God and the Argument from Design

[Trek]

Yes it does. Which manufacturer built that car? The God named "Evolution" also builds stuff and keeps improving it and I have not read anywhere that "in the beginning" God created cars along with the universe.​

​

The Blind Watchmaker​

The Blind Watchmaker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

Check out Newton's Law of Motion.​

Newton’s Laws of Motion | Glenn Research Center | NASA

Sir Isaac Newton’s laws of motion explain the relationship between a physical object and the forces acting upon it. Understanding this information provides us with the basis of modern physics. What are Newton’s Laws of Motion? An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in...

www1.grc.nasa.gov

p.s. Have you ever considered what keeps YOU alive? It isn't God. It's bacteria!​

Suppose an undiscovered primitive society with no knowledge of western civilisation, or peoples outside their own society, no knowledge of any western technology cut open a fish and find a small ladies watch inside, an object they have never even imagined let alone seen before. Absolutely 100% no idea.

Knowing what we know, would it be unreasonable if one faction of that society assumed it was intelligently created based on the intricate design, symmetry, and material?

And would it be reasonable, given what we know, to assume it could, given enough time, be a product of nature?

 

[exchemist]

Suppose an undiscovered primitive society with no knowledge of western civilisation, or peoples outside their own society, no knowledge of any western technology cut open a fish and find a small ladies watch inside, an object they have never even imagined let alone seen before. Absolutely 100% no idea.

Knowing what we know, would it be unreasonable if one faction of that society assumed it was intelligently created based on the intricate design, symmetry, and material?

And would it be reasonable, given what we know, to assume it could, given enough time, be a product of nature?

I'm a little unsure what you are arguing here. This looks like a straight replay of Paley's tired old "Argument from Design". I do hope it is not, as I can hardly believe from your posts up to now that you can be so naïve.

We do of course see intricate order in the world around us but, if we know any science, we also know that such order can and does arise naturally, from the operation of the laws of nature. As a chemist I am familiar with the way in which randomness at the atomic or molecular level leads to highly ordered behaviour at the macro scale, via the operation of statistical thermodynamics, and the natural appearance of highly ordered structures - in crystals for example - by the operation of quantum theory and electrostatics.

So if one wants to invoke a creator, one has to look, not to the "design" of natural objects, but to the putative "design" of those laws of nature.

By the way, how much science have you learned? Degree level? High school?

 

[Trek]

I'm a little unsure what you are arguing here.

Not an argument. Just a question.

This looks like a straight replay of Paley's tired old "Argument from Design". I do hope it is not, as I can hardly believe from your posts up to now that you can be so naïve.

lol! Sorry I don’t meet your knowledge of information requirement, but I wasn’t aware a degree in any of the sciences was a requirement on these forums.

Yes I suppose you could say it is a rehash of Paleys great argument from design. But this time in case you didn’t notice, I put us, in the west, in the position of knowing the origin.

We do of course see intricate order in the world around us but, if we know any science, we also know that such order can and does arise naturally, from the operation of the laws of nature.

So you’re saying it’s possible that a small ladies watch could arise purely from nature, without the aid of any intelligence agency?

Do you think the intelligent design faction of my hypothetical scenario, given what you and I actually know, have reasonable grounds, for the reasons I gave, to make the assumption that the watch was indeed created by an intelligent agent?

And what grounds to you think the faction who believe it came about through natural causes have to think it was caused in that way?

Once again, sorry to be such a dumbass.
But I would be very interested in your opinion given that have real knowledge of science

So if one wants to invoke a creator, one has to look, not to the "design" of natural objects, but to the putative "design" of those laws of nature.

Huh!
Who is invoking anything?
It is based purely on observation.
We are allowed to think freely last I looked.
Also remember the truth is already known by those that posses the knowledge.

 

[exchemist]

Not an argument. Just a question.

lol! Sorry I don’t meet your knowledge of information requirement, but I wasn’t aware a degree in any of the sciences was a requirement on these forums.

Yes I suppose you could say it is a rehash of Paleys great argument from design. But this time in case you didn’t notice, I put us, in the west, in the position of knowing the origin.

So you’re saying it’s possible that a small ladies watch could arise purely from nature, without the aid of any intelligence agency?

Do you think the intelligent design faction of my hypothetical scenario, given what you and I actually know, have reasonable grounds, for the reasons I gave, to make the assumption that the watch was indeed created by an intelligent agent?

And what grounds to you think the faction who believe it came about through natural causes have to think it was caused in that way?

Once again, sorry to be such a dumbass.
But I would be very interested in your opinion given that have real knowledge of science


Huh!
Who is invoking anything?
It is based purely on observation.
We are allowed to think freely last I looked.
Also remember the truth is already known by those that posses the knowledge.

This response seems a bit all over the place. I have obviously not suggested that a degree in science is a requirement to post in this forum. Your reaction seems strangely touchy. I have merely suggested that to anyone with some knowledge of science, it is ridiculous to think that highly ordered structures in nature are evidence of "design". Science is devoted to uncovering how such orderly behaviours and structures can be accounted for by natural means, i.e. not by "design". So your apparent resort to the Paley's watch analogy (or non-analogy) made me wonder how familiar you are with science, hence my question - which you have not answered, by the way.

As for this stuff about thinking freely, who is attempting to prevent that? People can think what they like. But sometimes, people make errors in their thinking, for a variety of reasons, often involving lack of relevant knowledge. In fact the concept of "design" in nature is wholly unscientific. This is one of a number of fundamental errors in the so-called "Intelligent Design movement. There is no way to determine whether any given structure in nature can be said to be "designed". So it's a useless idea, at least from the standpoint of science.

 

[Trek]

This response seems a bit all over the place.

I apologise, I was being sarcastic

 

[Pinball1970]

Knowing what we know, would it be unreasonable if one faction of that society assumed it was intelligently created based on the intricate design, symmetry, and material?

And would it be reasonable, given what we know, to assume it could, given enough time, be a product of nature?

What are both getting at from different angles is that we have moved on from Paley and understand the difference between design and designoid.

Life on earth evolved and this has been demonstrated, mountains are not designed they form from natural processes, as do rivers and river banks.

Snow flakes under a microscope look like designed patterns but we know they are not designed, they form naturally from known processes.

Same with moons, planets stars and galaxies.

The more we find out about nature the universe the less places we can shoe horn in a designer.

 

[Write4U]

So you’re saying it’s possible that a small ladies watch could arise purely from nature, without the aid of any intelligence agency?

IMO, anything man-made rests on the observation of natural processes.

Timer uses in biology

Cellular clocks are found throughout biology and operate over a vast range of timescales to control activities ranging from cell-autonomous processes such as mitotic timing to broad organismal changes such as developmental patterning. The pervasiveness of timer usage by cells serves as a testament to how clocks help biological systems become more efficient, diverse, and robust. Below, we explore how cellular clocks offer unique solutions to a variety of biological problems.

Keeping track of time: The fundamentals of cellular clocks - PMC

Gliech and Holland discuss the guiding design principles of biological clocks across a variety of model systems.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

What is the source of watch time?​

Since time immemorial, humans have discovered that certain natural phenomena occur regularly at regular intervals. For example, night changes to day as the sun moves across the sky, giving people the first awareness of the passage of time.

When coherent daily life scenarios such as hunting, harvesting, eating, sleeping, and socializing naturally follow the laws of the sun, the human desire to measure time also arises.

An early time-recording instrument.

Astronomers are usually deeply interested in the watchmaking industry. Galileo first noticed the timing characteristics of the pendulum, which is the prototype of the “balance wheel”. Mechanical clocks appeared in Europe in the fourteenth century, although precise timekeeping was still difficult to achieve.

The invention of the pendulum clock in 1656 by Dutch astronomer and physicist Christiaan Huygens marked a major breakthrough in precise timekeeping. Since then, astronomy and horology have developed simultaneously, interdependent and complementary.

A modern tme-recording instrument.

For thousands of years, various instruments that reproduce astronomical cycles have been developed, allowing scientists to gain insight into various astronomical phenomena. Introduced in Greek times, the astrolabe was used more widely from the eighth century onwards, depicting the universe on the plane of a hand-held model. Astrological charts allowed early astronomers to calculate the relationships between various cosmic objects and were used in astronomy, astrology, navigation, and religion.

more.....https://medium.com/@zjudy82333/what-is-the-source-of-watch-time-ad3a41be741f

 

[exchemist]

I apologise, I was being sarcastic

OK, but what was your object in bringing up this thing about the watch, then? A watch is a product of human design. We recognise that because we know it’s the sort of thing human society makes. Same goes for clay pots dug up in archaeology. They are clearly human artifacts.

 

[Trek]

O

OK, but what was your object in bringing up this thing about the watch, then? A watch is a product of human design. We recognise that because we know it’s the sort of thing human society makes. Same goes for clay pots dug up in archaeology. They are clearly human artifacts.

We know it is a product of human design, but to somebody who doesn’t know that, will naturally assume that without the need for rigorous study, and unless you have a reason to doubt that as reasonable, it is not unreasonable to make that assumption.

In the same way when we see such complexity, symmetry, beauty within nature it is not unreasonable to assume a designer. Especially as there is nothing to rival that even after all the science.

 

[Pinball1970]

O

We know it is a product of human design, but to somebody who doesn’t know that, will naturally assume that without the need for rigorous study, and unless you have a reason to doubt that as reasonable, it is not unreasonable to make that assumption.

In the same way when we see such complexity, symmetry, beauty within nature it is not unreasonable to assume a designer. Especially as there is nothing to rival that even after all the science.

Yes we can assume that but we would be wrong in our assumption.

 

[Trek]

Yes we can assume that but we would be wrong in our assumption.

Why?

 

[Pinball1970]

Why?

Because nature and in fact everything in the universe evolves both literally and metaphorically.
Life on earth was not designed, it did not appear one day, people were not created they evolved, this is a fact. So we would be wrong to assume they were created or designed.
The universe, our galaxy, solar system has also evolved but metaphorically not biologically.
Changed over time, it did not appear suddenly one day in a creation event. This is also a fact and there is a mountain of data bearing on it so absolutely yes, we would be wrong to assume that.

 

[Trek]

Because nature and in fact everything in the universe evolves both literally and metaphorically.
Life on earth was not designed, it did not appear one day, people were not created they evolved, this is a fact. So we would be wrong to assume they were created or designed.
The universe, our galaxy, solar system has also evolved but metaphorically not biologically.
Changed over time, it did not appear suddenly one day in a creation event. This is also a fact and there is a mountain of data bearing on it so absolutely yes, we would be wrong to assume that.

You’ve proved God does not exist!

 

[foghorn]

You’ve proved God does not exist!

No, but science has shown a model of the universe, built from observation and reasoning, has no need for a creator.

 

[Pinball1970]

You’ve proved God does not exist!

No, I have demonstrated there is, "No need of that hypothesis" for certain phenomena.
They are now explained by natural process.

 

[Trek]

No, I have demonstrated there is, "No need of that hypothesis" for certain phenomena.
They are now explained by natural process.

In my hypothesis it could be argued that there is no need for a creator. But those of us who know. Know.

 

[Pinball1970]

In my hypothesis it could be argued that there is no need for a creator. But those of us who know. Know.

That's not really saying anything.
Speciation is documented in 1000s of papers.

Star formation is documented and is actually observed so there absolutely is no creation.

These are scientific facts.

 

[C C]

In my hypothesis it could be argued that there is no need for a creator. But those of us who know. Know.

Granting that the designer of a simulated reality -- that's capable of running on its own after activation (Deist scenario) -- would occasionally break the instituted barrier between the two worlds, by delivering a private enlightenment to this or that chosen inhabitant in the simulation...

There is still the problem that Paine addresses below. Those who accept a second-hand communication will only be doing so because they are either gullible or exploitive of fads, or because they're very prone to imagination and speciously deem themselves likewise receptive to the same revelation. The "chosen" is unable to deliver his/her/their private evidence to the vigilant crowd possessing high cognitive standards, many of which will dismiss him/her/they as simply being off their rocker or a profiteering con-artist.

• Thomas Paine: Age of Reason
  

  Thomas Paine: Age of Reason

  Full text of Thomas Paine's --Age of Reason--

  www.ushistory.org
  
  EXCERPT: Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.
  
  No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.
  
  It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

Even if _X_ revelation was channeled to multiple individuals, who are also directed to seek each other out and form a club or cult... The situation would still consist of a limited core group that merely attract credulous, opportunistic, or mimicking-delusional people.

I mean, it's "great" for the small club of chosen that they know better, but the rest of the world does not receive adequate evidence to support the thought orientation.
_

 

[exchemist]

O

We know it is a product of human design, but to somebody who doesn’t know that, will naturally assume that without the need for rigorous study, and unless you have a reason to doubt that as reasonable, it is not unreasonable to make that assumption.

In the same way when we see such complexity, symmetry, beauty within nature it is not unreasonable to assume a designer. Especially as there is nothing to rival that even after all the science.

This sounds now like an argument that, to someone without science knowledge, these things in nature may appear designed. People like Paley. No doubt that may be so.

 

[Write4U]

In the same way when we see such complexity, symmetry, beauty within nature it is not unreasonable to assume a designer. Especially as there is nothing to rival that even after all the science.

Yes there is.