The Watchmaker Revisited

[Thief]

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.

mmmmm......seems to me.....

if complexity was a norm
life could be found anywhere and everywhere
any planet
all of them

but no

and the likelihood of such complexity coming to gel as it did here on earth
without an Intellect....?

I say....the creation is a reflection of it's Creator

 

[Thief]

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

and you make assumptions.....without looking?

 

[shunyadragon]

mmmmm......seems to me.....

if complexity was a norm
life could be found anywhere and everywhere
any planet
all of them

but no

and the likelihood of such complexity coming to gel as it did here on earth
without an Intellect....?

The presence of life is also dependent on the environment, which the right environment is not everywhere, but current evidence indicates the environment on Mars used to be suitable for life, and the have found organic compounds in the rocks that indicate life previously existed on Mars.

It is most likely the case when the environment is right; complexity is the norm.

I say....the creation is a reflection of it's Creator

True, but the evidence is neutral.

 

[godnotgod]

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

If not, someone else will soon come along. They might even find a watch in the sand. What they think or assume about that watch is the question.

 

[godnotgod]

Scientists merely explain the explainable.

What they explain are behavior and characteristics in order to make predictions based on repetition. But explanation of how things work does not tell us the nature of things. The problem is that science assumes that the universe is a machine, rather than an intelligent organism. It thinks that via dissection, it can explain anything, the idea being that if enough data and evidence is gathered to form a body of knowledge, an epiphany will occur, causing them to declare: 'Ah HA!...so THAT'S it!' They are sadly mistaken.

Today, via Quantum Physics, we have discovered that all material 'particles' are in reality standing waves. Science cannot explain this, nor the reason why. But there is a dimension of consciousness bigger than science, bigger than Reason, that is behind such phenomena, something science will never fathom, unless it abandons its own methodologies.

"Science concerns itself with reality, in the form of “real particles”, “real organisms”, and the “real universe”. The tacit assumption is that science can answer the question of reality itself. If this wasn’t the case, science would have a hard time explaining why it holds a special place as a human activity. So one must grant that science concerns itself with the reality of “objects”. What this assumes, of course, is that objects exist independent of conscious experience. ... our universe is in fact fundamentally mental. What we call physical things and events, as it turns out, do not exist independently of subjective experience."

https://www.choprafoundation.org/consciousness/why-a-mental-universe-is-the-real-reality/

 

[godnotgod]

and you make assumptions.....without looking?

What are you talking about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What they explain are behavior and characteristics in order to make predictions based on repetition. But explanation of how things work does not tell us the nature of things. The problem is that science assumes that the universe is a machine, rather than an intelligent organism. It thinks that via dissection, it can explain anything, the idea being that if enough data and evidence is gathered to form a body of knowledge, an epiphany will occur, causing them to declare: 'Ah HA!...so THAT'S it!' They are sadly mistaken.

Today, via Quantum Physics, we have discovered that all material 'particles' are in reality standing waves. Science cannot explain this, nor the reason why. But there is a dimension of consciousness bigger than science, bigger than Reason, that is behind such phenomena, something science will never fathom, unless it abandons its own methodologies.

No, science just tries to answer problems to questions. It has a very good track record of doing that. Meanwhile the god claims have not done so well over the ages.

And if you want to claim there is something bigger than reason then you put the burden of proof upon you. Why should anyone believe unsupported claims?

 

[David T]

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.

Assumptions sigh......

It's not the ones you know of that are the problem. It's the ones you aren't aware of that are the grave danger.

 

[godnotgod]

No, science just tries to answer problems to questions. It has a very good track record of doing that. Meanwhile the god claims have not done so well over the ages.

And if you want to claim there is something bigger than reason then you put the burden of proof upon you. Why should anyone believe unsupported claims?

I never said anything about any God.

If nature were not bigger than Reason, then Reason would already have contained nature in it's entirety, instead of groping about with its stash of conceptual frameworks. Look, I am not debunking or dismissing science. It is a very useful and mostly accurate tool for what it is designed for. But it cannot provide us the answers it set out to find, namely, to tell us what the nature of things actually are. Reason is trying to 'figure it out', when there is nothing to figure out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said anything about any God.

If nature were not bigger than Reason, then Reason would already have contained nature in it's entirety, instead of groping about with its stash of conceptual frameworks. Look, I am not debunking or dismissing science. It is a very useful and mostly accurate tool for what it is designed for. But it cannot provide us the answers it set out to find, namely, to tell us what the nature of things actually are. Reason is trying to 'figure it out', when there is nothing to figure out.

Perhaps it would help if you defined your terms.

 

[godnotgod]

Perhaps it would help if you defined your terms.

Like what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like what?

Just about every term that you used in that last post. It is looks like a mish mash of circular reasoning and undefined terms. What answers do you want to find? What do you mean by the "nature of things". The whole post is rather nebulous. Trying being bold and make a positive statement for once.

 

[godnotgod]

Just about every term that you used in that last post. It is looks like a mish mash of circular reasoning and undefined terms. What answers do you want to find? What do you mean by the "nature of things". The whole post is rather nebulous. Trying being bold and make a positive statement for once.

hmmmmm.....well, there are really only two possibilities: 'Reason', and 'nature'.

I will leave the definition of 'Reason' to you, since you seem to tout it's use as a tool of science, OK?

'nature' is what science is trying to 'explain' via Reason, Logic, and Analysis, and what theology and philosophy also are trying to explain via their own methodologies. I am using the term to mean that which is responsible for the phenomenal world; the core essence of Reality. For example, one might ask: 'what is the nature of the material world?', to which I might respond: 'the nature of the material world is that it is illusory'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

hmmmmm.....well, there are really only two possibilities: 'Reason', and 'nature'.

I will leave the definition of 'Reason' to you, since you seem to tout it's use as a tool of science, OK?

'nature' is what science is trying to 'explain' via Reason, Logic, and Analysis, and what theology and philosophy also are trying to explain via their own methodologies. I am using the term to mean that which is responsible for the phenomenal world; the core essence of Reality. For example, one might ask: 'what is the nature of the material world?', to which I might respond: 'the nature of the material world is that it is illusory'.

More word salad. What if all that there is is what we can observe?

 

[godnotgod]

More word salad. What if all that there is is what we can observe?

I assume you mean physical 'objects' in space.

You cannot observe space, but physical objects cannot exist without it. They would be undifferentiated were it not for the space that defines them. So if that is the case, then 'what we can observe' fails to define 'all that there is'. Now, if that which is observable is dependent upon space to exist, then perhaps space is much more than we may think it to be. What evidence is there for this idea? For one thing, we now know that over 99.9999...% of the atom is empty space. IOW, space is the dominant makeup of 'material reality' by far, or of that which 'we can observe', allegedly made up of sub-atomic 'particles', all of which are now understood to be standing waves, and not solid particles at all, the result of fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs fields. So where does that leave us? NADA! ZILCH! NUSSING! 'All that there is is what we can observe' is an illusion. We continue to mistake form for things.

Science is the explanation of Nothing, seen as Something. IOW, science is the study of appearances.

'what we can observe' implies a subject/object relationship, which is a conceptual framework created by mind. In reality, the subject/object split does not originally exist. There is no such 'observer' of the observation; there is only the act of observation itself, without an agent of observation.

'what we can observe' has differing levels. For example, you may seen only empty form; I may see an entire universe within, alive with impulse, a reflection of a higher intelligence, something you may be clueless of, due to your scientifically conditioned, sterile view. You may see only a 'material' reality composed of chemicals, a fluke of nature; I may see the face of the divine itself within all things, mundane and extraordinary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I assume you mean physical 'objects' in space.

You cannot observe space, but physical objects cannot exist without it. They would be undifferentiated were it not for the space that defines them. So if that is the case, then 'what we can observe' fails to define 'all that there is'. Now, if that which is observable is dependent upon space to exist, then perhaps space is much more than we may think it to be. What evidence is there for this idea? For one thing, we now know that over 99.9999...% of the atom is empty space. IOW, space is the dominant makeup of 'material reality' by far, or of that which 'we can observe', allegedly made up of sub-atomic 'particles', all of which are now understood to be standing waves, and not solid particles at all, the result of fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs fields. So where does that leave us? NADA! ZILCH! NUSSING! 'All that there is is what we can observe' is an illusion. We continue to mistake form for things.

Science is the explanation of Nothing, seen as Something. IOW, science is the study of appearances.

'what we can observe' implies a subject/object relationship, which is a conceptual framework created by mind. In reality, the subject/object split does not originally exist. There is no such 'observer' of the observation; there is only the act of observation itself, without an agent of observation.

This is all rather sophomoric. Turn it down a notch. You are assuming that there is more to life than we can observe. That is yet to be shown to be the case.

 

[godnotgod]

This is all rather sophomoric. Turn it down a notch. You are assuming that there is more to life than we can observe. That is yet to be shown to be the case.

What is sophomoric is the narrow sterile view you espouse. Your only gauge is your limited conditioned scientific view you think represents 'reality', a one trick pony. What you fail to realize is that the observation you talk about is a superficial one. To really see things as they are is to pierce the facade of 'material reality' with an unconditioned insight, which reveals with certitude the pure abstract intelligence behind the facade. You want factual evidence for what is right under your very nose, which is why you can't see it. Your Reason, Logic, and clinical Analysis stand squarely in the way.

The bottom line here is that science should be understood in the light of Reality itself, rather than the other way around. Somehow along the way, mankind got things twisted around so that the cart got ahead of the horse. The more he probes with his surgical instruments of science, the more confused he becomes, in spite of his great accumulation of factual data.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is sophomoric is the narrow sterile view you espouse. Your only gauge is your limited conditioned scientific view you think represents 'reality', a one trick pony. What you fail to realize is that the observation you talk about is a superficial one. To really see things as they are is to pierce the facade of 'material reality' with an unconditioned insight, which reveals with certitude the pure abstract intelligence behind the facade. You want factual evidence for what is right under your very nose, which is why you can't see it. Your Reason, Logic, and clinical Analysis stand squarely in the way.

The bottom line here is that science should be understood in the light of Reality itself, rather than the other way around. Somehow along the way, mankind got things twisted around so that the cart got ahead of the horse. The more he probes with his surgical instruments of science, the more confused he becomes, in spite of his great accumulation of factual data.

Are you even fooling yourself with this empty rhetoric? I asked you a simple, honest question and you went off the deep end. You wish to be thought of as a deep thinker but all you can do is to dress up the ideas that you do not understand.

 

[Audie]

Are you even fooling yourself with this empty rhetoric? I asked you a simple, honest question and you went off the deep end. You wish to be thought of as a deep thinker but all you can do is to dress up the ideas that you do not understand.

That does appear to be the case, but beware lest thou
fallest into the same remote-viewing psycholoanalyst
role that he has occupied.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That does appear to be the case, but beware lest thou
fallest into the same remote-viewing psycholoanalyst
role that he has occupied.

I am willing to admit that we do not know everything,and never will for that matter. That is no excuse to bring on the woo woo.