The argument from design.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 май 2024
- Let's take a look at one of the classical arguments for the existence of God.
You can find my books here: www.amazon.com/-/e/B009QIJW7E
and my editing services here: philipnewey.com/All-read-E.htm
Nicely put once again Phil.
I enjoyed this a lot, thanks. Subbed
Paley's False Watchmaker Analogy is one of my favourites. Properly understood it's actually an argument for atheism.
The watch (naturalistic) was designed by a watchmaker (naturalistic). We can research the watchmaker, the tools (naturalistic) he uses, the materials (naturalistic) he needs and the procedures (naturalistic) he follows.
A creator god (supernatural) designing a universe, life, whatever cannot be researched. He/she/it (how do we determine that?) by definition can't manipulate tools and materials nor use naturalistic procedurezms or he/she/it would cease to be supernatural. Take eg Gen. 1:3 "and God said ..."
How does that work? "Saying" means producing sound. Sound consists of vibrating molecules, hence are natural. They require a source, like a larynx or a speaker - something natural, which supernatural entities by definition don't have.
I always thought the 'finding a watch on the ground' scenario was to explain finding life in this world. IE if you are walking along and find a watch, you infer it was designed because of how it works and how it seems to serve a function/purpose. So that implies a watchmaker...a designer of life/life forms. That is how it seems to be used in discussions I've been part of. But perhaps those who offered it were mistaken. If we take it as representing the natural world which many see as fine tuned, then it really only pushes the puzzle back a step and answers nothing. My response to the fine tuned universe/natural world is that if this natural world is fine tuned, how much more so a being that could create such a fine tuned world? One must simply choose where to stop counting turtles (it's turtles all the way down) and assert that SOMETHING exists and that something must have or have had the wherewithal to produce a world such as the one we find ourselves in. It is no more informative to posit a god as the source as to just posit an eternal natural existence that can produce universes. That would solve the problem of fine tuning and of life forming naturally.
Amazing that with enough evidence you don't need faith to prove human beings are responsible for the creation of the watch. Thanks to evidence this is an assertion the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim and the atheist can all agree on.
Interesting, I've always favored "god of the gaps" because of "free will" all in my opinion of course:)
Hello, hello, hello...
to down under...
Grtz from up here northern hemisphere... Holland.
Ps... Newtons 3rd law...
so how about propulsion...
(Rocketengine, jet engine, nozzle with burn or no burn...)
To change trajectory, land and lift off in absolute vacuum of space...
😜.... 🌔
I'm not quite sure what this has to do with the video ...
@@philipnewey U talk about newton etc...physics...
And u can not figure out what i say/propose...
:)
Sorry it's difficult to understand what you mean: are you saying that newton's 3rd law implies rockets shouldn't work in vacuum? Well, no you're wrong they work perfectly fine, and out of topic but whatever.
You can't make the judgement that the world is deeply flawed, because it's an evolving system.. Also you can't mix mythology with science the first is an emotional response to life while the other is intellectual, both of them are TRUE but for different reasons, most people fail to grasp this. Emotions are linked to our spirituality whereas the intellect isn't, ie you can't think your way into a belief in God. because we don't have all the information...but emotionally we behave as if we do...this tricks people all the time. Also we are most likely some kind of alien on going experiment maybe to develop a species that has strong emotional responses with conflicting mental and emotional makeups just to have bets on whether we destroy ourselves or not.
I don't think saying the world is flawed is so much an emotional response as a moral one. However, as I don't think there is any will behind the world, you are right that you can't say it is morally flawed. My point here is that if you are going to make a moral statement about the universe, which I think you have to do if you are going to claim that it was created by a 'good' being, then you could also argue that it is morally bad, and therefore created by an evil being. The evidence about the 'moral' goodness of the universe is ambiguous. But, of course, the argument is not relevant if we agree that the unverse wasn't created. I don't think you can use the argument that the world is evolving to say that you can't say it is flawed. You can argue that the process is flawed - unless you think that the only basis for evaluating an action or process is the end result. I wouldn't share this view - i.e. that the end justifies the means - in human morality. I don't believe I am mixing mythology and science here. I don't believe I touch science at all. The argument is philsophical (not mythological).
@@philipnewey Philosophy is thinking and related to science as both are in the mental sphere. Religion uses thinking to work out a cosmology/ theology and viewing the world through that lens and using the mind to reinforce it, but not using critical thinking within it, because it undermines the belief structure which is built through the emotions and through feeling a presence in prayer and the world. Thanks for your interesting response.
@@michaelpudney I actually have a PhD in theology, Michael, and I can assure you that critical thinking was and is very much encouraged in that discipliine. Thanks for engaging with me.
@@philipnewey I have a BA in visual arts and I can see the only question worth getting an answer to is does matter come from consciousness as per some kind of creative act from a supreme being or does consciousness come from matter as science seems to suggest. If the first is true our consciousness is linked to the divine source, and the best idea about that is God got bored and decided to limit consciousness in space and time for the novel unpredictable nature of it as a kind of theatre. God watches this soapy and when we die we go back to God or our consciousness sheds it's limitations. If the second one is true then when we die we cease to exist and this life is all we have.