The watchmaker

[ImmortalFlame]

That an atheist is making an analogy to avoid dealing with the question.

Actually, it's an expansion of the analogy that points out the absurdity of it. The watchmaker argument is so fundamentally flawed, I don't even think it can be called an "argument". It's more like the watchmaker's fallacy.

 

[godnotgod]

It's about cause, not mechanism..

OTOH, if it is all a Grand Illusion, as the Hindus tell us, 'cause' is not a factor, because there is nothing actually there. It's just a dream, and we need to awaken to see things as they actually are: Unconditioned, Uncaused, Unborn, Unchanging, and empty of self through and through.

“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.”
Kalu Rinpoche

 

[ERLOS]

OTOH, if it is all a Grand Illusion, as the Hindus tell us, 'cause' is not a factor, because there is nothing actually there. It's just a dream, and we need to awaken to see things as they actually are: Unconditioned, Uncaused, Unborn, Unchanging, and empty of self through and through.

“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.”
Kalu Rinpoche

Ok. But THIS universe came into being 13.7 billion years ago. All matter is composed of (as you say) patterns of energy and energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

All the energy which now fills the perceivable universe (as matter, light and so on) as well as the other 96% of the (dark) energy and matter -- came into existence in less than a zillionth of a zillosecond from an infinitely small singularity that can't even be described as tiny.

This happened out of nowhere, because there was no time or space preceding it. It went on to organise itself through a wonderful process of -- yes -- pure chance to become the universe we inhabit.

No sarcasm intended. The Big Bang mechanism is universally accepted. The Standard Model WORKS and all credit to the brilliance of the many who have contributed.

But whatever method scientists try to employ to 'define' the energy comprising the perceivable 4% of the universe as a mere mathematical detritus, let alone the remaining 96%, they havent really a clue about it.

The latest scientific argument in support of all this is the theory of 'naturalness' which essentially says: Well, we don't know yet, but we will.

Yet I'm to be regarded as stupid and ignorant for suggesting there may be a higher power at work somewhere out there?

Otherwise we have to conclude that in the absence of discovering some clever aliens, that man is the highest intelligence in the universe?

Then read back through some of the comments on this thread, lol ...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Everyone's going on about a beach and deliberately wilfully ignoring Einstein's original statement (already posted twice above) which is the origin of the watchmaker debate and makes no mention of a beach.

William Paley, not Albert Einstein:

https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/paley.shtml

 

[ERLOS]

William Paley, not Albert Einstein:

https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/paley.shtml

Good to know and thank you. But Einstein expressed the true sense of it better, imo.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually, it's an expansion of the analogy that points out the absurdity of it. The watchmaker argument is so fundamentally flawed, I don't even think it can be called an "argument". It's more like the watchmaker's fallacy.

No offense, but you are absolutely wrong. It is true of everything so much that no scientist ever says x is random on a macro level, but rather, "we don't yet know the natural processes that designed X".

It is also absolutely true that you would never see a wristwatch and assume it evolved. You simply extrapolate that organic life evolved because this fits your worldview.

 

[HonestJoe]

Yet I'm to be regarded as stupid and ignorant for suggesting there may be a higher power at work somewhere out there?

You shouldn’t be regarded as stupid and ignorant for suggesting there may be some form of higher power at work. The issues come up if you start treating it as anything more than a vague possibility of a generic concept before establishing a working hypothesis, let alone presenting any evidence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No offense, but you are absolutely wrong. It is true of everything so much that no scientist ever says x is random on a macro level, but rather, "we don't yet know the natural processes that designed X".

How does that even remotely relate to the watchmaker fallacy?

It is also absolutely true that you would never see a wristwatch and assume it evolved.

But the point is that the only reason we don't is because we already know and have directly observed watches being designed. If you suddenly encountered a watch-bearing tree, you would now know differently. The point is that the only thing that allows us to determine a watches origin is not its "complexity" or "design", but the fact that we observe watches being designed by humans and have no examples of nature producing them. To render the fallacy even more ridiculous, all you have to do is remember how much more complex a tree is than a watch, and you realize that the only reason the watch is used in the analogy in the first place isn't because of its complexity (because nature produces things far more complex), but because we already know it's designed, so it's a convenient go-to if you want to trick people into thinking design is an inherent facet of nature.

You simply extrapolate that organic life evolved because this fits your worldview.

No, it's because it fits the facts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Good to know and thank you. But Einstein expressed the true sense of it better, imo.

That Einstein quote you gave on the first page? It's pretty useless, IMO.

"I see a clock?" Well, I don't. Where does that leave us?

"...but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God[?]" - IOW, "the cause of this 'clock' is inconceivable to us, but I'll slap the label 'God' on it as if I know what it is."

 

[ERLOS]

That Einstein quote you gave on the first page? It's pretty useless, IMO.

"I see a clock?" Well, I don't. Where does that leave us?

"...but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God[?]" - IOW, "the cause of this 'clock' is inconceivable to us, but I'll slap the label 'God' on it as if I know what it is."

You don't see a universe? God is just a word. You can call it marmalade if you like. Makes no difference to the meaning?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You don't see a universe?

I don't see a clockwork universe.

God is just a word. You can call it marmalade if you like. Makes no difference to the meaning?

How about describing the cause of the universe with the more honest "I don't know?"

 

[ERLOS]

I don't see a clockwork universe.


How about describing the cause of the universe with the more honest "I don't know?"

Well, we might meet somewhere around here. I do agree that the watch analogy as presented by Mr Palin is pretty dodgy and easy to destroy. Thanks for the information.

I also agree completely with 'I don't know.' Although my opinion and reason obviously leans towards an intelligent first-cause, shall we say?

Unfortunately there are fanaticists on both sides of the fence who make it difficult for ordinary reasonable people to be heard.

That said, the watchmaker debate should be about the spirit of it and not nitpicking the words and terms in which it is presented? Imo.

Regards

 

[nPeace]

You weren't very smart ...

Of course not. I give you an A++.

 

[ERLOS]

Of course not. I give you an A++.

You could've skinned the rabbit and cooked it for supper, with gravy and potatoes. What a waste ...

 

[ChristineM]

Good to know and thank you. But Einstein expressed the true sense of it better, imo.

Einstein on god

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this,”

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it"

 

[nPeace]

You could've skinned the rabbit and cooked it for supper, with gravy and potatoes. What a waste ...

Oh man. Now you've gone and made me feel stupider.
Are you getting a kick out of this.

But wait...
No. I might have killed the only ancestor to millions of life forms.
Ah. Now I feel better.

 

[ERLOS]

Einstein on god

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this,”

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it"

'God doesn't play dice with thd universe.'
He didn't say that?

His 'clockmaker' quote is a fake?

 

[ChristineM]

Ok. But THIS universe came into being 13.7 billion years ago. All matter is composed of (as you say) patterns of energy and energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

All the energy which now fills the perceivable universe (as matter, light and so on) as well as the other 96% of the (dark) energy and matter -- came into existence in less than a zillionth of a zillosecond from an infinitely small singularity that can't even be described as tiny.

This happened out of nowhere, because there was no time or space preceding it. It went on to organise itself through a wonderful process of -- yes -- pure chance to become the universe we inhabit.

No sarcasm intended. The Big Bang mechanism is universally accepted. The Standard Model WORKS and all credit to the brilliance of the many who have contributed.

But whatever method scientists try to employ to 'define' the energy comprising the perceivable 4% of the universe as a mere mathematical detritus, let alone the remaining 96%, they havent really a clue about it.

The latest scientific argument in support of all this is the theory of 'naturalness' which essentially says: Well, we don't know yet, but we will.

Yet I'm to be regarded as stupid and ignorant for suggesting there may be a higher power at work somewhere out there?

Otherwise we have to conclude that in the absence of discovering some clever aliens, that man is the highest intelligence in the universe?

Then read back through some of the comments on this thread, lol ...

Just one latest argument
https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207

Another latest argument, it seems cosmologists / astrophysicsts have located about 50% of the missing matter
https://www.theguardian.com/science...nd-half-of-the-missing-matter-in-the-universe

 

[ERLOS]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein


Religious beliefs
Einstein used many labels to describe his religious views, including "agnostic",[5]"religious nonbeliever"[3] and a "pantheistic"[9]believer in "Spinoza's God".[2] Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.

 

[ERLOS]

Just one latest argument
https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207

Another latest argument, it seems cosmologists / astrophysicsts have located about 50% of the missing matter
https://www.theguardian.com/science...nd-half-of-the-missing-matter-in-the-universe

The first is a paper submitted to Cornell University. No reviews. Doesn't mean a thing. All sorts of people post all sorts of papers. I can submit one. Doesn't mean anything at all.

The second is still out there. Let's wait and see ...

If they have, good, well done.