The problem is that folks who stumble across an ornate fob watch in the forest don't like being told not to ask who created it and how it got there. And they certainly don't like being told there's no design intent or purpose behind a watch.
What is the fob watch doing? Tic toc tic toc tic toc.....
Hmmm?
ETA
Remember how annoying it was as a child when you asked a question and some lazy adult, who couldn't be bothered, answered you with the words..."just because"?
Thats Occams Razor.
Unanswered, avoided questions don't yield parsimony.
Saying..."it just is" - that's not elegant simplicity. That's intellectual laziness. (Or being gutless)
The problem is that folks who stumble across an ornate fob watch in the forest don't like being told not to ask who created it and how it got there. And they certainly don't like being told there's no design intent or purpose behind a watch.
What is the fob watch doing? Tic toc tic toc tic toc.....
Hmmm?
ETA
Remember how annoying it was as a child when you asked a question and some lazy adult, who couldn't be bothered, answered you with the words..."just because"?
Thats Occams Razor.
Unanswered, avoided questions don't yield parsimony.
Saying..."it just is" - that's not elegant simplicity. That's intellectual laziness. (Or being gutless)
If a child asks his father how a magician made a dove disappear, and the father replies, “It’s
magic,” we would hardly accept this as an explanation. Yet the theist attempts the same kind of
maneuver. To his own question, “How do we explain natural phenomena?” the theist replies, “It’s
supernatural”—which, when translated, means: “It’s unknowable.”
Just as “magic” is not an explanation, so the “supernatural” is not an explanation, but is a
concession that no explanation is possible. Because the concept of god has absolutely no
explanatory power, it can never be inferred from nature as an explanation for natural phenomena.
If, as the theist claims, the existence of the universe (or some aspect of it) requires an explanation,
the positing of a supernatural being does not provide it.
The problem is that folks who stumble across an ornate fob watch in the forest don't like being told not to ask who created it and how it got there.
What in the universe was designed? We have natural processes that give creation to all sorts of things in the universe.And they certainly don't like being told there's no design intent or purpose behind a watch.
What is the fob watch doing? Tic toc tic toc tic toc.....
Next time we see a clock in space ticking, we'll keep your observation in mind.Hmmm?
Neither does language equal science.ETA
Remember how annoying it was as a child when you asked a question and some lazy adult, who couldn't be bothered, answered you with the words..."just because"?
Thats Occams Razor.
Unanswered, avoided questions don't yield parsimony.
I think a kettle would object to that statement.Saying..."it just is" - that's not elegant simplicity. That's intellectual laziness. (Or being gutless)
I love the 'watch in the wild' thought experiment.What in the universe was designed? We have natural processes that give creation to all sorts of things in the universe.And they certainly don't like being told there's no design intent or purpose behind a watch.
.
Now consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be
demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish
between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to
the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim
that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between
artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it
is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step
beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature
is the result of conscious planning.
P1: God is defined as a being who creates universes.
P2: The universe exists.
C1: Therefore, God exists.
If A then B.
A.
Therefore, B
If the universe was created, then a god exists.
The universe was created.
Therefore, a god exists.
The problem with the Paley's Watchmaker metaphor is that it depends on one's ability to distinguish engineered from natural objects
The problem with the Paley's Watchmaker metaphor is that it depends on one's ability to distinguish engineered from natural objects
I'm sorry you find that a "problem"
Paley would argue that it's precisely our ability to do so which leads to unavoidable why questions.
The universe a vast arena of relatively empty space. Like a watch, the universe does consist of lots of moving objects. However, unlike a watch, nothing in the universe has a specific purpose and isn't expendable. If one were to arbitrarily remove an entire galaxy, there would be an interruption to the equilibrium, however, the surrounding galaxies would adjust naturally and find a new equilibrium.The problem with the Paley's Watchmaker metaphor is that it depends on one's ability to distinguish engineered from natural objects
I'm sorry you find that a "problem"
Paley would argue that it's precisely our ability to do so which leads to unavoidable why questions.
The problem with the Paley's Watchmaker metaphor is that it depends on one's ability to distinguish engineered from natural objects
I'm sorry you find that a "problem"
Paley would argue that it's precisely our ability to do so which leads to unavoidable why questions.
The problem with the Paley's Watchmaker metaphor is that it depends on one's ability to distinguish engineered from natural objects. However, the ultimate conclusion is that there are no natural objects at all. So, if the conclusion is correct, then it basically eats itself into oblivion. Everything that we encounter has been intelligently engineered. So the question is--what motivates that gut feeling that human-engineered products are different from natural objects?
The problem with the Paley's Watchmaker metaphor is that it depends on one's ability to distinguish engineered from natural objects
I'm sorry you find that a "problem"
Paley would argue that it's precisely our ability to do so which leads to unavoidable why questions.
Like "If nature is designed, why do we immediately spot the difference between a designed object and the nature that surrounds it"?
The problem with the Paley's Watchmaker metaphor is that it depends on one's ability to distinguish engineered from natural objects
I'm sorry you find that a "problem"
Paley would argue that it's precisely our ability to do so which leads to unavoidable why questions.
article said:The Atlantic Portuguese man o' war (Physalia physalis), also known as the man-of-war or floating terror, is a marinehydrozoan of the family Physaliidae found in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. Its venomous long tentacles deliver a painful sting, which is venomous and powerful enough to kill fish or (rarely) humans. Despite its appearance, the Portuguese man o' war is not a true jellyfish but a siphonophore, which is not actually a single multicellular organism (true jellyfish are single organisms), but a colonial organism made up of specialized individual animals (of the same species) called zooids or polyps. These polyps are attached to one another and physiologically integrated, to the extent that they cannot survive independently, and therefore have to work together and function like an individual animal.
Like "If nature is designed, why do we immediately spot the difference between a designed object and the nature that surrounds it"?
Amazing you can't see the lack of logic in your thinking.Lion.
Like "If nature is designed, why do we immediately spot the difference between a designed object and the nature that surrounds it"?
Amazing you can't see the lack of logic in your thinking.Lion.
If I couldn't distinguish between this...
View attachment 15845
And this...
View attachment 15844
Then you would have a point.
Can we legitimately say to William Paley that the fob watch evolved and is there in the forest by pure chance?