Killing the Watchmaker (Origins)
by xeno6696 
, Sonoran Desert, Saturday, May 28, 2011, 14:47 (4926 days ago)
edited by unknown, Saturday, May 28, 2011, 14:52
My math professor back when I took my first class on mathematical proofs always got frustrated because I loved to use a proof technique called "Proof by Contradiction." It's a deceptive technique. You take what you're being asked to prove, and negate its logic. You then find a single counter-example and that negates your negation and you have just proved the claim. Being a programmer, I tend to be lazy; why do tons of extra work to prove something by induction or construction? My professor told me, in a thick, deep, and angry Russian accent, "Is like using cannon to hunt bird!" It's typically only used on really tough problems, not the one's at my level.-I told you that because I'm using a cannon all over again, but one could say that the Watchmaker argument is a cannon by itself; all the moving parts of a watch are intricately crafted. If you pick up a watch, clearly you know it's designed. So, by extrapolating that argument to the universe, we can conclude the same thing. -My cannon comes from Hume a 'la Pigliucci. And its not deceptive at all: 1.	 "The origin of the universe is a unique case, so analogy is pointless." Pause. Reread that line. The logic is thus: Anything you try to compare to the universe is comparing only a part of the whole to the whole itself. There is no other self-contained whole we can use to compare the universe to. The universe is not a watch, will never be a watch, and you're not comparing two like things. I extend this to life. Which brings me to the next argument. 2.	The analogy between the universe and human artifacts is weak. "Although the regularity of the laws of nature may superficially inspire analogy, human artifacts are always clearly designed with a preconceived function. It often takes quite a bit of imagination to see any purpose in some aspects of the universe." Combined with 1, 2 begins building upon a very powerful objection. Pigliucci quotes from J.B.S. Haldane, "He must have an inordinate fondness for beetles." This refers to (by Pigliucci) The tens of thousands of species of beetle that seem to have no purpose but to reproduce. This second point also assumes that all things on the planet have a purpose. "Maybe we just haven't found it yet." But that is—a very weak criticism. 	 The rest of Pigliucci's arguments are really more targeted towards pure creationist arguments and don't really have any meaning for the players involved here. An interesting note; the father of modern "Intelligent Design" thought, Phillip Johnson launched his campaign in order to find a way to definitively bridge the gap between nature and God so there would be a strong basis in order to refute Dialectical Materialism. The grander point of Pigliucci's book is that Intelligent Design—as a movement—is politically minded and motivated from the very beginning. It doesn't really care about David's arguments; It's a battle to destroy all materialism that has its modern root in Cold-War propaganda and its ancient root going back to the enlightenment. In other words, it's a new "holy war."
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Killing the Watchmaker
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, May 28, 2011, 22:52 (4926 days ago) @ xeno6696
all, > My cannon comes from Hume a 'la Pigliucci. And its not deceptive at all: > 1.	 "The origin of the universe is a unique case, so analogy is pointless." > Pause. Reread that line. The logic is thus: Anything you try to compare to the universe is comparing only a part of the whole to the whole itself. There is no other self-contained whole we can use to compare the universe to. The universe is not a watch, will never be a watch, and you're not comparing two like things. I extend this to life. Which brings me to the next argument.-I just realized that I didn't fully explore this rabbit hole. -If nothing within the universe is adequate to use to compare to the universe itself--this includes any man-made object we use. So therefore, the general argument that dhw made concerning the human eye is identical to this one; we have no instance of a man-made eye, so Hubble vs. Eyeball is another apple to orange comparison. -SO in conclusion: Both the universe--and life--are events unique enough in known history to have no legitimate analogy among any and all human endeavors.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Killing the Watchmaker
MATT: My cannon comes from Hume a 'la Pigliucci. And its not deceptive at all:-1. "The origin of the universe is a unique case, so analogy is pointless." Pause. Reread that line. The logic is thus: Anything you try to compare to the universe is comparing only a part of the whole to the whole itself. There is no other self-contained whole we can use to compare the universe to. The universe is not a watch, will never be a watch, and you're not comparing two like things. I extend this to life. Which brings me to the next argument. 2. The analogy between the universe and human artifacts is weak. "Although the regularity of the laws of nature may superficially inspire analogy, human artifacts are always clearly designed with a preconceived function. It often takes quite a bit of imagination to see any purpose in some aspects of the universe." Combined with 1, 2 begins building upon a very powerful objection. Pigliucci quotes from J.B.S. Haldane, "He must have an inordinate fondness for beetles." This refers to (by Pigliucci) The tens of thousands of species of beetle that seem to have no purpose but to reproduce. This second point also assumes that all things on the planet have a purpose. "Maybe we just haven't found it yet." But that is—a very weak criticism.-The wheel has come full circle. When you joined us ... so long ago! ... you recommended an article (I forget by whom) in which the author grandly stated that XYZ behaved in exactly the way one would expect if life was not designed, and I asked how he could possibly know. Dawkins uses a similar argument: "Evolved organs, elegant and efficient as they often are, also demonstrate revealing flaws ... exactly as you'd expect if they have an evolutionary history, and exactly as you would not expect if they were designed." ('The God Delusion', p. 134 hardback edition). Again, how does he know? Is there any design that works perfectly for ever? (In any case, the argument for design is not incompatible with an evolutionary history, but that's a different tack.)-Of course there are "some aspects of the universe" in which it's difficult to see a purpose. But regardless of whether you're a theist or an atheist, does anyone seriously question that the function of the eye is to see? Of the sperm and egg to reproduce? Of the bowel to process and get rid of waste material? As is so often the case, we need to decide what level we're talking on: specific functions, or an overriding raison d'être? What is the purpose of Beethoven's Ninth? What is the purpose of asking what is the purpose? If you can't answer, does that prove that Beethoven's Ninth, or your philosophical question, is not the product of conscious intelligence? Maybe God just lets it all happen for the sheer hell/heaven of it. (Incidentally, Hubble vs Eyeball was your analogy, not mine ... you cited Hubble as an instance of human design being superior to that of Nature.) -I agree that "both the universe and life are events unique enough in known history to have no legitimate analogy among any and all human endeavors." But the crucial question of Chance v. Design does not NEED analogies. Do you or do you not believe that a functioning eye, penis, bowel could have been formed by means of a mechanism that initially assembled itself through the chance combination of inanimate materials? Whichever answer you give requires one kind of faith or another, unless you withhold belief (= agnosticism).-MATT: The rest of Pigliucci's arguments are really more targeted towards pure creationist arguments and don't really have any meaning for the players involved here. An interesting note; the father of modern "Intelligent Design" thought, Phillip Johnson launched his campaign in order to find a way to definitively bridge the gap between nature and God so there would be a strong basis in order to refute Dialectical Materialism. The grander point of Pigliucci's book is that Intelligent Design—as a movement—is politically minded and motivated from the very beginning. It doesn't really care about David's arguments; It's a battle to destroy all materialism that has its modern root in Cold-War propaganda and its ancient root going back to the enlightenment. In other words, it's a new "holy war."-You are right, the argument has no meaning for us as current contributors to this forum. But it's worth noting that when the forum opened, three and a half years ago, atheist websites castigated it as a vehicle for creationism. The fact is that fundamentalists on both sides cannot abide any questioning of their basic principles, and no doubt that is why we brave, well-balanced, open-minded, ever-questioning but ever-tolerant agnostics are spurned by one side as creationists and by the other as atheists.
Killing the Watchmaker
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, May 30, 2011, 02:43 (4925 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, > The wheel has come full circle. When you joined us ... so long ago! ... you recommended an article (I forget by whom) in which the author grandly stated that XYZ behaved in exactly the way one would expect if life was not designed, and I asked how he could possibly know. Dawkins uses a similar argument: "Evolved organs, elegant and efficient as they often are, also demonstrate revealing flaws ... exactly as you'd expect if they have an evolutionary history, and exactly as you would not expect if they were designed." ('The God Delusion', p. 134 hardback edition). Again, how does he know? Is there any design that works perfectly for ever? (In any case, the argument for design is not incompatible with an evolutionary history, but that's a different tack.) > -Yeah, Hume put a pretty big exclamation point (!) at the end of that one!-> Of course there are "some aspects of the universe" in which it's difficult to see a purpose. But regardless of whether you're a theist or an atheist, does anyone seriously question that the function of the eye is to see? Of the sperm and egg to reproduce? Of the bowel to process and get rid of waste material? As is so often the case, we need to decide what level we're talking on: specific functions, or an overriding raison d'être? What is the purpose of Beethoven's Ninth? What is the purpose of asking what is the purpose? If you can't answer, does that prove that Beethoven's Ninth, or your philosophical question, is not the product of conscious intelligence? Maybe God just lets it all happen for the sheer hell/heaven of it. (Incidentally, Hubble vs Eyeball was your analogy, not mine ... you cited Hubble as an instance of human design being superior to that of Nature.) > -Well, some criticism still stands: Why does the eye only see one band of light, when there would definitely be an advantage if humans could also see IR? Lets remember that atheists are railing against essentially "special creation" that man is intrinsically special to the universe by our high and almighty creator, who is omnipotent etc. etc. It DOES stand to reason that if we were supposed to be superior, that we would have been blessed with stronger spines, IR eyesight, any of a number of different advantages that would actually stand to make us "superior." (I deeply question whether or not we really are "smarter" than most other animals just because we write plays... intelligence alone doesn't make us "superior...") -And for your last criticism--I was trashing my own argument. Trust me, I may seem a drunkard, but I know when I've been gutted! 
-> I agree that "both the universe and life are events unique enough in known history to have no legitimate analogy among any and all human endeavors." But the crucial question of Chance v. Design does not NEED analogies. Do you or do you not believe that a functioning eye, penis, bowel could have been formed by means of a mechanism that initially assembled itself through the chance combination of inanimate materials? Whichever answer you give requires one kind of faith or another, unless you withhold belief (= agnosticism). > -Maybe you and I are in similar boats here: Faith is categorically unjustifiable. -> MATT: The rest of Pigliucci's arguments are really more targeted towards pure creationist arguments and don't really have any meaning for the players involved here. An interesting note; the father of modern "Intelligent Design" thought, Phillip Johnson launched his campaign in order to find a way to definitively bridge the gap between nature and God so there would be a strong basis in order to refute Dialectical Materialism. The grander point of Pigliucci's book is that Intelligent Design—as a movement—is politically minded and motivated from the very beginning. It doesn't really care about David's arguments; It's a battle to destroy all materialism that has its modern root in Cold-War propaganda and its ancient root going back to the enlightenment. In other words, it's a new "holy war." > > You are right, the argument has no meaning for us as current contributors to this forum. But it's worth noting that when the forum opened, three and a half years ago, atheist websites castigated it as a vehicle for creationism. The fact is that fundamentalists on both sides cannot abide any questioning of their basic principles, and no doubt that is why we brave, well-balanced, open-minded, ever-questioning but ever-tolerant agnostics are spurned by one side as creationists and by the other as atheists.-I will never forget when I voluntarily withdrew from alt.atheism some years ago. I had an... argument, where someone claiming to be the physicist Michael Gray. I was challenging him on several philosophical points, most notably that I thought saying "God does not exist" really IS an expression of faith, if we're to be epistemically accurate. Because its entirely within reason that "Everything man has ever thought about God is false except that it exists." -The series of ad-hominems from him was so vitriolic, so off-base, and so... just purely hateful, that I ended my life there with probably one of the most venomous attacks of my own that I'd ever written, and I never, ever looked back for a response.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Killing the Watchmaker
MATT: Well, some criticism still stands: Why does the eye only see one band of light, when there would definitely be an advantage if humans could also see IR? Lets remember that atheists are railing against essentially "special creation" that man is intrinsically special to the universe by our high and almighty creator, who is omnipotent etc. etc. It DOES stand to reason that if we were supposed to be superior, that we would have been blessed with stronger spines, IR eyesight, any of a number of different advantages that would actually stand to make us "superior." (I deeply question whether or not we really are "smarter" than most other animals just because we write plays... intelligence alone doesn't make us "superior...")-It would be an advantage if we were stronger, cleverer, immune to all disease, able to fly, able to run faster, jump higher, live longer....Such "criticism" seems pointless to me. Cars would be better if they used no harmful fuels, never broke down, never rusted, had built-in accident avoiders...Does all that prove they weren't consciously designed? The question is not whether something could have been better, but whether you can or can't believe that such complex organs are the products of a mechanism which...ah, well, you know the rest.-I agree with you on the subject of "superiority". I can quite understand why theists believe we are special, since as far as we know, we are the only creatures with the intelligence to recognize or dispute the existence of a maker. In fairness, I do think the sheer breadth of our intelligence, our technology, our art, our language etc. makes us different from other animals, as does our capacity for conscious evil, large-scale destruction, self-flagellation. "Superior", though, requires a hierarchical frame of reference, which we don't have. Bacteria will outlast us all. Ants have a far more efficient social structure than we have. Many animals have better navigational and meteorological skills. They are all "special". But as that wonderful whale story vividly illustrates, for all our differences and our powers, we still have basic common features with our fellow animals, and humans are no more "superior" to them than the Pope, the Queen, the President, the Prime Minister are to us folk at home. Such value judgements are figments of the human imagination, and they are dangerous because they are used to justify our unspeakable cruelty to all species including our own ... another "special" feature unique to us humans. -MATT: I will never forget when I voluntarily withdrew from alt.atheism some years ago. I had an... argument, where someone claiming to be the physicist Michael Gray. I was challenging him on several philosophical points, most notably that I thought saying "God does not exist" really IS an expression of faith, if we're to be epistemically accurate. Because its entirely within reason that "Everything man has ever thought about God is false except that it exists."-You were met with a series of vitriolic ad hominems. This is typical of fundamentalists. You cannot reason with them, although they firmly believe that reason is on their side!-****** I've just seen your "Atheist cannon..." (Please don't fire it. Just change it to a canon.)-"The statement 'God does not exist' is falsifiable."-What is that supposed to prove? It would be falsifiable if God appeared to us. But if he never appears to us, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. The statement "life originated by chance" would also be falsifiable, if God appeared and showed us how he did it. So? How long are you prepared to wait?-*******-Hubble, Hubble, Toil and trouble, Let us burst The Hubble Bubble.
Killing the Watchmaker
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 05:39 (4924 days ago) @ dhw
Hi guys, -Sorry to jump in on the middle of this, but life has been hectic and crazy as usual. -First, as the resident theist, I feel compelled to point out that most religious text do not call humans superior. In fact the bible only calls us 'the most loved of all creation'. That is not 'most superior', that is 'most loved'. -Now, I do not know about you guys, and I can not speak for everyone, but personally, I tend to love things because of their flaws, not in spite of them. -Also, this idea of perfection. Perfection according to whom? Better according to whom? Yes, being able to see every spectrum of light may have given us a evolutionary advantage, one which we apparently did not need. Why, though? Why would that have necessarily been better? What might it have deprived us of? Would you be able to appreciate the world if you knew everything there is to know about it, or if you could see every spectrum of light?-I am going back to school to study game design. (Just wanted to study something I enjoy since I already have a career.) In my research for my studies, one of the articles on a trade site that I came across is about world building and design. There are some basic rules to it that must be applied in order for people to accept a game world psychologically.-1)It must have mysteries that will never be revealed.(It must have closed doors) 2)It can not have a true beginning or end.(Meaning absolute beginning, and absolute end, with nothing, not even God pre/postdating it.) 3)Everything bigger is made of something smaller. 4)There is no such thing as utopia. There must be flaws.- Thank you for this post. It was a good read after a long absence.
Killing the Watchmaker
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 22:55 (4923 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: Well, some criticism still stands: Why does the eye only see one band of light, when there would definitely be an advantage if humans could also see IR? Lets remember that atheists are railing against essentially "special creation" that man is intrinsically special to the universe by our high and almighty creator, who is omnipotent etc. etc. It DOES stand to reason that if we were supposed to be superior, that we would have been blessed with stronger spines, IR eyesight, any of a number of different advantages that would actually stand to make us "superior." (I deeply question whether or not we really are "smarter" than most other animals just because we write plays... intelligence alone doesn't make us "superior...") > > ...Cars would be better if they used no harmful fuels, never broke down, never rusted, had built-in accident avoiders...Does all that prove they weren't consciously designed? The question is not whether something could have been better, but whether you can or can't believe that such complex organs are the products of a mechanism which...ah, well, you know the rest. > -Cars eh? Ah... you already forgot Hume!!! I'm stepping outside of the typical debate here and just asking some probing questions. Remember, chance vs. design isn't a compelling question for me. We're a long way from being able to answer it. I was asking the question that does criticize special creation. We're not particularly favored, if you look upon this planet, for reasons you state later. (Being outlived by bacteria, for just one example.) -> I agree with you on the subject of "superiority". I can quite understand why theists believe we are special, since as far as we know, we are the only creatures with the intelligence to recognize or dispute the existence of a maker. ... > -I recognize that we clearly have some extraordinary gifts... I guess I'm playing the "hippie" by asking, "Why all the hate?" Did you listen to that podcast in its entirety? There's another one a few seasons later that explores a Bonobo raised among humans and I wonder what Adler would have thought if he had been aware of these modern experiments. She was able to combine words to create new meanings! -> MATT: I will never forget when I voluntarily withdrew from alt.atheism some years ago. I had an... argument, where someone claiming to be the physicist Michael Gray. I was challenging him on several philosophical points, most notably that I thought saying "God does not exist" really IS an expression of faith, if we're to be epistemically accurate. Because its entirely within reason that "Everything man has ever thought about God is false except that it exists." > > You were met with a series of vitriolic ad hominems. This is typical of fundamentalists. You cannot reason with them, although they firmly believe that reason is on their side! > -But what made that particularly... hurtful, was that it was (supposedly) coming from a man of science... I could have had this guy as a professor, and... seriously, the venom coming from this man (who did not know me) was... yes, only matched by what I had received by some Christian fundamentalists, but you don't EVER expect this from "freethinkers." -> "The statement 'God does not exist' is falsifiable." > > What is that supposed to prove? It would be falsifiable if God appeared to us. But if he never appears to us, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. The statement "life originated by chance" would also be falsifiable, if God appeared and showed us how he did it. So? How long are you prepared to wait?-My question is simply the efficient "Why make the claim at all?" But truthfully, if someone claims that God exists, it IS up to that individual to do the work; so really, the fact that the statement is falsifiable certainly means one is willing to change. (The evidence must simply be "extraordinary.") -> > ******* > > Hubble, Hubble, > Toil and trouble, > Let us burst > The Hubble Bubble.-That made me laugh! I needed that!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Killing the Watchmaker
Matt asked: "Why does the eye only see one band of light when there would definitely be an advantage if humans could also see IR?" I pointed out that cars would be better if they used no harmful fuel, never broke down etc., but that did not prove that they weren't consciously designed.-MATT: Cars eh? Ah...you already forgot Hume!!!-I expected you to pounce on that, and it gives me a chance to refine the objection to analogies. The moment you criticize the "design" of an organ like the eye, you are ALREADY indirectly introducing analogies, because if you were not aware of possible improvements ... e.g. through our old friend Hubble ... you would have no basis for your criticism. There is no analogy for the origin of the universe, or of life and the mechanisms of evolution. However, virtually every human invention is an extension of some natural faculty/organ/ability, and in my view analogies between eyes and telescopes, hearts and pumps, bodies and engines are perfectly valid, especially in the context of chance vs design. -However, this apparently was not your point: "Remember, chance vs design isn't a compelling question for me. We're a long way from being able to answer it. I was asking the question that does criticize special creation." The possible attitude of a possible God towards humans is scarcely an issue between us. (It might be between Tony and us, if he follows the Bible's description of humans as "the most loved of all creation.") However, it's precisely BECAUSE we're a long way from being able to answer it that chance vs design seems to me to be one of the most compelling questions! You criticize David for believing in a designer. In post after post he has supplied further evidence of the astonishing complexities uncovered by researchers, so your virtual dismissal of the argument is hardly the most convincing of responses. If a theist tells you that God is all good and loves all of his creatures, and you ask about the origin of evil and the indiscriminate slaughter of God's creatures in disasters brought about by his own engineering, will you be content with the answer "it's not a compelling question for me"? I am tempted to use your now infamous term: "dodging the hard problems"!-You quoted "The statement God does not exist is falsifiable", and I didn't see the point. You now say that "if someone claims that God exists, it IS up to that individual to do the work; so really the fact that the statement is falsifiable certainly means that one is willing to change." I still don't see the point. You are now apparently asking the individual to prove that God exists ... and you know that the only possible proof would be for that person to make God appear! By the same token, it is presumably up to the atheist scientist to prove that "life originated by chance", which is also impossible. Of course, this statement too is theoretically falsifiable, because God might appear and show us how he did it. But he can postpone his appearance indefinitely, thereby proving...um...what?-******-I didn't listen to the whole podcast about the whale etc. I got irritated when they went on about the "guilty dog" experiment. I will try to find time to listen to the rest.
Killing the Watchmaker
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, June 04, 2011, 01:54 (4920 days ago) @ dhw
I was asking the question that does criticize special creation[/i]." The possible attitude of a possible God towards humans is scarcely an issue between us. (It might be between Tony and us, if he follows the Bible's description of humans as "the most loved of all creation.")- I didn't say that this was my personal view, I merely pointed out that even the biblical example does not say that humans were superior, merely most loved.
Killing the Watchmaker
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, June 04, 2011, 16:17 (4919 days ago) @ dhw
Matt asked: "Why does the eye only see one band of light when there would definitely be an advantage if humans could also see IR?" I pointed out that cars would be better if they used no harmful fuel, never broke down etc., but that did not prove that they weren't consciously designed. > > MATT: Cars eh? Ah...you already forgot Hume!!! > > I expected you to pounce on that, and it gives me a chance to refine the objection to analogies. The moment you criticize the "design" of an organ like the eye, you are ALREADY indirectly introducing analogies, because if you were not aware of possible improvements ... e.g. through our old friend Hubble ... you would have no basis for your criticism. There is no analogy for the origin of the universe, or of life and the mechanisms of evolution. However, virtually every human invention is an extension of some natural faculty/organ/ability, and in my view analogies between eyes and telescopes, hearts and pumps, bodies and engines are perfectly valid, especially in the context of chance vs design. > -And this is where we part: Comparing Hubble to an eye or a car to a human (forgot the original analogy) creates an abstraction such that you are no longer talking about original phenomena. You're talking about intense abstractions. The only similar thing Hubble has to the eye is in transforming light into a signal--its purpose. (Though, the purpose of the eye isn't so plain as you suggest--"To See.") -I don't deny the utility of analogies in regards to arriving at understandings! However, because there is NO accurate analogy that one can construct to compare the universe to anything else, and life to anything else (both are 1-off phenomena with no other analog in existence) we are left with very little to say. Yes, the design argument relies on these analogies in order to exist, and yes, there is no argument one can make without an accurate analogy. -Your words have made me think deeper about this, and I mislead you on the chance/design question not being compelling. Though it invites you into my fortress of doubt! -I don't mean it's not a valid question, but that it's a value-less question without a host of answers leading up to it. It puts the cart before the horse. Maybe a better way is for me to describe is as a "non-sequitur for the moment."-It's a question that sits on its own little island--and presently--there are no bridges to it... -...because we have no real analogy for the universe... ...because we have no real analogy for life.-So, how are we to reason about the universe? -We can use analogy to help us understand--as a tool--but we need to ground ourselves upon the knowledge that it is only a tool. A watch is an intricately designed thing designed to count gear ticks. We know this. The universe is intricate. But that's about as far as one can go here; short of a designer appearing we can't know if it was designed nor can we divine its purpose. Further, the watch itself uses laws of energy and motion in the universe--it does not define any laws itself. -I can continue, but wishing the watchmaker--or any of its other analogs--to be a non-fallacious question will not make it so. Watches and universes are not like things without presupposing that the universe has a purpose.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Killing the Watchmaker
MATT: Comparing Hubble to an eye or a car to a human (forgot the original analogy) creates an abstraction such that you are no longer talking about original phenomena. You're talking about intense abstractions. The only similar thing Hubble has to the eye is in transforming light into a signal--its purpose. (Though, the purpose of the eye isn't so plain as you suggest--"To See.")-Not for the first time, various lines of thought are getting twisted up. Unless my memory is at fault, it was you who introduced the Hubble analogy, as part of your argument ... with which I tend to agree ... that humans were not "special". David had pointed out the ingenuity of the eye's design, you claimed that Hubble was superior to the eye, and I felt it was futile to criticize the "design" of organs (see below). MATT: I don't deny the utility of analogies in regards to arriving at understandings! However, because there is NO accurate analogy that one can construct to compare the universe to anything else, and life to anything else (both are 1-off phenomena with no other analog in existence) we are left with very little to say.-Please note that in the post you have quoted, I said specifically that "there is no analogy for the origin of the universe, or of life and the mechanisms of evolution". However, I wasn't dealing with the origin of life and the universe, but with the absurd argument that the "design" of specific organs is flawed, which apparently shows they were not designed. My analogy: cars break down, so does that mean they are the product of chance? It is a single-track argument, and in this context, I think my question illustrates its illogicality. MATT: Your words have made me think deeper about this, and I mislead you on the chance/design question not being compelling. Though it invites you into my fortress of doubt!-I am already inside my own fortress of doubt, but thanks for the invitation! MATT: It's a question that sits on its own little island--and presently--there are no bridges to it... ...because we have no real analogy for the universe... ...because we have no real analogy for life. So, how are we to reason about the universe? -The problem of chance v. design in relation to the origin of the universe and of life and the mechanisms for evolution does not require analogies. The more we learn about the mechanics of the universe and life, the more complex they become. The information is enough in itself, and the question then is whether we as individuals can believe that such complexities originated by chance.
Killing the Watchmaker
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Wednesday, June 29, 2011, 22:39 (4894 days ago) @ dhw
Video of Richard Dawkins responding to a question on Chance and Design:-http://www.atheismnetwork.org/2011/06/26/richard-dawkins-speaks-to-intelligent-design-proponent/-Just thought I'd drop by to see how things are here. Nice to see dhw still singing the same old same old song!
--
GPJ
Killing the Watchmaker
GEORGE JELLISS: Video of Richard Dawkins responding to a question on Chance and Design:-http://www.atheismnetwork.org/2011/06/26/richard-dawkins-speaks-to-intelligent-design-p...-Just thought I'd drop by to see how things are here. Nice to see dhw still singing the same old same old song!-Always a pleasure to welcome George back, though rather sad to see Dawkins singing the same old same old song, which George clearly approves of. For those not familiar with the Dawkins technique, it is always to fall back on the fact that Natural Selection is not governed by chance ... which few people would deny. This conveniently ignores the Number One question, which is how life, replication and the mechanisms for evolution came into being in the first place ... mechanisms without which there would be nothing for Nature to select from. Yes, my response is the same old song, because Dawkins and George never cease to trot out the same old fallacy ... that NS explains all.-In order to counter the usual diversionary strategy when this objection is raised, let me stress that I am not a creationist but an agnostic, and I regard the creationist argument as being just as irrational as the atheist. ---
Killing the Watchmaker
by David Turell , Thursday, June 30, 2011, 19:27 (4893 days ago) @ dhw
GEORGE JELLISS: Video of Richard Dawkins responding to a question on Chance and Design: > > http://www.atheismnetwork.org/2011/06/26/richard-dawkins-speaks-to-intelligent-design-p... > Just thought I'd drop by to see how things are here. > Nice to see dhw still singing the same old same old song!-> In order to counter the usual diversionary strategy when this objection is raised, let me stress that I am not a creationist but an agnostic, and I regard the creationist argument as being just as irrational as the atheist. -Everybody dances to the same old tune, except Matt. He conjures up all sorts of weird approaches.
Killing the Watchmaker
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, July 01, 2011, 00:38 (4893 days ago) @ David Turell
GEORGE JELLISS: Video of Richard Dawkins responding to a question on Chance and Design: > > > > http://www.atheismnetwork.org/2011/06/26/richard-dawkins-speaks-to-intelligent-design-p... > > > Just thought I'd drop by to see how things are here. > > Nice to see dhw still singing the same old same old song! > > > In order to counter the usual diversionary strategy when this objection is raised, let me stress that I am not a creationist but an agnostic, and I regard the creationist argument as being just as irrational as the atheist. > > Everybody dances to the same old tune, except Matt. He conjures up all sorts of weird approaches.
-*Gulp*-Does this make me the new agnosticweb gadfly?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Killing the Watchmaker
by David Turell , Friday, July 01, 2011, 01:55 (4893 days ago) @ xeno6696
GEORGE JELLISS: Video of Richard Dawkins responding to a question on Chance and Design: > > > > > > http://www.atheismnetwork.org/2011/06/26/richard-dawkins-speaks-to-intelligent-design-p... > > > > > Just thought I'd drop by to see how things are here. > > > Nice to see dhw still singing the same old same old song! > > > > > In order to counter the usual diversionary strategy when this objection is raised, let me stress that I am not a creationist but an agnostic, and I regard the creationist argument as being just as irrational as the atheist. > > > > Everybody dances to the same old tune, except Matt. He conjures up all sorts of weird approaches.
Killing the Watchmaker
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, July 02, 2011, 17:49 (4891 days ago) @ xeno6696
I was looking through some texts looking for something for David when I found this and was reminded of this thread.- Reason gives conviction, but rash belief produces only infatuation.-It is quite reasonable to believe in things that one neither sees, touches, nor measures, because manifestly the infinite exists, and one can say not only I believe, but I know that an infinity of things exist which are beyond my reach.-Knowledge being indefinitely progressive, I can believe that I shall one day know that of which I am now ignorant. I have no doubts in regard to what I know thoroughly; I may doubt my knowledge if I know imperfectly, but I cannot have doubts as to a thing of which I know nothing, since it is impossible for me to formulate them.-He who says there is no God, without having defined God in a complete and absolute manner, simply talks nonsense. I wait for his definition, and when he has set this forth after his own fashion, I am certain, beforehand, of being able to say to him, "I agree with you, there is no such God"; but that God is certainly not my God. If he says to me: "Define your God," I should reply, "I will take good care to do nothing of the kind, for a God defined is a God dethroned." 1 Every positive definition is deniable, the Infinite is the undefined. "I believe only in matter,"(http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/levi/phs/phs08.htm)
Killing the Watchmaker
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, July 02, 2011, 18:57 (4891 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I was looking through some texts looking for something for David when I found this and was reminded of this thread. > > > Reason gives conviction, but rash belief produces only infatuation. > > It is quite reasonable to believe in things that one neither sees, touches, nor measures, because manifestly the infinite exists, and one can say not only I believe, but I know that an infinity of things exist which are beyond my reach. > > Knowledge being indefinitely progressive, I can believe that I shall one day know that of which I am now ignorant. I have no doubts in regard to what I know thoroughly; I may doubt my knowledge if I know imperfectly, but I cannot have doubts as to a thing of which I know nothing, since it is impossible for me to formulate them. > > He who says there is no God, without having defined God in a complete and absolute manner, simply talks nonsense. I wait for his definition, and when he has set this forth after his own fashion, I am certain, beforehand, of being able to say to him, "I agree with you, there is no such God"; but that God is certainly not my God. If he says to me: "Define your God," I should reply, "I will take good care to do nothing of the kind, for a God defined is a God dethroned." 1 Every positive definition is deniable, the Infinite is the undefined. "I believe only in matter,"(http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/levi/phs/phs08.htm)-An interesting idea, lets poke at it a bit. -"...manifestly the infinite exists..."-The only thing we can say with any level of certitude is that the universe is expanding infinitely. It's expanding at 3x the speed of light, but it is also technically finite. Because we know its speed, the size of the universe is a function its speed and shape; it may be an infinite function, but if you study calculus, even infinity has bounds. It can't be further than its boundaries, nor will it retreat to a previous one. It isn't truly infinite. Since the universe is finite, so too is everything within it.-I'd like to know the poster's definition of "infinite" and why he says that he knows it's manifest. -An infinite number of things to know? Relatively speaking, yes. Absolutely? No. There is a finite amount of information in the universe as well. There's more than you can process in one life time... but that's not infinite. So its true that we can't comprehend everything this has more to do with the combination of personal ability, ambition, and time. Society is and has been the solution to that problem--people write down what they know to share it and record it for history. But how long does it take to catch up? To get a PHD in math now, you only reach the year 1950 upon the completion of your Master's degree. After that, you choose a field, and your general education terminates. -There is information we have no access to. On one of the extrasolar planets we've found, what does its sunrise look like? -Is there something in the universe that can't be comprehended? Technically yes. How life started is one of them. To the amount of information we have, we can't truly fathom it. But unanswered questions are only unanswered questions. Does the infinite exist? Is there anything that we can say is infinite? To my comprehension, the answer (so far) is no. With finite matter in a finite universe, all you have is permutations and combinations...-Is there anything that is timeless? I'd cede that my consciousness, when deep in meditation seems to be a never-ending well... but the well will one day dry up, when I leave this life. -Heraclitus reigns. -I've said this before (perhaps not in your presence) but I really want to be able to believe in a God... but I have found no reasonable means to do so. The idea of the poster here is poetically pleasing... but it doesn't withstand scrutiny. -In terms of hard problems... I'm simply happy that thus far I have found an objective non-theological basis for morality.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Killing the Watchmaker
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, July 03, 2011, 00:51 (4891 days ago) @ xeno6696
It was written by a French writer, Eliphas Levi, in 1856. And honestly, while the terms like infinite may be, strictly speaking, incorrect, I do not think the sentiment is wrong. -We have plumbed the depths of Quantum physics, and there is still the possibility of finding bits smaller than quanta that we are as of yet unable to detect. We have mapped the edge of the universe(supposedly), and yet it is ever expanding and what lies beyond that boundary could very well be an infinity of other universes of which we have no current knowledge. We know there is a boundary, so it stands to reason that there must be something on the other side, even if that something is nothing. That nothing could very well be 'manifestly infinite". In this sense, the statement "..one can say not only I believe, but I know that an infinity of things exist which are beyond my reach" is very accurate. We know that something had to occur before the Big Bang, or it stands to reason that the big bang could not occur. We can only peer forward, back, outwards, larger, and smaller to the limits of our technology. Even within those limits however, while technically finite, we can still reason that there is something for us to know that is beyond those limits, and once those things can be reasoned, we will have a new set of limits within which we can work.
Killing the Watchmaker
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, July 03, 2011, 15:50 (4890 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony,-Well played here. The only question I can ask, is what basis do we really have for making the claim, "the infinite exists..." when if you dissect your words you realize that your reasoning is really "What if...?" I can't think of anything that I believe in, based on purely the justification of "what if."-What's wrong with taking a view like mine that says, "I'll believe it when I have evidence?" (The utterly boring agnostic view, I know...)-> It was written by a French writer, Eliphas Levi, in 1856. And honestly, while the terms like infinite may be, strictly speaking, incorrect, I do not think the sentiment is wrong. > > We have plumbed the depths of Quantum physics, and there is still the possibility of finding bits smaller than quanta that we are as of yet unable to detect. We have mapped the edge of the universe(supposedly), and yet it is ever expanding and what lies beyond that boundary could very well be an infinity of other universes of which we have no current knowledge. We know there is a boundary, so it stands to reason that there must be something on the other side, even if that something is nothing. That nothing could very well be 'manifestly infinite". In this sense, the statement "..one can say not only I believe, but I know that an infinity of things exist which are beyond my reach" is very accurate. We know that something had to occur before the Big Bang, or it stands to reason that the big bang could not occur. We can only peer forward, back, outwards, larger, and smaller to the limits of our technology. Even within those limits however, while technically finite, we can still reason that there is something for us to know that is beyond those limits, and once those things can be reasoned, we will have a new set of limits within which we can work.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Killing the Watchmaker
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, July 03, 2011, 23:00 (4890 days ago) @ xeno6696
The original link was about founding belief on reason. Just because you do not know something is not reason enough to doubt its existence. Reason will lead to the conclusion that something exists even if you do not have the knowledge to say exactly what that something is. That was the authors point when he says that once you have evidence it is no longer belief, it is knowing, and there is a fundamental difference between the two. Reason leads me to believe in a deity. I do not make claims to the nature of the deity other than what I can observe, and as you pointed out in your OP, there is no comparable analogy so any inference I make is by necessity incomplete and wrong. So we can extend your OP to say that there is no analogy for the universe, life, or God, but lack of complete knowledge or proper analogy does not dictate disbelief where reason leads us to the conclusion that there is something to believe in. Grok?
Killing the Watchmaker
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, July 04, 2011, 03:46 (4890 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
The original link was about founding belief on reason. Just because you do not know something is not reason enough to doubt its existence. Reason will lead to the conclusion that something exists even if you do not have the knowledge to say exactly what that something is. That was the authors point when he says that once you have evidence it is no longer belief, it is knowing, and there is a fundamental difference between the two. Reason leads me to believe in a deity. I do not make claims to the nature of the deity other than what I can observe, and as you pointed out in your OP, there is no comparable analogy so any inference I make is by necessity incomplete and wrong. So we can extend your OP to say that there is no analogy for the universe, life, or God, but lack of complete knowledge or proper analogy does not dictate disbelief where reason leads us to the conclusion that there is something to believe in. Grok?-My position isn't of "disbelief" as much as it is lacking justification for belief...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Killing the Watchmaker
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, May 30, 2011, 16:30 (4924 days ago) @ dhw
An Atheist cannon...- Just appeared as I was searching alt.atheism backlogs:-"The statement 'God does not exist' is falsifiable."
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Killing the Watchmaker
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, May 30, 2011, 16:32 (4924 days ago) @ xeno6696
dhw, -I seen now what you meant by thinking I attributed the Hubble argument to you. No... I was talking about your argument AGAINST mine. Only Strengthening it in a novel way.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"