Drew_2017

[Blackleaf]

Welcome to the forums. I apologize if I come off as antagonistic, but most theists who come here do not contribute anything of intellectual value. They just come here to proselytize to us with tired arguments we've seen a million times before, often times acting arrogant like they're intellectual giants with a mission to utterly destroy our arguments left and right. So long as you prove yourself to be different, I'll respect you the way I respect our resident theist, Baruch.

As for your appeal to the watch-maker argument, there's one vital flaw in that logic. Just by pointing to an obviously man-made object, something that was clearly designed by a intelligent person, the argument implodes on itself. If nature is so obviously designed by an intelligent being, then why would man-made objects like a car stand out? The fact that they do shows that there is a difference. The reason you can't appeal to the sand on the beach is because it is not clearly intelligently designed, unlike the watch.

PS: On an unrelated note, why "Drew_2017?" Are you running for office, or is it to remind yourself how long you've been here?

[Drew_2017]

Yeah, I agree.  Why do you think a person is an atheist or a theist??

Most theists are raised theist as I was. At some point I challenged my theism and for all practical purposes was an atheist. Later looking at is as objectively as possible I concluded a Designer/Creator is a better explanation that accounts for what we can observe to factually be true (like the existence of the universe, life and so forth). Other people never question it but never have any reason to, it makes sense to them.

Most atheists I have met seem far more loathsome of religious belief and religious people than the philosophical question of whether we owe our existence to a creator or unguided naturalistic causes. The disgust of religion leads them to believe God (certainly as described by any holy writ) is false.

What do you think? Fair analysis?

[Drew_2017]

Welcome to the forums. I apologize if I come off as antagonistic, but most theists who come here do not contribute anything of intellectual value. They just come here to proselytize to us with tired arguments we've seen a million times before, often times acting arrogant like they're intellectual giants with a mission to utterly destroy our arguments left and right. So long as you prove yourself to be different, I'll respect you the way I respect our resident theist, Baruch.

As for your appeal to the watch-maker argument, there's one vital flaw in that logic. Just by pointing to an obviously man-made object, something that was clearly designed by a intelligent person, the argument implodes on itself. If nature is so obviously designed by an intelligent being, then why would man-made objects like a car stand out? The fact that they do shows that there is a difference. The reason you can't appeal to the sand on the beach is because it is not clearly intelligently designed, unlike the watch.

Thanks for the welcome I appreciate it.

I assume you are referring to the argument I posted elsewhere so I will recopy it here...

This is the evidence that persuades me of theism.

We all have the same evidence for or against the existence of God defined here as a personal intelligent agent capable of causing a universe with the conditions for life to exist. Evidence is merely facts that comport with a belief.
The following indisputable facts lead me to believe we owe our existence to an intelligent agent commonly referred to as God as opposed to the counter belief that mindless unguided forces are responsible for all we observe.

1.   The fact the universe exists
2.   The fact life exists
3.   The fact intelligent life exists
4.   The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
5.   The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
6.   The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.

These are the primary facts of our existence and one can believe these facts came into existence minus any plan, intent or designer or doubt that claim and believe it was the intentional result of a personal agent. I subscribe to the former belief. I don't care if anyone else does everyone can decide for themselves...

I don't classify this as a watch maker argument. I'm citing 6 facts and arguing these facts are better explained by a theistic explanation. I don't state theism as a fact and I don't offer this as conclusive proof but as evidence that favors my belief.

I agree as you state it the watch maker argument has weakness but not necessarily fatal. You claim that known designed contrivances that humans create are obvious compared to what is alleged to be something caused by nationalistic forces.

Let me throw out some caveats.

In fact its not always easy to detect 'naturalistic forces' from what appears to be obvious design. For example underwater sounds can sometimes sound very mechanical put prove not to be. Secondly within the laws of physics random events clearly occur and is part of the process. The slack (if you will) in between the laws of physics allow for random unguided events to occur. However its a carefully controlled chaos where incredible things can occur but not in defiance of established laws of physics. The things humans design are far more compact. We don't create on a universal level. A good example is Newton's law of universal gravitation which allows for incredible range of things to occur, the formation of stars, planets and black holes yet only within the confines of the law.

   

[Mike Cl]

Most theists are raised theist as I was. At some point I challenged my theism and for all practical purposes was an atheist. Later looking at is as objectively as possible I concluded a Designer/Creator is a better explanation that accounts for what we can observe to factually be true (like the existence of the universe, life and so forth). Other people never question it but never have any reason to, it makes sense to them.

Most atheists I have met seem far more loathsome of religious belief and religious people than the philosophical question of whether we owe our existence to a creator or unguided naturalistic causes. The disgust of religion leads them to believe God (certainly as described by any holy writ) is false.

What do you think? Fair analysis?

Interesting view.  I find that the atheists I'm come across simply find it difficult, if not impossible, to think a god or gods exist.  They simply don't see any evidence.  I have not found the 'loathsome' attitude often.  I have found most theists I've talked with to simply accept god/spiritual creator to be something that is the most likely explanation of our world and universe.

Personally, I find it matters little what individuals believe or think about god--one a one-to-one basis, we, as humans seem to be after the same things in general.  They share a desire to be left alone to live, love and play with their loved ones and friends.  What I find 'loathsome' is the religious hierarchy--the priests/minsters and all the official rules and regulations that come along with that hierarchy.  The deep desire of the religious thirst for power comes from the hierarchy.  In the end, the hierarchy always makes religion deeply dangerous and destructive.

[Baruch]

"Let me throw out some caveats."

The watchmaker argument depends on a similitude between G-d and man.  If one denies G-d, then the similitude doesn't exist, and one can attribute creation to an impersonal nature ... though this forces the atheist to assume that epiphenomenalism will "save appearances", so that the apparent self contradiction of randomness producing order, can be avoided.  There is no scientific evidence for ephiphenomenalism ... physics is the same at all scales.  In fact, at a larger scale, almost all matter is characterized as a turbulent chaos ... hard to get order from that (what little regularity chaos has, this is studied in chaos dynamics).  So the theist argument vs watchmaker contains a hidden assumption.  And the counter argument is consistent with itself, but not with reality (except by appeal to scientism, not science).  This appeal to scientism, is itself questionable, because science isn't the results of investigation, but the incrementally improved means of investigation.  The question of whether humans have any true knowledge, remains open, as philosophy remains always arguable.

A full discussion would need to be held in the science section of this blog.  BTW .. there is a whole similar situation in number theory ... number theory has aspects that mirror our theories of the physical world.  How can we tell if a sequence of integers is random or not?  Turns out there is much nuance in pseudo-randomness.  We humans can conceive of something fully random, but we can't produce an example.  A close approximation is important, it is used in cryptography.  It is possible that no purely random thing happens in the physical universe and that our mathematical notion of the purely random, is the limit of a sequence of progressively more random, pseudorandom numbers.  This matches chaos theory, turbulence isn't completely random, though it can be approximated thru statistical physics.  But chaos theory is more than that ... it has structure ... attractors and repellors.  The watchmaker argument recurs in cryptography.  How can we tell, if a pseudorandom sequence of symbols (we can number them, so this is reducible to a number sequence) is just junk or conceals a message?  There are ways to guess, or cryptanalysis would be impossible (making it as nearly impossible as possible, is the point of cryptography).

[Solomon Zorn]

Marvel Comics personified the concepts:

Lord Order and Master Chaos




So did Babylon 5:

Vorlons(Order)



Shadows(Chaos)

I'm just an uneducated hick, but it seems to me that order and chaos, are in the measuring, in the same way that light seems to be both wave and particle, depending on how we measure it. Order and chaos may be the same thing.

[Solomon Zorn]

EDIT:

Again, Uneducated Hick chiming in, but Isn't the obvious flaw in the watchmaker argument, that the watch is made primarily of metal, and that metals don't make up the majority of any life form, because they don't possess the necessary properties, to evolve, or for that matter to set the dynamo of life in motion. It's a more complex question than the analogy allows for.

It is my feeling that there is more to the nature of order than is completely understood. If life is the current end-result of order, then perhaps order does tend toward order, with respect to our small, randomly exceptional molecular base structures. That is, in the case of life and how it progresses, blindly toward greater complexity. If you observe it one way, you see random forces, and if you observe it another way, you see meticulous, high-functioning order. It's a long, slow-acting, mathematical process, of weeding out dead-end equations, over billions of years.

What if our consciousness, is just the highest level(that is known) of the experiential phenomenon of order itself? I don't know if that makes sense. Anything that exhibits the behavior, of self-actuated accessing of memory, might be called a rudimentary consciousness, because that is the foundation of experience. What if the impetus to reproduce memory strands, is the beginning of that experiential phenomenon, on a simpler level, in a way that we can't conceive? Am I talking out of my ass, or does it seem plausible?

But I recognize it, as speculation and mental masturbation. No delusions.

[Baruch]

Mental masturbation was good enough for the Greeks ;-)

Rationality and irrationality aren't opposites either ... just as chaos and order aren't opposites, as you presciently observe.

[Drew_2017]

author=Mike Cl link=topic=11251.msg1164143#msg1164143 date=1485838092]
Interesting view.  I find that the atheists I'm come across simply find it difficult, if not impossible, to think a god or gods exist.  They simply don't see any evidence.  I have not found the 'loathsome' attitude often.  I have found most theists I've talked with to simply accept god/spiritual creator to be something that is the most likely explanation of our world and universe.

We all see the same evidence the question is what belief does the evidence lead to. Atheists (IMHO) see the evidence, it just doesn't persuade them a Creator caused it. 

Suppose there was no universe at all...the claim there is no evidence of a Creator would actually be true. Suppose there was a universe but with no laws governing the universe and it was utter chaos and lifeless. One could still propose a Creator caused it but it was a test universe not ready for prime time. What we have is a universe with seemingly inviolable laws of physics in a narrow range that allowed for the existence of stars, planets solar systems life and even intelligent life. Evidence is merely a fact the comports with a belief. Atheists can claim there is no evidence that persuades them but they are whistling Dixie if they claim there is no evidence to support theistic belief.

Personally, I find it matters little what individuals believe or think about god--one a one-to-one basis, we, as humans seem to be after the same things in general.  They share a desire to be left alone to live, love and play with their loved ones and friends.  What I find 'loathsome' is the religious hierarchy--the priests/minsters and all the official rules and regulations that come along with that hierarchy.  The deep desire of the religious thirst for power comes from the hierarchy.  In the end, the hierarchy always makes religion deeply dangerous and destructive.

That sounds very cynical and a terribly sweeping generalization. There are many groups motivated by religious belief that go to the ends of the earth to provide food, shelter and medicine to the poor. Look at how many hospitals in the USA were created or run by religious organizations many of whom treat the poor free of charge. There is some truth to your claim and many terrible things have been done under the banner of religious belief as well as many benevolent things. 

[aitm]

There is some truth to your claim and many terrible things have been done under the banner of religious belief as well as many benevolent things. 

True, but one must admit that it is easier to be a benefactor when you have conquered the minions. Religions, most of them, were spread by the sword, and afterwards did the benevolence come to be.  Once you are the overlord, it becomes a necessity to ensure the little people are as enthused about your correct religion as you are so they can bask in your generosity. A little self serving but thats okay, they had to kill alot of people to get that right.

[Mike Cl]

Evidence is merely a fact the comports with a belief. Atheists can claim there is no evidence that persuades them but they are whistling Dixie if they claim there is no evidence to support theistic belief.

A fact is something that does not need a belief to support it.  Belief is saying something is real without any facts to back it up.  I don't 'claim' there is no evidence to support theist beliefs--I just flat out say it.  And never will I be singing or whistling dixie.   Show me one fact that supports any of your beliefs.

[Mike Cl]

That sounds very cynical and a terribly sweeping generalization. There are many groups motivated by religious belief that go to the ends of the earth to provide food, shelter and medicine to the poor. Look at how many hospitals in the USA were created or run by religious organizations many of whom treat the poor free of charge. There is some truth to your claim and many terrible things have been done under the banner of religious belief as well as many benevolent things.

I am not saying that religious people or even some religious organizations don't do good things.  Of course they do.  But the hierarchy that supports that is also very cruel and dangerous.  Christians have judged groups as evil from day one and persecuted them--starting with the Jews.  It is simply a classic 'us vs them' in action.   I have read the argument that without religious people and organizations good things for society would not happen.  I suggest that if all religions were to evaporate, the good would continue.  People are people and generally are fairly generous in helping those in need.  Religion is not needed.

[Poison Tree]

Welcome.

God defined here as a personal intelligent agent [. . .] a personal agent.

What do you mean by "personal" 

5.   The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range

Exactly how far can these characteristics vary, both inside and outside the range necessary for . . . ?

that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.

Why does it need to be "life as we know it"? Would some unknown form of life throw a wrench into everything?

Suppose [. . .]

Suppose there is a universe containing only a Personal Intelligent Agent [here after PIA] capable of creating a universe with stable, intelligible laws allowing for the formation of planets, stars and life (as we know it)--a situation which, I submit, must have existed prior to any such PIA being able to create the present universe. What should we infer from the existence of that PIA?

Could the PIA create a universe with "several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range" to disallow "life as we know it" and/or "planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies"? Could PIA create a universe without knowable, uniform, predictable laws of nature? Could PIA have not created any universe at all? If "no", why not? If "yes" then how would the existence of our actual universe be evidence of PIA as opposed to any universe supposed by you or I?

Using the same line of reasoning that lead you to conclude that a PIA is necessary to explain the existence of the universe and life, what is necessary to explain the existence of PIA?

[Drew_2017]

True, but one must admit that it is easier to be a benefactor when you have conquered the minions. Religions, most of them, were spread by the sword, and afterwards did the benevolence come to be.  Once you are the overlord, it becomes a necessity to ensure the little people are as enthused about your correct religion as you are so they can bask in your generosity. A little self serving but thats okay, they had to kill alot of people to get that right.

For the record I'm a philosophical theist. Secondly not all religions teach benevolence so lets not group all religions in the same bucket.

I don't dispute what you say but I will add some caveats for thought. You seem to be asserting a standard of human behavior as if some known standard actually exists. If we owe our existence to mechanistic forces that didn't care about our existence and never intended us to exist then any standard of human behavior is merely an opinion and there is no real right and wrong. Only theistic belief provides a philosophical platform to assert standards of behavior. In order for your complaint to have any merit there has to be an actual standard of behavior to measure by. Where do you get such a standard from?

[Drew_2017]

A fact is something that does not need a belief to support it.  Belief is saying something is real without any facts to back it up.  I don't 'claim' there is no evidence to support theist beliefs--I just flat out say it.  And never will I be singing or whistling dixie.   Show me one fact that supports any of your beliefs.

No that is not belief, belief generally occurs due to facts. If an employee of mine shows up on time for work every time I can observe her I have reason to believe she shows up on time when I'm not there. You see how the facts leads to the belief?

Not only do I believe they're facts that support theistic belief, I claim there is a preponderance of evidence that leads to that conclusion.

1.   The fact the universe exists
2.   The fact life exists
3.   The fact intelligent life exists
4.   The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
5.   The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
6.   The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.

If none of these facts were true your claim there is no evidence in favor of theism would actually be true.