Conquer Club

jay_a2j wrote:Well, I read as much as I could before my mind started going numb. I gotta say, this guy has great faith in what he believes. Unfortunate that he has spent so much time contemplating all the ways it is possible God doesn't exist.


To the first couple lines: There is a verse in scripture that says something about, "Did we not cast out demons in your name? Did we not heal the sick in your name? Did we not preach the gospel in your name?" to which God replied "Depart from me I never knew you!" (this is highly paraphrased). But it explains that many will claim to "do things" in Gods name when they are in fact not doing His will.


The watch thing? Ya, I challenge anyone to find something in nature (non-living) that is anywhere close to the complexity of a watch! We all know a watch indeed had a "maker" so how is it that the human eye which is infinitely more complex than a watch could exist without a maker? He gave a "1000 step process" of little "by chance" happenings that may have led to the development of an eye. To which I say, the man has great faith in what he believes if that's what he believes, for it is far more believable to believe in God.



If someone chooses to buy the stuff in that article, go ahead, knock yourself out! I choose God.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html wrote:The Argument From Design is often stated by analogy, in the so-called Watchmaker Argument. One is asked to imagine that one has found a watch on the beach. Does one assume that it was created by a watchmaker, or that it evolved naturally? Of course one assumes a watchmaker. Yet like the watch, the universe is intricate and complex; so, the argument goes, the universe too must have a creator.

The Watchmaker analogy suffers from three particular flaws, over and above those common to all Arguments By Design. Firstly, a watchmaker creates watches from pre-existing materials, whereas God is claimed to have created the universe from nothing. These two sorts of creation are clearly fundamentally different, and the analogy is therefore rather weak.

Secondly, a watchmaker makes watches, but there are many other things in the world. If we walked further along the beach and found a nuclear reactor, we wouldn't assume it was created by the watchmaker. The argument would therefore suggest a multitude of creators, each responsible for a different part of creation (or a different universe, if you allow the possibility that there might be more than one).

Finally, in the first part of the watchmaker argument we conclude that the watch is not part of nature because it is ordered, and therefore stands out from the randomness of nature. Yet in the second part of the argument, we start from the position that the universe is obviously not random, but shows elements of order. The Watchmaker argument is thus internally inconsistent.

Apart from logical inconsistencies in the watchmaker argument, it's worth pointing out that biological systems and mechanical systems behave very differently. What's unlikely for a pile of gears is not necessarily unlikely for a mixture of biological molecules.

vtmarik wrote:Also, the watchmaker argument falls through on a practical level. Look at all of the imperfections of man.

Would a watchmaker make a watch that not only has to be wound but cleaned daily, dunked in anti-persperant, occasionally trimmed to meet aesthetic standards, given a corrective lens when the old one becomes too cloudy or hard to read, and constantly having existential issues with its identity as a watch?

Show me a watchmaker who makes such an imperfect watch and I'll show you how to make a light bulb levitate in midair using only aluminum foil and a balloon filled with maple syrup.

2dimes wrote:Objection. Your honour, in addition to older watches needing to be wound daily, I've routinely gone over a week with out bathing or shaving.

vtmarik wrote:infidels.org

Anony#1 wrote:That's profoundly disgusting. You'll never shine with the big boys, now.

vtmarik wrote:infidels.org

Oh, so you're one of THOSE guys, eh?

vtmarik wrote: Religion to me is akin to groups of people banding together and forming communities based solely on the fact that they all have the same first name.

millej11 wrote:In a sense, this man is trying to mathematically disprove God.

Funny, God creates man, man creates math, math disproves God, God doesn't exist? Fat chance in hell.

2dimes wrote:Man never created math, it was there well before he discovered it.

Anony#1 wrote:

millej11 wrote:In a sense, this man is trying to mathematically disprove God.

Funny, God creates man, man creates math, math disproves God, God doesn't exist? Fat chance in hell.

You're right, Milly, we should just throw out all sciences, and mathematics (sp) ta'boot.

You must be a warrior for God. :]

jay_a2j wrote:If someone chooses to buy the stuff in that article, go ahead, knock yourself out! I choose God.

millej11 wrote:God creates man, man creates math, math disproves God, God doesn't exist? Fat chance in hell.

vtmarik wrote:

Anony#1 wrote:

millej11 wrote:In a sense, this man is trying to mathematically disprove God.

Funny, God creates man, man creates math, math disproves God, God doesn't exist? Fat chance in hell.

You're right, Milly, we should just throw out all sciences, and mathematics (sp) ta'boot.

You must be a warrior for God. :]

Did you know that Algebra was invented in the Middle East? The numbers we use are the arabic numbers.

So, bomb Iran, eliminate Algebra, millions of school kids rejoice.

b.k. barunt wrote:How is he using math to disprove God? Did i miss the crucial formula, or is millej halucinating again.

vtmarik wrote:

Anony#1 wrote:

millej11 wrote:In a sense, this man is trying to mathematically disprove God.

Funny, God creates man, man creates math, math disproves God, God doesn't exist? Fat chance in hell.

You're right, Milly, we should just throw out all sciences, and mathematics (sp) ta'boot.

You must be a warrior for God. :]

Did you know that Algebra was invented in the Middle East? The numbers we use are the arabic numbers.

So, bomb Iran, eliminate Algebra, millions of school kids rejoice.

jay_a2j wrote:Well, I read as much as I could before my mind started going numb. I gotta say, this guy has great faith in what he believes. Unfortunate that he has spent so much time contemplating all the ways it is possible God doesn't exist.


To the first couple lines: There is a verse in scripture that says something about, "Did we not cast out demons in your name? Did we not heal the sick in your name? Did we not preach the gospel in your name?" to which God replied "Depart from me I never knew you!" (this is highly paraphrased). But it explains that many will claim to "do things" in Gods name when they are in fact not doing His will.


The watch thing? Ya, I challenge anyone to find something in nature (non-living) that is anywhere close to the complexity of a watch! We all know a watch indeed had a "maker" so how is it that the human eye which is infinitely more complex than a watch could exist without a maker? He gave a "1000 step process" of little "by chance" happenings that may have led to the development of an eye. To which I say, the man has great faith in what he believes if that's what he believes, for it is far more believable to believe in God.



If someone chooses to buy the stuff in that article, go ahead, knock yourself out! I choose God.

2dimes wrote:Man never created math, it was there well before he discovered it.

unriggable wrote:

2dimes wrote:Man never created math, it was there well before he discovered it.

He created math as a means of communicating things like physics.

Backglass wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:If someone chooses to buy the stuff in that article, go ahead, knock yourself out! I choose God.

I agree. I choose neither.

millej11 wrote:God creates man, man creates math, math disproves God, God doesn't exist? Fat chance in hell.

Man creates gods, man creates math, math proves reality, gods don't exist. No chance of hell.