The watchmaker

[A Vestigial Mote]

You find a watch on a deserted beach. You pick it up, and notice all the intricate parts. That's an interesting watch...

So, in the analogy, we're supposed to draw these comparisons:

Man walking "on the beach" = any man capable of perceiving the universe
Watch = the universe perceived with all its intricacies and complexity
Beach = ???????????????????????????????????????????????

Did you catch that? What is the "beach" that we are supposed to be able to easily contrast against "the watch" (universe) to determine that "the watch" (universe) was created, while the "beach" occurred naturally?

The funny thing is, this actually posits that there is something even bigger than God which serves as the "nature" that God resides and works within. Just extrapolate all parts of the analogy to see this:

Some man made the watch, and a different man finds the watch on a natural beach.
Some god made the universe, and a man finds the universe in the natural realm of gods.

 

[Milton Platt]

Yes, God can be experienced, in more than one way. That is the difference between not knowing or caring about the markings on the watch, and, finding the watchmakers signature, so forth, on the watch. If you want to think of it that way.

So you are abandoning the watchmaker argument, then? What you experience is only valid for you. And that is an entirely different argument, so you might want to start a new thread.

 

[ERLOS]

Why? That is what the Einstein meme states. And theists say they have a concept of such a god. They did what Einstein could not.
However, Einstein believed in the god of Spinoza, which would make him a pantheist at best.

Maybe a flea has a concept of the dog it's on? But it's just a flea. Einstein and many others had that humility. That's lost now. That's all ...

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Sorry to repeat myself everybody ...

And this quote proves what to your mind?

The possibility exists that as smart as Einstein was in any way, he was still subject to spiritual whim and flights of fancy - as we ALL are.

In no way does any statement by anyone, no matter how famous, popular or unconventionally smart or wise prove that God exists and is behind the creation of the universe. That is a plain, simple, undeniable fact.

 

[Milton Platt]

Maybe a flea has a concept of the dog it's on? But it's just a flea. Rinse in and many others had that humility, that's all

Completely don't understand what you are saying here. Sorry.
He posted a meme of Einstein saying that he (Einstein) could not conceive of such a god. Theists say they have conceived of such a god. furthermore, Einstein was absolutely not a theist. He did not believe in a personal god. At best he was a pantheist like Spinoza, so the Meme does not even support the contention the one who posted it was trying to make.

 

[ERLOS]

So, in the analogy, we're supposed to draw these comparisons:

Man walking "on the beach" = any man capable of perceiving the universe
Watch = the universe perceived with all its intricacies and complexity
Beach = ???????????????????????????????????????????????

Did you catch that? What is the "beach" that we are supposed to be able to easily contrast against "the watch" (universe) to determine that "the watch" (universe) was created, while the "beach" occurred naturally?

The funny thing is, this actually posits that there is something even bigger than God which serves as the "nature" that God resides and works within. Just extrapolate all parts of the analogy to see this:

Some man made the watch, and a different man finds the watch on a natural beach.
Some god made the universe, and a man finds the universe in the natural realm of gods.

Spirit surrounds and contains and permeates Nature. No-ones saying they understand what it is or why. Why do you think people who talk about God are stupid? Einstein wasn't. Nor Newton. Nor Max Planck ...

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Maybe a flea has a concept of the dog it's on? But it's just a flea. Einstein and many others had that humility. That's lost now. That's all ...

It doesn't take humility to posit that you know something (or even hint that you know something) about the origin of the universe. I'd say it takes completely the opposite.

I realize I am nothing in the grand scheme, and I'm completely willing to admit it. I decidedly DO NOT go around asserting we're running around on the back of a dog flying through space, however.

 

[Desert Snake]

So, in the analogy, we're supposed to draw these comparisons:

Man walking "on the beach" = any man capable of perceiving the universe
Watch = the universe perceived with all its intricacies and complexity
Beach = ???????????????????????????????????????????????

Did you catch that? What is the "beach" that we are supposed to be able to easily contrast against "the watch" (universe) to determine that "the watch" (universe) was created, while the "beach" occurred naturally?

The funny thing is, this actually posits that there is something even bigger than God which serves as the "nature" that God resides and works within. Just extrapolate all parts of the analogy to see this:

Some man made the watch, and a different man finds the watch on a natural beach.
Some god made the universe, and a man finds the universe in the natural realm of gods.

If you can't figure out the analogy, I don't know what to tell you.
An argument from ignorance, not using good logic, isn't a good argument.

 

[ERLOS]

And this quote proves what to your mind?

The possibility exists that as smart as Einstein was in any way, he was still subject to spiritual whim and flights of fancy - as we ALL are.

In no way does any statement by anyone, no matter how famous, popular or unconventionally smart or wise prove that God exists and is behind the creation of the universe. That is a plain, simple, undeniable fact.

No. It can't be proved. I'm not saying it can. I'm suggesting that just perhaps there is a higher SPIRITUAL intelligence. Not hard to imagine, by now, lol ...

 

[Milton Platt]

Spirit surrounds and contains and permeates Nature. No-ones saying they understand what it is or why. Why do you think people who talk about God are stupid? Einstein wasn't. Nor Newton. Nor Max Planck ...

I don't see where the poster said people who believed in gods were stupid, so why would you post that?
Are you saying you are a pantheist? I don't come across too many of them on here.
He was saying that Einstein was human and subject to magical thinking just like rest of us. Also, it does not matter what Einstein or anyone else says about their belief in a god or gods. What matters is the evidence to support such a claim.

 

[ERLOS]

I don't see where the poster said people who believed in gods were stupid, so why would you post that?
Are you saying you are a pantheist? I don't come across too many of them on here.
He was saying that Einstein was human and subject to magical thinking just like rest of us. Also, it does not matter what Einstein or anyone else says about their belief in a god or gods. What matters is the evidence to support such a claim.

Einstein was f**king EINSTEIN, bro. Really scraping the bottom of the barrel now ...

 

[Milton Platt]

Spirit surrounds and contains and permeates Nature. No-ones saying they understand what it is or why. Why do you think people who talk about God are stupid? Einstein wasn't. Nor Newton. Nor Max Planck ...

Spirit surrounds and contains and permeates Nature. No-ones saying they understand what it is or why. Why do you think people who talk about God are stupid? Einstein wasn't. Nor Newton. Nor Max Planck ...

How do you demonstrate the existence of spirit? What are it's properties?

 

[Milton Platt]

Einstein was f**king EINSTEIN, bro. Really scraping the bottom of the barrel now ...

Yet he has been wrong. What makes him an expert on gods? In fact, when does it matter? You need evidence of the god, not someone saying they can't conceive of one.

 

[ERLOS]

Goodnight ...

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why do you think people who talk about God are stupid? Einstein wasn't. Nor Newton. Nor Max Planck ...

Let's get one thing straight first, I don't, at all, believe that people who talk about God are stupid. I believe that the ideas that a lot of them they hold are stupid. There is a difference. You think smart people never believe irrational things? Please.

Spirit surrounds and contains and permeates Nature.

So, "spirit" is the thing that is mundane when compared against the universe? Meaning that we are to look to "spirit" and contrast it against the universe in order to understand that the universe was created? Okay then... just point me in the direction of some "spirit" and we'll get this inquiry underway!

No-ones saying they understand what it is or why.

There's a good reason you can't tell me what it is or "why" - but my point isn't that at all... you STILL POSITION THESE UNEXPLAINABLE, UNKNOWABLE THINGS AS "TRUTH." That you cannot deny.

 

[Desert Snake]

So you are abandoning the watchmaker argument, then? What you experience is only valid for you. And that is an entirely different argument, so you might want to start a new thread.

The premise is defining logical equation. Now, when it comes to God, experiences are not necessarily entirely 'only valid to the experiencer'. Hence, no, and, no.
Speaking of which, why do you think an argument from ignorance, is good, if you think that experience is only valid to the individual? Wouldn't the logical argument from your stance just be, that you have no idea?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If you can't figure out the analogy, I don't know what to tell you.
An argument from ignorance, not using good logic, isn't a good argument.

Tell me what the "beach" represents... just do it. Stop trying to dodge my point and just do it. C'mon man...

 

[sealchan]

You find a watch on a deserted beach. You pick it up, and notice all the intricate parts. That's an interesting watch...

Given the limited use, rigid beauty and limited purpose of that watch amidst the grandeur that is that beach, you think "what a simple, petty creature is this watch-dropper amidst the divine creativity of Mother Nature".

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No. It can't be proved. I'm not saying it can. I'm suggesting that just perhaps there is a higher SPIRITUAL intelligence. Not hard to imagine, by now, lol ...

"Just perhaps"... well dang! Now that you put it that way - let me just go and rewire my brain to accept all the things you do and sign me up for the "good" religion (whichever one it is)!!!!!

Oh wait... hellnonotachance.

 

[Milton Platt]

The premise is defining logical equation. Now, when it comes to God, experiences are not necessarily entirely 'only valid to the experiencer'. Hence, no, and, no.
Speaking of which, why do you think an argument from ignorance, is good, if you think that experience is only valid to the individual? Wouldn't the logical argument from your stance just be, that you have no idea?

I disagree. I cannot personally experience, or critically examine your "experience".
What argument from ignorance are you referencing? I only said I cannot verify the nature of your personal experience with a god. Even if I granted it as valid, it does me no good. And if I did, what then do I do with the equivalent experiences of Hindus and Islamists?

Yes, I agree with you that from the "experiences" you may have, I can have no idea that a god exists. That one of the very reasons why I remain unconvinced that a god exists.

But if you want to start a thread based on an argument from experience, do so. It is no more valid than the watchmaker argument, as you will discover.