The watchmaker

[ERLOS]

... am willing to discuss aboigenesis.

NOW it's getting interesting, lol.

Do we start with the second anthropic principle, or do we assume that in this, the only universe there is, that the age of the earth is sufficient for life to have evolved in steps via activity in primeval oceans?

Or perhaps it was seeded from elsewhere?

We may start by assuming everyone understands the fine tunings and the multiple universes ideas?

 

[Subduction Zone]

NOW it's getting interesting, lol.

Do we start with the second anthropic principle, or do we assume the age of the earth is sufficient for life to have evolved in steps via activity in primeval oceans?

Or perhaps it was seeded from elsewhere?

We may start by assuming everyone understands the fine tunings, and the multiple universes ideas?

Sorry, no derails.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If different levels of energy are satisfactory to discern the presence energy without there being a lack of energy, then different levels of design are satisfactory to discern different levels of design without there being a lack of design. Again, let me state: the question of whether the beach is designed is irrelevant to the analogy. The design or lack of design of the beach is not being observed; it's purpose is to emphasize the apparent absence of watch-makers.

But that's part of the problem... "different levels of design?" It is all, supposedly designed, right? What about the apparent absence of tree makers? What about the apparent absence of stone makers? What about the apparent absence of air makers? Why is the watch the object chosen? This fact says volumes about the honesty of the analogy itself.

Besides this, the entire analogy is a strawman argument. You put up the strawman of the "uncreated watch" - and then easily disprove that because humans having experience with watches understand that you can't have a watch form without a creator. Then you posit "the universe" as even more complex than a watch and therefore conclude that you have also disproved the "uncreated universe" - but you haven't. All you did was put up a strawman and knock it down, hailing yourself as the victor. It is failure at its finest.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If we switch the watch with an UFO (unidentified fallen object), your reasoning still fails. The fact that we have never seen the object does not remove the fact that our knowledge of design in our own technology, allows us to infer that it was designed - only its advanced complexity in the design would lead us to think that its builders were more advanced.

Nope, my reasoning is yet more made intact, because I have been making the EXACT point you just made all along... much to the chagrin of others who are trying to support the analogy... so I thank you.

One of my points has been that we only understand the created aspect of the watch because we have experience with objects that occur naturally, and those that do not. And, to your mind, what are we comparing the watch to in order to come to the conclusion that it is created? Why... nothing short of EVERYTHING ELSE that God also supposedly created that occurs without HUMAN hands needed to form them. Why is this significant, you ask? Because it shows why the watch was chosen for the analogy, and not the sand on the beach. Specifically because we ONLY have experience with created watches. But... do we ONLY have experience with created universes? Do you see the problem there? We have experience with precisely one universe... and it is impossible to conclude with 100% certainty that it was created. Hence the reason we are having this discussion at all.

 

[nPeace]

Hardly. Once again at best you are projecting. You are making the error of assuming that your personal interpretation is the correct interpretation and refuting that refutes "God". There are countless Christians that do not have a problem with the concept of evolution. They know that the Adam and Eve story paints God as being incompetent and unjust if read literally.

If I do show that your version of Genesis is wrong it does not refute God any more than if you proved to a Flat Earther that the Earth is a sphere (roughly) that you disproved "God" by doing so.

You are making the error of assuming that disproving the Adam and Eve myth disproves God. That is not the case.

You have lost me. What are you talking about? I thought we were on evidence for God.

 

[nPeace]

I already told you that in regards to this moving of the goal posts by you that I will not discuss this unless you admit your error in regards to evolution. You want to fly before you can even walk.

What? You have no evidence? Thanks. I already knew.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have lost me. What are you talking about? I thought we were on evidence for God.

No, we were discussing evolution. Whether evolution is how life developed or not does not prove or disprove God.

Or to restate it the fact that the Adam and Eve story is a myth does not refute God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What? You have no evidence? Thanks. I already knew.

I did not say that or even imply that. This was not an honest comment and appears to be a lie.

 

[nPeace]

Nope, my reasoning is yet more made intact, because I have been making the EXACT point you just made all along... much to the chagrin of others who are trying to support the analogy... so I thank you.

One of my points has been that we only understand the created aspect of the watch because we have experience with objects that occur naturally, and those that do not.

Explain how we have evidence of objects that occur naturally

And, to your mind, what are we comparing the watch to in order to come to the conclusion that it is created? Why... nothing short of EVERYTHING ELSE that God also supposedly created that occurs without HUMAN hands needed to form them. Why is this significant, you ask? Because it shows why the watch was chosen for the analogy, and not the sand on the beach. Specifically because we ONLY have experience with created watches. But... do we ONLY have experience with created universes? Do you see the problem there? We have experience with precisely one universe... and it is impossible to conclude with 100% certainty that it was created. Hence the reason we are having this discussion at all.

Okay. I follow.
So no one knows with 100% certainty.
Now say someone is questioning what is responsible for what you call natural.
In order to do so, they use their senses, since no one knows for sure.
They come to the conclusion, by using experience, and logic, that what they see around them is a grander picture of what they know and observe.

For example, when they see a beautiful painting, they know that someone was responsible for using skill to produce the masterpiece, and the painting may even tell them something about the artist.
When the see a piece of machinery - like say, a watch - they know that the working parts were purposely designed with particular functions in mind. Each intricate part has a useful purpose, and all the parts work together in achieving results - a properly working time piece.

They conclude that someone was responsible for the beauty, the order, the purpose, etc, since they know from experience than it requires intelligence for particular things.

Furthermore, they reason that no one has been able to show how things came into existence, who or what created the universe, but they found the answer in ancient scripture, for which they have evidence it tells the truth.
They find the scriptures seem to give answers to these questions.
Romans 1:19, 20
19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

...and they make sense. The scriptures are in agreement with their true experience, and observation.
Hebrews 3:4
Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

They reason that it is observed that things don't come from nothing - they come from something.
They conclude that it makes more sense to believe that an intelligence created all these things.

Are you arguing that this person has no evidence?[/QUOTE]

 

[nPeace]

No, we were discussing evolution. Whether evolution is how life developed or not does not prove or disprove God.

Or to restate it the fact that the Adam and Eve story is a myth does not refute God.

At what point were we discussing evolution? Have you decided to derail the OP? Count me out. I would consider that selfish.
You had your chance with the thread you created.

Why are you refusing to continue with @ERLOS here.
I found that was outright rude.

 

[nPeace]

I did not say that or even imply that. This was not an honest comment and appears to be a lie.

I'm sorry, did you give me evidence? Where?

 

[Subduction Zone]

At what point were we discussing evolution? Have you decided to derail the OP? Count me out. I would consider that selfish.
You had your chance with the thread you created.

Why are you refusing to continue with @ERLOS here.
I found that was outright rude.

Really? You do not understand that the flawed Watchmaker argument is an attack on the theory of evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sorry, did you give me evidence? Where?

Are you just trolling now? That is a violation of the rules here. I already explained to you that by moving the goal posts you admitted that you were wrong about evolution. If you admit your error I will gladly discuss abiogenesis with you. Until then there is no point.

 

[nPeace]

Really? You do not understand that the flawed Watchmaker argument is an attack on the theory of evolution?

No. I know it was an argument for creation. It was even mentioned here.

Yes. I do understand natural selection. No-one's arguing against evolution. It's the first cause being addressed. Where did the Big Bang come from? Can you answer that?

... and look who posted it @ERLOS

 

[nPeace]

Are you just trolling now? That is a violation of the rules here. I already explained to you that by moving the goal posts you admitted that you were wrong about evolution. If you admit your error I will gladly discuss abiogenesis with you. Until then there is no point.

Fine by me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. I know it was an argument for creation. It was even mentioned here.

... and look who posted it @ERLOS

Wrong again. It was an ignorant and failed argument against evolution

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fine by me.

I do not understand. Are you refusing to be honest about your error in attempting to move the goalposts?

 

[nPeace]

Wrong again. It was an ignorant and failed argument against evolution

Obviously our opinions differ.

 

[nPeace]

I do not understand. Are you refusing to be honest about your error in attempting to move the goalposts?

What don't you understand? That you are refusing to discuss the evidence that life creates itself? Why don't you understand that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What don't you understand? That you are refusing to discuss the evidence that life creates itself? Why don't you understand that?

Please, once again you are not being honest. Your error was explained to you. You would not take the honorable way out. Until you do there is no point in trying to help you.