Since we are on a philosophy forum there are bound to be a a wide range of religious beliefs. I am not trying to offend anyone when I say that atheism, in my opinion, is the most retarted idea of all the beliefs. ( If you disagree thats great because debating over a subject like this is mind opening )
Instead of going through the religious aspects of why I believe atheism is false I’ve decided to use a simple analogy that we can all understand. So you are walking on the beach and you find a perfectly good working watch lying in the sand. Most people would come to the obvious conclusion that someone made the watch. Would anyone argue that the watch was made up of the beach components in a matter that it coincidenally formed a watch that’s mechanisms worked in a precise way of perfection. I don’t think anyone would pick that side.
Now that you’ve heard that think about the coincidence that the earth was is just a conglomeration of the nothingness that surrounds us. That it is by some cosmic accident that the Earth functions in an almost perfect pattern. It still is your decision but I think that is too much of a coincidence for me to believe.
The Watchmaker analogy suffers from three particular flaws, over and above those common to all Arguments By Design. Firstly, a watchmaker creates watches from pre-existing materials, whereas God is claimed to have created the universe from nothing. These two sorts of creation are clearly fundamentally different, and the analogy is therefore rather weak.
Secondly, a watchmaker makes watches, but there are many other things in the world. If we walked further along the beach and found a nuclear reactor, we wouldn’t assume it was created by the watchmaker. The argument would therefore suggest a multitude of creators, each responsible for a different part of creation (or a different universe, if you allow the possibility that there might be more than one).
Finally, in the first part of the watchmaker argument we conclude that the watch is not part of nature because it is ordered, and therefore stands out from the randomness of nature. Yet in the second part of the argument, we start from the position that the universe is obviously not random, but shows elements of order. The Watchmaker argument is thus internally inconsistent.
Apart from logical inconsistencies in the watchmaker argument, it’s worth pointing out that biological systems and mechanical systems behave very differently. What’s unlikely for a pile of gears is not necessarily unlikely for a mixture of biological molecules.
There are also many holes in the flaws that you recognized. Here they are in chronological order.
In the case of assuming that there is a God and pertaining only to the Earth, he also built from peexisiting elements. (This brings up a whole different story as to how God created the universe ) I am simply pointing out how ridiculous the atheist therory of deriving from a cosmic accident. If they other planets were already there than a “god” could have easily used different elements of the other planets to dreate an Earth.
Your nuclear reactor analogy made little sense to me. As far as we know we are the most complex planet in the universe as the watch more complex than the sand. If you plan to look for a nuclear reactor you’d have to look on another beach or in other words one of the other galaxies.
Just because the watch is more advanced (Earth) doesn’t mean the other components aren’t ordered. The watch just appears more ordered because it’s easier to notice the order.
You are right they are different, but then your saying the occurance of Earth is more likely than that of the watch. If so why are we the only Earth like planet.(as far as we can see at least whick is a whole different subject.)
I’m a theist, but I’m going to offer and atheist arguement.
Let’s suppose you walk along the beach and you see a plank from a shipwreck with a magnet resting on one end from happenstance. The plank always points North–South. Was this compass created by a designer or by chance?
LOL, not bad but the watch one makes more sense to me. This is because a watch works in a perfect order just like the Earth. It seems odd that a cosmic accident wouldn’t turn out to be perfect. I would figure if it was by chance we were created that the Earth would flow in a retarted pattern and not the way it does.
“God was invented to explain mystery… When you finally discover how something works… you don’t need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven’t figured that out yet… and to explain conciousness… stuff like that.” -Richard Feynman (1918-1988), American Nobel-winning physicist / comedian / bongo player.
Maybe we werent created by God persay but still created by some unknown. I can’t believe that when we die we are dead for good. I think if you give a moment of thought you cannot find that reasonable. Maybe we don’t go anywhere but by believing in another life makes this life worth living. No optimism comes from a person who believes in no afterlife, it makes this life seem worthless to just have it end so abruptly.
Anyways that quote you used was from a bongo player. Never listen to a hippy.
Well, a watch is a more complex example, but (again, putting on a atheist hat) why not start looking underwater for watch-forming kelp?
As for the patterns on earth, you could compare them to rivers, which form deeper paths as they run on in time, and are only self-changed now and again to form new paths? Patterns could be self-establishing.
Of course life does make the Earth special but other planets would too. That’s why it the ability to sustain life that I’m focusing on. It is highly unlikely that it is mere coincidence that we are the only planet that has this ability to sustain life. Why it the Earth is a mere rock like the other planets why can it sustain life and the other “rocks” can’t. I understand where you are coming from but I think you miss the point I’m trying to make.
I disagree. When you look at the things that make earth able to sustain life these things seem fantastic, designed even. Certainly statistically improbable!
But then look at the night sky. Many of those stars have planets of their own. Keeping that, and the fact that we are just one galaxy out of very very many, then these things that make Earth special go from being incredibly unlikely to incredibly likely. After all, even something with the most remote probability of occuring on an individual event approaches 100% when you have an infinite number of tries – and given what we presently understand with respect to the number of universes in existence, that is just what we have.
So . . . while Earth-like planets are certainly rare, that doesn’t make them unexpected.
Edit: Man, I’m tired. Got a lot on my mind right now. I’ll try that again tomorrow sometime. Right now I’m not terribly coherent.
I could go on and say what everyone else has said about your useless attempt at using the ‘watchmaker argument’, but then, that has something to do with the ultimate error you’ve made in your post.
The sentence I’ve highlighted in bold is the proof that shows that you do not understand evolution. You think that the atheist position rests on everything happening by chance… as an accident? You are grossly in error. The world did not come about by chance or by design, but by evolution. I will not bother going into the intricacies of this, because I think it is something you must discover for yourself if you are to realize the error of your thought and understand the basis for reason.
You can go ahead and laugh in your ignorance, or you can realize your error and become enlightened by reason. Your choice.
First, you cannot make even a single rock. Breaking off a piece doesn’t count. Artificial gemstones may be debatable, but still are just a compression of material.
Second, of what primitive cultures do you speak? The Earth is sometimes created by gods who came to be through cosmic forces which they were able to tame. I’m thinking of the Norse, Greek, and Babylonian creation stories here.
The watchmaker argument, first proposed by William Paley, was a reaction to the revolutionary ideas in scientific thinking during the 18th century, which following the success of Newton was becoming increasingly naturalistic and mechanistic. By the mid 19th century the church itself had dismissed the watchmaker argument as an utenable hypothesis and, with the publication in 1859 of Darwin’s “origin of the species” the scientific community satisfied itself that the complexity and apparent “design” of biological systems could be explained purely in naturalistic terms. The belief that the world/nature/universe can be looked upon as a “contrivance” requiring some external “contriver” to bring it about shows an attachment to 19th century thinking that has long since lost all credibility amongst academic circles.
Also, how does the existence of the Earth, floating amidst a sea of cosmic randomness and chaos, point to the existence of a creator. Surely it indicates the opposite. If the Earth was the only object in existence then that would indeed suggest strongly that there was something unique about the Earth. But the universe in which we find ourselves is an unparsimonious beast. Why would a creator of the biblical/quarnic variety create a whole universe full of dead matter in order to bring the Earth about? Did he do it simply to highlight how statistically improbable we are? Or are their certain limitations that God has to abide by, something like: “In order to create a planet harbouring life one must first create an unimaginably vast waste of space.”
Surely the existence of the universe is evidence contradicting the existence of a personal creator who one day, bored with the tedium of eternity, decided to reach forth his divine hand and create us to keep him company. This is such an impoverished view of both religion, the universe and our place in it and doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny; those professing a religious faith need to come up with more cogent arguments.
The watchmaker analogy is a bit warn. What if theist and atheist alike agree to avoid gross anthropomorphizing. Where does that leave us? “Dead matter”? “Chaos?” We’re being rather selective aren’t we? Per evolutionary theory matter is potentially alive or we wouldn’t have living organisms. Chaos is just the opposite pole from order. Obviously we’ve got both or you and I wouldn’t be having this conversation. Can you explain why there is something and not nothing any better than the theist?
I think we need to be sure of our terms. If by “theist” you mean the belief in a “personal” omniscient, omnipotent, omnibonevolent, infinite, transcendent and immanent God (this is the meaning of “theism” I understand to be cosistent with theological definitions) then I am not a “theist” as the logicall contradictions are too much for my feeble brain to tolerate.
As to why there is something rather than nothing? this is the question that all atheists must resolve. Most atheists sidestep this issue and do not address it full on. They seek comfort in their faith in promissory scientism i.e. the belief that, given enough patience and time, the torchlight of scientific scrutiny will inevitably lighten the dark caverns of our ignorance. This attitude, of course, exhibits all the hallmarks of a pseudo-religion.
The question as to why there is something rather than nothing comes down to questions of “contingent” versus “necessary” things. Contingent things are things the existence of which requires the existence of other things. For example, molecules exist by virtue of the existence of atoms. A “necessary” thing would exist by virtue of itself, independently of the existence of other “things”. So when asking “why there is something rather than nothing?” we are trying to establish whether or not the universe exists “contingently” or “necessarily”. Is there anything about the universe that exists “necessarily” and upon which the rest of the universe depends fot its existence? If we look at our molecules again we have already established that they are contingent on the existence of atoms. We can then say that atoms require the existence of protons, electrons and neutrons. They in turn require the existence of quarks. And if present, highly speculative theories are to be believed, quarks, and consequently all matter, are composed of vbrating “strings”. But of what are strings composed? The answer would appear to be “energy”. And what does energy depend upon for its existence. Well…urm…it would appear to be nothing! Does that mean we have found that part of the universe that exists necessarily and upon which the rest of the universe depends for its existence? The atheists might argue that it is and consequently there is no need to invoke any transcendental being to account for the existence of the universe. The problem with this, however, is that according to orthodox big-bang cosmology, energy (as well as space and time) was a product and not the cause of the big bang. Consequently, the “creation” of the universe cannot have been a physical event. It would appear that, given modern cosmological thinking, the argument from contingency favours the theists.
Before I respond, I find it simply fascinating that you, uddhava, joined ILP over two years ago, and you are just now posting! Did you never seem to get around to make a post here? What was it that finally kicked your desire to post into gear? I am curious.
An interesting comment, to say the least. I would like to also propose, in paraphrasing Neil deGrasse Tyson, that under the assumption that there really exists a creator of the universe, it is a stupid one; or at the very least, not a benevolent one.His commentary at Beyond Belief 2006.It is not only informative, but very funny!
Maybe you think I’m ignorant for not upolding your beliefs but none the less I understand evolution. The THEORY of evolution is compiled of (ahem…)fact that states human have evolved from more primative life forms. I am not talking about us I was speaking of the creation of the Earth. Surely you are not in a position to say that the Earth itself evoled into having the ability to sustain life. So how do you explain the Earth’s ability to do this other than one of the many atheist theory’s I’ve heard such as that we have collided with another large rock and that made the Earth have the ability to sustain life. Your right your idea holds more reason or intelligence as you might put it but some of the most intelligent people in the world are completely lacking in common sense.
[/quote]
[/i]
