I'm Not Giving Up The Watchmaker Argument , , , ,

FIrst, I hope you realized that my Rolex comment was supposed to be tounge in cheek, although in all honestly, I had forgotten that Rolex was mentioned in the OP. When I think of the Watchmaker Argument I only take on the idea of complexity, not brandname.

Unsound, maybe, but invalid.....as someone notes later in the thread (or earlier from the perspective of this response) The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. And as another has pointed out, one cannot prove a negative.

I would say that it is likewise an error in judgement to assume that change could not involve something from nothing. Until it can be proven one way or another, one should be open up to the possibility, although not necessarily the probability, of anything. There is also the perspective angle, that until a certain level of knowledge is achieved, something for all intents and purposes is nothing. Similar to the idea that any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic to the lower technological perspective.

I would say that this is indeed true across the board, at least as far as our current perspective can take us. That doesn't mean what exists is usable or recognizable or anything. Even atoms exist as the sum of their parts properly assembled.

​

The first part still suffers from perspective. (10+10)10 =/= (10+10)2. Or to put it another way (2+2)10 = (10+10)2. Mathmatically those sentences are true, but if we don't know which base system we are using, we can see them as false. Is 2+2=11 true or false?

The second part supports both any type of ID, including all forms of divine creation, as well random occurance.​

I have yet to see anything that proves this. The fact that something may be beyond our comprehension currently, does not automatically make it distinct from everything else.

I agree with the first part. Although I would change it to "whether we can determine the answer now or not." A key difference IMHO.

 

RE: I'm Not Giving Up The Watchmaker Argument , , , ,
⁜→ Maquiscat, et al,

(COMMENT)

There is nothing at all with the Hypothesis that the construct of the universe (from what we have been able to observe and understand) is a precision build and complex system of such an immense nature, that all we can call it is "The Universe." And even at that, what we gain in knowledge only proves to enhance the Watchmaker Argument (AKA: The Rolex Analogy).

We Noting that the analogy on using the "Rolex" as an example of something necessary to be designed, parts fabricated, then assembled --- AND --- applying the most important part --- energy. And we still cannot take into account all the various forms that energy may take. When you look at the Watchmaker Hypothesis, it is inconceivable for many people to accept that all that it takes to make a Rolex could spontaneously materialize out of nothingness and generate a Rolex without a Watchmaker to guide the process it and kick-start it into action.

I fully appreciate your hypothesis.

(COMMENT)

Since you go so far as to suggest the Hypothesis that there is a "Watchmaker" (the ultimate intelligent force Supreme Being) "maybe" unsound. Let's move on to the Hypothesis:

Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd
Validity and Soundness. A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if
it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion nevertheless to be false.
Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. A deductive argument
is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premise
​

We cannot show that the "PREMISE" (There is the Watchmaker representing the Supreme Being.) responsible for the "Universe" → something so vast that we cannot understand its mechanism and existence --- was intelligently designed, parts fabricated, then assembled --- AND --- applying the most important part → energy. We currently believe that we understand the four essential forces that make the "Universe" possible. But then, up pops the paradox of "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" thing we do not understand.

(COMMENT)

​

I cannot object to this line of logic and critical thinking. That is why I always differentiate "Faith-Based Systems from All other Systems that we can seemingly understand." So we agree here again.

(COMMENT)

What we think is TRUE is the (Leibniz Interpretation) that nothing happens without a sufficient reason or cause. (The Principle of Sufficient Reason) The "why" is not immediately available, but there must be the possibility that the cause and be explained - or it cannot be otherwise.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

A complex watch requires a watchmaker.
A complex universe requires a creator (God)
A complex God does not require a creator.

Yep. Makes perfect sense.

 

RE: I'm Not Giving Up The Watchmaker Argument , , , ,
⁜→ JET3534, et al,

BLUF: This is the flaw when you try to apply Logic and Critical Thinking (LCT) which, in this case, is deductive reasoning (science) to solving a paradox that is beyond science (as we understand it today).

(COMMENT)

It is never a good idea to attempt to mix and match science-based philosophy with faith-based theology. The outcome is dubious at best, as JET points out in Posting #503.

In this case, the characteristic of a deity [the creator or Supreme Being (SB)] are undefined. We assume things like all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), immutable (never changing), and Self-Existing - Without Origin. There has never been a deity for man to scientifically place under examination. These attributes are all derivative of infinity (infinity is NOT a number → it is a mental notion); infinity is a paradox in itself. About the only thing we can truly attribute to a deity (at least in the Abrahamic Religions) is that is it not subject to the law of entropy (gradually declining into chaos or disorder. over time).

The famous Nobel Laureate (Physics) Richard Feynman once said: "IF you think you understand quantum mechanics, THEN you don't understand quantum mechanics at all. The same logic can be applied to the notion of a deity. IF you think you understand the Supreme Being, THEN you don't understand the Supreme Being at all. (It is all magic and alchemy.)


Most Respectfully,
R

 

We study the heck out of THAT one, don't we?

We trace life through to mammals, to apes, to humans, to technologies such as metalurgy, to civilizations and their inherent need for time coordination, to our love of ostentacious shiney things, etc. Quite a processs!

We don't know of ANY creation event, so simply assuming there was one is a stretch, isn't it?

We know there was a "big bang". But, there is no evidence that it was a creation event.

Now THAT step certainly has no justification at all.

We have no evidence of "god", complex or not. We don't have any evidence of a creation event. We don't know for sure whether this universe is infinite. We don't know if there is or was something more inclusive than our universe where events have happened - such as the big bang.

I'm pretty convinced all you are doing is deciding to call all those things nobody knows: "god".

We see THAT happen over and over and over again through humnan history. God made the heart as the residence of the soul (since circulation wasn't understood then). God made all matter such that it has an innate propensity to move "down" - something that stars, planets, moons don't have, because they aren't matter (that from Aristotle). Whenever we don't understand it, we tend to want to say it is god.

That way, we have an answer. That way all those things we don't know jack about are being cared for by some really smart guy. And, who the heck cares if it's the right answer??

 

I don't believe in the supernatural. I was trying to make a point via sarcasm. Either you are not getting my sarcasm or perhaps I am not getting yours.

 

Nope that one was on ME!!

I didn't get your sarcasm - probably because it was just plain too perfect.

Sorry.

 

I'm pretty sure that whole post you responded to was sarcasm.

Rephrased:
Complex therefore creator needed
Complex therefore for creator needed
Complex but creator not needed
Yep makes sense.

ETA: yep, he noted it in the next post and you responded already.

 

Given an infinity of time, no watchmaker needed.

 

RE: I'm Not Giving Up The Watchmaker Argument , , , ,
⁜→ Jack Hays, et al,

BLUF: First, I'm pretty sure I understand your point. I just don't agree with the conditional statement: "Given an infinity of time." While it sounds simple, it is ever so complicated.

(COMMENT)

Your claim is really a variation on a theme: The Monkey Theorem!

POINT ONE

Like many abstract concepts, The Monkey Theorem is an exercise in "probability theory." But in the long run, the concept of "infinity" is beyond or understanding. Yet, we have a notion.
​

POINT TWO

Our understanding today is that space and time represents a three-dimensional construct along a temporal continuum. In theory, time does not exist as a stand-alone property. In order for time to be meaningful, it must be relative to the difference between two points in space. Space being a construct with three-dimensions.

If you never assign an end-point coordinate, you never have a basis for the computation for time.
​

The "Watchmaker" concept is actually a good argument for the undefined characteristics for "intelligent design." The "Monkey Theorem" is not science; no matter how logical it may sound. (Untestable)

My Thought as a Layman,


Most Respectfully,
R

 

Infinity is a big word, like omniscient and omnipotent. That's why I'm agnostic. There are no proofs within the reach of human reason. Meanwhile:

Is Time Real? What does this even mean?

[This is a transcript of the video embedded below.]


Time is money. It’s also running out. Unless possibly it’s on your side. Time flies. Time is up. We talk about time… all the time. But does anybody actually know what it is? It’s 3:30. That’s not what I mean. Then what do you mean? What does it mean? That’s what we will talk about today.

First things first, what is time? “Time is what keeps everything from happening at once,” as Ray Cummings put it. Funny, but not very useful. If you ask Wikipedia, time is what clocks measure. Which brings up the question, what is a clock. According to Wikipedia, a clock is what measures time. Huh. That seems a little circular.

Luckily, Albert Einstein gets us out of this conundrum. Yes, this guy again. According to Einstein, time is a dimension. This idea goes back originally to Minkowski, but it was Einstein who used it in his theories of special and general relativity to arrive at testable predictions that have since been confirmed countless times.

Time is a dimension, similar to the three dimensions of space, but with a very important difference that I’m sure you have noticed. We can stand still in space, but we cannot stand still in time. So time is not the same as space. But that time is a dimension means you can rotate into the time-direction, like you can rotate into a direction of space. In space, if you are moving in, say, the forward direction, you can turn forty-five degrees and then you’ll instead move into a direction that’s a mixture of forward and sideways.

You can do the same with a time and a space direction. And it’s not even all that difficult. The only thing you need to do is change your velocity. If you are standing still and then begin to walk, that does not only change your position in space, it also changes which direction you are going in space-time. You are now moving into a direction that is a combination of both time and space. . . .

 

Id argue time does not need space to exist.

 

Hardly

I disagree, time is a measurement, however 'one way' it can be 'represented' as a dimension.

Definition of time
(Entry 1 of 3)

1a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration
b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future

Our statelite location system would have been a massive failure if it was left to relativity, Newton saved the day.

 

I'll go with Einstein, thanks.

 

You are very welcome, good choice if you dont plan on doing any gps system design.

 

Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Vital For GPS, Seen In Distant ...
www.nasa.gov › mission_pages › chandra › images › ei...
Oct 22, 2020 — How does this connect with General Relativity and GPS? As predicted by Einstein's theory, clocks under the force of gravity run at a slower rate ...

 

Time is purely abstract, its a measurement, its accuracy is 'solely' dependent on the accuracy of the measuring devices, which incidentally are to this day effected by gravity and inertial forces. Feel free to look up ron hatch.

 

Doesn't help your argument.

 

Lol I love how koko still thinks he has disproven Einstein and the entire field of physics

 

dont care, and dont care if you are too lazy to do your homework either.

 

laughable!
Your posts are always good for a laugh, thanks!

 

Lol I love how koko still thinks he has disproven Einstein and the entire field of physics

 

LMAO

Instead of mere childish posturing antics I would love to see one, that is just ONE 'reasonable' explanation how an abstract construct that is composed of no physical matter (eg space) can be 'warped' due to the existence of celestial bodies or anything else for that matter? Warped space is purely a figment of the imagination, a wooden nickel for feeble minds.

I await proof, by a reasonable explanation, from rahl, and/or the likers - wil or cosmo, cough it up.

Secondly I await incontrovertible proof that the 'constant' we call time, another abstract construct that is composed of no physical matter, physically compresses or expands (as compared to mere 'perception of time') and that there is no possibility of mechanical measurement error.

Have fun with that einstiners! LOL I await your abstracts.

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/einstein-for-dummies-space-time-and-whole-lot-more-1.2435081

 

Ah yes, still nothing more than the usual 'meta'physics references, thanks for proving you have no clue! There is a HUGE difference between comprehending the substance of physics and simply parroting concepts you dont understand. nice fail though.

One down 2 to go, NEXT!