Debate Series Excerpt

wp1488 wrote: We are discussing something that could possibly by it’s very nature be unknowable.

Why is there something and not nothing?  Why is there a causeless first cause and not nothing?

I know of no way to overcome the infinite regress.

The “causeless” first cause is not “unknowable”. It simply is not known by the methods you have restricted yourself to. You, more accurately the “faith” you incorrectly call “science” have defined your own box and then you demand that all that is known fit in that Box.

The Creator, God, does not fit in that box you created. He has qualities that exceed your or my capability to fully comprehend, but what we can Know of Him He has revealed.

Not “proved” to everyone, but “revealed” to those who seek Him.

Exodus 3 

13 Then Moses said to God, “Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?”

14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.'”

The God revealed to Moses did not “come to be” from anywhere. He IS. Thats why the Tretragrammaton translates to “I AM” or “”he who causes to exist”.

The Creator IS the first cause and if you consider it this is really the only LOGICAL answer.

The issue is not “knowing” the unknown, it’s rather a question of whether you have a heart to accept the truth.

Debate Series Excerpt  

wp1488 wrote:

wp1488 wrote:

Dahlsim wrote:

wp1488 wrote: You are using a variation of the well debunked watchmaker argument but I’ll let you continue

 

I guess if you say something is “well debunked” that passes for “evidence” in your world. 

By your logic then we only know that a watch had to have a watchmaker because we already know how watches are made.

 

Logically then, you must know of devices similar to watches that had no maker?   I’ve never known of any such device but perhaps you can enlighten me.

Can you give me an example of something that was not designed?

Bumping for next time.

Having looked at this “watch maker theory debunking”, multiple long explanations.  It is honestly a convoluted and irrational mess.

No wonder your arguments are “circular”.  If you make illogical statements such as these “watchmaker” debunker make and then move forward from them as though they made sense, then of course any discussion will become circular.

They arguments are nothing more than a doctrine i.e. “teaching” constructed to the support the “religion” you don’t want to call a religion.

To respond to it in detail I’ll have to post it somewhere over time and I have an idea to do that.

Let’s just say in summary, the universe of things that are “NOT designed” is endless.

For instance this would be a “painting” that has qualities of randomness:

Painting like above can be created by a Random paint generator.

Painting like this below CANNOT be generated b a Random paint generator:

You see?  One of these can be the result of “Random” processes, one of them, logically speaking “CANNOT”.

We can talk about things like patterns, symmetry, information and other evidences that should constitute “proof” of design

but the truth is, even a child knows the difference.  

Debate Series Excerpt   No fair using the bible!

wp1488 wrote: Quoting bible verses isn’t going to get you any further with me than quoting a harry potter book because you haven’t demonstrated that the bible is true, and I don’t feel the need to treat it as such.

The heart is a muscle that pumps blood throughout the body, I use my brain to accept the truth.

I’m not claiming it’s unknowable either, I said “could”, vg might perhaps claim that it’s unknowable, I’m not making that claim.

I haven’t created a box. You have created a box with the bible and you demand that everything in the universe fit in that box. So much so that you are willing to ignore actual evidence if it doesn’t fit in that box. I’m not ignoring any evidence. I have been a part of your religion, read the entire bible, spent a huge chunk of my life in church and praying. And I can’t say I felt anything, as hard as I tried. So that’s just how it is for me. Your results may vary.

You think you know all the answers, and I am holding out, following the evidence and looking for a real answer. Now how am I the one in the box?

I never said or implied that you “believed the bible”.  

Why do you have to believe the Bible in order to read a quote and consider it’s rationality or lack thereof?

Once you again you’re in a box. In your box, it’s ok to quote Steven Hawkins and consider carefully his “genius” but it’s not ok to give the Apostle Paul or King David the same courtesy? 

I was in your box too wp1488, just as you say you were in my box.

I was a young atheist, once a upon a time.  Sorry you lost your faith but I’m thankful I lost mine.

It’s Stephen Hawking and I have given Paul and David the same courtesy as once again I have read the bible and unfortunately have spent more time carefully considering it than any other piece of information.

Debate Series Excerpt  

wp1488 wrote:

wp1488 wrote:

Dahlsim wrote:

wp1488 wrote: You are using a variation of the well debunked watchmaker argument but I’ll let you continue

 

I guess if you say something is “well debunked” that passes for “evidence” in your world. 

By your logic then we only know that a watch had to have a watchmaker because we already know how watches are made.

 

Logically then, you must know of devices similar to watches that had no maker?   I’ve never known of any such device but perhaps you can enlighten me.

Can you give me an example of something that was not designed?

Bumping for next time.

Having looked at this “watch maker theory debunking”, multiple long explanations.  It is honestly a convoluted and irrational mess.

No wonder your arguments are “circular”.  If you make illogical statements such as these “watchmaker” debunker make and then move forward from them as though they made sense, then of course any discussion will become circular.

They arguments are nothing more than a doctrine i.e. “teaching” constructed to the support the “religion” you don’t want to call a religion.

To respond to it in detail I’ll have to post it somewhere over time and I have an idea to do that.

Let’s just say in summary, the universe of things that are “NOT designed” is endless.

For instance this would be a “painting” that has qualities of randomness:

Painting like above can be created by a Random paint generator.

Painting like this below CANNOT be generated b a Random paint generator:

You see?  One of these can be the result of “Random” processes, one of them, logically speaking “CANNOT”.

We can talk about things like patterns, symmetry, information and other evidences that should constitute “proof” of design

but the truth is, even a child knows the difference.  

Debate Series Excerpt  

Dahlsim wrote:

wp1488 wrote:

wp1488 wrote:

Dahlsim wrote:

wp1488 wrote: You are using a variation of the well debunked watchmaker argument but I’ll let you continue

 

I guess if you say something is “well debunked” that passes for “evidence” in your world. 

By your logic then we only know that a watch had to have a watchmaker because we already know how watches are made.

 

Logically then, you must know of devices similar to watches that had no maker?   I’ve never known of any such device but perhaps you can enlighten me.

Can you give me an example of something that was not designed?

Bumping for next time.

Having looked at this “watch maker theory debunking”, multiple long explanations.  It is honestly a convoluted and irrational mess.

No wonder your arguments are “circular”.  If you make illogical statements such as these “watchmaker” debunker make and then move forward from them as though they made sense, then of course any discussion will become circular.

They arguments are nothing more than a doctrine i.e. “teaching” constructed to the support the “religion” you don’t want to call a religion.

To respond to it in detail I’ll have to post it somewhere over time and I have an idea to do that.

Let’s just say in summary, the universe of things that are “NOT designed” is endless.

For instance this would be a “painting” that has qualities of randomness:

Painting like above can be created by a Random paint generator.

Painting like this below CANNOT be generated b a Random paint generator:

You see?  One of these can be the result of “Random” processes, one of them, logically speaking “CANNOT”.

We can talk about things like patterns, symmetry, information and other evidences that should constitute “proof” of design

but the truth is, even a child knows the difference.  

So are you admitting that there are things in nature that are the result of random processes and did not have a designer? If a child knows the difference, if he were to pick up the watch, and then pick up a rock sitting next to the watch, he should assume that the rock is the result of a random process and that rocks were not designed, correct? How much of nature do you feel is a result of a random process and not designed?

---

Rather than go through the motions on this argument I’ll save us both the trouble. If you use the watchmaker analogy(computer on a planet analogy, ray comfort’s painting/painter analogy, it’s all the same argument) and you find a watch on a beach and recognize that it’s designed because it’s so complex compared to your surroundings, and follow it out it’s conclusion that there is a god who created the universe and everything in it(which is what creationists believe and I’m assuming that also includes you), then he also created the all the grains of sand on the beach and the ocean next to the beach, right? So in actuality what you’d be doing is walking along a beach full of watches on an ocean full of watches, or standing on a planet made of watches, and you’re picking up this one watch and saying this one watch is so different from the the billions of other watches around me that it must be proof of a designer. The fact of the matter is that you wouldn’t be able to determine that the watch is designed because you would not have any basis for comparison because you don’t have a non-designed thing to compare it to. it is a self-reinforcing argument. The same with the universe. In order to proclaim that the universe is designed, you would first have a frame of reference so you’d need to first determine what a non-designed universe would look like(you actually can do this, just look outside) “this appears to be designed therefore it was designed” is not a sound argument. There IS a way to recognize that a watch is intelligently designed. It doesn’t have anything to do with complexity. It has to do with every example we have of anything remotely resembling a watch that we know of IS designed, and we have NO examples of watches occurring naturally. It is a contrast between naturally occurring and non-natually occurring.

All that aside, the argument itself takes an unnecessary leap by declaring that the designer is the god of your choice when there’s no reason to jump to that conclusion.

---

wp1488 wrote:Rather than go through the motions on this argument I’ll save us both the trouble. If you use the watchmaker analogy(computer on a planet analogy, ray comfort’s painting/painter analogy, it’s all the same argument) and you find a watch on a beach and recognize that it’s designed because it’s so complex compared to your surroundings, and follow it out it’s conclusion that there is a god who created the universe and everything in it(which is what creationists believe and I’m assuming that also includes you), then he also created the all the grains of sand on the beach and the ocean next to the beach, right? So in actuality what you’d be doing is walking along a beach full of watches on an ocean full of watches, or standing on a planet made of watches, and you’re picking up this one watch and saying this one watch is so different from the the billions of other watches around me that it must be proof of a designer. The fact of the matter is that you wouldn’t be able to determine that the watch is designed because you would not have any basis for comparison because you don’t have a non-designed thing to compare it to. it is a self-reinforcing argument. The same with the universe. In order to proclaim that the universe is designed, you would first have a frame of reference so you’d need to first determine what a non-designed universe would look like(you actually can do this, just look outside) “this appears to be designed therefore it was designed” is not a sound argument. There IS a way to recognize that a watch is intelligently designed. It doesn’t have anything to do with complexity. It has to do with every example we have of anything remotely resembling a watch that we know of IS designed, and we have NO examples of watches occurring naturally. It is a contrast between naturally occurring and non-natually occurring.

All that aside, the argument itself takes an unnecessary leap by declaring that the designer is the god of your choice when there’s no reason to jump to that conclusion.

Lol…what??

The irony of this line of reasoning is that the grains of sand, the water, etc. ARE just like the watch! The watch might be the MOST intricately designed thing in the scenario, but when you break the grains of sand and the water down to the molecular level, design is so apparent that saying otherwise is absurd.

Do you know why we don’t have a “non-designed” thing to compare the designed things to? Because everything was designed!

It has nothing to do with the “appearance” of being designed (although by default it does appear to be so). It has everything to do with the fact that based on everything we know about design mechanics, the watch de facto MUST BE designed. It is impossible for it not to be.

It is actually the logic of the person who says “just look, the universe is clearly not designed” that is flawed. If the Watchmaker apologists look at the watch and say, “compared to literally every single thing we can see that has been designed, this watch too has been clearly designed,” the Watchmaker detractors say, “no, just because this APPEARS to be designed doesn’t mean it HAS to be.” Not only is it counter-intuitive to common sense, it lacks supporting evidence.

Name me something as intricately designed as a watch that came to being by accident. You are not allowed to say, ” the universe” either. Use something that has been proven to have come about that appears to have design that was actually not designed.

by beempty

---

wp1488 wrote:

Dahlsim wrote:

wp1488 wrote:

wp1488 wrote:

Dahlsim wrote:

wp1488 wrote: You are using a variation of the well debunked watchmaker argument but I’ll let you continue

 

I guess if you say something is “well debunked” that passes for “evidence” in your world. 

By your logic then we only know that a watch had to have a watchmaker because we already know how watches are made.

 

Logically then, you must know of devices similar to watches that had no maker?   I’ve never known of any such device but perhaps you can enlighten me.

Can you give me an example of something that was not designed?

Bumping for next time.

Having looked at this “watch maker theory debunking”, multiple long explanations.  It is honestly a convoluted and irrational mess.

No wonder your arguments are “circular”.  If you make illogical statements such as these “watchmaker” debunker make and then move forward from them as though they made sense, then of course any discussion will become circular.

They arguments are nothing more than a doctrine i.e. “teaching” constructed to the support the “religion” you don’t want to call a religion.

To respond to it in detail I’ll have to post it somewhere over time and I have an idea to do that.

Let’s just say in summary, the universe of things that are “NOT designed” is endless.

For instance this would be a “painting” that has qualities of randomness:

Painting like above can be created by a Random paint generator.

Painting like this below CANNOT be generated b a Random paint generator:

You see?  One of these can be the result of “Random” processes, one of them, logically speaking “CANNOT”.

We can talk about things like patterns, symmetry, information and other evidences that should constitute “proof” of design

but the truth is, even a child knows the difference.  

So are you admitting that there are things in nature that are the result of random processes and did not have a designer? If a child knows the difference, if he were to pick up the watch, and then pick up a rock sitting next to the watch, he should assume that the rock is the result of a random process and that rocks were not designed, correct? How much of nature do you feel is a result of a random process and not designed?

Of course there are Random processes.
What you fail to consider is that even the Random processes depend on and occur within a framework of order and design.

 

Since you are so “logical” and rational perhaps you can follow this:

If there were nothing designed and orderly then the word Random would have no meaning would it?

Conversely if there were nothing random, then non-random would be meaningless.

 

Everything you know occurs within a framework of design and order in which Random processes are part of the framework.

Check with Mr. Hawking at your next confessional and see if he concurs. 

 by Dahlsim

---

beempty wrote:

wp1488 wrote:Rather than go through the motions on this argument I’ll save us both the trouble. If you use the watchmaker analogy(computer on a planet analogy, ray comfort’s painting/painter analogy, it’s all the same argument) and you find a watch on a beach and recognize that it’s designed because it’s so complex compared to your surroundings, and follow it out it’s conclusion that there is a god who created the universe and everything in it(which is what creationists believe and I’m assuming that also includes you), then he also created the all the grains of sand on the beach and the ocean next to the beach, right? So in actuality what you’d be doing is walking along a beach full of watches on an ocean full of watches, or standing on a planet made of watches, and you’re picking up this one watch and saying this one watch is so different from the the billions of other watches around me that it must be proof of a designer. The fact of the matter is that you wouldn’t be able to determine that the watch is designed because you would not have any basis for comparison because you don’t have a non-designed thing to compare it to. it is a self-reinforcing argument. The same with the universe. In order to proclaim that the universe is designed, you would first have a frame of reference so you’d need to first determine what a non-designed universe would look like(you actually can do this, just look outside) “this appears to be designed therefore it was designed” is not a sound argument. There IS a way to recognize that a watch is intelligently designed. It doesn’t have anything to do with complexity. It has to do with every example we have of anything remotely resembling a watch that we know of IS designed, and we have NO examples of watches occurring naturally. It is a contrast between naturally occurring and non-natually occurring.

All that aside, the argument itself takes an unnecessary leap by declaring that the designer is the god of your choice when there’s no reason to jump to that conclusion.

Lol…what??

The irony of this line of reasoning is that the grains of sand, the water, etc. ARE just like the watch! The watch might be the MOST intricately designed thing in the scenario, but when you break the grains of sand and the water down to the molecular level, design is so apparent that saying otherwise is absurd.

Do you know why we don’t have a “non-designed” thing to compare the designed things to? Because everything was designed!

It has nothing to do with the “appearance” of being designed (although by default it does appear to be so). It has everything to do with the fact that based on everything we know about design mechanics, the watch de facto MUST BE designed. It is impossible for it not to be.

It is actually the logic of the person who says “just look, the universe is clearly not designed” that is flawed. If the Watchmaker apologists look at the watch and say, “compared to literally every single thing we can see that has been designed, this watch too has been clearly designed,” the Watchmaker detractors say, “no, just because this APPEARS to be designed doesn’t mean it HAS to be.” Not only is it counter-intuitive to common sense, it lacks supporting evidence.

Name me something as intricately designed as a watch that came to being by accident. You are not allowed to say, ” the universe” either. Use something that has been proven to have come about that appears to have design that was actually not designed.

Since you admit that EVERYTHING is designed, and that the grains of sand and water ARE designed just like the watch, you don’t have anything to compare the watch to when you’re declaring that it must be designed. You are proving why the argument is absurd and you don’t even realize it.

---

beempty wrote:

wp1488 wrote:Rather than go through the motions on this argument I’ll save us both the trouble. If you use the watchmaker analogy(computer on a planet analogy, ray comfort’s painting/painter analogy, it’s all the same argument) and you find a watch on a beach and recognize that it’s designed because it’s so complex compared to your surroundings, and follow it out it’s conclusion that there is a god who created the universe and everything in it(which is what creationists believe and I’m assuming that also includes you), then he also created the all the grains of sand on the beach and the ocean next to the beach, right? So in actuality what you’d be doing is walking along a beach full of watches on an ocean full of watches, or standing on a planet made of watches, and you’re picking up this one watch and saying this one watch is so different from the the billions of other watches around me that it must be proof of a designer. The fact of the matter is that you wouldn’t be able to determine that the watch is designed because you would not have any basis for comparison because you don’t have a non-designed thing to compare it to. it is a self-reinforcing argument. The same with the universe. In order to proclaim that the universe is designed, you would first have a frame of reference so you’d need to first determine what a non-designed universe would look like(you actually can do this, just look outside) “this appears to be designed therefore it was designed” is not a sound argument. There IS a way to recognize that a watch is intelligently designed. It doesn’t have anything to do with complexity. It has to do with every example we have of anything remotely resembling a watch that we know of IS designed, and we have NO examples of watches occurring naturally. It is a contrast between naturally occurring and non-natually occurring.

All that aside, the argument itself takes an unnecessary leap by declaring that the designer is the god of your choice when there’s no reason to jump to that conclusion.

Lol…what??

The irony of this line of reasoning is that the grains of sand, the water, etc. ARE just like the watch! The watch might be the MOST intricately designed thing in the scenario, but when you break the grains of sand and the water down to the molecular level, design is so apparent that saying otherwise is absurd.

Do you know why we don’t have a “non-designed” thing to compare the designed things to? Because everything was designed!

It has nothing to do with the “appearance” of being designed (although by default it does appear to be so). It has everything to do with the fact that based on everything we know about design mechanics, the watch de facto MUST BE designed. It is impossible for it not to be.

It is actually the logic of the person who says “just look, the universe is clearly not designed” that is flawed. If the Watchmaker apologists look at the watch and say, “compared to literally every single thing we can see that has been designed, this watch too has been clearly designed,” the Watchmaker detractors say, “no, just because this APPEARS to be designed doesn’t mean it HAS to be.” Not only is it counter-intuitive to common sense, it lacks supporting evidence.

Name me something as intricately designed as a watch that came to being by accident. You are not allowed to say, ” the universe” either. Use something that has been proven to have come about that appears to have design that was actually not designed.

Since you admit that EVERYTHING is designed, and that the grains of sand and water ARE designed just like the watch, you don’t have anything to compare the watch to when you’re declaring that it must be designed. You are proving why the argument is absurd and you don’t even realize it.

---

Debate Series Excerpt  

wp1488 wrote:….

All that aside, the argument itself takes an unnecessary leap by declaring that the designer is the god of your choice when there’s no reason to jump to that conclusion.

---

 

beempty wrote:

Lol…what??

The irony of this line of reasoning is that the grains of sand, the water, etc. ARE just like the watch! The watch might be the MOST intricately designed thing in the scenario, but when you break the grains of sand and the water down to the molecular level, design is so apparent that saying otherwise is absurd.

Do you know why we don’t have a “non-designed” thing to compare the designed things to? Because everything was designed!

It has nothing to do with the “appearance” of being designed (although by default it does appear to be so). It has everything to do with the fact that based on everything we know about design mechanics, the watch de facto MUST BE designed. It is impossible for it not to be.

It is actually the logic of the person who says “just look, the universe is clearly not designed” that is flawed. If the Watchmaker apologists look at the watch and say, “compared to literally every single thing we can see that has been designed, this watch too has been clearly designed,” the Watchmaker detractors say, “no, just because this APPEARS to be designed doesn’t mean it HAS to be.” Not only is it counter-intuitive to common sense, it lacks supporting evidence.

Name me something as intricately designed as a watch that came to being by accident. You are not allowed to say, ” the universe” either. Use something that has been proven to have come about that appears to have design that was actually not designed.

---

Dahlsim wrote: 

 

+1

Another way you could say this beempty is that things that ARE designed also APPEAR to be designed.

It *could* be that they just “APPEAR” to be designed but it also *could* be because they ARE designed, ergo appearing to be designed is NOT an argument against actually being designed.

 

In fact appearing to be designed may not be in and of itself absolute “proof” of design but it is one strong indication that something IS in fact designed.

In my earlier analogy the computer on the distant planet Appears to be designed therefore according to the “watchmaker debunkers” it is NOT designed.  Huh? 

Doh, maybe it appears to be designed because it IS designed?  Maybe?

 

Add to the appearance of design other factors such as practical functioning, e.g. the letters display on the screen, or the eyes do indeed process the light waves, the ears do process the sound waves etc.

Add also clear logical purpose, a thing is design TO DO something which we can easily rationalize and see.

 

The Holy Spirit by the Apostle Paul is simply saying it should be clear to any honest rational thinker that a thing with these qualities, let alone a universe of full of these things, IS without question a result of design.

 

You don’t have to believe in the Bible to acknowledge that an argument is rational.

Romans 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

 

Debate Series Excerpt  

Dahlsim wrote:

You know, this kinda “appears” to be designed to me.  

In fact, could you even DRAW it without significant effort and intelligence, let alone create it?

---

 

wp1488 wrote:

Are you talking about a picture on my screen or the animal itself? If you’re talking about the actual animal, to me, it “appears” to not be something that was designed, but something that occurred naturally, because every example we have of a living butterfly has occurred naturally. To answer your other question, no I couldn’t draw it and I couldn’t create it either.

---

Dahlsim wrote:

 

In my earlier analogy the computer on the distant planet Appears to be designed therefore according to the “watchmaker debunkers” it is NOT designed.  Huh? 

Doh, maybe it appears to be designed because it IS designed?  Maybe?

wp1488 wrote:

In your earlier analogy, you don’t have a frame of reference to declare the computer as appearing to be designed, because the computer on the distant planet wouldn’t appear to be any more designed than a speck of dirt next to the computer on a distant planet because you believe that everything is designed. (well, beempty did, and you agreed with him)

I can say that the computer appears to be designed, because I know what computers are, I know that every computer I’ve ever experienced has been designed, and I don’t have any evidence that computers are naturally occurring. I can make the comparison between something that is naturally occurring, vs something that is not naturally occurring. I have a frame of reference for it, and you don’t! That is how I can reason that this computer appears to have an intelligent designer rather than coming to be by natural means. Still couldn’t say it with absolute certainty, but would have a good reason to think so.

---

bempty wrote:

This is what you are not understanding:

The grain of sand and the ocean are not (for the sake of this discussion) things which we “know” to be designed. However, the watch is.

The watch is our frame of reference, because we know – with certainty – that the watch absolutely was designed.

We are taking the micro example and comparing it to the macro example. We are extrapolating the similarities in the design mechanics to the universe itself, which is infinitely more complex, and thus requires infinitely more intricate design. The same principles apply.

We did not arrive at the conclusion that the watch was designed because of the molecules, but the other way around.

We do not need a “non-designed” frame of reference. It isn’t required, because the designed watch is the frame of reference, and it matches. “Non-design” is just a non-observable concept, like “infinity.”

---

wp1488 wrote:

But the reason why you know with certainty that the watch was designed is because you have seen other watches and all of those watches have, to your knowledge, been engineered by people. NOT because of the complexity of the watch or by contrasting it with surrounding nature. That’s the point I’m making.

Also, you’ve claimed everything is designed. God(who must be ridiculously complex to have created all these complex things) included? If you say no then you’ve essentially invalidated the entire premise of your argument.(that complex things must have designers)

---

OK, be, you’re using a watch that you know is designed as your frame of reference. You’re going to determine things that are not designed vs things that are designed by comparing them to this watch. You pick up a grain of sand. Since complexity is the method you’re choosing to use to determine design vs non-design, the grain of sand is far less complex than a watch is, even on a molecular level. You’d come to the conclusion that the sand is not designed, like the watch is, right?

If it’s not complexity, because it couldn’t be, then on what basis would you compare the watch to a sand grain to determine that the sand grain was also designed like the watch is?