The existence of a creator.

Or there is a third option...

People only have a superficial understanding Of the nature of the cosmos.

 

No I'm not trying to do that.

Wrong again. If there was no water, there would not be life as we know it. Perhaps another form of life would have naturally selected (giving the illusion of "evolution") which does not need water, but this is beyond our understanding.

Claiming intelligent design is rubbish, plain and simple.

 

You miss the point with what i believe to be intentionality. When you wish to be intellectually honest we can continue this conversation.

 

Either you are saying that the designer would be less complex than the design, thus shooting your own argument down, or your argument entails the same chance of having a designer of the designer as you attribute to the designer of complex design, thus also shooting your own argument down (to use your own phraseology: having such a complex design as a designer of complex designs, the chance that there is no designer of the designer is very minimal).

In other words, the design argument amounts to nothing but wishful thinking and thus you should be very wary of the context in which you use the phrase "intellectual honesty".

 

Perhaps it's because you don't have a point other than you don't have evidence for something, but you're playing the odds (in your own mind).

The harsh reality is that you've probably been indoctorinated from birth and it's now hard wired into your brain. Therefore you look for something, anything which will support the "facts" as you were taught as a child.

Water is not a tiny tiny fraction of a percent of evidence of god and a creator. There is no evidence of this whatsoever. The only thing there is is Genesis, which no one believes, not even religious types.

 

No. I am simply saying where there is a design that it is reasonable to assume that there is a designer of that design.

To point to the DNA molecule and state that noone built it makes just as much sense as pointing at a house and stating that noone built it (except that the DNA molecule is far more complex).

Then again, if that is what you really want to believe, go at it.

 

You are using the Watchmaker argument, a text book example of an argument from ignorance.

You are using a fallacy as the basis of your argument.

 

Feel free to see it as you will. Where there is a watch, there is a watchmaker.

 

What do you mean "no"? If you are saying that "where there is a design that it is reasonable to assume that there is a designer of that design" then you are also saying that the designer of complex design must have a designer. And so on and on and on ...

Which is exactly one of the two things I said you were saying.

However, I have a hunch that you don't really find it reasonable to assume that your god is designed. Do you?

 

And where there is a watchmaker there is a watchmaker's maker, don't you agree?

 

Just pointing out the blatant fallacy.

I.e., you are not using an argument, you are using nonsense.

 

You make a valid point. Ultimately the choice goes back to

1- matter and energy were never created and always were

2- matter and energy came from nothing

3- A creator was never created and always was

4- A creator came from nothing.


Choose one.

I believe the most likely possibility is #3. I will go with the odds.

Please explain to me how any other solution is more likely.

 

Perhaps. The only things more nonsensical are the other choices.

 

You are contradicting yourself and dismissing your own argument in one convenient and easy post.

 

No. I am pointing out that we do not have absolute proof of any of the choices but that I believe that the most likely is a designer. Feel free to pick another option.

 

More likely on what basis? What basis do you have for denying the need for a watchmaker's maker?

Seems rather arbitrary.

 

Which odds?

If it's your own odds (akin to saying, "I like the color of Liverpool's shirts so I'll go with that") then please skip my question. However, if you're referring to odds supported by corroboration of reality (akin to saying, "Liverpool has won far the most games until now, so I'll go with that") then please elaborate on what these odds are.

 

Feel free to call it what you want. Which do you pick and why is your choice less arbitrary?

From my perspective, there is a watch so there must be a watchmaker. If there is a watchmaker's, watchmaker sobeit. Then of course, you will ask about the watchmaker's watchmaker's, watchmaker. This questioning can go on for infinity which brings us back to the question. Does something come from nothing or must there always have been something? The most reasonable answer is that "there must always have been something but that the something in question must reasonably have had intelligence since it led to design which requires a designer." That is the most likely scenario. I will go with the odds.

 

What are the odds? Are the odds so great (again, what are the odds?) that you must choose an argument that both is unfalsifiable and contradicts itself right out the gate?

Sorry.

But to say there is an infinite number of watchmakers is just silly. The notion of cyclic universe is much more reasonable, and falsifiable.

 

It does not answer the question of the original universe. You are stating that matter and energy have existed for infinity and the universe is what it is. This means that all that shows evidence of design has no designer. Do you really feel that it is more reasonable that DNA simply developed by chance without a designer?


How is your cyclic universe falsifiable? It surely is not repeatable within any time constraint that we have.

 

Yes, because I do not use a fallacy as an "argument".

Advances in and the union of quantum mechanics and classical physics. The division of the two is what prevents physicists from truly probing the nature of X, Y, or Z.

 

We agree that an infinite number of watchmakers is just silly even as an infinite amount of cyclic universes is silly. This is why it is most reasonable to assume that the watchmaker is infinite rather than there being an infinite amount of watchmakers.

 

Um.... no. The cyclic universe can be used to a greater degree as an explanation of the universe than an imagined watchmaker.

 

You assume science that we do not yet have to prove what you wish to call science but can only speculate on. You can not yet falsify your speculations. We are back to the odds. I will go with the concept that a watch needs a watchmaker.

 

Only if that universe shows no evidence of design.