next »

[Jenifer]

Tweet

In the past, we have had several debates about the existence of God, or a creator. 

I thought I'd began to break down some of the philosophical proofs of God's existence. 

The first theory I'd like to take into consideration is Paley's Watchmaker Analogy.

Basically what Paley is saying is that the intelligent design of the universe is proof that it has a designer.  Or to put it more simply, creation is evidence of a creator. 

For example, we may see a painting and know that someone had to paint it.  It couldn't just have appeared on its own in completion, as an actual picture.

Darwin countered this theory with the theory of natural selection, but I don't think it even needs to be that complicated.

As I see it, there can be no creator justification for the existence of the universe because by that theory, the creator of the universe is evidence of its own creator.

And if the creator had a creator, that creator had a creator and so on and so on, because it would follow that an creator who created a universe with intelligent design would have to be assumed to be an intelligent design his or herself.  So the creator of the universe would have had to been created by a creator capable of intelligent design.

Either way, we always land in the same place.  Who created the creator? 

[Tobacco]

crybaby me a>
[blub]bla, blah is quack, bla blah blub, [/blub]

[blub]crybaby me  blah crybaby me aft ... bla quack blah crybaby me tive.[/blub]

[blub]bla crybaby me  bla crybaby me ? [/blub]

On bla blub, we bla, blub we quack blub blub blah crybaby me  crybaby me nce, bla on crybaby me  blub, no bla crybaby me  bla crybaby me  blub crybaby me  bla be crybaby me  bla blub's no blah to blah a crybaby me  blah crybaby me  blub's crybaby me ce.

[Jenifer]

Tweet

Well in my first post I said God OR a creator. 

[Father Luke]

Tweet

Well in my first post I said God OR a creator. 

Both Christian terms. See Psalm 90:2 for an explanation to your question.

[Jenifer]

Tweet

You'll have to post what you reference.  That's the nature of the beast.

Just because Christianity claims to own the term 'creator' does not mean they actually do.

[Father Luke]

Tweet

When you say God or the "Creator" and then ask:

Who created the creator?

...you are defining the terms, which are implicitly Christian.

Buddhists don't speak of the creator, they speak of the Buddha.
Taoists don't speak of Deities, they speak of the Tao.

So, you see, you are using terms which have their own Mythology
already built in.

Let's say I were to talk about Rat Park. Rat Park was an experiment
where a scientist decided to test the theory that rats will turn
to heroin naturally. Rat Park disproved this theory.

But he didn't say: And so therefore The Upanishads are correct.

He said science is wrong. Rats do not turn to heroin naturally, and I have
proved it using the evidence which was used to assert this in the first place.

Here is the thing. You have defined Christian terms, and want outside validation.
It won't work. What will work is to look for inconsistencies in the framework of
the question you raise and to find validation for your answer there.

For instance. In the Bible it says that Adam fell into a deep sleep. Nowhere does
it mention him waking up. The implication being that this all (waving hand with a
sweeping gesture to include it 'all'), all of this is not real, and therefore does
not exist. In that light there is no creator, and this is all chaos, or divine
ecstasy, or whatever your personal experience of life is.

But to say: Huh. So, we have a creator. Well who created the creator?
You can't do that, you have to broaden your question, or accept the terms as
they are defined.

This is why people have turned away from religion for years. It doesn't work
unless you have blind faith. And blind faith is as unreal as the world is, so
people want to take their chances with what they can see, taste, touch, hear or...
whatever the last one is. Which is why I am cautious of the internet. I can't do
all of those things. I can't smell the internet. I can't taste it. So for me? It
isn't real, and I mistrust it. Vehemently.

And all that jazz.

- -
Okay,
Father Luke

[Jenifer]

Tweet

Well, that's all fine and good.  And your debate skills and intelligence are enough to make me fall in love with you all over again.

However, this debate is specifically about the watchmaker theory, which states that the intelligent design of the universe is evidence of a creator, or God.  And that the universe, in all it's order (not chaos because the order of the world if you pay attention can be mind blowing) could have only been created by someone who had intentionally designed it to work as well as say, a watch. 

Now given that this debate is specifically about the watchmaker theory, how would you refute Paley? 

[Father Luke]

Tweet

I'd tell him to piss off.

[Jenifer]

Tweet

You know just as well as I do that wouldn't work with Paley.

He has a mouth like a trucker and a brain like Einstein. 

[Father Luke]

Tweet

Then I'll tell you.

[Jenifer]

Tweet

You know just as well as I do that doesn't work with me.

I have  a mouth like a trucker, a brain like Einstein and an ass as soft as a baby's cheek.

[Father Luke]

Tweet

I love your ass cheeks. It's your logic that's fuzzy.

Shall we call this a draw? It's like asking the question:


If god is so tough, can he make a rock he can't lift?


For all the posturing, and all the science, that's what it comes down to
and it's rather silly. Silly because there are such interesting other deities
worth humiliating. Deities not quite so black and blue from constant harangues
as good old lawd und kri$t ay zoos. We have Shiva, Buddha, The boogie man,
and others. Then too we have deity less religions including the Pagans with their
Polymorphic Deities.

Religion is kind of vast. Why don't we talk about writers and their egos.
I see this as a dead horse. But I'm willing to look at your ass agian if it makes
you feel better.

Your call.
 

[Jenifer]

Tweet

...well I do have that other one I was going to start up before I started writing that email tonight...

[Mr_Laurent]

Tweet

Five months later ...

No watch, no watchmaker.  The intelligence of the universe's design is imaginary.  Humans see patterns, and so we imagine patterns in the universe. 

It works so perfectly, better than the finest watch, so it must be a design! 

But no, it works, simply because it works.  That we are here to see it is a miracle, perhaps, and a good thing, definitely.  But our existence doesn't automagically infer any purpose.  We just are, and so is the rest of it.

As for evolution, it's not a process of selection.  That's a shorthand.  Evolution is simply what happens:  This organism lives, that one dies, and if the difference happens to be in a heritable mutation, cool, the species evolved.  But there's still no design or selection.  Merely an event, one in an endless multi-threaded chain of billions.

OK, I bored myself.  What was the question?

[Father Luke]

Tweet

Darwin was stumped when he looked at the eye. When he thought about the eye, he
entertained the notion of intelligent design rather than evolution.

I can argue this from both sides of the fence.

Who's next?

The Watchmaker Theory - Creation as Evidence of a Creator

[Jenifer]

Tweet

Again I ask, who created the creator?