The universe is proof of god!

[Poppa Popobawa]

View attachment 15762

I think that little .gif destroys every version of the Cosmological Argument.

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 fob watch is a non-living thing, and cannot undergo evolution by mutation and natural selection. All but the moist ignorant of people will know in advance that fob watches are human made and designed. So folks who stumble across an ornate fob watch in the forest don't need to ask who created it, (unless they want the name and location of the maker ~ regardless it was a human being, and we know it).

I am pretty sure that the idiom: "The universe just is", is intended to be a sarcastic reflection on the laziness of the religious, who are content to answer the question: 'How did the universe come to be?' with ' "God" did it'. That is the motivation for the animated gif, which is not to be taken seriously, except as a direct reflection of the goddidit answer, which explains nothing, and so it is unanswered, doesn't yield parsimony, is not elegant simplicity, and is intellectual laziness.

Pops

 

[Lion IRC]

Fob watches are inanimate?
Really?
Are you seriously claiming they are inorganic, non-evolving, unnatural 'things' ???

 

[abaddon]

Fob watches are inanimate?
Really?
Are you seriously claiming they are inorganic, non-evolving, unnatural 'things' ???

The important part of what's being said is the trees evolved by mutation and natural selection.

We see that, unlike the watch, they in effect "made" themselves.

 

[Copernicus]

Lion is correct that a sand dune is very different from a sand sculpture. Dunes are designs that forces of nature build, whereas art forms made out of sand are designs that intelligent beings intentionally planned and executed according to plan. The problem with his argument is that very complex designs also arise in nature that are not intelligently designed. For example, termite cathedrals:



Coming across such a structure without knowing its origin, one might easily jump to the conclusion that it was as intelligently planned and designed as a human sand castle, but there are no termite designers and engineers. The "design" we see here emerged over generations of termites whose genetically-programmed nest-building behavior eventually led to populations that expanded because of the way in which their behavior serendipitously favored their survival.

Lion is just rehashing an old discredited argument known as the Argument from Design or  Teleological Argument. One of the best known metaphors to express the argument is William Paley's  Watchmaker analogy, which Richard Dawkins brilliantly refuted in his famous book,  The Blind Watchmaker.

A basic difference between intelligent designs and emergent designs is that the former tend to be much simpler and free of defects. That is because intelligent designers try to anticipate flaws and eliminate them before construction. Intelligent designs are also efficient in a way that natural designs almost never are, because the unintelligent processes that create them only remove defects after they manifest themselves. Hence, animal bodies are full of design flaws, the paradigm case of such being the incredibly bad design of the laryngeal nerve in so many species. Intelligent designs are very different from complex emergent designs.

 

[Learner]

I think we should update the watch (of a hundred or so years ago) and use a "digital watch" analogy where the working parts are "programmed".

*Edit: Or pre-programmed just as nature seems to behave, creatures like the termites that are not designers or engineers but seem to build what is sufficient to make them survive. Similar to the beehive or ants nest having similar patterns that visually looks "organised". Each insect having its unique part to function as a whole instinctively but "yet" without being logical engineers or designers in their little minds,consciously.

Non-living things i.e. sand dunes have distinct patterns of their own dependent by its properties and nature but is limited by what it can't do - other than what's expected. (particular rules for sand dunes)

 

[Copernicus]

I think we should update the watch (of a hundred or so years ago) and use a "digital watch" analogy where the working parts are "programmed".

*Edit: Or pre-programmed just as nature seems to behave, creatures like the termites that are not designers or engineers but seem to build what is sufficient to make them survive. Similar to the beehive or ants nest having similar patterns that visually looks "organised". Each insect having its unique part to function as a whole instinctively but yet without being engineers or designers in their little minds. Non-living things i.e. sand dunes have distinct patterns of their own dependent by its properties and nature but is limited by what it can't do other than what's expected.

Update it all you want. The point is that nature's designs are not the same as intelligent designs. The Watchmaker analogy is intended to arrive at the conclusion that nature's designs are intelligently designed by a deity, but we know that those designs arise by unintelligent physical interactions. Order emerges naturally in chaotic deterministic systems, so teleological explanations of design in nature fail. We don't need them.

If our bodies had arisen by intelligent design, they wouldn't have so many design flaws.

 

[Learner]

Update it all you want. The point is that nature's designs are not the same as intelligent designs. The Watchmaker analogy is intended to arrive at the conclusion that nature's designs are intelligently designed by a deity, but we know that those designs arise by unintelligent physical interactions. Order emerges naturally in chaotic deterministic systems, so teleological explanations of design in nature fail. We don't need them.

I'm sort of saying: Dawkins has that advantage over W. Paleys analogy of the 1800's by the advanced knowledge of today. He's bound to make the analogy seem flawed, which perhaps icould be a redundant argument today imo.

If our bodies had arisen by intelligent design, they wouldn't have so many design flaws.

So the claim keeps saying but so fragile are we ,that we seem to survive the harshest of environments. Or, "natural selection" hasn't worked the way we thought it ...leaving those parts in - even though we still exist.

 

[Juma]

So the claim keeps saying but so fragile are we ,that we seem to survive the harshest of environments. Or, "natural selection" hasn't worked the way we thought it ...leaving those parts in - even though we still exist.

I dont understand what you are trying to say here. ”Leaving those parts in” is exactly how we believe natural selection works.

 

[Copernicus]

Update it all you want. The point is that nature's designs are not the same as intelligent designs. The Watchmaker analogy is intended to arrive at the conclusion that nature's designs are intelligently designed by a deity, but we know that those designs arise by unintelligent physical interactions. Order emerges naturally in chaotic deterministic systems, so teleological explanations of design in nature fail. We don't need them.

I'm sort of saying: Dawkins has that advantage over W. Paleys analogy of the 1800's by the advanced knowledge of today. He's bound to make the analogy seem flawed, which perhaps icould be a redundant argument today imo.

OK, but Paley's analogy was well-known to Darwin and much on his mind when he came up with his alternative theory to explain how complex organisms came into being. Dawkins is a neo-Darwinist, so he was just updating Darwin's earlier refutation with far more evidence that has come to light since then in overwhelming support of evolution. Many Christians still reject Darwinism, but the RCC has come to reluctantly endorse a theistic version of it--"Yeah, ok, evolution, but God put his thumb on the scales. We just can't find any evidence anywhere that he did. Hence, faith is still necessary."

If our bodies had arisen by intelligent design, they wouldn't have so many design flaws.

So the claim keeps saying but so fragile are we ,that we seem to survive the harshest of environments. Or, "natural selection" hasn't worked the way we thought it ...leaving those parts in - even though we still exist.

No, you've got it exactly backwards. The flaws that exist can be pretty egregious, as is the fact that one of the branches of the laryngeal nerve in mammals is stuck underneath the aorta, which causes an asymmetry that gets really ridiculous in long-necked animals like giraffes. The thing is that those flaws do not present a serious impediment to survival, and that is why they resist getting corrected. An intelligent designer would take one look at the asymmetry and fix it, but nature is a "blind watchmaker". It doesn't think and plan. And it has no evolutionary path that would lift that nerve above the aorta in order to make the design more efficient.

So the point is that our bodies may be poorly designed, but we aren't weak. We are just fitter than alternative forms of life that we compete with for scarce resources.

 

[jab]

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.

And I already explained why Paley's argument is nonsense.

Even if we never saw a watch factory, it looks like other things we have seen manufactured in factories for other devices.

So if you want to claim that you know the universe is designed as per Paley's argument, then you still have to provide evidence of God, then provide evidence of the universe factory God uses to create universes or things so much like universes that you were able to make the logical leap from those other things to universes.

In other words, you still owe us the same level of evidence we have for the manufacture of watches.

And provide some idea of who designed God.

 

[Underseer]

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?

We know that the watch is manufactured because we have evidence of watch factories.

We know that sand-sculptures are created by human hands because we have evidence of humans creating sand sculptures.

Even if you found someone who was for some reason ignorant of the existence of watch factories, he would still be aware of other manufactured goods. So perhaps the evidence is metronome factories instead of watch factories, but the conclusion that something is manufactured still comes from evidence.

Now you have claimed that you have the same evidence for God creating the universe as we have for the manufacture of watches, so please provide evidence of the universe factory God uses to create universes. Please make sure to include photographs of various new universes at various stages of development, as this would help to prove your case.

You have made a claim. That's great. Now all you have to do is show us the god-universe equivalent of this:

So what do you have? Once you show us evidence of God making universes in His universe factory, we will admit that you are right and that we've been wrong all this time, and we can stop having this silly debate. Won't that be nice?

 

[Learner]

I dont understand what you are trying to say here. ”Leaving those parts in” is exactly how we believe natural selection works.

Or could it be a pre-mature mistake to make that suggestion, given that "natural selection " hasn't got rid of the so-called flaws? But the whole bio-system works! Perhaps like "Junk DNA" which is now thought NOT to be quite useless after all, but is still under study, I believe.

 

[Copernicus]

I dont understand what you are trying to say here. ”Leaving those parts in” is exactly how we believe natural selection works.

Or could it be a pre-mature mistake to make that suggestion, given that "natural selection " hasn't got rid of the so-called flaws? But the whole bio-system works! Perhaps like "Junk DNA" which is now thought NOT to be quite useless after all, but is still under study, I believe.

From the perspective of an evolution, nothing is a "flaw". There is no purpose or direction to evolution. Hereditary features are considered "flaws" from a human perspective when they cause an organism to have more difficulty in coping with its environment than competitors. What counts as a flaw on one day could suddenly become a valuable survival trait on the next day, if the environment suddenly changes in a way that selects for the hereditary trait in question. The only way evolution works is that environments remain stable enough for successive generations of some life forms to adapt to the changes that do occur.

 

[Learner]

From the perspective of an evolution, nothing is a "flaw". There is no purpose or direction to evolution. Hereditary features are considered "flaws" from a human perspective when they cause an organism to have more difficulty in coping with its environment than competitors. What counts as a flaw on one day could suddenly become a valuable survival trait on the next day, if the environment suddenly changes in a way that selects for the hereditary trait in question. The only way evolution works is that environments remain stable enough for successive generations of some life forms to adapt to the changes that do occur.

That is more sensible as I would say similar that what seems non-useful (flawed) could be valuable because of say; climate and seasonal and dietry changes to quickly adapt , which would be faster than to evolve (taking too long to adapt) into those changes which increases survival.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think we should update the watch

Updating the manufactured object won't save the argument until you can resolve the need to be two-faced in the evaluation.

Maybe Heisenberg it? The operation of the clock is AND is not like the operation of nature, until we decide if it's evidence for a creator.

 

[Learner]

Updating the manufactured object won't save the argument until you can resolve the need to be two-faced in the evaluation.

Well we could keep the tradition although personally I think its almost "keeping the theists back" in a manner of speaking over the analogy when we could be up to date and argue with the science you (plural) use against.

I suppose ,the resolve, I do have some limits as a layman when I say: the universe is clockwork imo to the argument. And we must note that "natural" and its processes is not soley yours (the atheist ) to claim i.e. Nature doesn't mean "not created".

As a time piece anyway , it is inferior to the "atomic" clock timing ;which is run from what is already there, naturally of course ...or as in Genesis where the Sun and Moon for example: marking time continually self perpetuating without winding. Or better - the biology that has predictable processes which has time limitations and working like clockwork too.

Maybe Heisenberg it? The operation of the clock is AND is not like the operation of nature, until we decide if it's evidence for a creator.

I made my descision from the above (for lack of better wording in the above)

 

[Coleman Smith]

I will be very happy to review any testable evidence of a deity published by members of the national Academy of Science or the equivalent organizations in Asia and Europe in peer reviewed scientific journals.

Until then I only hold the Flying Spaghetti Monster in great reverence.

 

[Learner]

Hold on to that Spaghetti beast as there is probably a long que, even for scientific papers to be reviewed. Besides... what you're happy to do.. may not happen if; the review doesn't go well with those advocates of "13.5 billion year old universes" or advocates of "man came from monkeys" etc..

 

[bilby]

Hold on to that Spaghetti beast as there is probably a long que, even for scientific papers to be reviewed. Besides... what you're happy to do.. may not happen if; the review doesn't go well with those advocates of "13.5 billion year old universes" or advocates of "man came from monkeys" etc..

Nobody I am aware of advocates "man came from monkeys". There are people who understand evolution, who can tell you (and show you hard evidence to back it) that man and monkeys share a common ancestor; And there are people who don't understand evolution, who advocate against "man came from monkeys" because they rather foolishly didn't bother to even try to understand the theory that they have decided to oppose, before starting to oppose it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In my circles, this is known as the "just look at the trees" argument.

Or a baby's smile, or sunsets, or whatever. But yeah, I've heard the trees variant a lot.

Just look at all those savage acts of predation. Look at all those horrible parasites. Look at those nasty viruses, bacteria and protozoans. Your God seems to be a rotten, sadistic bastard. Does all of these things seem to indicate a kindly, merciful, compassionate God? Or a mindless, opportunistic nature?

Actually we can dispense with the goat and start with the fart. The fart frees us from convention.