely to be true than the tooth fairy. It wasn't until recently I finally gave up trying to do that.

 

[athanasius]

I've admitted nothing; I'm trying to get across the point that it's inane to say that God created it when the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn could just have easily as done so under that logic.

Whether you consider it a flying moster or aliens it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what you call it(Or them). You at least have to admit that it is reasonable to believe that some higher life form(S) created everthing as I have shown in my other post. Its only logical and reasonable to come to that conclusion based on our own phenomalogical experience as humans.

 

[Jaymes]

Do you understand what the term "playing devil's advocate" means?

 

[athanasius]

Do you understand what the term "playing devil's advocate" means?

I do! Do you understand you haven't answered my questions and objections to your concept then?

 

[Jaymes]

It'd be pointless to do so, since I have not admitted that it's reasonable for there to be a creator. I simply said I understand what you're saying (understand, not agree), and played devil's advocate.

In case you need a refresher, that means I didn't actually believe what I said.

EDIT: Looking back on it, which questions of yours did I not answer?

 

[athanasius]

It'd be pointless to do so, since I have not admitted that it's reasonable for there to be a creator. I simply said I understand what you're saying (understand, not agree), and played devil's advocate.

In case you need a refresher, that means I didn't actually believe what I said.

EDIT: Looking back on it, which questions of yours did I not answer?

Yes I understand what you are saying. I have. Which make the case look even worse for you becuase you cannot answer the objections I raise. So answer them.