To the Atheist: The Universe. By Chance or Design?

[rez]

Quote by: Agent007 Rez, most of the science you are writing about consists of unproven theories such as that of evolution; your belief in them is just like one's belief in a religion. Thus, when you insult SNPete and others like him, you are indeed insulting yourself, even though you think that you are the rational one and we are the magical and societally inappropriate ones. Besides, it is not as if everything in your suggested biology book is in conflict with religious thoughts; by the way, "eating," "sleeping," and "pooping" are all biological functions, and, according to your credentials and assumedly high intelligence should be explained by you and will not bring us closer to God as we "do our cult thing." By the way Rez, what is the point of your last post? Now who is the hypocrite?

First off, evolution has far more evidence to back up the theory then religion does. King Henry did not write my biology book a person who went through many years of schooling did....? I am searching for answers JUST like you are, however, I am trying to find GOD the best way possible....through science...something that is activly trying to explain REALITY - the same reality that your God created. I am trying to understand YOUR Gods creation better then yourself....I am studying your God's creation and you say I am practicing a false concept..

Quote by: Agent007 Besides, it is not as if everything in your suggested biology book is in conflict with religious thoughts; by the way, "eating," "sleeping," and "pooping" are all biological functions, and, according to your credentials and assumedly high intelligence should be explained by you and will not bring us closer to God

No not everything in a biology book is in conflict with religious dogma. If you can't understand why you eat, poop, and sleep, then how can you understand God? Take one step at a time agent, make it easy on yourself, nobody has to have a phd to understand science - is God seriously all about praying and eating Jesus Christ's body, is that why God has nothing to do with science?

Try and take an active step in actually understanding what your God created because, to me, it seems much more reasonable then blindly accepting God by praying and preaching.


The point of my last post was to show that I follow the rules of the message board more then others (Giglap). I even went so far as by writing a P.S. about God and me to keep the thread on track.

your very last question was "Now who is the hypocrite"? well since Giglap only posted a couple of minutes before yours I would say he is still currently the hypocrite because he did not folllow the rules and did not contribute anything to this thread....However, I know that is why you did not ask the question. I do not know why you added "now who is the hypocrite" because you did not show any hypocrisy at all. You mindlessly put that there so you seem highly intelligent or something...or maybe there is a hypocrisy I did not catch....I tried to answer you....now correct me....

[SNPete]

Quote by: rez .....God the inventer of language must of really fucked up because I dont know who to believe anymore.

No my friend, maybe you should stop smoking so much dope. It may be you who is "fucked up". (A term from my past meaning being too stoned)

[rez]

Quote by: SNPete No my friend, maybe you should stop smoking so much dope. It may be you who is "fucked up". (A term from my past meaning being too stoned)

Please refute my argument instead of assuming I smoke pot as if it is a negative thing. I said one word - smoke. You attached other words to it. Is that all you have to say about my posts? Even if my rants are completing wrong...why dont you actually refute them? they should be easy for you, no?

Like I said before, you suck at preaching the word of God....I went to Catholic school for 13 years and feel the conversations I had in school were MUCH more compelling then yours.....maybe you should read your bible again. Fundamentalism will not win. Not even in your own religion. Can't even agree on God amongst yourselves...you know nothing about God.

[Starboy]

Quote by: rez Can't even agree on God amongst yourselves...you know nothing about God.

That is the dang funny thing about it. They insist it is important but know close to nothing about it. That is exactly what one would expect to find if foolery was going on. Go down the line, they are not just doing it with god but with every other supernatural construct, heaven, hell, sin, devils, evil, demons, angels, and so forth. It is all a crock that in any other set of circumstances they would not believe it. And yet they somehow feel compelled to try to convince others of it. It is an obvious case of cognitive dissonance.

Starboy

[Agent007]

Starboy, do you accuse us of not knowing anything about God? For the most part, you are wrong, because most religious people know something about their religions. Rez, you are wrong in thinking that we blindly follow God; all of us make a choice to do so as we consider the alternative options to belief, such as your unscrupulous way of life. For instance, all Roman Catholics must be confirmed; that is, they must recheck whether or not they want to remain Catholic as their parents have decided for them at Baptism.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Agent007 Starboy, do you accuse us of not knowing anything about God? For the most part, you are wrong, because most religious people know something about their religions.

Oh I agree, and most of that has just about nothing to do with god and everything to do with god intermediaries.

Starboy

[rez]

Quote by: Agent007 Starboy, do you accuse us of not knowing anything about God? For the most part, you are wrong, because most religious people know something about their religions.

so if you know the stories and prayers of Religion then that means you know God?

Quote by: Agent007 Rez, you are wrong in thinking that we blindly follow God; all of us make a choice to do so as we consider the alternative options to belief, such as your unscrupulous way of life. For instance, all Roman Catholics must be confirmed; that is, they must recheck whether or not they want to remain Catholic as their parents have decided for them at Baptism.

haha you are right. BUT, what is going to start happening when Catholic grade schools/highschools become vacant? I mean, techniqually I am Catholic because I was confirmed in 6th grade..I guess I chose to be confirmed in 6th grade because it was either catholic school or public school. I live in Philadelphia and our public school system sucks; however, that is not why I am truly confirmed. The real reason was...........ready.........................this one may get ya Agent.......


I was a fucking BABY, they like little kids dont they? (now that I think about it no wonder why they arent pro-choice, it is stealing their choice of making money)

haha just kidding, but something to think about.

so please Agent and Pete, your high class cult does not interest me. Since I was a year old I have experienced 18 years of the world and till this day I still experience it. I do not want to settle down to one idea, one belief that you preach as the truth. The only truth, to me, is my perspective in this world and nobody can ever take that away from me. You can not love God because you are told to, you must experience that God by what he gave you. I take my life as a gift to EXPERIENCE REALITY, not as some dog leash connected to an irrational HOPE.

A hope that believes seperating the good from the bad, A hope that appreciation always leads to an award, and a hope that theres an after life.

These are some very primitive hopes and they need to change...

P.S. could Pete or Agent describe what happens in heaven...?

[SNPete]

Quote by: rez so if you know the stories and prayers of Religion then that means you know God? haha you are right. BUT, what is going to start happening when Catholic grade schools/highschools become vacant? I mean, techniqually I am Catholic because I was confirmed in 6th grade..I guess I chose to be confirmed in 6th grade because it was either catholic school or public school. I live in Philadelphia and our public school system sucks; however, that is not why I am truly confirmed. The real reason was...........ready.........................this one may get ya Agent....... I was a fucking BABY, they like little kids dont they? (now that I think about it no wonder why they arent pro-choice, it is stealing their choice of making money) haha just kidding, but something to think about. so please Agent and Pete, your high class cult does not interest me. Since I was a year old I have experienced 18 years of the world and till this day I still experience it. I do not want to settle down to one idea, one belief that you preach as the truth. The only truth, to me, is my perspective in this world and nobody can ever take that away from me. You can not love God because you are told to, you must experience that God by what he gave you. I take my life as a gift to EXPERIENCE REALITY, not as some dog leash connected to an irrational HOPE. A hope that believes seperating the good from the bad, A hope that appreciation always leads to an award, and a hope that theres an after life. These are some very primitive hopes and they need to change... P.S. could Pete or Agent describe what happens in heaven...?

REZ,

I don't want to waste my time. I value smart people, real discussion and mutual respect. I have nothing to prove and am very happy and secure in my beliefs. My life is happy and good.You have seen that I can be very sarcastic and ridiculing when someone shows an area of weakness(drug user). Watch your grammer and what you say. I will make you look like an idiot by twisting your words. However, respect me and I will respect you. That is all I ask. otherwise I will ignore you. Or worse I will pick your words apart and mock you. Deal?

BTW I am not Catholic and could care less. No offense to 007.

[Giglap]

Quote by: Starboy I suggest that you take the time to learn some science before you use your demonstrated ignorance as if it were actual knowledge ... The watchmaker argument has been beat to death. But then again if you were educated you would know that.

.
Ad Hominem.

Quote by: Starboy The so called “watchmaker argument” is not an actual argument, it is an analogy and a very poor one at that. It has many problems not the least of which it assumes that in some sense a watch is like a universe.

The argument is not only in some sense like a universe, it is like the universe in the specific points that are relevant.

Quote by: Starboy Let us examine that presumption. Is a watch like a universe?

Is A Watch Like A Universe?
YES, because a watch and the universe both have order and complexity. These are the qualities which the analogy compares. If complete parity were required for a valid analogy, then the result would be neither an analogy or instructive.

Order and complexity are the attributes of the watchmaker illustration.
Points in which the universe and a watch differ, are not relevant unless they show that the two differ regarding order and complexity.

The instructive “sameness” of the watch and the universe’s order and complexity are qualitative.
The instructive “difference” is quantitative.

Based on these criteria, which Starboy may or may not stipulate…
Let’s examine these points against the watchmaker argument.

Quote by: Starboy 1) A watch does pretty much one thing. – The universe has all sorts of things going on many if not most of which we are unawares of.

A watch only has one general purpose, but purpose has no bearing on order and complexity. The fact that the universe is unfathomably more complex than a watch is precisely what makes this analogy compelling.

Quote by: Starboy 2) Most of what comprises a watch is there to accomplish that one thing. – A very, very, very, very tiny, itsy bitsy, miniscule, microscopic portion of the universe has anything to do with us.

The existence or lack thereof of an intended beneficiary, is not the mechanism by which the analogy indicates the existence of a designer, order and complexity are. Mankind’s centrality to the purpose of the universe is not at issue here. Incidentally, I feel quite certain that mankind is NOT central to the universe’s existence or purpose.

Quote by: Starboy 3) There is an obvious use for what a watch does. – nobody has figured out what a universe is used for or what it does. After all it has existed for 13.5 billion years before we showed up and will exist at least as many more billions of years after we are gone and if we are lucky our span of existence may be 10 million years. To claim that the universe exists for us would be like claiming that my house exists for the fly that just flew into the door and then is killed.

Our knowledge, or lack of knowledge regarding the watch’s purpose has no impact on the analogy.
. “The Watchmaker" analogy says nothing about the character of the designer, or the purpose of the universe. It also makes no statements about our importance in the universe. It is about the individuals intuitive inference of an intelligent design.

Quote by: Starboy 4) We can go and look at watches being made. – No one has ever seen a universe being built. 5) There are people who tell you to your face that they make watches. – If anyone told you that they made the universe to your face you would not believe them and if they persisted you would think they were crazy. 6) The history of the watch can be traced independently of watch advocates. A person who has never used a watch in their entire lives can come up with pretty much the same history as a rabid watch advocate. – The only history of the universe that can be traced is the account given by science and it can be done independently. 7) The history of the watch is well accepted. There are no wildly varying stories about the creation of the watch from different groups. – there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of groups that give wildly varying accounts.

I don’t understand the relevance of points 4 through 7 individually, though, collectively, they all share the issue of prior knowledge.


In the opening paragraph of “Natural Theology” (1802), the originator* of the watchmaker analogy, William Paley, specifies that inference be drawn from study of the watch.
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/intro/paper.paley.htm

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there: I might possibly answer, that for any thing I know to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer.
But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch, as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first?
For this reason, and for no other, viz., that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose… (Paley iterates through his observations of the watch, then concludes) …the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker; that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place of other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.

Quote by: Starboy I could go on but just this is enough to see that a watch is not anything like a universe.

The point of the analogy is not to suggest that the universe is made up of brass gears and steel springs. Rather it suggests that regarding order and complexity, inferences drawn about one should be drawn the other as well.

Quote by: Starboy And this is just a small portion of what is wrong with the watchmaker argument.

[rez]

[quote=SNPete]

Quote by: SNPete don't want to waste my time.

I am glad that a bunch of athiest's taught you how to CHERISH your beliefs rather then speak them as TRUTH.

Quote by: SNPete I value smart people, real discussion and mutual respect.

you value fairy tails also.

Quote by: SNPete I have nothing to prove and am very happy and secure in my beliefs.

Ignorance is bliss. However, if you were really content with your beliefs - you wouldn't debate and make threads.

Quote by: SNPete you have seen that I can be very sarcastic and ridiculing when someone shows an area of weakness(drug user).

You know nothing about god nor drugs. wait a second, dont you drink?

Quote by: SNPete you have no clue Watch your grammer and what you say. I will make you look like an idiot by twisting your words.

many people can twist words around. "I am not Catholic and could care less" does not cut it Pete. I guess you could care less because the Catholic god is fake, right?

Quote by: SNPete However, respect me and I will respect you. That is all I ask. otherwise I will ignore you. Or worse I will pick your words apart and mock you. Deal?

So should I tip toe around you or something? Please, when you quote my post - respond to it. Do not make threats

unanswered questions from the religious nuts.

Why am I baptised when I am a baby?
What is heaven like?

[Starboy]

Giglap, you are birlliant, you have shown that 'a watch' == 'a universe'. Please forward your findings to all the astophyscists, astronomers, and physicists out there as soon as possible. Everything they have found is wrong because giglap has shown that 'a watch' == 'a universe'. Dang, can't refute that. I mean it is so obvous. IF they want to know how a universe is made all they have to do is go to a watch factory!

Starboy

[rez]

Quote by: Giglap . Ad Hominem. The argument is not only in some sense like a universe, it is like the universe in the specific points that are relevant. Is A Watch Like A Universe? YES, because a watch and the universe both have order and complexity. These are the qualities which the analogy compares. If complete parity were required for a valid analogy, then the result would be neither an analogy or instructive. Order and complexity are the attributes of the watchmaker illustration. Points in which the universe and a watch differ, are not relevant unless they show that the two differ regarding order and complexity. The instructive “sameness” of the watch and the universe’s order and complexity are qualitative. The instructive “difference” is quantitative. Based on these criteria, which Starboy may or may not stipulate… Let’s examine these points against the watchmaker argument. A watch only has one general purpose, but purpose has no bearing on order and complexity. The fact that the universe is unfathomably more complex than a watch is precisely what makes this analogy compelling. The existence or lack thereof of an intended beneficiary, is not the mechanism by which the analogy indicates the existence of a designer, order and complexity are. Mankind’s centrality to the purpose of the universe is not at issue here. Incidentally, I feel quite certain that mankind is NOT central to the universe’s existence or purpose. Our knowledge, or lack of knowledge regarding the watch’s purpose has no impact on the analogy. . “The Watchmaker" analogy says nothing about the character of the designer, or the purpose of the universe. It also makes no statements about our importance in the universe. It is about the individuals intuitive inference of an intelligent design. I don’t understand the relevance of points 4 through 7 individually, though, collectively, they all share the issue of prior knowledge. In the opening paragraph of “Natural Theology” (1802), the originator* of the watchmaker analogy, William Paley, specifies that inference be drawn from study of the watch. http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/intro/paper.paley.htm In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there: I might possibly answer, that for any thing I know to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch, as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, viz., that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose… (Paley iterates through his observations of the watch, then concludes) …the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker; that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place of other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. The point of the analogy is not to suggest that the universe is made up of brass gears and steel springs. Rather it suggests that regarding order and complexity, inferences drawn about one should be drawn the other as well.

Let us agree with your watch maker bullshit..


If there is a God there must be a God maker, so who is it? The answer is the human race.

[Starboy]

Funny how the supernaturalist realizes that the watch maker argument can't be taken literally, except of course for the result they are looking for. Very honest.

Starboy

[RickSp]

Quote by: rez Let us agree with your watch maker bullshit.. If there is a God there must be a God maker, so who is it? The answer is the human race.

God so often seems to be little more than man looking at himself in a carnival mirror. Man is indeed the watch maker.

[SNPete]

Quote by: rez I am glad that a bunch of athiest's taught you how to CHERISH your beliefs rather then speak them as TRUTH. you value fairy tails also. Ignorance is bliss. However, if you were really content with your beliefs - you wouldn't debate and make threads. You know nothing about god nor drugs. wait a second, dont you drink? many people can twist words around. "I am not Catholic and could care less" does not cut it Pete. I guess you could care less because the Catholic god is fake, right? So should I tip toe around you or something? Please, when you quote my post - respond to it. Do not make threats unanswered questions from the religious nuts. Why am I baptised when I am a baby? What is heaven like?

Rez,

By the tone of your posts I can see that you are an angry person. I am sorry. Have you considered anger management counseling?. Perhaps your dope is not strong enough. Have you considered opium. A couple of hits of that and nothing will bother you and it gives splendid dreams.

It find it odd that you make so many assumptions and judgments about me. All you know about me is what I post. I am sorry for that. I hope you don't judge other groups of people based on their personal beliefs, racial heritage or sexual orientation in the same way you have judged me!

Your statement that I know nothing about God has cause much laughter in my household and with my friends. I lead Bible studies. Actually, you were probably in diapers when I started leading Bible studies. Now I understand that Catholics typically do not do Bible studies.

If you want TRUTH then here is some from the Bible. John 14:6. Jesus says “I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me”. John 3:19-20 says “the light has come into the world and men loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds are evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds be exposed.

[Giglap]

Quote by: Starboy Giglap, you are birlliant, you have shown that 'a watch' == 'a universe'. Please forward your findings to all the astophyscists, astronomers, and physicists out there as soon as possible. Everything they have found is wrong because giglap has shown that 'a watch' == 'a universe'. Dang, can't refute that. I mean it is so obvous. IF they want to know how a universe is made all they have to do is go to a watch factory! Starboy

Wow Starboy, you are a very difficult person to be civil with

Although I have frequented this site for a very short while, I believe this at least the third time that you have responded to one of my posts in a manner that can only be described as childish and unresponsive.

Your failure to respond in a constructive manner, communicates a lack of confidence in your ability to defend your own positions.

[Starboy]

Giglap, if you insist that the watchmaker analogy is a reasonable argument then you are implying that knowing about watches is how you know about universes. It is interesting that you can not understand this as it was stated, but for some reason you take offense when it is stated in a way where it is obvious and makes the idea look as stupid as it actually is. If you look foolish it is because you are being foolish. Protesting it only makes it very funny.

Starboy

[rez]

Quote by: SNPete Rez, By the tone of your posts I can see that you are an angry person. I am sorry. Have you considered anger management counseling?. Perhaps your dope is not strong enough. Have you considered opium. A couple of hits of that and nothing will bother you and it gives splendid dreams. It find it odd that you make so many assumptions and judgments about me. All you know about me is what I post. I am sorry for that. I hope you don't judge other groups of people based on their personal beliefs, racial heritage or sexual orientation in the same way you have judged me! Your statement that I know nothing about God has cause much laughter in my household and with my friends. I lead Bible studies. Actually, you were probably in diapers when I started leading Bible studies. Now I understand that Catholics typically do not do Bible studies. If you want TRUTH then here is some from the Bible. John 14:6. Jesus says “I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me”. John 3:19-20 says “the light has come into the world and men loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds are evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds be exposed.

is that all you got? a couple of quotes from 2000 years ago? "I lead bible studies" does not mean you know God, it means you know how to read. Catholics do not take the bible literally and either does the pope. Why don't Christians, Catholics, Muslims, and every other fucking religion in the world agree on who God is first, then we can start debating?

[Giglap]

Quote by: rez Let us agree with your watch maker bullshit.

Ok, thanks.

Quote by: rez If there is a God there must be a God maker, so who is it? The answer is the human race.

Sarcasm need not be senseless Rez. I think what you are trying to say here, is that if I insist that the existence of the universe requires intelligent design (God),then by the same logic God must have also been created.
Now that would be a good question.
If you’d care to make the point I’d be happy to respond to it.

[Giglap]

Quote by: Starboy Giglap, if you insist that the watchmaker analogy is a reasonable argument then you are implying that knowing about watches is how you know about universes.

Your assertion is both false and a mischaracterization of the watchmaker analogy.
I can understand why you would want to build a strawman, But what in the world makes you think I would want to defend it?