Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Watch-Maker Argument For Atheism

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 7:50:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Watch-Maker argument for Theism, can actually be switched around into an argument for Atheism.

We can distinguish things which are designed, from things that are not designed, because nature provides basis of comparison. If I was part of a primitive tribe and see a watch on the side of an island, I know the watch is designed. This is because the beach is not designed, the trees on the island are not designed, the birds flying in the background are not designed, and the sky and atmosphere are not designed, so by deduction, I could confirm that the watch is designed.

Now, if us as modern humans saw an extra-terrestrial space craft unlike anything in movies. in the sky, we would know it was designed because the space behind it was not designed, and the stars behind it were not designed, and so and and so forth.

So it seems, that the only way to know whether some new strange X is designed or not, is if we have nature as a basis of comparison (something that is not designed). However, if God exists he designed nature, but nature cannot be designed, or else we would have no way of knowing that anything else that was actually designed (like watches to a primitive tribe, or Alien space craft to modern humans), actually was designed. It would be a futile task.

Thus it seems, that the Watch-Maker analogy could actually be used as an argument for Atheism.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 8:56:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 7:50:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Watch-Maker argument for Theism, can actually be switched around into an argument for Atheism.

We can distinguish things which are designed, from things that are not designed, because nature provides basis of comparison. If I was part of a primitive tribe and see a watch on the side of an island, I know the watch is designed. This is because the beach is not designed, the trees on the island are not designed, the birds flying in the background are not designed, and the sky and atmosphere are not designed, so by deduction, I could confirm that the watch is designed.

Now, if us as modern humans saw an extra-terrestrial space craft unlike anything in movies. in the sky, we would know it was designed because the space behind it was not designed, and the stars behind it were not designed, and so and and so forth.

So it seems, that the only way to know whether some new strange X is designed or not, is if we have nature as a basis of comparison (something that is not designed). However, if God exists he designed nature, but nature cannot be designed, or else we would have no way of knowing that anything else that was actually designed (like watches to a primitive tribe, or Alien space craft to modern humans), actually was designed. It would be a futile task.

Thus it seems, that the Watch-Maker analogy could actually be used as an argument for Atheism.

When looking at life, you have to ask if spontaneous creation of life can be found in nature or not. No human has ever observed abiogenesis, so we have no basis to consider it 'natural'.

In other words, you can't use life as the basis 'is it part of nature' when life is the object in question.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 8:57:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 7:50:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This is because the beach is not designed, the trees on the island are not designed, the birds flying in the background are not designed, and the sky and atmosphere are not designed, so by deduction, I could confirm that the watch is designed.

Your entire argument is based on taking life as 'natural' as axiomatic.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 10:51:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 8:56:19 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 5/22/2012 7:50:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Watch-Maker argument for Theism, can actually be switched around into an argument for Atheism.

We can distinguish things which are designed, from things that are not designed, because nature provides basis of comparison. If I was part of a primitive tribe and see a watch on the side of an island, I know the watch is designed. This is because the beach is not designed, the trees on the island are not designed, the birds flying in the background are not designed, and the sky and atmosphere are not designed, so by deduction, I could confirm that the watch is designed.

Now, if us as modern humans saw an extra-terrestrial space craft unlike anything in movies. in the sky, we would know it was designed because the space behind it was not designed, and the stars behind it were not designed, and so and and so forth.

So it seems, that the only way to know whether some new strange X is designed or not, is if we have nature as a basis of comparison (something that is not designed). However, if God exists he designed nature, but nature cannot be designed, or else we would have no way of knowing that anything else that was actually designed (like watches to a primitive tribe, or Alien space craft to modern humans), actually was designed. It would be a futile task.

Thus it seems, that the Watch-Maker analogy could actually be used as an argument for Atheism.

When looking at life, you have to ask if spontaneous creation of life can be found in nature or not. No human has ever observed abiogenesis, so we have no basis to consider it 'natural'.

In other words, you can't use life as the basis 'is it part of nature' when life is the object in question.

"When looking at life, you have to ask if spontaneous creation of life can be found in nature or not. No human has ever observed abiogenesis, so we have no basis to consider it 'natural'."

Yes we do have a basis, nature existed before human beings (which are the only beings we have evidence of, of having intelligence). Since there is no evidence of beings who are not dependent on nature for their intelligence, then the only logical option is assuming that intelligence is a bi-product of nature.

Also, you didn't refute my argument. If nature was designed, then we would have no basis for comparison to distinguish design from non-design, and thus would have no foundation to ground a claim that a car, space-ship, dust pan or house was designed. Since we can clearly tell things like cars, space-ships, dust pans, and houses are designed, then nature as the backdrop must not be designed to ground a basis of comparison to logically claim that something was actually designed in the first place.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 11:01:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 8:57:39 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 5/22/2012 7:50:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This is because the beach is not designed, the trees on the island are not designed, the birds flying in the background are not designed, and the sky and atmosphere are not designed, so by deduction, I could confirm that the watch is designed.

Your entire argument is based on taking life as 'natural' as axiomatic.

Of course, my argument is assuming we didn't know what these objects like a car or a particular space-ship were before stumbling upon them (like a primitive tribe wouldn't know what a watch is). The very reason the tribe could tell that the watch would be designed, is because an un-designed nature as a backdrop provides a basis of comparison.
LeoL
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 11:04:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 7:50:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Watch-Maker argument for Theism, can actually be switched around into an argument for Atheism.

We can distinguish things which are designed, from things that are not designed, because nature provides basis of comparison. If I was part of a primitive tribe and see a watch on the side of an island, I know the watch is designed. This is because the beach is not designed, the trees on the island are not designed, the birds flying in the background are not designed, and the sky and atmosphere are not designed, so by deduction, I could confirm that the watch is designed.

Now, if us as modern humans saw an extra-terrestrial space craft unlike anything in movies. in the sky, we would know it was designed because the space behind it was not designed, and the stars behind it were not designed, and so and and so forth.

So it seems, that the only way to know whether some new strange X is designed or not, is if we have nature as a basis of comparison (something that is not designed). However, if God exists he designed nature, but nature cannot be designed, or else we would have no way of knowing that anything else that was actually designed (like watches to a primitive tribe, or Alien space craft to modern humans), actually was designed. It would be a futile task.

Thus it seems, that the Watch-Maker analogy could actually be used as an argument for Atheism.

Interesting, never thought like that before.
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? -Douglas Adams
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 3:27:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 7:50:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Watch-Maker argument for Theism, can actually be switched around into an argument for Atheism.

We can distinguish things which are designed, from things that are not designed, because nature provides basis of comparison. If I was part of a primitive tribe and see a watch on the side of an island, I know the watch is designed. This is because the beach is not designed, the trees on the island are not designed, the birds flying in the background are not designed, and the sky and atmosphere are not designed, so by deduction, I could confirm that the watch is designed.

Now, if us as modern humans saw an extra-terrestrial space craft unlike anything in movies. in the sky, we would know it was designed because the space behind it was not designed, and the stars behind it were not designed, and so and and so forth.

So it seems, that the only way to know whether some new strange X is designed or not, is if we have nature as a basis of comparison (something that is not designed). However, if God exists he designed nature, but nature cannot be designed, or else we would have no way of knowing that anything else that was actually designed (like watches to a primitive tribe, or Alien space craft to modern humans), actually was designed. It would be a futile task.

Thus it seems, that the Watch-Maker analogy could actually be used as an argument for Atheism.

+1
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 5:48:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's only an argument for atheism when you presuppose that nature is not designed. The criticism of the teleological argument for this reason, though, is not just valid but one that has been used many times, I believe. One of the classic refutations of the argument.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 2:22:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 5:48:20 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It's only an argument for atheism when you presuppose that nature is not designed. The criticism of the teleological argument for this reason, though, is not just valid but one that has been used many times, I believe. One of the classic refutations of the argument.

But thats the problem though.

When you walk along a river or a beach, and you see a watch on the ground, how are you able to discern the watch from its surroundings? If everything is designed, then you wouldnt be able to tell the watch apart from its surroundings, and it would be no different than a rock. Yet the argument doesnt work when you replace "Watch" with "Rock".

Its not that it presupposes that Nature is not designed, its that it fails because the argument relies on discerning a watch from its surroundings, meaning that the watch has a fundementally different property than its surroundings, and therefore one can pick up a watch and recognize that it is different from everything around it.

An alternative way of looking at this, is that you are walking along a beach full of watches, an ocean made of watches, and trees and rivers made of watches, and youre picking up one watch and saying "Wow, this watch is so different than the millions and billions of watches that surround me, it is therefore designed".
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 3:04:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 7:50:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Watch-Maker argument for Theism, can actually be switched around into an argument for Atheism.

We can distinguish things which are designed, from things that are not designed, because nature provides basis of comparison. If I was part of a primitive tribe and see a watch on the side of an island, I know the watch is designed. This is because the beach is not designed, the trees on the island are not designed, the birds flying in the background are not designed, and the sky and atmosphere are not designed, so by deduction, I could confirm that the watch is designed.

Now, if us as modern humans saw an extra-terrestrial space craft unlike anything in movies. in the sky, we would know it was designed because the space behind it was not designed, and the stars behind it were not designed, and so and and so forth.

So it seems, that the only way to know whether some new strange X is designed or not, is if we have nature as a basis of comparison (something that is not designed). However, if God exists he designed nature, but nature cannot be designed, or else we would have no way of knowing that anything else that was actually designed (like watches to a primitive tribe, or Alien space craft to modern humans), actually was designed. It would be a futile task.

Thus it seems, that the Watch-Maker analogy could actually be used as an argument for Atheism.

You can take those same primitives who (has lived on the beach, with sand, and palm trees, who found a watch) and dump them into the jungle. This jungles has formed a natural covering for the forest bead with thick brush. These jungle has not river or ocean the only water is rainfall which trickles down the trees to the ground. The trees are tall and vast with so much foilage that all is covered. And the sun is not visual often. This is out of the primitives element. Even though he knows water, dirt, and trees, this is a new enviroment, You can conclude the the primitive would conclude that the jungle is designed because it has natural bedding, water, and abnormal tree life. On the beach the primitive had to do all these things for himself and here it is supplied. These things are unknown to the primitive leaving him feeling as though the jungle is designed for him.

Another is we walk down the same beach. We see sea shells everywhere all of them are the same. Day after day after day the same sea shells. Years pass with always the same sea shells. Then one day we walk the beach and see a totally different sea shell than all the rest. This sea shell has markings on it and designs (though made natural) it is diverse than the rest. Would you conclude it is natural or not? Since you have seen many shells the same for many years. This shell could end being worshipped because it is unatural to the primitive. But it is just a sea shell.

You comment relates to no knowledge. If they primitive sees a watch, he does not know it is a watch. He does not know if it is natural or not. All he knows is that it is different then anything he has ever seen. It is easy to realte for us cause we know what a watch is. Though I think saying, 'That you know the primitive would know it was desined', is a bold statement that 'assumes.'
TheAsylum
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 3:09:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 3:04:41 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/22/2012 7:50:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Watch-Maker argument for Theism, can actually be switched around into an argument for Atheism.

We can distinguish things which are designed, from things that are not designed, because nature provides basis of comparison. If I was part of a primitive tribe and see a watch on the side of an island, I know the watch is designed. This is because the beach is not designed, the trees on the island are not designed, the birds flying in the background are not designed, and the sky and atmosphere are not designed, so by deduction, I could confirm that the watch is designed.

Now, if us as modern humans saw an extra-terrestrial space craft unlike anything in movies. in the sky, we would know it was designed because the space behind it was not designed, and the stars behind it were not designed, and so and and so forth.

So it seems, that the only way to know whether some new strange X is designed or not, is if we have nature as a basis of comparison (something that is not designed). However, if God exists he designed nature, but nature cannot be designed, or else we would have no way of knowing that anything else that was actually designed (like watches to a primitive tribe, or Alien space craft to modern humans), actually was designed. It would be a futile task.

Thus it seems, that the Watch-Maker analogy could actually be used as an argument for Atheism.

You can take those same primitives who (has lived on the beach, with sand, and palm trees, who found a watch) and dump them into the jungle. This jungles has formed a natural covering for the forest bead with thick brush. These jungle has not river or ocean the only water is rainfall which trickles down the trees to the ground. The trees are tall and vast with so much foilage that all is covered. And the sun is not visual often. This is out of the primitives element. Even though he knows water, dirt, and trees, this is a new enviroment, You can conclude the the primitive would conclude that the jungle is designed because it has natural bedding, water, and abnormal tree life. On the beach the primitive had to do all these things for himself and here it is supplied. These things are unknown to the primitive leaving him feeling as though the jungle is designed for him.

Another is we walk down the same beach. We see sea shells everywhere all of them are the same. Day after day after day the same sea shells. Years pass with always the same sea shells. Then one day we walk the beach and see a totally different sea shell than all the rest. This sea shell has markings on it and designs (though made natural) it is diverse than the rest. Would you conclude it is natural or not? Since you have seen many shells the same for many years. This shell could end being worshipped because it is unatural to the primitive. But it is just a sea shell.

You comment relates to no knowledge. If they primitive sees a watch, he does not know it is a watch. He does not know if it is natural or not. All he knows is that it is different then anything he has ever seen. It is easy to realte for us cause we know what a watch is. Though I think saying, 'That you know the primitive would know it was desined', is a bold statement that 'assumes.'

You are confusing something simply previously unexperienced, with something previously unexperienced and was evidently designed. Thus, I'm not sure your objection is valid.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 3:15:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 2:22:26 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/23/2012 5:48:20 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It's only an argument for atheism when you presuppose that nature is not designed. The criticism of the teleological argument for this reason, though, is not just valid but one that has been used many times, I believe. One of the classic refutations of the argument.

But thats the problem though.

When you walk along a river or a beach, and you see a watch on the ground, how are you able to discern the watch from its surroundings? If everything is designed, then you wouldnt be able to tell the watch apart from its surroundings, and it would be no different than a rock. Yet the argument doesnt work when you replace "Watch" with "Rock".

Its not that it presupposes that Nature is not designed, its that it fails because the argument relies on discerning a watch from its surroundings, meaning that the watch has a fundementally different property than its surroundings, and therefore one can pick up a watch and recognize that it is different from everything around it.

An alternative way of looking at this, is that you are walking along a beach full of watches, an ocean made of watches, and trees and rivers made of watches, and youre picking up one watch and saying "Wow, this watch is so different than the millions and billions of watches that surround me, it is therefore designed".

OK, so now we got "God designed this" and "Man designed this". In other words, not designed means Godidit. Also, seeing as when we look at nature masses of people in societies before religious enforcement believed that nature was designed like the things men made, and even now (somehow) new age movements and paganism is coming up again, what does that say, if not that watches are viewed barely at all differently from trees?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 3:38:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 3:09:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/24/2012 3:04:41 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/22/2012 7:50:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Watch-Maker argument for Theism, can actually be switched around into an argument for Atheism.

We can distinguish things which are designed, from things that are not designed, because nature provides basis of comparison. If I was part of a primitive tribe and see a watch on the side of an island, I know the watch is designed. This is because the beach is not designed, the trees on the island are not designed, the birds flying in the background are not designed, and the sky and atmosphere are not designed, so by deduction, I could confirm that the watch is designed.

Now, if us as modern humans saw an extra-terrestrial space craft unlike anything in movies. in the sky, we would know it was designed because the space behind it was not designed, and the stars behind it were not designed, and so and and so forth.

So it seems, that the only way to know whether some new strange X is designed or not, is if we have nature as a basis of comparison (something that is not designed). However, if God exists he designed nature, but nature cannot be designed, or else we would have no way of knowing that anything else that was actually designed (like watches to a primitive tribe, or Alien space craft to modern humans), actually was designed. It would be a futile task.

Thus it seems, that the Watch-Maker analogy could actually be used as an argument for Atheism.

You can take those same primitives who (has lived on the beach, with sand, and palm trees, who found a watch) and dump them into the jungle. This jungles has formed a natural covering for the forest bead with thick brush. These jungle has not river or ocean the only water is rainfall which trickles down the trees to the ground. The trees are tall and vast with so much foilage that all is covered. And the sun is not visual often. This is out of the primitives element. Even though he knows water, dirt, and trees, this is a new enviroment, You can conclude the the primitive would conclude that the jungle is designed because it has natural bedding, water, and abnormal tree life. On the beach the primitive had to do all these things for himself and here it is supplied. These things are unknown to the primitive leaving him feeling as though the jungle is designed for him.

Another is we walk down the same beach. We see sea shells everywhere all of them are the same. Day after day after day the same sea shells. Years pass with always the same sea shells. Then one day we walk the beach and see a totally different sea shell than all the rest. This sea shell has markings on it and designs (though made natural) it is diverse than the rest. Would you conclude it is natural or not? Since you have seen many shells the same for many years. This shell could end being worshipped because it is unatural to the primitive. But it is just a sea shell.

You comment relates to no knowledge. If they primitive sees a watch, he does not know it is a watch. He does not know if it is natural or not. All he knows is that it is different then anything he has ever seen. It is easy to realte for us cause we know what a watch is. Though I think saying, 'That you know the primitive would know it was desined', is a bold statement that 'assumes.'

You are confusing something simply previously unexperienced, with something previously unexperienced and was evidently designed. Thus, I'm not sure your objection is valid.

It is valid.
TheAsylum
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 3:41:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 3:15:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/24/2012 2:22:26 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/23/2012 5:48:20 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It's only an argument for atheism when you presuppose that nature is not designed. The criticism of the teleological argument for this reason, though, is not just valid but one that has been used many times, I believe. One of the classic refutations of the argument.

But thats the problem though.

When you walk along a river or a beach, and you see a watch on the ground, how are you able to discern the watch from its surroundings? If everything is designed, then you wouldnt be able to tell the watch apart from its surroundings, and it would be no different than a rock. Yet the argument doesnt work when you replace "Watch" with "Rock".

Its not that it presupposes that Nature is not designed, its that it fails because the argument relies on discerning a watch from its surroundings, meaning that the watch has a fundementally different property than its surroundings, and therefore one can pick up a watch and recognize that it is different from everything around it.

An alternative way of looking at this, is that you are walking along a beach full of watches, an ocean made of watches, and trees and rivers made of watches, and youre picking up one watch and saying "Wow, this watch is so different than the millions and billions of watches that surround me, it is therefore designed".

OK, so now we got "God designed this" and "Man designed this". In other words, not designed means Godidit. Also, seeing as when we look at nature masses of people in societies before religious enforcement believed that nature was designed like the things men made, and even now (somehow) new age movements and paganism is coming up again, what does that say, if not that watches are viewed barely at all differently from trees?

"OK, so now we got "God designed this" and "Man designed this". In other words, not designed means Godidit"

Yes, the theist could claim that nature is divinely designed while watches and space craft are designed by finite beings, thus making a difference that could be distingishable. However, we have no examples of anything being devinely designed to ensure an accurate comparison to logically equate nature with that which is devinely designed. Also, 1 and 0 (desined, and not designed) is much more simpler than 1 and 2 (devinely designed, and designed by finite beings), and much more logical too. We distinguish a cups in the room from everything else, because everything else besides the cups aren't cups, we don't distiguish cups in a room because everything else are different kinds of cups!

Theists must believe this logic is sound too, because they believe God is outside of time, and is timeless. This is certainly simpler than saying he lives within another version of time (just like saying nature being non-designed as a basis of comparison, is simply than saying nature is designed by another version of designer).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 3:41:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 3:38:28 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/24/2012 3:09:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/24/2012 3:04:41 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/22/2012 7:50:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Watch-Maker argument for Theism, can actually be switched around into an argument for Atheism.

We can distinguish things which are designed, from things that are not designed, because nature provides basis of comparison. If I was part of a primitive tribe and see a watch on the side of an island, I know the watch is designed. This is because the beach is not designed, the trees on the island are not designed, the birds flying in the background are not designed, and the sky and atmosphere are not designed, so by deduction, I could confirm that the watch is designed.

Now, if us as modern humans saw an extra-terrestrial space craft unlike anything in movies. in the sky, we would know it was designed because the space behind it was not designed, and the stars behind it were not designed, and so and and so forth.

So it seems, that the only way to know whether some new strange X is designed or not, is if we have nature as a basis of comparison (something that is not designed). However, if God exists he designed nature, but nature cannot be designed, or else we would have no way of knowing that anything else that was actually designed (like watches to a primitive tribe, or Alien space craft to modern humans), actually was designed. It would be a futile task.

Thus it seems, that the Watch-Maker analogy could actually be used as an argument for Atheism.

You can take those same primitives who (has lived on the beach, with sand, and palm trees, who found a watch) and dump them into the jungle. This jungles has formed a natural covering for the forest bead with thick brush. These jungle has not river or ocean the only water is rainfall which trickles down the trees to the ground. The trees are tall and vast with so much foilage that all is covered. And the sun is not visual often. This is out of the primitives element. Even though he knows water, dirt, and trees, this is a new enviroment, You can conclude the the primitive would conclude that the jungle is designed because it has natural bedding, water, and abnormal tree life. On the beach the primitive had to do all these things for himself and here it is supplied. These things are unknown to the primitive leaving him feeling as though the jungle is designed for him.

Another is we walk down the same beach. We see sea shells everywhere all of them are the same. Day after day after day the same sea shells. Years pass with always the same sea shells. Then one day we walk the beach and see a totally different sea shell than all the rest. This sea shell has markings on it and designs (though made natural) it is diverse than the rest. Would you conclude it is natural or not? Since you have seen many shells the same for many years. This shell could end being worshipped because it is unatural to the primitive. But it is just a sea shell.

You comment relates to no knowledge. If they primitive sees a watch, he does not know it is a watch. He does not know if it is natural or not. All he knows is that it is different then anything he has ever seen. It is easy to realte for us cause we know what a watch is. Though I think saying, 'That you know the primitive would know it was desined', is a bold statement that 'assumes.'

You are confusing something simply previously unexperienced, with something previously unexperienced and was evidently designed. Thus, I'm not sure your objection is valid.

It is valid.

No.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2012 9:27:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 8:56:19 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:

When looking at life, you have to ask if spontaneous creation of life can be found in nature or not. No human has ever observed abiogenesis, so we have no basis to consider it 'natural'.

In other words, you can't use life as the basis 'is it part of nature' when life is the object in question.

When looking at life, you have to ask if artificial creation of life can be found in reality or not. No human has ever observed life that was designed or created, so we have no basis to consider life "artificial."

In other words, you can't life as the basis of. "it is not part of nature," when life is the object in question.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2012 11:15:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/26/2012 9:27:18 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 5/22/2012 8:56:19 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:

When looking at life, you have to ask if spontaneous creation of life can be found in nature or not. No human has ever observed abiogenesis, so we have no basis to consider it 'natural'.

In other words, you can't use life as the basis 'is it part of nature' when life is the object in question.

When looking at life, you have to ask if artificial creation of life can be found in reality or not. No human has ever observed life that was designed or created, so we have no basis to consider life "artificial."

In other words, you can't life as the basis of. "it is not part of nature," when life is the object in question.

Correct!

The question is whether or not life is natural.

You can't consider it as 'natural' OR as 'designed' if you are trying to figure out which it is. If you say life is natural and nobody has ever found designed life, then you use circular logic to prove life is natural(Life is natural because we decided to compare it to life, which is natural).

If you say life is designed and nobody has ever found 'natural' life, then you use circular logic to prove life is designed(Life is designed because we decided to compare it to life, which is designed).

It doesn't work either way. You can have the same conclusion as one of your premises.

Put another way:

P1 - Life is part of nature.
P2 - Things that are part of nature aren't designed.
C - Life isn't designed.

Valid, but not sound. You still haven't proven the premise.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13