The Watchmaker Revisited

[Thermos aquaticus]

Just a quick aside.

The trouble with science and religion is assumption.

If a man from primitive earth is walking along the beach and comes across a watch it's assumed that man would think the watch had a designer. Not necessarily. It's quite possible the man would think "What a pretty rock, I think it would look cool if I rubbed some **** in my beard and stuck it there."

It's also possible that the man would think "That's not a bad watch. Not as good as the ones on my home planet Rolex V but, not bad at all. . . "

There's no reason why we can't have a sense of humor.

If we find a watch sitting on the ground surrounded by grass, bugs, squirrels, worms, and birds it is the watch that sticks out as designed.

 

[Thief]

It's not the same world they lived in.



Why would the truth need conviction?
The truth needs neither my conviction nor your conviction.

ok......

so if need be.....you can deny what is true?

 

[Nakosis]

ok......

so if need be.....you can deny what is true?

That's always been true. Why would it change? Anyone can deny the truth. That's a shocker ain't it?

 

[David1967]

That's actually was updated about 30 years ago!...we have a two volume encyclopedic set called "Insight on the Scriptures". Available online.....just type in your subject or go to the alphabetical reference and choose what you want to know....its awesome!

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/lv/r1/lp-e/0/678
It leaves the AID book in the shade......boy you do need updating!

LOL

Pretty neat website @Deeje

 

[shunyadragon]

ok......

so if need be.....you can deny what is true?

Theological beliefs by fallible humans cannot be objectively determined to be true nor false.

This is the problem with the fallacious 'watchmaker' arguments. It can be demonstrated by the objective evidence that the natural complexity and life can have natural origins, but it cannot be objectively demonstrated that God or aliens are responsible for the life, humanity nor the complexity in nature.

 

[godnotgod]

What are you assuming there is a problem with assumption? There’s nothing wrong with assumption as long as you recognise it for what it is and the reasons you’ve made it in the first place.

That might be OK if we recognized the assumption for what it is. But that is not the case. For example, most people have assumed for centuries the we live in a material world of 'stuff'. Only the enlightened have seen through the facade. Now, Quantum Physics is telling us that what we assumed to be a material world made up of 'particles', is a 'superposition of possibilities'; that what we thought to be solid particles are actually standing waves, appearing as particles.

We make such an assumption because the mind sees 'form' as 'things'.

 

[godnotgod]

Just a quick aside.

The trouble with science and religion is assumption.

If a man from primitive earth is walking along the beach and comes across a watch it's assumed that man would think the watch had a designer. Not necessarily. It's quite possible the man would think "What a pretty rock, I think it would look cool if I rubbed some **** in my beard and stuck it there."

It's also possible that the man would think "That's not a bad watch. Not as good as the ones on my home planet Rolex V but, not bad at all. . . "

There's no reason why we can't have a sense of humor.

The problem with the proposition in the first place is that a watch is an artifact, while the Universe is not 'made', but grown. The analogy is flawed from the get-go. This is what happens when religious doctrine takes precedence over clear thinking. Any sense of humor would be over the error in logic. But Christian doctrine thinks God is The Maker, and man is the clay, or that God is the Architect of a 'made' world, which is then animated via the breath of God. So man is an artifact as well, a 'creat-ure', the product of fabrication, and therefore subject to destruction.

The necessity to demonstrate proof of God reveals an underlying insecurity (ie; metaphysical anxiety) as well as a lack of faith.

 

[Audie]

The problem with the proposition in the first place is that a watch is an artifact, while the Universe is not 'made', but grown. The analogy is flawed from the get-go. This is what happens when religious doctrine takes precedence over clear thinking. Any sense of humor would be over the error in logic. But Christian doctrine thinks God is The Maker, and man is the clay, or that God is the Architect of a 'made' world, which is then animated via the breath of God. So man is an artifact as well, a 'creat-ure', the product of fabrication, and therefore subject to destruction.

The necessity to demonstrate proof of God reveals an underlying insecurity (ie; metaphysical anxiety) as well as a lack of faith.

And you assumed you were writing to someone who
is still around to read it.

 

[shunyadragon]

And you assumed you were writing to someone who
is still around to read it.

Trolls and gooney birds will come back from time to time to make a night pass and dump their smelly load in the dark.

 

[Audie]

Trolls and gooney birds will come back from time to time to make a night pass and dump their smelly load in the dark.

There is (said to be) an African saying to the effect
that he who S...., that is, defecates on the road will
find files on his return.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Just a quick aside.

The trouble with science and religion is assumption.

If a man from primitive earth is walking along the beach and comes across a watch it's assumed that man would think the watch had a designer. Not necessarily. It's quite possible the man would think "What a pretty rock, I think it would look cool if I rubbed some **** in my beard and stuck it there."

It's also possible that the man would think "That's not a bad watch. Not as good as the ones on my home planet Rolex V but, not bad at all. . . "

There's no reason why we can't have a sense of humor.

A primitive man might actually think the watch was alive since it changed and moved
A modern man recognizes design and if the watch was next to a radio and sitting on a table with a drink next to it on a table under an umbrella, would beyond a doubt recognize design afoot.

Did you not read Robinson Caruso when he saw the footprint? He recognized the impression was not a fluke accident of natural happenstance.

Assumptions are always there. Scientific naturalism, being a type of religion has a few of its own dogmas.

 

[Audie]

A primitive man might actually think the watch was alive since it changed and moved
A modern man recognizes design and if the watch was next to a radio and sitting on a table with a drink next to it on a table under an umbrella, would beyond a doubt recognize design afoot.

Did you not read Robinson Caruso when he saw the footprint? He recognized the impression was not a fluke accident of natural happenstance.

Assumptions are always there. Scientific naturalism, being a type of religion has a few of its own dogmas.

I will assume that you cannot identify
any such dogma nor any way to make
it a religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A primitive man might actually think the watch was alive since it changed and moved
A modern man recognizes design and if the watch was next to a radio and sitting on a table with a drink next to it on a table under an umbrella, would beyond a doubt recognize design afoot.

Did you not read Robinson Caruso when he saw the footprint? He recognized the impression was not a fluke accident of natural happenstance.

Assumptions are always there. Scientific naturalism, being a type of religion has a few of its own dogmas.

What dogmas would these be?

 

[whirlingmerc]

What dogmas would these be?

Explaining the world without God is somehow better or necessary than explaining a world with God
for starters

Assuming time solves all problems with evolution

Believing a big bang needed no cause

etc...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Explaining the world without God is somehow better or necessary than explaining a world with God
for starters

That is not a dogma of science. What makes you think that it is?

Assuming time solves all problems with evolution

Again, no such assumption. And what supposed "problems with evolution"? The time was known to exist long before the theory was formed. So there was no assumption. Do you even know the meaning of the words that you use?

Believing a big bang needed no cause

etc...

Again, not a dogma. In fact scientists will tell you that they do not know what was the cause of the Big Bang. You are now making a god of the gaps argument.


Scientists merely explain the explainable. The fact that no god need apply is not their fault. You should be asking yourself why time after time your god is not needed for explanations.

 

[whirlingmerc]

That is not a dogma of science. What makes you think that it is?


Again, no such assumption. And what supposed "problems with evolution"? The time was known to exist long before the theory was formed. So there was no assumption. Do you even know the meaning of the words that you use?



Again, not a dogma. In fact scientists will tell you that they do not know what was the cause of the Big Bang. You are now making a god of the gaps argument.


Scientists merely explain the explainable. The fact that no god need apply is not their fault. You should be asking yourself why time after time your god is not needed for explanations.

And asserting that a belief in God and the scientific method are incompatible would be another dogma

 

[Subduction Zone]

And asserting that a belief in God and the scientific method are incompatible would be another dogma

And that does not exist in the world of science either.

So far you have not found any dogmas. Would you care to try again?

 

[whirlingmerc]

If we find a watch sitting on the ground surrounded by grass, bugs, squirrels, worms, and birds it is the watch that sticks out as designed.

And if a rabbit puts on the watch and says "I'm late! I'm late!" you don't assume a long gradual series of natural events explain what you see

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

And if a rabbit puts on the watch and says "I'm late! I'm late!" you don't assume a long gradual series of natural events explain what you see

I assume I took too much LSD.

 

[siti]

Did you not read Robinson Caruso when he saw the footprint? He recognized the impression was not a fluke accident of natural happenstance.

Caruso? I would have though he'd have burst into a verse or two of "O sole mio"! But the other observation is that Robinson Crusoe is a fictional character invented by humans and even he didn't imagine that the footprint had a supernatural cause as I recall. And this really is the point with this "primitive man" and the watch thing. If a primitive man found a watch on the beach he might well have assumed some kind of supernatural design behind it - but we know better - the watch has a perfectly natural cause. Likewise, other complicated things that we happen upon.