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

[Starboy]

Giglap, here is the watchmaker analogy posing as an argument in a nutshell

1) the universe is seen to be complex
2) watches are supposedly complex
3) universes are like watches because both are said to be complex
4) watches are created
5) so universes are created

It is argument by analogy. But if you take the same analogical argument and say replace the supposed properties and objects with something as equally incongruous the gross stupidity of the argument is crystal clear:

1) the yellow pages are yellow
2) bananas are yellow
3) bananas are like the yellow pages because both are yellow.
4) people eat bananas
5) so people eat the yellow pages

Starboy

[Giglap]

Quote by: Starboy Giglap, here is the watchmaker analogy posing as an argument in a nutshell 1) the universe is seen to be complex 2) watches are supposedly complex 3) universes are like watches because both are said to be complex 4) watches are created 5) so universes are created It is argument by analogy. But if you take the same analogical argument and say replace the supposed properties and objects with something as equally incongruous the gross stupidity of the argument is crystal clear: 1) the yellow pages are yellow 2) bananas are yellow 3) bananas are like the yellow pages because both are yellow. 4) people eat bananas 5) so people eat the yellow pages Starboy

Ok, now thats interesting. Let me ponder that.
I don't have an immediate answer.

Thanks,
-Jim

[RickSp]

Quote by: Starboy 1) the yellow pages are yellow 2) bananas are yellow 3) bananas are like the yellow pages because both are yellow. 4) people eat bananas 5) so people eat the yellow pages Starboy

Well, the yellow pages are an excellent source of fiber. And eating the yellow pages makes exactly as much sense as the "watchmaker" analogy.

[Starboy]

Hmmmmm. I guess it is agreed that the so called "watchmaker" argument is not an actual argument and not much of an analogy either.

Starboy

[Giglap]

Quote by: Starboy Hmmmmm. I guess it is agreed that the so called "watchmaker" argument is not an actual argument and not much of an analogy either. Starboy

Starboy,
Well, you've certainly given me enough time to ponder this, so I guess I must agree that the watchmaker is a poor argument by analogy. You did a nice job of demonstrating the weakness in the argument.
I did some reading on what makes a good argument by analogy and the consensus was that the more attributes in common, the more powerful the argument.
Oh well, It's better to be right than to just feel right.

There was however, still this niggling part of me that said I was missing something in my defense of this classic 200 year old argument... So, in an effort to discredit your counter analogy, I attempted to find my phone number in a banana...

Consequently, I concede to your view. This apparently is a weak argument by analogy.

Thanks,
Jim

Actually I looked in several bananas...

[Starboy]

Quote by: Giglap Actually I looked in several bananas...

I applaud your honesty and your intense but goofy curiosity. May it always serve you well.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Okay does anyone care to take on my observation:

Quote by: Starboy Here is another one: competing explanations. 1) We all see the universe. 2) We all want to explain it. God is one explanation. Science is another. There are others. What criterion should be used to prefer one explanation over another? And when we have made our choice should we stick with it?

Starboy

[Capt Lee]

Seems to be a lot of people around who drive in Fords. I wonder if they deny Henry existed. Maybe what your driving is an accident too. Throw a hand full of metal at the wall, see if it hits the floor as a watch.

[Jack]

When science attempts to explain the origin of the universe, or investigates the possibility that it's a reoccuring event with no beginning or end, it uses tools and knowledge already determined through independent experiments to be real and tangible.

When religion attempts to explain Intelligent Design, it has to rely on a designer, with no proof of a designer, no independent research to offer suggesting a designer and no research papers or tests carried out to indicate the existence of a designer. In other words, the core of that belief has to be taken on faith just like the religion that proposes it.

If ID were offered as a philosophical concept, I could accept that and would enjoy giving it some thought. But to present it as a scientific alternative to evolution shows that those who offer it as such do not grasp the basics of what science is.

Some of us prefer to use our senses and accumulated knowledge to answer the riddles of life. Others wish to take it all on faith. I believe I have the freedom to decide for myself which path I choose. Religionists are mandated by their deity to follow what's been written by men in a book as the source of their beliefs.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Capt Lee Seems to be a lot of people around who drive in Fords. I wonder if they deny Henry existed. Maybe what your driving is an accident too. Throw a hand full of metal at the wall, see if it hits the floor as a watch.

Throw a watch at the wall and see if what hits the ground is a watch.

Starboy

[Giglap]

Wait a minute Starboy, You going ID on us?

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Starboy Throw a watch at the wall and see if what hits the ground is a watch.

It will be a GOD!!

[Starboy]

Nahhh, just showing the supidity of that wall argument. It is not as if throwing a watch at a wall results in a watch when all is done, why would anyone think that throwing watch parts at a wall would result in a watch.

Starboy

[Blanh]

SNPete,

I agree with Starboy that the universe-watch analogy is not at all appropriate. For an analogy to work the two things being compared must be very similar.

Yes, the second law of thermodynamics suggests that systems, in general, move towards chaos rather than order. Is the law itself a symptom of intelligent design? If you are arguing from that stance, then the design doesnt seem as intelligent. What if I posited the argument that our world IS in chaos, and that we only perceive order as a consequence of the human brain? There are no such things as really existing numbers - they have been used as a pragmatic convention of human brain to create order. Order may be just in the eye of the beholder.

There are a number of other issues with intelligent design. Why do men have nipples? Why some people born in a PVS? Why is there some areas in the world where food doesn't grow as easily as other places? There are many actually existing situations that seem incompatible with intelligent design.

Finally, yes it is true that nobody can know for sure whether the universe was created as a result of a deity. However, why should we assume it was? There doesnt seem to be any evidence at all. Most people have heard of Occam's Razor. Why add more mystery to the problem by invoking a deity?

Blanh.

p.s. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle suggests that particles pop in and out of existence, at the quantum level, at random all the time. This is not order, it is chaos. These quantum events could explain a lot about our origins.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Blanh SNPete, I agree with Starboy that the universe-watch analogy is not at all appropriate. For an analogy to work the two things being compared must be very similar. Yes, the second law of thermodynamics suggests that systems, in general, move towards chaos rather than order. Is the law itself a symptom of intelligent design? If you are arguing from that stance, then the design doesnt seem as intelligent. What if I posited the argument that our world IS in chaos, and that we only perceive order as a consequence of the human brain? There are no such things as really existing numbers - they have been used as a pragmatic convention of human brain to create order. Order may be just in the eye of the beholder. There are a number of other issues with intelligent design. Why do men have nipples? Why some people born in a PVS? Why is there some areas in the world where food doesn't grow as easily as other places? There are many actually existing situations that seem incompatible with intelligent design. Finally, yes it is true that nobody can know for sure whether the universe was created as a result of a deity. However, why should we assume it was? There doesnt seem to be any evidence at all. Most people have heard of Occam's Razor. Why add more mystery to the problem by invoking a deity? Blanh. p.s. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle suggests that particles pop in and out of existence, at the quantum level, at random all the time. This is not order, it is chaos. These quantum events could explain a lot about our origins.

All that is required to overcome the second law of thermodynamics is energy. Energy can order matter in spite of forced entropy.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Blanh Finally, yes it is true that nobody can know for sure whether the universe was created as a result of a deity. However, why should we assume it was? There doesnt seem to be any evidence at all.

All of that aside, the basic question is what can you explain with god other than things where there are not other good explanations that do not include god? Things where the more appropriate answer should be “I don’t know.” And what can you predict with any of the god explanations with any reliability at all? And look at all the associated supernatural claims that surround the god concept that are just plain stupid, silly and insane. That alone should demonstrate the stink that covers the concept. The only legitimate use I have seen for god is as a psychic teddy bear. A way for people to deal with fear and their own mortality. It is most often used as a form of reality therapy. One escapes to unreality in order to deal with reality. Then there are all the inappropriate uses of god that essentially trick, manipulate and control people.

Most people have heard of Occam's Razor. Why add more mystery to the problem by invoking a deity?

You don't need Ockham's razor to think that god is a stupid concept. Other than it being widely touted by philosophy there is no justification for the actual principle of Ockham's razor. If is just another philosophical presumption. And it is not as if it is consistently defined and used. The statements defining it are all over the place and contain differing and sometimes contradictory ideas and when most people use it they make a presumption that history has not born out. That the universe is supposed to be simple. And science already has a way to determine if something is superfluous. And that is just look to see if it makes any difference. And of course god doesn't make any difference. Reality works the same way no matter what you may think about god.

Also the fellow that the principle is ascribed to is William of Ockham. So it should be Ockham’s razor, not Occam’s razor. Only people who are clueless about the principle spell it that way.



Starboy

[Locutus]

SNPete

You heard our side of the story for a long time and you disagree. I have no problem with differences of opinion. But I have a true interest in why you believe what you do. So please tell those of us, who believe otherwise, why you believe the universe came to be without the action of a deity.

Hi Pete
Just to respond to your original question. Although all the evidence on one side of the fence points to a Big Bang I have a lot of trouble getting my head around it. I have read much on the subject but still.....I have truoble with it. The part I have the most difficulty with is, what was there before it. I am unable to accept the idea of nothing. I know there is many scientific explanations of this idea but it just doesn't feel right to me.

Likewise if you talk about thr creation of the universe by God then I also have trouble with this one. It just feels wrong. Just like you probably cannot explain why you beleive in god, you just do. I cannot explain this.

My feeling is that it was always here. it was not created, nor banged into existance, it was always here. It just is. We measure so much of our existance in relation to time that we have trouble comprehending anything existing in a way that is not somehow entwined in it.

I personally extend this a little furthur in that i also find the idea of a finite universe hard to accept, I find it incomprehensible that we are alone in the universe. And although i don't beleive in God in the sense of a single omnipotent entity, I do beleive that there is a collective conciousness that could I suppose be thought of as God. I just cant help thinking that this whole God Univererse Time thing is an awfull lot bigger than we expect. I just have this feeling that all our combined knowledge is about as significant as a single grain of sand out of all the beaches in the world.
I can in no way justify my beleif anymore than a christian can justify their beleif in God. I just feel that it makes more sense to me personally.

Historically the church has always thought it new best, Likewise Science thought the world was flat, so it was no better. But time has always proved both wrong with both science and the church making many bad calls. I wonder what a race of people might evolve like if they could somehow exist for 1000000 years without a singe war, just spiritual and scientific development. maybe their knowledge would be worth 2 grains os sand out of all their is to know.
Cheers
Lo

[belverron]

Quote by: Starboy Other than it being widely touted by philosophy there is no justification for the actual principle of Ockham's razor.

Starboy, I believe Ockham's Razor is often used for modeling in science and economics. It allows us to examine the effect of changing one variable. It's fairly common sense, but it is important. Ockham's Razor and the principle of ceteris paribus might be considered the basis for the scientific method.

[Starboy]

Quote by: belverron Starboy, I believe Ockham's Razor is often used for modeling in science and economics. It allows us to examine the effect of changing one variable. It's fairly common sense, but it is important. Ockham's Razor and the principle of ceteris paribus might be considered the basis for the scientific method.

The only use I have seen of Ockham's razor in actual research is for determining which explanation to test first. In the end you can't justify your science using Ockham's razor. You still have to run the experiment. There are also several scientific papers that put Ockham's razor to the test and have found that a better guide would be the opposite of the so called principle. For agnositics or atheists that somehow think that Ockham's is on their side I suggest that you go learn something about the man. Also it is interesting to note that within the works of Ockham no one has found any statement that is close to what is claimed to be the principle touted by philosophy as Ockham's razor. In fact what Ockham was a big proponent of was reason and observation of actual reality. It is very funny.

Starboy

[belverron]

Humm. I just looked it up on Merriam-Webster. Interestingly enough, it has Occam as a valid spelling, and the definition is not the one I'm familiar with. In economics we were taught that Ockham's Razor consisted of cutting those elements which were unnecessary from consideration. Then again, my economics teacher and my economics book were lousy. So I guess I don't have a leg to stand on here :eek: