left biblioblography: WHERE OH WHERE, HAS THE WATCHMAKER GONE?

Saturday, February 18, 2006

WHERE OH WHERE, HAS THE WATCHMAKER GONE?

The title here is about the Intelligent Design concept of Paley’s Watchmaker analogy (little known factoid here: Paley actually borrowed the metaphor from Cicero, no less, and it had been used sporadically throughout the ages).

Information on Paley can be found here, the Watchmaker analogy can be found here.

I won’t go into detail about all the problems with this particular theory, such as infinite regression, or the poorer examples of design in nature. These have been dealt with sufficiently, by others far more eloquent and smarter than myself.

No, I’m going to attempt to hamstring the damn thing (it’s only a concept, so I can be as brutal as I like), by pointing out a huge deficiency in the theory.

Creators are bound by the same laws as their creations.

Bear with me here: I can keep this simple.

An architect needs design a building according to specifications. Read: laws of physics. More often than not, the building itself will go upwards. The shape of said building can vary widely, but it would be a foolish builder indeed, to hoist a skyscraper into the sky in the shape of a sail (especially in, say, Chicago, the windy city). It could be done, theoretically, but the cost would be enormous. There are of course other factors brought into consideration: cost, materials, foundation (location, location, location is apparently not restricted to retailers), earthquake safety regulations (in any area prone to such variables), etc.

But of course, the law of gravity comes first.

The point here is simple enough: every watch made by a human is restricted by the same laws the creator of said device is prone to. Heat, leverage, gravity (have I mentioned gravity yet? Sorry), pressure, in short, long laundry lists of physical law. Oh, and of course, time.

If you throw the watchmaker and the watch off the Empire State building, not only will they fall at approximately the same rate, the end result will be remarkably similar on impact: the insides will go everywhere. One will be more liquid, but both will come apart at the seams.

Likewise, the creator will eventually wear out. As will the watch (though the latter may last somewhat longer, contingent on its design, how often it needs to be wound, when the battery wears out, etc).

Having dealt with this sufficiently, let’s look now at how the world is built.

For most (not all) living organisms, the structure is fairly clear. Since we are allegedly ‘created’ in god’s image, let us for the nonce restrict ourselves to that particular comparison.

The child is born, and grows. The parent raises the child. The child becomes an adult, and eventually supersedes the parent, due to the effect of old age, gravity, erosion, call it what you will. The parent dies, replaced by the child. And so the cycle continues: The child becomes a parent, and again, infancy, childhood, maturation, reproduction, death, unless this is interrupted in a number of ways.

If I were to compare human civilization to the development and growth of a human child, it would seem we are still in the tumults of adolescence.

Where, then, is this mysterious stranger who is said to have given us life? Where is he, when his aid is badly needed? Oh, and please, please spare me the sophistry of belief, faith, or whatever nauseating neologism can be substituted here. I know who my daddy is. He was flesh and blood, thank you very much.

If this is indeed the case, I say we have a class action suit on behalf of not only the five billion people currently alive on this earth, but the many billions who have gone before, some of whom laid down their lives in the name of this mysterious stranger, he-of-the-multitudinous-names, whom, judging from his behavior in the Old Testament, was a teenage father himself, thoroughly lacking in maturity, manners, or good sportsmanship, who allegedly promptly vanished from human view (strangely enough, at the conclusion of the New Testament), who thus far has failed to provide support of any kind, emotional, physical, or financial, to the teeming multitudes that are supposedly his numerous offspring.

In short: we have a deadbeat deity dad.

Judging from the structure of this world, and the shape it’s in, I’d have to say, if this deity ever did truly exist, he/she/it’s either

  1. Dead, or

  2. In some celestial nursing home, desperately trying to recall something s/he/it had forgotten.

Anyone got the number of a good lawyer?

Stumble Upon Toolbar

31 comments:

HairlessMonkeyDK said...

Actually, I think of Gawd, not as a deadbeat dad or absentee landlord, but more as a nosy and devious neighbour.
Seriously, he invites the swingers next door (the nekkid Adolf and Eva) into his yard and shows 'em this magnificent fuckin' tree bearing this ultra-scrumptious fruit... I mean, he shows it to 'em in detail, bragging that these ripe n' ready apples'll make 'em
smarter than even Michael S. Olsen (Yeah, right!).
Then he pretends to saunder off,
merely to hide behind his analy trimmed hedge, to watch the couple grap the apple and chew... AS HE HAD OBVIOUSLY GOADED THEM INTO...
And then... THEN he LEAPS forward
and berates them like the know-it-all he thinks he is (in his advanced stage of senility).

This.. THIS?!!?
This is the story that fundie rosy-crukzaaaanies believe in as .. *LMAO* gospel???

Wow...
Well, if ever we need unused brain-tissue we'll know where to look.

freethoughtmom said...

... but "deadbeat deity" has such a nice ring to it...

Beowulf said...

The laws of physics are contingent on the existence of the universe. For the sake of argument, if God created the universe, he is not contingent upon it—he would have existed prior to it (in order to create it), hence before the laws of physics. Thus, if God existed prior to the beginning of the universe, He is not bound the laws of physics, which are contained only within the universe.

Nice try though.

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
if God created the universe, he is not contingent upon it—he would have existed prior to it (in order to create it), hence before the laws of physics.
Ah, I see: you thoroughly ignore the way things are, as opposed to your romantic notions. How...very typical. There had to be some structure, for this non-existent deity to build from: materials, a greater creator, a creator before that...infinite regression.

Thus, if God existed prior to the beginning of the universe, He is not bound the laws of physics, which are contained only within the universe.
Ah, but if we look at the example of the architect, the architect existed before the building, ergo, the builder isn't bound by the same laws as the building is?
Sorry, sophistry doesn't get the kewpie doll.
Who's next?

Beowulf said...

ar,

are you purposely setting up a false dilemma? God can create 'ex nihilo', this is neither a philosophical or theological problem. Moreover, since God is “outside” the universe, ergo, He is eternal, hence there’s no problem of gods after gods ad infinitum (note: you are guilty of a categorical fallacy). Besides, scientists on both sides of the camp agree that the universe had a beginning—this is not front page news. You can be honest about this like other scientific secular scholars and just say you don’t know where the universe came from, or in some cases, say it came from nothing—just bite the bullet.

Oh, one more thing—you can call my statements romantic notions, typical and sophistry (which is just a childish attempt to distract from the issue), but that doesn’t make my argument any less of an argument. Really,,,, call it a Swiss cheese sandwich if you want, but just deal with the issue!

~Cheers

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
are you purposely setting up a false dilemma?
& here's where the jaws of your rhetorical trap snap on empty air.
There is no god.
Besides, scientists on both sides of the camp agree that the universe had a beginning—this is not front page news.
Most amusing. However, as far as anyone knows, matter has always existed.
You can be honest about this like other scientific secular scholars and just say you don’t know where the universe came from, or in some cases, say it came from nothing—just bite the bullet.
Didn't say I knew where it came from, did I?
There's a word for that fallacy, I've forgotten what it is, for the nonce.
Oh, one more thing—you can call my statements romantic notions, typical and sophistry (which is just a childish attempt to distract from the issue), but that doesn’t make my argument any less of an argument.
Your argument is fairly non-existent, as far as I can tell.
Subtract a deity, & you have nothing.
I'm reminded of all those Frankenstein movies & their clones: "You can't kill/harm your creator! I gave you life!" Dunno why it reminds me of that. It just does.
& I apologize if you take issues w/my calling things the way I see them.
but just deal with the issue!
There's no real issue - there's no real god - we're just here.
Get used to it

say no to christ said...

The whole watch maker argument is bunk. If we humans were made in gods image then we would all be perfect men. Last time I checked I was not a man and I have yet to meet a perfect man. No offense guys, but as great as my husband is he's still a man and still does some wierd shit that drives me nuts. lol I will say he is a hell of a lot better father than god. :)

Beowulf said...

"Most amusing. However, as far as anyone knows, matter has always existed."

Are you stating that the Universe (and the matter contained within it) never had a beginning? If so, why even bother with your argument by confinement? All you would have to do is show that the universe did not need a “Creator” (because it was always there) and in effect—beaten the argument from design.

"There's no real issue - there's no real god - we're just here. Get used to it"

Here's where the jaws of your rhetorical trap snap on empty air.

Krystalline Apostate said...

SNTC:
The whole watch maker argument is bunk.
Yes it is. Since we are the only animal that designs BY design (hehehehe), of course theists personify, & try to cast a larger shadow of themselves onto the universe.
Pure unadulterated egotism.

say no to christ said...

Well said Ra! Well said!

Future Geek said...

I think ra has done a good job of refuting intelligent design, but not necessarily the existence of god.

BF, do you believe in ID? b/c you can't really use logic or observation to prove the existence of the supernatural. Thats the problem with ID.

On the other hand, you can't really refute the existence of a supernatural god with reason or empirical observation either. God can exist outside of our ability to comprehend it.

Krystalline Apostate said...

FG:
On the other hand, you can't really refute the existence of a supernatural god with reason or empirical observation either.
Until the positive is proven, the negative is given.
I can't disprove Xenu of the Scientologists who allegedly lived 75 million yrs ago, either.
I'm going to have to take it on 'faith' (LOL, read: due to lack of evidence) that Xenu never existed.
Same w/YHVH.

Future Geek said...

But is Xenu considered to be supernatural or just some wingnut who flew 747's through space?

Krystalline Apostate said...

FG:
But is Xenu considered to be supernatural or just some wingnut who flew 747's through space?

answers.com - Xenu:
"In Scientology doctrine, Xenu (also Xemu) is a galactic ruler (of the "Galactic Confederacy") who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to cause problems today. These events are known to Scientologists as "Incident II", and the traumatic memories associated with them as The Wall of Fire or the R6 implant. The story of Xenu is part of a much wider range of Scientology beliefs in extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in Earthly events, collectively described as space opera by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology.
"Hubbard detailed the story in Operating Thetan level III (OT III) in 1967, famously warning that R6 was "calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it." The Xenu story was the start of the use of the volcano as a common symbol of Scientology and Dianetics from 1968 to the present day."

It certainly sounds supernatural to me, at least. Well w/in the purview of outre SF, at the very minimum.

Also, 'silly' is the adjective that springs to mind, amid others less complimentary.

HairlessMonkeyDK said...

Here's what I usually point out:
How is Xenu any -less- ludicrous than Jehova?
Answer:
He ain't.
They're both inane and insane.

He's just less -established-.
Give something a patina of age and it seems more "respectable".
Plus, there's the number of nuts yet nutless believers... and their cash donations.

Yuck...

Krystalline Apostate said...

HMDK:
Yeah, there's no argument from antiquity there.
That South Park Scientology episode was so hysterical. They put in captions: "THIS IS WHAT THE SCIENTOLOGISTS REALLY BELIEVE."
Lunatics all.
I prefer the gentler lunatics meself.

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
Are you stating that the Universe (and the matter contained within it) never had a beginning? If so, why even bother with your argument by confinement? All you would have to do is show that the universe did not need a “Creator” (because it was always there) and in effect—beaten the argument from design.
I don't have to do any such thing. Neither did I say the universe had no beginning - my EXACT words were matter.
Until you can give me proof that matter DIDN'T exist prior (what did your sky daddy create it all out of, anyways), stop wasting people's time w/your claptrap.
It's here. Stop trying to reverse the argument. Prove there's a god - conclusively , I might add. I'm not the 1 making ridiculous claims here.

Here's where the jaws of your rhetorical trap snap on empty air.
You are no where near 1/2 as clever as you believe.
Do try to be a little more original, please.
Polly wanna cracker?

Beowulf said...

"I don't have to do any such thing. Neither did I say the universe had no beginning - my EXACT words were matter."

If matter is contained within the universe and the universe had a beginning then matter had a beginning; elementary logic. If your going to claim that matter was “always there” then your claiming the universe is “always there.


"Until you can give me proof that matter DIDN'T exist prior (what did your sky daddy create it all out of, anyways), stop wasting people's time w/your claptrap"

Ra, you are the one who asserted that matter has “always been there”—how about supporting YOUR claim, or stop making baseless assertions and wasting time w/your claptrap.

"It's here. Stop trying to reverse the argument. Prove there's a god - conclusively , I might add. I'm not the 1 making ridiculous claims here."

I am not trying to reverse the argument; I AM TRYING TO GET YOU TO SUPPORT YOURS. You’re the one who has attempted to make a case against ID; clearly you failed. It may be the case that ID is debunk, I haven’t made a case for ID, nor do I care to, but I have clearly shown that your argument is flawed—fess up, your argument failed—go back to the drawing board and make new one.

"You are no where near 1/2 as clever as you believe.
Do try to be a little more original, please.
Polly wanna cracker?"


I am not trying to be clever; I don’t need to because debunking you is easy. Try to take a taste of you own medicine a little better.

Polly wanna an argument?

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
If matter is contained within the universe and the universe had a beginning then matter had a beginning; elementary logic. If your going to claim that matter was “always there” then your claiming the universe is “always there.
Well, 'apparently', we were using 2 different definitions of the word 'matter'.
From answers.com - matter:
"1. Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole.
2. Physics. Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma."
I was using #2. You're using #1.
Universe - same source:
# All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
"1. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.
2. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place."
You are composed of matter. Are you the universe, then? You catch my drift, I assume.
Ra, you are the one who asserted that matter has “always been there”—how about supporting YOUR claim, or stop making baseless assertions and wasting time w/your claptrap.
Lessee, my exact words were "However, as far as anyone knows, matter has always existed." Can anyone disprove that? Then I'll sally forth on that assumption.
I am not trying to reverse the argument; I AM TRYING TO GET YOU TO SUPPORT YOURS. You’re the one who has attempted to make a case against ID; clearly you failed. It may be the case that ID is debunk, I haven’t made a case for ID, nor do I care to, but I have clearly shown that your argument is flawed—fess up, your argument failed—go back to the drawing board and make new one.
Clearly I did not. My supposition stands. Unless you can give me CLEAR proof of an example where a creator stands OUTSIDE the laws of physics, w/o positing an unprovable deity. You've proven nothing.
I am not trying to be clever; I don’t need to because debunking you is easy. Try to take a taste of you own medicine a little better.
Thus far you haven't debunked me whatsoever. Approach this argument by subtracting your deity, and the house of cards comes tumbling down.
Please try to do better.

Beowulf said...

Ra, you said:

"Well, 'apparently', we were using 2 different definitions of the word 'matter'".
From answers.com - matter:

"1. Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole.

2. Physics. Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma."
I was using #2. You're using #1.

Universe - same source

# All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

"1. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.
2. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place."

You are composed of matter. Are you the universe, then? You catch my drift, I assume.


No I don’t catch your drift. As far as I can tell, this is a composition fallacy. X is part of B therefore; X is B is an identity error also.

Definitions:

Okay, so now we are clearer on what we were talking about. Let’s look at definition #2 “.Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma." First if something has mass, is liquid, gas or plasma where would it be? The universe.

If the universe is:

”All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

"1. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.
2. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place."


Then this would include something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.




”Lessee, my exact words were "However, as far as anyone knows, matter has always existed." Can anyone disprove that? Then I'll sally forth on that assumption.”

1) Matter (including both definition 1 & 2) only exists within the universe
2) The universe had a beginning
3) Therefore, matter had a beginning

Besides, your phrase "However, as far as anyone knows, matter has always existed" is the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum. It’s not even true anyway. Can you point out Scientific scalars who think this?

”Can anyone disprove that? Then I'll sally forth on that assumption”

This is an argument form ignorance, or Argumentum ad ignorantiam. That’s like saying: the inside of a watermelon is blue, until you cut the skin; prove me wrong! Could you prove me wrong? I don’t think so. Thus, your assumption is baseless. If you’re going to make such a claim, offer some support.

“Unless you can give me CLEAR proof of an example where a creator stands OUTSIDE the laws of physics, w/o positing an unprovable deity. You've proven nothing.”

Huh? Now you want proof from me, but don’t offer any for your arguments, sounds like special pleading. Read my previous syllogism 1-3 for your answer.

”Thus far you haven't debunked me whatsoever.

Ignorance is bliss ra. I have pointed out that:

1) The laws of physics are contingent on the existence of the universe.
2.) If God created the universe, he is not contingent upon it—he would have existed prior to it (in order to create it), hence before the laws of physics.
3.) If God existed prior to the beginning of the universe, He is not bound the laws of physics, which are contained only within the universe.
4.) All matter (in all definitions) in contain within the universe.
5.) Scientists on both sides of the camp agree that the universe had a beginning

In return, all you could do is offer “as far as anyone knows, matter has always existed.” To which you offered NO support. The only thing you got going for you is your sarcasm.

”Approach this argument by subtracting your deity, and the house of cards comes tumbling down. Please try to do better”

This is a completely pointless and irrelevant statement. To use your exploded errors only shows the utter lack of respect for simple truth and coherence. And, despite being repeatedly challenged to back up your claims, you never do.

Please try to do better.

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
No I don’t catch your drift. As far as I can tell, this is a composition fallacy. X is part of B therefore; X is B is an identity error also.
Ahem. You were the 1 who made the faulty comparison.
First if something has mass, is liquid, gas or plasma where would it be? The universe.
Fallacy of composition here. I stipulated that as far as anyone knows, matter has always existed.
If matter has always existed (until this can be proved otherwise, then perhaps the universe has always existed? Or, as you say, matter never existed until the universe was born?
I honestly don't know. If you can prove any of these false (or true, or whichever mixture you'd like), I'm willing to listen.
1) Matter (including both definition 1 & 2) only exists within the universe
2) The universe had a beginning
3) Therefore, matter had a beginning

Interesting. Unprovable, but interesting.
Besides, your phrase "However, as far as anyone knows, matter has always existed" is the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum. It’s not even true anyway. Can you point out Scientific scalars who think this?
Name me then a 'scholar' who thinks that matter didn't exist, prior to the Big Bang, please.
This is an argument form ignorance, or Argumentum ad ignorantiam. That’s like saying: the inside of a watermelon is blue, until you cut the skin; prove me wrong! Could you prove me wrong? I don’t think so. Thus, your assumption is baseless. If you’re going to make such a claim, offer some support.
Puh-lease. We're not talking watermelons here.
Variation on Appeal to Nature. Apples to oranges. Whatever.
Huh? Now you want proof from me, but don’t offer any for your arguments, sounds like special pleading. Read my previous syllogism 1-3 for your answer.
All my arguments are pared down to this: everything just is. You're the 1 doing the special pleading here.
pot.kettle.black.
Ignorance is bliss ra. I have pointed out that:
"Said the raven to the crow, my, how black you are."
Points 1-5:
1) The laws of physics are contingent on the existence of the universe.
As far as we know.
2.) If God created the universe, he is not contingent upon it—he would have existed prior to it (in order to create it), hence before the laws of physics.
Still waiting for a real-world example to illustrate this. Otherwise, it's reification.
The architect existed before the building. Does that exempt the architect from the same natural laws?
3.) If God existed prior to the beginning of the universe, He is not bound the laws of physics, which are contained only within the universe.
You missed. God NEVER EXISTED.
4.) All matter (in all definitions) in contain within the universe.
Presently, yes. Has it always been like this? Does anyone truly know?
This sounds like an argument from ignorance, but it's not.
5.) Scientists on both sides of the camp agree that the universe had a beginning
How many, on either side of the camp? Curious, is all. Yet your side of the camp hypothesizes that your deity is 'without beginning or end'. Interesting.
This is a completely pointless and irrelevant statement.
No it isn't. It shows you can't stand w/o a crutch.
To use your exploded errors only shows the utter lack of respect for simple truth and coherence
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!
Well, lessee, you've committed a # of logical fallacies:
False dichotomy.
Poisoning the well.
Attacking the arguer, not the argument.
Appeal to nature (variant, quite good, too, gotta admit).
Conjunction fallacy.
Stacking the deck.

So let's recap, shall we?
I voice an opinion on my blog, w/o presenting any evidence on the big bang, the origin of matter/the universe the whole shebang. I simply stipulate that that Paley's Watchmaker theorem is incorrect.
You then proceed to try to punch holes in it via an appeal to faith, ask me questions I never claimed to have the answers to, as I was simply pointing out the absurdity of said theory.
My premise is by far simpler than yours.
I have made my point. My post stands.
And, despite being repeatedly challenged to back up your claims, you never do.
I'm not going to take the defensive posture here. You're the 1 making incredible claims.
None of which stand up in a court of law, or a laboratory.

Must be soothing to be so naive.

Beowulf said...

“Ahem. You were the 1 who made the faulty comparison.

Quote me making the faulty comparison.

Fallacy of composition here. I stipulated that as far as anyone knows, matter has always existed.

Support your proposition.

“If matter has always existed (until this can be proved otherwise, then perhaps the universe has always existed?”

Support your proposition. And be sure to address the expansion of the universe and the second law of thermodynamics.

“Or, as you say, matter never existed until the universe was born?”
This seems to be the most rational position.

I honestly don't know. If you can prove any of these false (or true, or whichever mixture you'd like), I'm willing to listen.

Try taking any beginning science course—it might do you well. Listen to what Steven Hawking has to say about it:

“All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. Source

“According to the no boundary proposal, the universe would have expanded in a smooth way from a single point. As it expanded, it would have borrowed energy from the gravitational field, to create matter.


Or, you can brows through these sites Berkeley University , or Cornell University , better yet go to the library.

1) Matter (including both definition 1 & 2) only exists within the universe
2) The universe had a beginning
3) Therefore, matter had a beginning

“Interesting. Unprovable, but interesting.”
Most reasonable propositions considering the information and scientific advancements known today. Get your head out of the sand, dude.

“Name me then a 'scholar' who thinks that matter didn't exist, prior to the Big Bang, please.”

Will Steven Hawking suffice?

“Puh-lease. We're not talking watermelons here. Variation on Appeal to Nature. Apples to oranges. Whatever.”

It’s an equivalent example of the fallacy. Your still guilty of Argumentum ad ignorantiam

All my arguments are pared down to this: everything just is. You're the 1 doing the special pleading here

“Every thing just is” That’s great. So you admit you can’t support you arguments.

I said:
1) The laws of physics are contingent on the existence of the universe.
Your response:
“As far as we know.”

We make decision based on the information we have, thus my position and statements are supported by Science—and you’re just too desperate to admit it.

I said:
2.) If God created the universe, he is not contingent upon it—he would have existed prior to it (in order to create it), hence before the laws of physics.
Your response
“Still waiting for a real-world example to illustrate this. Otherwise, it's reification. The architect existed before the building. Does that exempt the architect from the same natural laws?”

You are arguing against the watchmaker thesis right? Which basically states the universe appears to be designed (regardless if it’s a true thesis or not). You’re arguing that if the universe was designed the creator would be confined by laws of physics. Hence, your making the universe exist before it could be designed. This is the flaw of your argument.

“You missed. God NEVER EXISTED.”
Your wrong, but God doesn’t have to exist to show your argument is flawed. An atheist could point out the same deficiencies in you argument as I did.

4.) All matter (in all definitions) in contain within the universe.
“Presently, yes. Has it always been like this? Does anyone truly know?
This sounds like an argument from ignorance, but it's not.”

Your in denial, it’s an argument from ignorance.

5.) Scientists on both sides of the camp agree that the universe had a beginning
“How many, on either side of the camp? Curious, is all. Yet your side of the camp hypothesizes that your deity is 'without beginning or end'. Interesting.”

Though this doesn’t make this necessarily true, Just about every Scientist alive today believes the universe had a begging. How many don’t? Curious, is all

“you can't stand w/o a crutch.”
Red herring

To use your exploded errors only shows the utter lack of respect for simple truth and coherence
”HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!
Well, lessee, you've committed a # of logical fallacies:
False dichotomy.
Poisoning the well.
Attacking the arguer, not the argument.
Appeal to nature (variant, quite good, too, gotta admit).
Conjunction fallacy.
Stacking the deck.”


Please, you have been unwilling to support anything you have said. The proof is in the putting. Anyone who has anything that resembles intelligence can recognize you evasion to answer my questions. Drama is your dogma.

“So let's recap, shall we?
I voice an opinion on my blog, w/o presenting any evidence on the big bang, the origin of matter/the universe the whole shebang. I simply stipulate that that Paley's Watchmaker theorem is incorrect.”


Maybe the Watchmaker theorem is incorrect, but not with your argument. Basically, you’re admitting you can’t back up anything you say. I have been calling you out all along.

“You then proceed to try to punch holes in it via an appeal to faith, ask me questions I never claimed to have the answers to, as I was simply pointing out the absurdity of said theory.
My premise is by far simpler than yours.
I have made my point. My post stands.”

If you can support your argument, your point failed, you’re just to prideful to admit it.


“I'm not going to take the defensive posture here. You're the 1 making incredible claims.
None of which stand up in a court of law, or a laboratory.


Must be soothing to be so naive.”

You make the argument, now you’re running because you can’t defend it.

Go figure…

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
Quote me making the faulty comparison.
Okay.
You're postulating that matter couldn't exist w/o the universe, isn't that correct?
If matter is contained within the universe and the universe had a beginning then matter had a beginning; elementary logic. If your going to claim that matter was “always there” then your claiming the universe is “always there.
Which of course, you extrapolated out of thin air. See where your own source deflated this.
Support your proposition.
No. Prove me wrong.
This seems to be the most rational position.
From Stephen Hawking, your source, BTW.
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself.
Must hurt, when you shoot yourself in the foot.
Support your proposition. And be sure to address the expansion of the universe and the second law of thermodynamics.
That was actually a question, not a proposition.
Hence, your making the universe exist before it could be designed. This is the flaw of your argument.
No I'm not. You're operating on the concept that it's an either/or. Either it existed before it was designed, or was designed and then it existed.
All I say, is that w/o a deity, there's no design. Because every creator we have proof of, is bound by the same laws as the creation. Could care less if it's infinite or not.
Your in denial, it’s an argument from ignorance.
Hey, I'm not swimming in that ole river in Egypt.
Need a towel?
Please, you have been unwilling to support anything you have said. The proof is in the putting. Anyone who has anything that resembles intelligence can recognize you evasion to answer my questions. Drama is your dogma.
I call bullshit. Paley's watchmaker theory falls apart on its own. It's not about me. It's about logic.
I'm not answering your questions because very simply, I don't believe in a deity. Your endless exhortations & demands are all contingent on that 1 item (which I bring up endlessly, to which you avoid endlessly).
Maybe the Watchmaker theorem is incorrect, but not with your argument.
You've provided absolutely nothing to prove that. Outside of idle speculation.
If you think I'm going to play your game, and start answering questions that are red herrings to the actual post, well, you've got another thing coming.
If you can support your argument, your point failed, you’re just to prideful to admit it.
Wow, you don't know me very well at all.
You make the argument, now you’re running because you can’t defend it.
Hey, sport, I'm calling YOU out.
Subtract the deity from your argument, it collapses. Period. End of story.
Thus far, this has been most amusing. Thanks.

Beowulf said...

You're postulating that matter couldn't exist w/o the universe, isn't that correct?

How is this a faulty comparison?


If matter is contained within the universe and the universe had a beginning then matter had a beginning; elementary logic. If your going to claim that matter was “always there” then your claiming the universe is “always there.
Which of course, you extrapolated out of thin air. See where your own source deflated this.

You either did not read the whole thing, or you obviously have a reading comprehension problem. The statement Hawking makes does not argue that this was prior to the big bang, but simultaneously; he reiterated (had you read it) that he doesn’t know anything about before the big bag. Furthermore, he stated “[…] the universe would have expanded in a smooth way from a single point. As it expanded, it would have borrowed energy from the gravitational field, to create matter” Which goes to show you don’t know what your talking about.

Its also interested that you ignored the quote I provided and the other links. How about it?

When I ask ed you to support your proposition, you said:
No. Prove me wrong.

I just did.

From Stephen Hawking, your source, BTW
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself.
Must hurt, when you shoot yourself in the foot. .


I pointed out your reading comprehension problem above. It must hurt when you shoot yourself in the foot.

That was actually a question, not a proposition.
Actually it was your argument from ignorance. Try answering these questions.

Since you stated “as far as anyone knows, matter has always existed” its reasonable to ask:

Do you believe matter is eternal? Why?
Do you believe the universe is eternal? Why?
If someone answers, “All my arguments are pared down to this: everything just is. I just do” then they don’t know what their taking about.

No I'm not. You're operating on the concept that it's an either/or. Either it existed before it was designed, or was designed and then it existed.
All I say, is that w/o a deity, there's no design. Because every creator we have proof of, is bound by the same laws as the creation. Could care less if it's infinite or not.


So when some offers a philosophically legitimate possibility that evades the horns of your argument, you just ignore it? If there is a logical possibility out of your argument you didn’t succeed.

Hey, I'm not swimming in that ole river in Egypt.
Need a towel?

Red herring

I call bullshit. Paley's watchmaker theory falls apart on its own. It's not about me. It's about logic.

***yawn***

I'm not answering your questions because very simply, I don't believe in a deity. Your endless exhortations & demands are all contingent on that 1 item (which I bring up endlessly, to which you avoid endlessly).

Your not answering my questions because you cant. You say it’s because you don’t believe in a diety, but even if a diety doesn’t exist, we can still have a “hypothetical” dialogue about the concept. For example we can talk about the concept of unicorns, even if they don’t exist. Your just dodging—that’s all.

You've provided absolutely nothing to prove that. Outside of idle speculation.
If you think I'm going to play your game, and start answering questions that are red herrings to the actual post, well, you've got another thing coming.


Another evasion, what’s wrong, you can’t handle being debunked?


Wow, you don't know me very well at all.

I don’t know you well, but judging by you consistent evasions to address the subject, your easy to figure out.

Hey, sport, I'm calling YOU out.
Subtract the deity from your argument, it collapses. Period. End of story.
Thus far, this has been most amusing. Thanks.


Wasn’t it you who said “I'm not answering your questions because very simply, I don't believe in a deity”, you also refuse to support you assertions. It’ time for you to step up to the plate:

Again:
Do you believe matter is eternal? Why?
Do you believe the universe is eternal? Why?
If someone answers, “All my arguments are pared down to this: everything just is. I just do” then they don’t know what their taking about.

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
How is this a faulty comparison?
The contents aren't defined by the container.
he reiterated (had you read it) that he doesn’t know anything about before the big bag.
Thanks for
A. Doing my homework for me, &
B. Vindicating something I've said before with it.
You should be more careful.
I just did.
I have a problem w/retention? Look at the sentence:
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself.
Which infers that there was matter beforehand.
Do you believe matter is eternal? Why?
Do you believe the universe is eternal? Why?
If someone answers, “All my arguments are pared down to this: everything just is. I just do” then they don’t know what their taking about.

Hey, I go by the Lockian dictum: reality is measured by the 5 senses. All else is guesswork.
Your not answering my questions because you cant.
No, it's pretty much I'm not up to it today. Plus, I'm not sure I really care about your questions.
I pointed out your reading comprehension problem above. It must hurt when you shoot yourself in the foot.
I actually have great reading comprehension. & the fact that you keep repeating my comments, shows a distinct lack of originality.
Not very clever.
So when some offers a philosophically legitimate possibility that evades the horns of your argument, you just ignore it?
If it's not cogent, sure.
Your not answering my questions because you cant. You say it’s because you don’t believe in a diety, but even if a diety doesn’t exist, we can still have a “hypothetical” dialogue about the concept.
Well, now, if you'd come forth w/less of an attitude, & said that before, instead of letting your years talk for you, I might've actually answered or dialogued w/you.
Another evasion, what’s wrong, you can’t handle being debunked?
Sure can. Ain't happened yet.
I don’t know you well, but judging by you consistent evasions to address the subject, your easy to figure out.

By that you mean, your constant efforts to repeat my comments, your endless repetition, your constant digs?
You should get a refund on that armchair psychology degree: waste of money.
Oh, & don't bother repeating that back, Polly.
Wasn’t it you who said “I'm not answering your questions because very simply, I don't believe in a deity”, you also refuse to support you assertions. It’ time for you to step up to the plate:
Hey, the post speaks for itself. Res ipsa loquitor.
Do you believe matter is eternal? Why?
I honestly don't know.
Do you believe the universe is eternal? Why?
I honestly don't know.
If someone answers, “All my arguments are pared down to this: everything just is. I just do” then they don’t know what their taking about.
You mean 'talking'.
Talk about reading comprehension.
Sorry, fresh outta crackers.

Truthfully, you obviously know way more than I do about physics.

Debating skills are another thing entirely.

Of course, if I go get other atheists, you'll accuse them of taking my side. But I can go get some, if you so desire.

Beowulf said...

Bring it on ra, go run and get help—maybe the other atheists can offer some intellectual dialogue. Oh, and thanks for being the spell check nazi, I know you have never made any typos (Though, blogger does need a spell checker for comments).

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
Bring it on ra, go run and get help—maybe the other atheists can offer some intellectual dialogue.
I was by no means suggesting I need help w/dealing w/anyone.
You suggested earlier that any atheist could see thru the 'holes in my logic'.
Oh, and thanks for being the spell check nazi, I know you have never made any typos (Though, blogger does need a spell checker for comments).
Ah, the last refuge of sour grapes.
If you go back, you made a BUNDLE of typos. Not to mention the 'hypnotical' slip.
I'm pretty much guessing now, but I'd put you in high school. Am I close?

Beowulf said...

ra, you’re wrong (as usual). However, I am sure a high school student would have no problem refuting your arguments. It’s like taking candy from a baby.

Krystalline Apostate said...

bf:
ra, you’re wrong (as usual). However, I am sure a high school student would have no problem refuting your arguments. It’s like taking candy from a baby.
Well, I figured out you were obviously a physics student in college (it shows), but your debate skills are sadly lacking.
It was obvious from the start you wanted to start whacking an atheist w/fallacies, so I deliberately committed 2 of them, very obvious ones, which you didn't catch.
Also you've committed some fallacies, such as:
ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEAM A fallacious argument is more likely to be accepted as true if it is repeated over and over. We can also refer to this process as Propaganda.
APPEAL TO FAITH The claim that you can possess truth or knowledge with faith.

I've enjoyed our little dance thus far, but it's time to put this puppy to rest.

Firstly, I'd be an idiot to argue physics w/a physics major, as I've never been to college, & it's not my field.
Secondly, let's discuss the terms of my surrender.
I will gladly shout it from the rooftops that you won this bout, on the following conditions:
A. You provide empirical proof that there is indeed an entity that exists outside of the boundaries of natural (physical) law.
B. You provide an example, real-world, where a creator exists independantly from the same natural laws as the (designed) creation.
& before you shout 'RED HERRING', these were the core of the argument in the post.
FYI: RED HERRING A red herring occurs when your opponent adds in information that is connected in some way to the current discussion, but in no way has any bearing on the argument at hand.
To which I reply, 'Tu quoque?'

Beowulf said...

Not a physics major. I had a professor ( Ph.D physics) who thought physics was the superlative science to which all is subservient. He was one of those “if you cant explain it in a mathematical equation it’s not relevant.” Makes me *vomit*

HairlessMonkeyDK said...

Bf... ye of LITTLE faith (insecure eraction, beliefs-wise).
Hell, I AN ATHEIST, agree with you on this, if nothing else:
"if you cant explain it in a mathematical equation it’s not relevant.” Makes me *vomit".

But that doesn't necessarily make any one of us any better in our
praises or condemnations.