Answering Athiests: Watch in the sand

[Tiger_Stripes]

This is a flawed argument brought up again and again by theists here and elsewhere and frankly I'm tired of debunking it.

So I'll make a separate observation instead.

Lets say that the universe was created. The earth was created. Humans were put on earth by a creator.

Now, given all of that:

Why must the creator still exist?

Why must the creator be benevolent?

Why must the creator be immortal?

Who created the creator?

Where are my car keys?

1.) Why must the creator be mortal?

2.) The creator is benevolent since humans universally prefer good over evil.

3.) See #1

4.) If the creator is infinite and immortal, then he has no creator.

 

[Hemoo]

and you mr. pygoscelis

you keep insisting that the laws and rules that exists in this universe must be applied outside the universe and outside the whole creation.

how can you do that

how can you try to apply this laws on the one who created them

you are so narrow minded if you keep thinking like so


i will give you an example and i hope i make it right so that you can understand it :

what if i made a program code in my windows platform that will contain a set of rules.
does that mean that the same rules must be applied on me
no it does not because i am the one who made that program and i have made up some rules that never can be applied on me or my life.


get it

 

[wilberhum]

what you said mr. welberhum is not a scientific reply

There is nothing scientific about the watchmaker analogy.

you did'nt show me how what i said has failed (your) logic test ??

There is no logical conection between Mechanical and Biological.

i ask you which part of what i wrote that you don't agree to

All of them.

how can an explosion produce an organized pattern

It is all born out of collisions, not organization.

plz give me an example of this case in our life

Sorry, I can't think of an example. I think it is all chance.

 

[NoName55]

Re: Answerind Athiests: Watch in the sand

When life was just starting out 3.8 billion years ago, the sun was much
fainter than the sun we know today. So the Earth didn't receive nearly as
much solar energy as it does now, yet life still evolved. that at that time the sun's luminosity was 75% of what it is today, and that it was 25% dimmer. This means that past temperatures were significantly lower than today. that at 75% of present luminosity, the mean temperature of the Earth would have been 268 K
(that's -5.15 *C, below the freezing point of water!) had it not been for
the greenhouse effect. So an atmosphere capable of trapping heat is
important for planets too far from the sun to support liquid water.

All this evidence can lead us to only one conclusion. The distance
of a planet (or moon) from the sun may or may not plays a role in the
formation of life. We Must consider other factors. Indeed further to this and with relevence to life throughout the universe the Earth could have orbited within a "safe zone" around the sun of more than 100 miles +/-

I think your perfection concept of orbital position died out along with the dinosaurs..........

Because I am lucky to be born when I consider all the actual astronomically large events that led directly to my birth does not imply it was so precise it must have been planned since "chance" could not have occured so infinately as it did>?

are you Dan Patel, Undergraduate, Chemistry Major, Math Minor, University of Houston (2000)

edit:
He actually read these books then came to conclusion, that you plagerised above
"Earth: Evolution of a Habitable World" by Jonathan I. Lunine.

"Planet Earth: Cosmology, Geology, and the Evolution of Live and
Environment" by Cesare Emiliani

 

[wilberhum]

Why must the creator be mortal?

Why must a creator be immortal?

The creator is benevolent since humans universally prefer good over evil.

Not a bad guess, but not Necessarly true. There are many evil people in this world.

If the creator is infinite and immortal, then he has no creator.

But what if the creator in not infinite and immortal?

 

[Tiger_Stripes]

Why must a creator be immortal?

Who says a Creator has to be immortal? Nietzsche's notorious quote can actually be reality. It is my belief as a Muslim that God is immortal.

Not a bad guess, but not Necessarly true. There are many evil people in this world.

Those are exceptions. Many people do "evil" thinking that they are for the general good (ex. bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

But what if the creator in not infinite and immortal?

They perhaps he has a creator? It cannot be proven or disproven given human limits in attaining knowledge.

 

[wilberhum]

bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

Oh no not another one. Gee I'm going to judge an entire war based on 2 days. I will forget who started it and what they were doing. You just can't beat that 2 day system.
PS: Do you know Japan was working on a nuke to drop on the US? So was Germany.

 

[Tiger_Stripes]

Oh no not another one. Gee I'm going to judge an entire war based on 2 days. I will forget who started it and what they were doing. You just can't beat that 2 day system.
PS: Do you know Japan was working on a nuke to drop on the US? So was Germany.

The US dropped it because Truman's administration though it was the best move to protect America. Good intentions, evil move.

 

[wilberhum]

The US dropped it because Truman's administration though it was the best move to protect America. Good intentions, evil move.

Ya, we should have let millions more die. :raging: :raging:
How about back on topic. :thumbs_up

 

[Pygoscelis]

1.) Why must the creator be mortal?

No reason to think the creator is or is not mortal. I'm not the one making claims, thats the religious folk who do that. I'm perfectly content to admit I don't know and see no reason to invent things without any evidence.

2.) The creator is benevolent since humans universally prefer good over evil.

What does "humans universally prefer good over evil" mean? And why do human preferences necesitate God's nature? Seems rather backwards, no?

4.) If the creator is infinite and immortal, then he has no creator.

There is no reason to think it is inifinite or immortal.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

1.) Why must the creator be mortal?

I think the point is that until there's any evidence for a creator, then all comments about it are just speculation.

2.) The creator is benevolent since humans universally prefer good over evil.

I always prefer to find free money in the streets. Does that mean that it's true that I will find free money tomorrow?

3.) See #1

That doesn't answer the question 'Who created the creator?'

4.) If the creator is infinite and immortal, then he has no creator.

But if something as simple as a watch must necessarily have a creator, then how much more necessary is it that something as complex as god also must have had a creator? This line of thinking ends up with an infinite regress of beings, all more complex than the last.

The truth is that the argument from design (of which the watchmaker analogy is a famous version) has never really convinced anybody but believers.

Peace

 

[Tiger_Stripes]

No reason to think the creator is or is not mortal. I'm not the one making claims, thats the religious folk who do that. I'm perfectly content to admit I don't know and see no reason to invent things without any evidence.

Lack of reasons is not a reason enough to assume a mortal creator.

What does "humans universally prefer good over evil" mean? And why do human preferences necessitate God's nature? Seems rather backwards, no?

Every civilized society are governed by laws formulated for the GOOD of the general population. The ability to form morals and differentiate between what's right and wrong supports my assertion. How does it seem backward? The idea of an evil God is logically inconceivable.

There is no reason to think it is inifinite or immortal.

So you're assuming based on lack of reasons? The Greeks believed that the earth was stationary based on "lack of evidence to the contrary." We both know today how wrong they were, dont we?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Lack of reasons is not a reason enough to assume a mortal creator.

No, you're right, it isn't. And lack of reasons is not reason enough to assume an immorta one either, or even one at all. What exactly is your point here? I was saying I was fine with not knowing and not creating stories just to fill in holes in my knowledge, like the religionists do.

Every civilized society are governed by laws formulated for the GOOD of the general population.

That sounds quite naive.

You think we all really wish to have a world that is fair to everyone, and not slanted to benefit ourselves over others? You think the rich and privileged want a society in which their children have the same hardships as other people's children?

You say that every civilized society is governed by laws formulated for the GOOD of the general population. Has such a society ever existed in reality on this earth?

The ability to form morals and differentiate between what's right and wrong supports my assertion.

I don't see how.

The idea of an evil God is logically inconceivable.

It is just as conceivable to me as a benevolent one. Given his apparent lack of interaction with his creation, what makes most sense is that he is completely disinterested, or doesn't exist.

Both socially constructive and socially destructive behavariour exist Both Joy and Suffering exists. Stories about how God will treat us after we're dead vary and some show him to be a very evil being.

So you're assuming based on lack of reasons?

No, I don't assume at all. There is no reason to assume either way. As I've noted again and againa above, I'm ok with not knowing. I'm not the one inventing stories and attempting to pass them off as the uncontestable Truth.