Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[FuzzyZergling]

Supposed to be for what?

Personal entertainment?
You know, like an ant farm.

[malimbar04]

If it didn't happen by 'chance' then I want my money back, as any creator worth her salt could have done a much better job.

That's quite a statement as A: you paid no money and B: until we provably can do a better job, we can't say that. And even then, how would we know if our creation of "better" wasn't God's purpose for humans all along?
Right now I'm attempting to program a simulation of the world (yes really, no not accurate and yes very abstracted), but the sheer variety of Nature is boggling. Trying to match all that is next to impossible.

Try it. Design something better than it is in real life, and make sure that you also have a universe in which it can live, and it must be able to evolve from basic elements.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a combination of two arguments. The first is intelligent design versus natural order (which is easily refuted), and the second is that the because nature is extremely complex and beyond our complete understanding, god must have done it.

The god of the gaps can only be refuted when we are so intelligent and powerful that we are gods ourselves. Until then, there will always be a gap for some obscure god to fill in. Even though the gaps we currently have are large though, they are ones that don't directly interfere with our lives. While a being could inhabit those areas, it's not a being that's worth worshiping. If no one worships it, and it doesn't affect our actions or environment in any way, then why are we still calling it a god of ours? We could just as easily be a fringe fecal byproduct of their microscopic creation 20 galaxies over.

[ECrownofFire]

If it didn't happen by 'chance' then I want my money back, as any creator worth her salt could have done a much better job.

That's quite a statement as A: you paid no money and B: until we provably can do a better job, we can't say that. And even then, how would we know if our creation of "better" wasn't God's purpose for humans all along?
Right now I'm attempting to program a simulation of the world (yes really, no not accurate and yes very abstracted), but the sheer variety of Nature is boggling. Trying to match all that is next to impossible.

Try it. Design something better than it is in real life, and make sure that you also have a universe in which it can live, and it must be able to evolve from basic elements.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a combination of two arguments. The first is intelligent design versus natural order (which is easily refuted), and the second is that the because nature is extremely complex and beyond our complete understanding, god must have done it.

Watchmaker! Watchmaker!

[Sowelu]

Still not seeing how the watchmaker argument is inherently invalid.  It's easily refuted with evidence, yes, but if you can show that the p-value of something happening randomly is very unlikely, it's a very good starting place.  It's easy to say "It obviously works in this case" and "It obviously doesn't work in that case" in hindsight.

[Leafsnail]

Well, the point is that, logically, it makes no sense.  We don't think of things as created because they're complex.

[ECrownofFire]

Still not seeing how the watchmaker argument is inherently invalid.  It's easily refuted with evidence, yes, but if you can show that the p-value of something happening randomly is very unlikely, it's a very good starting place.  It's easy to say "It obviously works in this case" and "It obviously doesn't work in that case" in hindsight.

It's non sequitur. You can't say "this is designed because it is complex". It's invalid because you can't support the line of thought. Show me the connection between designed and complex. Show me that something cannot be complex without being designed. For an example taken from Wikipedia, the "Mandelbrot analogy". Fractals are complex, right? Are they designed? Nope.

Just read the comic too, it will make everything clear

Well, the point is that, logically, it makes no sense.  We don't think of things as created because they're complex.

Not created, designed. There is a huge difference there.

[Sowelu]

There's fields where it is perfectly valid.  Archaeology, for example.  "Well, we don't see any major artifacts in this area, no direct signs of long-term human habitation, and these boulders are all of local origin...but isn't it really suspicious that there's sixteen of them arranged in a perfect circle?"

[ECrownofFire]

There's fields where it is perfectly valid.  Archaeology, for example.  "Well, we don't see any major artifacts in this area, no direct signs of long-term human habitation, and these boulders are all of local origin...but isn't it really suspicious that there's sixteen of them arranged in a perfect circle?"

Excuse me, but how is a circle complex at all? The comic I linked uses almost the exact same argument. An object is not designed because of its complexity.

[Sowelu]

Can't load images here.

Okay, fine, better example.  Flat rocks stacked on the beach.  If you see four rocks stacked neatly on top of each other in the sand you might say "Okay, that's cool, it could have happened naturally", but if you see rocks stacked ten high in a few columns all on one log, you have to say "Someone put that there".  One can argue that those arrangements were designed because of their complexity.

[Glowcat]

Okay, fine, better example.  Flat rocks stacked on the beach.  If you see four rocks stacked neatly on top of each other in the sand you might say "Okay, that's cool, it could have happened naturally", but if you see rocks stacked ten high in a few columns all on one log, you have to say "Someone put that there".  One can argue that those arrangements were designed because of their complexity.

No. I'd say that arrangement was formed by a conscious entity because it's incredibly unlikely that non-conscious natural forces in the area would produce such an arrangement and because I knew of an agent (humans) who would be able to create such an arrangement, and in fact do such things regularly. It isn't about being complex, since we're talking about a few rocks put on top of each other, but because I haven't encountered any non-artificial force which could produce such a thing.

If watches grew on trees and I encountered one by its lonesome, I wouldn't know whether it was made by a human or by nature. Sure, I could look around for any watch trees that may have been the source, but I couldn't be sure either way. A real world example would be smoothed stones by the beach. Both nature and humans create smooth stones, but since the stone is by the beach my first assumption would be that it was formed into its current shape by the ocean.

[ECrownofFire]

What about a pile of rocks is complex? The reason that you could say that it is designed is because they don't occur naturally. The point is, the argument is non sequitur. Here's an example:

1. A camera is complex, thus it is designed.
2. The human eye is complex, thus it is designed.

The watchmaker argument attempts to come up with a reason why it is complex. It comes to the false conclusion that it must be designed. Look back to a fractal, complex? Yes. Designed? No. So why is it complex?

Not to mention the problem of the designer itself. Assume the argument is true. A watchmaker is much more complex than a watch, it must have a designer, yes? Creationists would say that it was a god or gods. Now what about them? Shouldn't the gods themselves be designed, following the argument?

[Virex]

The watchmaker argument attempts to come up with a reason why it is complex. It comes to the false conclusion that it must be designed. Look back to a fractal, complex? Yes. Designed? No. So why is it complex?

Not to mention the problem of the designer itself. Assume the argument is true. A watchmaker is much more complex than a watch, it must have a designer, yes? Creationists would say that it was a god or gods. Now what about them? Shouldn't the gods themselves be designed, following the argument?

Who says God didn't design fractals, or more likely, the whole of mathematics itself? Also, what keeps an omnipotent deity from designing itself?

[Leafsnail]

It's a complete non sequiter logic wise, too.

"A is X because of Y.  B is Y.  Therefore B is X".

"Coffee is nice to drink because it's hot.  Lava is hot.  Therefore lava is nice to drink".

[Sowelu]

If watches grew on trees and I encountered one by its lonesome, I wouldn't know whether it was made by a human or by nature. Sure, I could look around for any watch trees that may have been the source, but I couldn't be sure either way. A real world example would be smoothed stones by the beach. Both nature and humans create smooth stones, but since the stone is by the beach my first assumption would be that it was formed into its current shape by the ocean.

Hmm, okay.  I like those caveats.

So what happens when you see an arrangement that is incredibly unlikely that non-conscious forces would produce, but you don't know of any conscious actor who could do it?  Say, finding a giant stone obelisk on the moon.

Although, since we don't have any smoking guns that are smaller than "the universe happens to support life"...  Crud.  I'm going back to deism again, which is boring.  Still, hypothetically speaking, what happens to the watchmaker argument when you find something that appears neither human-producable nor nature-producable?

What about a pile of rocks is complex? The reason that you could say that it is designed is because they don't occur naturally. The point is, the argument is non sequitur.

I don't see where you're getting that.  I *very explicitly* did not argue that the human eye was designed.  I outright said that the watchmaker argument is falsifiable given any proof.  My argument is that it is a valid starting point BEFORE significant proof is established in either direction. 

Are you saying that if you see a pile of flat rocks stacked on a log, far above the waterline, your first instinct is to say "Wow, how amazing that nature formed that"?  What about the Pyramids of Egypt?

Given no in-depth information beyond surface inspection--and that's all we really have about the underlying origin of the universe--I don't think it's reasonable to approach every single damn thing and say "Golly, nature sure is wacky".

[ECrownofFire]

No, I am not saying that nature formed those piles of rocks. I am saying that using them as an example of the watchmaker argument is completely wrong, because they are not complex. Obviously those piles of rocks were designed, but saying that they are designed because they are complex is wrong. To quote from the thing I linked:

That bizarre rock formation is most likely designed. Would you call that rock formation complex? Not especially. Then what is it about this rock formation that makes it appear designed? Very simply, it is because rocks with that shape, and that arrangement do not occur naturally, and we have no natural mechanism for their arrangement other than chance.

It's a complete non sequiter logic wise, too.

"A is X because of Y.  B is Y.  Therefore B is X".

"Coffee is nice to drink because it's hot.  Lava is hot.  Therefore lava is nice to drink".

Listen to this guy. This is another basis why the argument is false. The argument falsely arrives at the conclusion that A is designed because it is complex. Obviously this is false in many examples.