"how so? why? why would we need to know anything about a watchmaker in order to conclude that a watch indeed had one?"

Because while we may have what seems an indication of a POSSIBLE watchmaker, we would need some direct proof that such a thing even exists at all in order to be doing anything more than guessing.

"afterall, even if you were to just place all the pieces of the watch in a pile on the floor, i don't care how much time passes, it's highly unlikely the pieces will ever accidentally join together to become the watch. that would be ludicrous!"

You can keep repeating this little statement all you like... doesn't change the fact that you are comparing apples to oranges.

Originally posted by: jdubit

Originally posted by: Sharplimbed

Originally posted by: jdubit

Originally posted by: Sharplimbed

Originally posted by: jdubit

So it does seem logical to you, then for highly trained researchers who crudely mimic systems in nature to solve difficult engineering problems to attribute the genius of devising the original idea to unintelligent evolution? If the copy requires an intelligent designer, what about the original?

The original doesn't require an intelligent designer, but you should apply this logic to your own God.

that's faulty reasoning. one doesn't need to know how a watchmaker was created to come the conclusion that he made the watch. there are some things that are beyond our understanding.

hahahaha. but that's exactly what you ARE saying. You're saying the watchmaker (read: human, and universe they live in) is too complicated to come about without an intelligent designer, he must have been designer by something even more complicated and intelligent.

You only abandon this logic when you get to God, because really this logic is not at all what led you to your belief, it's just how you try to convince non-believers.

In my illustration the "watchmaker" is God. The watches are his intelligently designed creations. You didn't understand it correctly.

I did. I remember coming across it in a religious studies class when I was about 14 and instantly seeing through it. I won't go over all the flaws with it, because I'm sure you're already aware of them. Just look up infinite regress.

I find it difficult to believe that you did not know what I was getting at. You're either incredibly ignorant of the most basic and wellknown counter arguments against your own, or you're putting on an act of being a person who has not had these arguments before. I know it's the latter. It's not lying, but it's dishonest.

"In my illustration the "watchmaker" is God. The watches are his intelligently designed creations. You didn't understand it correctly."

Everyone gets that tired old chestnut of watchmaker = god. You aren't talking to a bunch of preschoolers.

After re-reading what I said I did mix up the word watch and watchmaker. I think even with that it's pretty clear I'm getting at infinite regress though, and I'd be shocked if he wasn't aware of that argument and expecting it.

Originally posted by: Sharplimbed

after re-reading what I said I did mix up the word watch and watchmaker. I think even with that it's pretty clear I'm getting at infinite regress though, and I'd be shocked if he wasn't aware of that argument and expecting it.

how about instead of just saying that there are so many counter arguments, you actually make one. this is the time and place. also, in regards to infinite regress... i disagree. i think we can come to the conclusion that the watch was designed simply from observing it, without knowing anything about who actually designed the watch, or where he was born, or anything. i don't think you understand infinite regress.

similarly, we don't need to have proof that God exists to acknowledge that life shows very complex design. it's two seperate issues. please explain why you feel this way.

I'd like to hear some of these counter arguments. So far, the only one you've brought to the table is this infinite regress and it's not logical in this instance.

how about instead of just saying that there are so many counter arguments, you actually make one. this is the time and place. also, in regards to infinite regress... i disagree. i think we can come to the conclusion that the watch was designed simply from observing it, without knowing anything about who actually designed the watch, or where he was born, or anything. i don't think you understand infinite regress.

Here is a watch.
It is very complicated.
This coming out by chance is so improbable it is not worth considering.
Therefore, intelligence must be behind it. A designer (a human)

Now, go through that again, but replace the word "watch" with "human". In the analogy, the "watchmaker" is a human that made a watch. Correct me if I'm wrong - it is your position that human beings (and the world we live in) are too complicated to have come about by chance (just like the watch!). Therefore they must have been designed by an intelligent designer (watchmaker, or God). I believe this is the point you are trying to make, it's certainly the point of the analogy you are using.

Okay. God is more complicated than humans. The chances of God coming about by chance are not worth considering. Therefore, following the logic of the analogy, he MUST have been designed by something even more intelligently designed.

And so on. Sorry if you really didn't get this before, I genuinely thought you were playing dumb about it. But please use this as an example that I'm not just being a dick, it really would be easier if you looked this well known argument up for yourself and then discussed it, rather than me having to explain it to you (and I honestly fear that you're still going to not "get it"). If it helps, there is a counter-argument to what I'm saying here - see if you can look it up!

similarly, we don't need to have proof that God exists to acknowledge that life shows very complex design. it's two seperate issues. please explain why you feel this way.

Personally I find that argument unconvincing. My problem is not with the idea though, it's with people parading it as science and claiming that it is mathematically impossible for evolution to work etc.

In theory, I completely agree with you - you don't need to PROVE a designer's existence to believe reasonably that something was designed. Science doesn't work like that though, this is why you get many people who agree god created the world arguing in opposition to ID - it simply is not science.

I'd like to hear some of these counter arguments. So far, the only one you've brought to the table is this infinite regress and it's not logical in this instance.

It's entirely logical in this instance. You either do not understand the argument or are being disingenuous. I hope it's the former.

The counter-arguments I'm talking about are for everything you post. You start by posting something by Behe, then you demand that everyone handfeed you the responses to his work. Look them up yourself!

Or if you're talking about the flaws I mentioned in this specific analogy, here's one: We know that watches, and watchmakers exist. We know it was designed because we know the designer. We can see the world outside of the watch (something we cannot do in our universe) etc.

But these are trivial flaws with the analogy, the point it's making has to deal with infinite regress.

Originally posted by: Sharplimbed

how about instead of just saying that there are so many counter arguments, you actually make one. this is the time and place. also, in regards to infinite regress... i disagree. i think we can come to the conclusion that the watch was designed simply from observing it, without knowing anything about who actually designed the watch, or where he was born, or anything. i don't think you understand infinite regress.

Here is a watch.
It is very complicated.
This coming out by chance is so improbable it is not worth considering.
Therefore, intelligence must be behind it. A designer (a human)

Now, go through that again, but replace the word "watch" with "human". In the analogy, the "watchmaker" is a human that made a watch. Correct me if I'm wrong - it is your position that human beings (and the world we live in) are too complicated to have come about by chance (just like the watch!). Therefore they must have been designed by an intelligent designer (watchmaker, or God). I believe this is the point you are trying to make, it's certainly the point of the analogy you are using.

Okay. God is more complicated than humans. The chances of God coming about by chance are not worth considering. Therefore, following the logic of the analogy, he MUST have been designed by something even more intelligently designed.

And so on. Sorry if you really didn't get this before, I genuinely thought you were playing dumb about it. But please use this as an example that I'm not just being a dick, it really would be easier if you looked this well known argument up for yourself and then discussed it, rather than me having to explain it to you (and I honestly fear that you're still going to not "get it"). If it helps, there is a counter-argument to what I'm saying here - see if you can look it up!

similarly, we don't need to have proof that God exists to acknowledge that life shows very complex design. it's two seperate issues. please explain why you feel this way.

Personally I find that argument unconvincing. My problem is not with the idea though, it's with people parading it as science and claiming that it is mathematically impossible for evolution to work etc.

In theory, I completely agree with you - you don't need to PROVE a designer's existence to believe reasonably that something was designed. Science doesn't work like that though, this is why you get many people who agree god created the world arguing in opposition to ID - it simply is not science.

so you agree but you disagree? ok.

I'd like to hear some of these counter arguments. So far, the only one you've brought to the table is this infinite regress and it's not logical in this instance.

It's entirely logical in this instance. You either do not understand the argument or are being disingenuous. I hope it's the former.

The counter-arguments I'm talking about are for everything you post. You start by posting something by Behe, then you demand that everyone handfeed you the responses to his work. Look them up yourself!

Or if you're talking about the flaws I mentioned in this specific analogy, here's one: We know that watches, and watchmakers exist. We know it was designed because we know the designer. We can see the world outside of the watch (something we cannot do in our universe) etc.

But these are trivial flaws with the analogy, the point it's making has to deal with infinite regress.

sorry, you already said you completely agree with me that we don't need to have proof that God exists to acknowledge that life shows very complex design. it's two seperate issues.

What a pathetic reply.

You completely fail to grasp my point about infinite regress, and accuse me of not understanding. So I correct you, and walk you through the point so you can understand it. Then you completely ignore that part of the response. Thanks, I'll be sure to waste my time coming up with more counter arguments for you in the future. You're lack of motivation to look them up yourself or read posts when explained, while demanding the arguments, is completely ridiculous.

you already said you completely agree with me that we don't need to have proof that God exists to acknowledge that life shows very complex design.

I didn't say that at all. Here's what I said in regards to this argument:

Personally I find that argument unconvincing.

That's a disagreement. Get it? It means I don't agree with you about this point.

The only thing I have agreed upon is that you do not need proof of a designer to reasonably believe that something was designed. I personally don't anyway.

There's 2 points to be made here (I've already made them, but I'll give it another go):

1. I am not talking about anything specific by saying this. I am definitely not talking about life and our universe, as I made clear before saying this.

2. It's not science. Reasonably believing/speculating about something is not science. No one is rallying against people who believe God created the world, only those trying to get non-science into a science classroom.

_________________________________________

Are you going to respond to anything I said even slightly meaningfully. It seems like you read one word, the word "agree", and then had some kind of brain spasm.

Originally posted by: Sharplimbed

What a pathetic reply.

You completely fail to grasp my point about infinite regress, and accuse me of not understanding. So I correct you, and walk you through the point so you can understand it. Then you completely ignore that part of the response. Thanks, I'll be sure to waste my time coming up with more counter arguments for you in the future. You're lack of motivation to look them up yourself or read posts when explained, while demanding the arguments, is completely ridiculous.

you already said you completely agree with me that we don't need to have proof that God exists to acknowledge that life shows very complex design.

I didn't say that at all. Here's what I said in regards to this argument:

Personally I find that argument unconvincing.

That's a disagreement. Get it? It means I don't agree with you about this point.

The only thing I have agreed upon is that you do not need proof of a designer to reasonably believe that something was designed. I personally don't anyway.

There's 2 points to be made here (I've already made them, but I'll give it another go):

1. I am not talking about anything specific by saying this. I am definitely not talking about life and our universe, as I made clear before saying this.

2. It's not science. Reasonably believing/speculating about something is not science. No one is rallying against people who believe God created the world, only those trying to get non-science into a science classroom.

_________________________________________

Are you going to respond to anything I said even slightly meaningfully. It seems like you read one word, the word "agree", and then had some kind of brain spasm.

i completely understand what you're saying, but first of all you already said "In theory, I completely agree with you - you don't need to PROVE a designer's existence to believe reasonably that something was designed." So why do you keep mentioning how God would need just as intelligent designer blah blah blah. That point is null and void, we don't need it to be able to come to a sound conclusion that the watch had a designer. We don't need to touch on ANY aspect of the Creator's existence to come this this logical, sound conclusion! How many times do I have to say that? Let's stop talking about science here for a second and talk about logic. what does simple logic tell you?

I don't think I can explain it much better than I already have. I don't know if you can't get it or you won't get it, but you're not getting it, and it's not worth my time at all. You don't seem to be capable of even following this conversation.

Honestly dude, you're looking like a fool here.

Monsanto.

me

jeesus