created by epc2020 on 21/01/2020 at 12:54 UTC
244 upvotes, 37 top-level comments (showing 25)
Comment by tteabag2591 at 21/01/2020 at 14:24 UTC
128 upvotes, 6 direct replies
I think another point of contention with the watchmaker argument is mentioning how humans infer design to begin with. We compare human design with things that humans didn't design. So if proponents of intelligent design are pointing at nature and calling it design, what is their point of reference? How would they recognize design from non-design? Oh yeah. Everything is designed. Design is meaningless from that point of view.
Comment by honestgoing at 21/01/2020 at 21:17 UTC
7 upvotes, 1 direct replies
They are labeling a creator or maker "God". It's a dishonest argument when you have a particular god in mind and conflate the definition of "god as a designer" and "the Judeo-Christian God" or any other such god with any other qualities attributed to it other than "creator/designer" etc.
The problem... Starting with a conclusion and trying to prove it.
But yes I find likelihood and probability arguments unconvincing anyway.
Comment by richard_sympson at 21/01/2020 at 16:41 UTC
6 upvotes, 1 direct replies
The interesting part of Paley’s initial argument is that he immediately contrasts the watch with a stone he finds upon the ground, saying that he may as well say that the stone had been there forever (not, that is, by design). I fail to see how this same thought cannot be applied to all other rocks and lakes and so on, at least individually. It’s not clear where the demarcation between the watch and the rock exists, but it seems to be much closer to the watch than it does to the rock, if we’re then tasked with classifying *most other things* as being design-apparent, or not.
If most other things appear to be non-design by this argument, but certain theologies posit that everything is designed (most theologies in fact go out of their way to make arguments for why particular land formations exist, because of Gods), then those theologies don’t seem to hold up well under Paley’s argument. I dare say Christianity is one of these too.
Granted, a compelling case for even *anything* being designed points toward a designer, whether or not that designer could be said to have apparently created everything. The setup to the Watchmaker argument does a disservice to this end. And, I would also say, that if we mistakenly classify most things which are designed, as not-designed, because they don’t appear to be designed, then conversely maybe we’re bad at judging design generally. If we’re very bad at judging design, such that most things like rocks aren’t classified correctly, then the case that humans are designed seems less epistemically compelling.
Comment by [deleted] at 21/01/2020 at 17:15 UTC
9 upvotes, 0 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by sawbladex at 21/01/2020 at 16:41 UTC*
14 upvotes, 3 direct replies
I find the argument to avoid infinite regression the most compelling.
Largely because it takes the assertion that reality is too complex to made by anything other than an outside entity, and asks why that outside entity could exist without a designer itself, and the wonkiness of assisting that the entity causes things to happen that are too complex to happen randomly. ... The nice thing is that the Monotheism of most people who argue for the existence of God in this manner, means that you don't actually expect them to go down the infinite path, because it makes the entity that designed you seem less impressive, and closer to being your actual parents/mentors, then the super parent/mentor that is a God.
The multiple universes idea to make the current set-up more likely.... I don't like, because it is ultimately not falsifiable. How do you prove that there is only one universe?
edit: Not having to make any additional claims to remove the need for the unobservable designer existing than what the claims requiring that the designer to exist makes for a stronger counter argument, as you basically show that the position is inconsistent with itself.
... Of course, all of these arguments about the existence of God suppose that God is worth knowing about, when the evidence of a God that sends you to a terrible afterlife for believing in it has just the same amount of proof as a God that sends you to a terrible afterlife for not believing in it.
Comment by [deleted] at 21/01/2020 at 14:41 UTC
17 upvotes, 5 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by gking407 at 21/01/2020 at 17:11 UTC
11 upvotes, 6 direct replies
Anyone notice how god speaks to people directly and unequivocally in the bible? Not a lot of grey area in religious texts! “God spoke” and he did so quite severely.
Meanwhile ‘modern’ man struggles to come up with convincing arguments despite lifetimes spent in the search of religious justification. A simple “Hi there!” from *any* god would help their credibility quite a bit. Why is god now quiet, subtle, vague, and mysterious?
Comment by YWAK98alum at 21/01/2020 at 18:29 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
My primary point of departure for the article is near the front, but I give the author credit for clearly elucidating the flow of his argument so as to subject it to proper critique:
While there are different versions of the teleological argument, and key differences between Aquinas’s version and William Paley’s watchmaker analogy[1], we’re going to focus on Paley’s argument, and the related fine-tuning argument, as they have proven to be the most enduring and convincing (to some).
1: https://www.iep.utm.edu/design/#SH1c
Is it really true that Paley has proven more enduring and convincing than Aquinas? My reaction here may be a product of my own upbringing and doctrine as a Catholic, but Aquinas definitely looms larger in my mind than Paley. As recently as 2010, the Pope was using his radio address to discuss the importance of studying Aquinas, and noting that the Second Vatican Council expressly referred to his work and recommended studying it ( https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6667[2][3] ).
2: https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6667
3: https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6667
As I said, I acknowledge the possibility that my frame of reference here is too parochial. But leading with a headline about teleological arguments for God's existence and then saying in the third paragraph "first, we're going to ignore Aquinas" seems to be ignoring an elephant in the room.
Comment by FleetwoodDeVille at 21/01/2020 at 18:00 UTC
4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The problem with most of the objections to the fine tuning argument are that they require something unobservable in order to make the objection work. Might there be other universes? Sure, but we'll never observe them. Might our universe be cyclical? Sure, but we're not likely to observe that either. If we can't observe these things, then they are for all intents and purposes just as "supernatural" as the idea of a creator external to the universe. So if you have to posit one supernatural unobservable to mount an objection to another supernatural unobservable, I don't think you've accomplished much. You've just demonstrated that you ARE willing to allow for the supernatural, just when it supports your preferred argument instead of the other way around.
Comment by Ryzonnn at 21/01/2020 at 18:10 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Its not that they aren't convincing. They're convincing to a great many people. At they're "ultimate" they are illogical and have no reasonable evidence.
Comment by ShakaUVM at 21/01/2020 at 17:08 UTC
1 upvotes, 3 direct replies
Not a very good blog post.
His argument about Paley's Watchmaker forgets the fact that the principle is correct, it's just not accurate when applied to evolution.
He then draws a false comparison between it (where evolution is well established) and the FTA, where there is merely a guess that a multiverse exists, without any real evidence for it.
Finally, he sort of arrogantly claims he can use the arguments for God against themselves, but his argument doesn't work. God is a necessary and simple object, so his attempted judo is just bad judo.
Lastly, he argues that God's necessity and simplicity is set by fiat, which is not the case. It is a conclusion from the argument from contingency.
Overall, I give this no passing grade. I recommend he read Barrow and Tipler's book on the Anthropic Principle.
Comment by [deleted] at 21/01/2020 at 15:40 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by [deleted] at 21/01/2020 at 17:31 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by BernardJOrtcutt at 21/01/2020 at 17:47 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
**Read the Post Before You Reply**
Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules[1] will result in a ban.
1: https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Comment by [deleted] at 21/01/2020 at 17:56 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by sawbladex at 21/01/2020 at 19:19 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
.... a seperate thought on evolution (broadly speaking, the ability of a biological lineage to change form and function, and noticing the stuff that pushes said lineage into particular forms and functions)
The power of the idea of evolution isn't that it explains how the natural world is or isn't designed, but it shows that it is tweakable to a degree.
For example, human domestication of other organisms used the tools of natural selection to create organisms humans want. (selective breeding and so on)
Human beings were ... able to do it in such a slow manner that we didn't notice that we had changed what we had domesticated, and also insist that what we had created was always there.
It's just not what people want out a Designer when you tell them that, for example, the German Sherpard breed of dog was designed by Max von Stephanitz, using limited tools and resources to do so, and like as a dead human, he can't really comment on how the breed is doing.
Comment by HUMAN-AFTERALL at 21/01/2020 at 19:49 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
perceiver, perception, and perceived are one. /thread. man can’t “ungod himself”. this world is simply a mirror for us to discover. man and god are one thing.
Comment by spderweb at 21/01/2020 at 20:17 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Because why all this? We have no way to explain how we exist at all. Why we can percieve reality through our singular self. We can without a doubt say that nothing happens to us when we die. There are too many unknowns about the beginning and end. So people look to a simple solution like a diety that snapped us into existence.
Comment by Farting-Marty at 22/01/2020 at 00:00 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Because of numerology in reverse format the ornament stretched to breaking point , thereby allowing the divine presence to participate in existential , lateral homo sapiens .
Comment by yvchawla at 22/01/2020 at 02:23 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
We are enclosed by what our senses show and memory, imagination, thinking in the mind.
There is no way; you can come out of this format. All one's ideas about God, who created this Universe – arise as thinking, that is, within this format.
Anything that comes before you, including stars, galaxies arise within this field. The field of senses and the field of memory, imagination, thinking is the Total Field.
You can not find the Original as an object. As the investigation will always require a subject-object format.
Object-the world is seen by the subject-the observer, mind. Now there is no observer of the observer. There is nothing behind the observation. 'Why there is no observer' or 'there may be an observer' are all expressions, thoughts arising in the mind. When this is clearly noticed, subject-object is seen as a singular, complete, self-sustained process.
Comment by [deleted] at 22/01/2020 at 05:00 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
There’s an argument that the universe is conscious. I’m not sure, but what I do know is that the universe is infinitely large and infinitely expanding. Does that mean that there are infinite possibilities?
Comment by [deleted] at 22/01/2020 at 12:01 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
It is easily demonstrated by running simulations that natural selection and/or survivor bias will lead to the illusion of design in any chaotic system of sufficient scope.
Comment by [deleted] at 21/01/2020 at 16:57 UTC
0 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by S-Markt at 21/01/2020 at 17:49 UTC
2 upvotes, 2 direct replies
today science estimates a total amount of more than 900 billion galaxies. the milkyway, our homegalaxy is considered to have 200 billion to 500 billion stars. if there is a higher being that created all this, it would in no way care about us, because we simply do not have any importance for the real world. we are not even something like an antfarm.
and wonders are also nonsense. the whole universe follows certain rules. but on earth, these rules somehow shall not be in place???
Comment by Nephilimelohim at 21/01/2020 at 17:38 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I read a fascinating book called The Einstein Enigma, which had some great detailed theories that dwelled pretty deep on this topic.
However, I think any time you try and argue for God's existence, you're arguing ultimately for something that has a basis on faith versus something based on what we consider to be fact: that which we can sense with our senses. Of course an argument for something you can't sense is going to seem unconvincing versus something you can sense, but that doesn't mean it has any less validity to it. Our senses are fooled every day by thinking we smell, hear, see, taste, or touch something, only to have it be something different than what our senses told us.
Ultimately, you just have to take faith in whatever course you choose to believe in, be it science, God, or nothing, and hope that you are right.