the self replicating watch argument

[pshun2404]

So you are pointing out that the dichotomy presented by the OP "by natural process or by design" is (or at least might be) a false one. Exactly my point.
(Andplease keep in mind that when I respond to an OP, I am responding to what reads there - not to arguments other people may have made in different contexts. )

No! You asked if God arose by natural processes or was designed (that's not in the OP). I respomded to that question only.

 

[quatona]

No! You asked if God arose by natural processes or was designed (that's not in the OP).

These wer the two options presented in the OP for the existence of something. You offered a third. I think there may even be more.

 

[pshun2404]

These wer the two options presented in the OP for the existence of something. You offered a third. I think there may even be more.

Ah yes...I see now...you confused God with a "thing" (which by nature is part of the creation). Are you a materialist? I ask because it usually only they who make this category error.

 

[pshun2404]

Just because it performs a similar function doesn't mean it's the same thing.

Now apply that same logic (which is sound in my opinion) to the interpretation gene function in alleged shared genes used to support common descent of Chimps and Humans and you will be onto something...

 

[quatona]

Ah yes...I see now...you confused God with a "thing" (which by nature is part of the creation).

I didn´t see any such distinction in the OP. So there was nothing to confuse.

Also, I didn´t talk about "things".

Now, if you insist on determining reality by means of definitional power and semantics wizardry, have fun with it.

Are you a materialist?

No.

I ask because it usually only they who make this category error.

Well, if you want to, we can agree that God isn´t something/anything.

 

[pshun2404]

God is not a thing, He is the maker of all that is. It was all His idea. He is the source.

The Watchmaker analogy begs the question of how one can look at something so complex, information driven, and complex with all its necessary intricate parts which have specific functional parameters and insist this just came about by mere chemical coincidence (which was the accepted premise at the time) when even if they look at a watch they can not be persuaded that it was not designed by a maker.

Of course people came up with arguments again the point he was making. They had to. It made far too much sense to not do whatever they could to knock it down and discredit it. But the point remains sound.

There are nearly 20 philosophical lines of reasoning that conclude there must be a God (and they must attack each and every one) and not 1 that can conclude that there must not be a God.

 

[Speedwell]

God is not a thing, He is the maker of all that is. It was all His idea. He is the source.

The Watchmaker analogy begs the question of how one can look at something so complex, information driven, and complex with all its necessary intricate parts which have specific functional parameters and insist this just came about by mere chemical coincidence (which was the accepted premise at the time) when even if they look at a watch they can not be persuaded that it was not designed by a maker.

Functional complexity in itself is not evidence of design.
Design is not directly detectable in an object. If I'm out camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes, I have "designed" a hammer. After I move on, you would be hard-pressed to find out which rock I had used. Even if I shape the rock for the purpose by banging it against another rock you might have a hard time picking it out--ask any paleontologist who is trying to find stone tools in a rockpile. In fact, what he is looking for are traces of human manufacture from which he may infer human design, and when he finds them he may still not be sure of the purpose of the object, what is was designed for.

Considering the watch of your example, I would infer a human designer not because of its functionality or its complexity but because it was obviously a product of human manufacture--with tool marks, refined materials, etc. If I could not conclude that the object was of human manufacture, then I could draw no inference one way or another about the existence of a designer.

Of course people came up with arguments again the point he was making. They had to. It made far too much sense to not do whatever they could to knock it down and discredit it. But the point remains sound.

Why?

There are nearly 20 philosophical lines of reasoning that conclude there must be a God (and they must attack each and every one) and not 1 that can conclude that there must not be a God.

We're discussing intelligent design, not the existence of God--two very different issues.

 

[pshun2404]

Speedwell, I am going to approach your response sections in reverse because the first section (two whole paragraphs) requires many comments.

So yes this thread IS about design consciously imposed, i.e., by an intelligent source. My last comment was only provided to provide other collateral evidence for such a being’s existence (you should see what many modern physicists are beginning to conclude...one group is saying they the evidence implies “consciousness” (an awareness or intelligence) as the source for ALL material existence, the other is that a “consciousness” is inherent in our concept of and perception of material existence, and it itself cannot be explained by material means).

Why? Because having concluded (in their opinion only) that nothing exists “outside of or beyond the materiality” (their definition of “the natural order”), to admit, suggest, or allow for the existence of God/gods/or higher order intelligent forces, destroys their explanations tending toward an abiogenesis or life and humanity evolving by natural means only.

“Functional complexity in itself is not evidence of design.

I agree!

Design is not directly detectable in an object.

I agree if we were speaking of a simple static object but living things are not simple static objects but functionally interactive systems comprised of functionally purposed forms and forces all of which must work in harmony to maintain optimal existence. Remove essential component forms, functions or forces and “life” ceases and it dies and disintegrates.

If I'm out camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes, I have "designed" a hammer. After I move on, you would be hard-pressed to find out which rock I had used.

True as to which rock, however, based on the presence of the tent (even if now in disarray) with pounded in tent stakes (the final product of a process) we would KNOW an intelligence was involved.

Even if I shape the rock for the purpose by banging it against another rock you might have a hard time picking it out--ask any paleontologist who is trying to find stone tools in a rockpile. In fact, what he is looking for are traces of human manufacture from which he may infer human design, and when he finds them he may still not be sure of the purpose of the object, what is was designed for.

Now apply this truth to the presence of living forms (cells, and cell based organisms) and you SHOULD get it.

Considering the watch of your example, I would infer a human designer not because of its functionality or its complexity but because it was obviously a product of human manufacture--with tool marks, refined materials, etc. If I could not conclude that the object was of human manufacture, then I could draw no inference one way or another about the existence of a designer.”

You do know what an analogy is right (no insult intended)?

In a watch we have a system of forms and functions that must work together is a very specific way and so are made to be in relation to one another is such a way that in the end it keeps time by causing the movements of all interactive parts to function as a unified whole. The source of its power is an intelligently designed outside energy applied to a winding mechanism (a force) or is supplied by an intelligently designed battery which then is intentionally inserted in a mechanism intelligently designed to draw out and apply its potential energy.

A living system is NOT mechanical but in some instances acts in a similar fashion

For one example see

A Rotary Motor Drives Bacterial Motion - Biochemistry - NCBI Bookshelf

that being said, whether we are talking a mere cell OR a higher order organism composed of billions of cells, we are speaking of a system of precisely interactive forms, functions and forces that also are inter-dependent on each other to function and perform as one unified whole. The source of its power is called “life” and each level of these contains awareness (consciousness) which is non-material in nature.

So again, IF one looking at a mere watch or any mechanical device (so much more primitive and less than) demands a creator as the explanation for it, THEN a more highly organized unified system (mechanical or otherwise), a million times more complex in its precisely purposeful forms, functions, and forces (so highly interdependent and interactive), logically also implies a creator/designer.

 

[pshun2404]

Please notice that we very rarely ever see or hear a physicist or chemist involved in these discussions and debates (predominately Evolutionary Biologists and Paleontologists), The reason why is because so many believe in something very similar with what we believe about intelligence and design being involved in the manifestation and presence of living things in the Universe and in fact the universe itself (while not believing in what we call God or a god(s). Take look...

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” – Max Planck, theoretical physicist who originated quantum theory.

“It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality” –

“It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”


“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” (Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.)


“Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality “ (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect)

Wow the list keeps growing. Their conclusion from doing their science is one of two possibilities. Either the material has the non-materiality as its basis, OR "consciousness" either precedes or is inherent in the material Universe, but IS separate from and not caused by matter/energy. Just the presence of definite immutable laws and principles being in place that govern matter/energy that the materiality must follow and conform to implicates the necessity for intelligence. Simply put governing laws do not create or develop themselves.

 

[Speedwell]

Speedwell, I am going to approach your response sections in reverse because the first section (two whole paragraphs) requires many comments.

So yes this thread IS about design consciously imposed, i.e., by an intelligent source. My last comment was only provided to provide other collateral evidence for such a being’s existence (you should see what many modern physicists are beginning to conclude...one group is saying they the evidence implies “consciousness” (an awareness or intelligence) as the source for ALL material existence, the other is that a “consciousness” is inherent in our concept of and perception of material existence, and it itself cannot be explained by material means).

Why? Because having concluded (in their opinion only) that nothing exists “outside of or beyond the materiality” (their definition of “the natural order”), to admit, suggest, or allow for the existence of God/gods/or higher order intelligent forces, destroys their explanations tending toward an abiogenesis or life and humanity evolving by natural means only.

“Functional complexity in itself is not evidence of design.

I agree!

Design is not directly detectable in an object.

I agree if we were speaking of a simple static object but living things are not simple static objects but functionally interactive systems comprised of functionally purposed forms and forces all of which must work in harmony to maintain optimal existence. Remove essential component forms, functions or forces and “life” ceases and it dies and disintegrates.

If I'm out camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes, I have "designed" a hammer. After I move on, you would be hard-pressed to find out which rock I had used.

True as to which rock, however, based on the presence of the tent (even if now in disarray) with pounded in tent stakes (the final product of a process) we would KNOW an intelligence was involved.

Even if I shape the rock for the purpose by banging it against another rock you might have a hard time picking it out--ask any paleontologist who is trying to find stone tools in a rockpile. In fact, what he is looking for are traces of human manufacture from which he may infer human design, and when he finds them he may still not be sure of the purpose of the object, what is was designed for.

Now apply this truth to the presence of living forms (cells, and cell based organisms) and you SHOULD get it.

Considering the watch of your example, I would infer a human designer not because of its functionality or its complexity but because it was obviously a product of human manufacture--with tool marks, refined materials, etc. If I could not conclude that the object was of human manufacture, then I could draw no inference one way or another about the existence of a designer.”

You do know what an analogy is right (no insult intended)?

In a watch we have a system of forms and functions that must work together is a very specific way and so are made to be in relation to one another is such a way that in the end it keeps time by causing the movements of all interactive parts to function as a unified whole. The source of its power is an intelligently designed outside energy applied to a winding mechanism (a force) or is supplied by an intelligently designed battery which then is intentionally inserted in a mechanism intelligently designed to draw out and apply its potential energy.

A living system is NOT mechanical but in some instances acts in a similar fashion

For one example see

A Rotary Motor Drives Bacterial Motion - Biochemistry - NCBI Bookshelf

that being said, whether we are talking a mere cell OR a higher order organism composed of billions of cells, we are speaking of a system of precisely interactive forms, functions and forces that also are inter-dependent on each other to function and perform as one unified whole. The source of its power is called “life” and each level of these contains awareness (consciousness) which is non-material in nature.

So again, IF one looking at a mere watch or any mechanical device (so much more primitive and less than) demands a creator as the explanation for it, THEN a more highly organized unified system (mechanical or otherwise), a million times more complex in its precisely purposeful forms, functions, and forces (so highly interdependent and interactive), logically also implies a creator/designer.

But all of that still does not amount to any more than "it's complicated so it must have been intelligently designed."

 

[pshun2404]

But all of that still does not amount to any more than "it's complicated so it must have been intelligently designed."

Certainly I did not say it "proves" intelligent design, and I am not an ID theorist, but certainly it as readily suggests the possibility of a designer, more so than it does the possibility of living things arising from dead matter for no reason or purpose. As an analogy it is as sound as an analogy can be, as analogy alone does not prove anything.

 

[Speedwell]

Certainly I did not say it "proves" intelligent design, and I am not an ID theorist, but certainly it as readily suggests the possibility of a designer, more so than it does the possibility of living things arising from dead matter for no reason or purpose. As an analogy it is as sound as an analogy can be, as analogy alone does not prove anything.

Yes, but it appears you are confusing reason or purpose with mere functional organization. Certainly scientists have hypothesized that life arose from non-living matter by natural causes, but they do not thereby assert that there is no reason or purpose, as they have no direct means of detecting whether it is present or not.

 

[pshun2404]

Yes, but it appears you are confusing reason or purpose with mere functional organization. Certainly scientists have hypothesized that life arose from non-living matter by natural causes, but they do not thereby assert that there is no reason or purpose, as they have no direct means of detecting whether it is present or not.

I disagree! I do not think I am confusing reason and purpose at all. And sorry but some scientists (in the time of Paley) did in fact assume no reason or purpose for to assert that reason or purpose was involved precludes that one of these would exist prior to formation. But even of one masters a rhetoric to claim reason or purpose becomes following initial origin it still indicates plan and intentional direction towards a general end. Becoming with a reason OR a purpose implies intention, which implies mind or consciousness or even (SSHHUUUTTTEEERR!!!!) intelligence.

 

[Speedwell]

I disagree! I do not think I am confusing reason and purpose at all. And sorry but some scientists (in the time of Paley) did in fact assume no reason or purpose...

Of course they did. Metaphysical naturalists always will.

...for to assert that reason or purpose was involved precludes that one of these would exist prior to formation. But even of one masters a rhetoric to claim reason or purpose becomes following initial origin it still indicates plan and intentional direction towards a general end.

I don't quite follow any of that.

Becoming with a reason OR a purpose implies intention, which implies mind or consciousness or even (SSHHUUUTTTEEERR!!!!) intelligence.

Sure, if you like, but my point was that it doesn't follow from functional organization alone. Functional organization may have arisen by natural causes--which in turn does not rule out a divine purpose behind it all.

 

[pshun2404]

Not! Those early evolutionists were not “metaphysical” in any way

I had said “...to assert that reason or purpose was involved precludes that one of these would exist prior to formation. But even if one masters a rhetoric to claim reason or purpose becomes following initial origin, it still indicates plan and intentional direction towards a general end or goal.” The corrected the typo maybe you will get it now? Re-read and then respond...

As for the final comment I agree...

 

[Speedwell]

Not! Those early evolutionists were not “metaphysical” in any way

I had said “...to assert that reason or purpose was involved precludes that one of these would exist prior to formation. But even if one masters a rhetoric to claim reason or purpose becomes following initial origin, it still indicates plan and intentional direction towards a general end or goal.” The corrected the typo maybe you will get it now? Re-read and then respond...

As for the final comment I agree...

I don't know why one would want to master such a rhetoric. Telos operates independently of mechanistic natural (Aristotle: Efficient) causality.

 

[xianghua]

OK, I think we're using different meanings of spinning motor (I was thinking along the lines of a stand alone machine, not an integral part of an organism) but I'll give you that one. But you need to understand that those motors do not self replicate, so your argument still falls flat on its face.

so a self replicating motor doesnt need a designer?

 

[Speedwell]

so a self replicating motor doesnt need a designer?

If it is self-replicating made of organic components and shows no traces of being manufactured, then it may or may not have a designer. Just because it is a "motor" or exhibits some other kind of functional organization is not enough information to make a decision. And just because functionally similar objects are designed and manufactured by human intelligent designers is not either.

You don't determine whether or not an object was designed solely on the basis of functional organization or complexity. The "gotcha" you're looking for doesn't exist.

 

[pshun2404]

I don't know why one would want to master such a rhetoric. Telos operates independently of mechanistic natural (Aristotle: Efficient) causality.

I agree, but take a guess...what "Telos" may have existed just prior to the abiogenesis moment? And where would it come from? Speculate broadly if you wish!

 

[pshun2404]

If it is self-replicating made of organic components and shows no traces of being manufactured, then it may or may not have a designer. Just because it is a "motor" or exhibits some other kind of functional organization is not enough information to make a decision. And just because functionally similar objects are designed and manufactured by human intelligent designers is not either.

You don't determine whether or not an object was designed solely on the basis of functional organization or complexity. The "gotcha" you're looking for doesn't exist.

May or may not being equal possibilities...

And why shouldn't an observer suggest or first assume design upon noting interdependent functional complexity until proven otherwise?

How about providing an example of some unified whole exhibiting complex interdependent functionality in the component parts of its make up, that is not designed? Maybe this will clarify your point?