Thread: Atheists' Responses to the Watchmaker Argument

Perhaps it is not. So, if it is taken that consciousness is only important to consciousness, then why does our universe, against all odds, contain abundant consciousness? Would that not imply a conscious creator anyway? If the creator were just a natural, unthinking event, then it would not strive to create a universe where higher thought processes come to exist.

Morals would not be necessary if there were no consciousness.

Why do you assume moral objectivism exists?

Because I'm an objectivist as opposed to a subjectivist.

So, your support of Watchmaker is founded upon the improbability that your idiosyncratic value judgement, which you hold to be absolutely true, could be accurate?

What does 'the probability that your value could be accurate' mean..?

If you mean 'the probability that your value could be realised in reality', then yes. I believe in absolute truth, if that was the question.

The answer is simple. Never forget to include the size of the universe into you formula:

0.000000001 x 0.00000000001 x 0.00000000001 x infinity = 100% chance of life.
It's not because the chance that intelligent life exists seems so small TO US; that it IS small. That's why I'm 99.99999% sure that alien life exists; we just haven't found each other yet.

Originally Posted by Xei

Because I'm an objectivist as opposed to a subjectivist.

Yeah, well I'm a kill-your-babyist as opposed to a leave-it-aloneist.

Doesn't that make you want to ask me for some kind of reasoning?

Firstly there isn't infinite matter in the universe. Secondly, I'm not talking about this planet alone anyway; I'm talking about the probability that the universe could be one in which biological life is even possible.

I agree with you completely, based on our current knowledge of biology, it seems certain that there is life on many other worlds. However it does look as if the only way in which life can arise is if you have some very specific molecules and conditions, such as carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous, nitrogen, and oxygen for the most basic organisms, and it seems very unlikely that there should just happen to be all these appropriately sized elements with all the right electron behaviours, which automatically combine to create all the vital structures such as genetic code, fluid mosaic bilayers, etcetera. Just think, if just one of the above molecules were missing, there would be no life. And you need very specific behaviours of the most basic particles to even have elements or compounds in the first place.

Yeah, well I'm a kill-your-babyist as opposed to a leave-it-aloneist.

Doesn't that make you want to ask me for some kind of reasoning?

It's not at the top of the list, but yeah I guess...

Basically, subjective truth makes no logical sense. I'd basically be repeating what Socrates if I listed all the arguments. The most obvious one is that 'truth is subjective' is an objective truth.

There are 100 billion (100.000.000.000) stars in our galaxy alone, with MILLIONS of galaxies in our cluster, and many clusters, etc...
And most stars have multiple planets btw.

Indeed, the chance that (human-like) life exists on one of these planets individually is extremely small, but I guess that we, and possibly some others, got lucky.
I don't need a God to explain a concept most humans can't grasp.

And why should "life" be "human like" in the first place? Some earthly creatures can detect thing we can't because...they are a different species.
I think it is possible that there are species we simply cannot detect because we simply aren't build to detect them.

Originally Posted by Xei

Basically, subjective truth makes no logical sense. I'd basically be repeating what Socrates if I listed all the arguments. The most obvious one is that 'truth is subjective' is an objective truth.

I'm not saying that there is no objective truth...

I'm saying that morals are a matter of opinion, and they have no objective relevance outside of individual human minds.

To say that the universe "should" do anything is a moral statement, and makes no sense objectively.

I'd say (objective statement) "The universe COULD do anything".

The reason I believe in moral objectivism stems from my view on objectivism and absolute truths.

Would you say that the statement, 'killing somebody is bad' is correct? (Say for the sake of argument that this person is perfectly happy and lives by themselves on a rock somewhere in space, point being that they do not detrimentally effect anybody else).

I don't need a God to explain a concept most humans can't grasp.

Get you.

Unfortunately you didn't manage to grasp anything I just said in my last post, try reading it again. Yes, I know life is likely to arise all over our universe, that's not what I'm talking about.

What you said in your last post is that the universe isn't infinite. Who told you that? How do you know that?
Well, actually, neither one of us can know for sure.
I wasn't trying to insult you

About the moral objectivism: When animals kill each other it isn't immoral because they are..well, animals.
We, as sentient beings, know better. We CAN survive without killing.
I think the fact that we are sentient is the sign for humanity to exterminate our (unnessesary and violent) instincts.

Okies I know.

But no, it wasn't God who told me, and I don't believe in God in that sense anyway. I believe the large numbers of astrophysicists who have worked out the amount of matter in the universe using various methods. I don't pretend to have much of an idea about what those methods are, but I know that these people know what they're talking about.

Originally Posted by Xei

Would you say that the statement, 'killing somebody is bad' is correct? (Say for the sake of argument that this person is perfectly happy and lives by themselves on a rock somewhere in space, point being that they do not detrimentally effect anybody else).

I would say that personally, I generally agree with this statement. However, the term "bad" is a human concept which does not exist outside of our own personal beliefs. Moreover, many humans, like psychopaths, don't have any problem at all with killing people - the reason we think it's a 'bad' thing to do is because we have empathy. Psychopaths, which have no empathy (roughly one in one hundred men are estimated to be born psychopaths, it's not as rare as you might think), have no problems with this.

So your statement is not only "untrue" (read: irrelevant) in the objective, universal sense, it's not even always true among humans.

War is the perfect example of people with no empathy ruling over others.
Whether the soldiers want to or not, because they're doing it 'for their county" killing is good and empathy is only an obstacle.

I find this scary.

Originally Posted by Xei

Would you say that the statement, 'killing somebody is bad' is correct? (Say for the sake of argument that this person is perfectly happy and lives by themselves on a rock somewhere in space, point being that they do not detrimentally effect anybody else).

Gnome took pretty much all of the words out of my mouth/fingers, but I will answer it another way. Your statement is not what I would consider "correct". I would just say that my feelings agree with it. It is like asking if the statement, "Sunsets are beautiful," is correct. "Correct" is not the right word for it. But I still agree with it.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I would say that personally, I generally agree with this statement. However, the term "bad" is a human concept which does not exist outside of our own personal beliefs. Moreover, many humans, like psychopaths, don't have any problem at all with killing people - the reason we think it's a 'bad' thing to do is because we have empathy. Psychopaths, which have no empathy (roughly one in one hundred men are estimated to be born psychopaths, it's not as rare as you might think), have no problems with this.

So your statement is not only "untrue" (read: irrelevant) in the objective, universal sense, it's not even always true among humans.

Wow, didn't actually know that. Where'd you hear that? I'm not sure all psychopaths are completely devoid of morals.

But yeah, as we're not psychopaths, I find it to be self evident that killing is bad, and that psychopaths are deluded. I do not personally cling to my awareness out of instinct. Do you? I keep living because I know it is good to be aware, and as I have empathy, I know that it is good for there to be multiple aware beings, as opposed to just myself. Your point about psychopaths confuses me somewhat, are you saying you doubt the logic of your own empathy?

Gnome took pretty much all of the words out of my mouth/fingers, but I will answer it another way. Your statement is not what I would consider "correct". I would just say that my feelings agree with it. It is like asking if the statement, "Sunsets are beautiful," is correct. "Correct" is not the right word for it. But I still agree with it.

So you believe that 'killing is bad' is a subjective truth?

Originally Posted by Xei

But yeah, as we're not psychopaths, I find it to be self evident that killing is bad, and that psychopaths are deluded.

Yeah, you kind of missed the point.

To use UM's example, that's like saying "As we're not nocturnal, I find it to be self-evident that sunrises are beautiful, and that nocturnal animals are deluded."

NO ONE IS RIGHT. IT'S SUBJECTIVE.

You're talking about qualia. Consciousness isn't a quale.

Originally Posted by Xei

Wow, didn't actually know that. Where'd you hear that? I'm not sure all psychopaths are completely devoid of morals.

But yeah, as we're not psychopaths, I find it to be self evident that killing is bad, and that psychopaths are deluded. I do not personally cling to my awareness out of instinct. Do you? I keep living because I know it is good to be aware, and as I have empathy, I know that it is good for there to be multiple aware beings, as opposed to just myself. Your point about psychopaths confuses me somewhat, are you saying you doubt the logic of your own empathy?

So you believe that 'killing is bad' is a subjective truth?

Sorry, I can't mess with the codes for the quotes and such. Basically, the psychopath seems pretty convinced that he's right, and who's to say that we aren't all wrong? And, yes "killing is bad" is totally subjective. Not to mention that its "badness" is entirely dependant on the circumstances. I'd say there's nothing wrong with it out of self-defense. Killing can have many benefits that, in circumstances would be considered "good" rather than "bad". Nothing is truly wrong. Every action will eventually cause someone to think of the action as "good" because of its effect on them. I challenge you to think of anythign that does not follow this rule.

So if someone would start killing everybody, you wouldn't mind?
Guess the world really is going to hell.

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

So if someone would start killing everybody, you wouldn't mind?
Guess the world really is going to hell.

Yes, we would very much mind. We are just saying that morality is not a matter of "correct" and "incorrect". Killing innocents out of selfishness is "bad" in the way that ice cream is "tasty", not in the way that 2 + 2 = 5 is in fact incorrect.

In my opinion, as I can tell that the statement 'killing is bad' is morally correct, then it is a universal truth that it is correct, and if somebody thinks otherwise, they are wrong about the objective truth, in the same way that I know somebody who thinks the Christian God is real is wrong about the objective truth. I know that the psychopaths are wrong about what is moral. If I were to say that they are also right, then I would be a subjectivist, but I am not.

Originally Posted by Xei

In my opinion, as I can tell that the statement 'killing is bad' is morally correct, then it is a universal truth that it is correct, and if somebody thinks otherwise, they are wrong about the objective truth, in the same way that I know somebody who thinks the Christian God is real is wrong about the objective truth. I know that the psychopaths are wrong about what is moral.

Dude. You can't "know" either of those. To say that you KNOW there is no such thing as the Christian God is an act of faith, it's foolish and pompous of you. Why do you insist on claiming that your opinion is the absolute truth, when it's so glaringly obvious that this is a subjective matter?

Originally Posted by Xei

If I were to say that they are also right, then I would be a subjectivist, but I am not.

No, subjectivists don't think either is 'right'.

Subjectivists do hold that multiple beliefs are true, I think... for example, this classic dialogue:

Socrates: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of its being my opinion?

Protagoras: Indeed I do.

Socrates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you, Mr. Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy.

Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates.

I think subjectivists believe that a fact can be true for somebody, yet a contradictory fact can be true for somebody else. Or is that not what you meant?

Dude. You can't "know" either of those. To say that you KNOW there is no such thing as the Christian God is an act of faith, it's foolish and pompous of you. Why do you insist on claiming that your opinion is the absolute truth, when it's so glaringly obvious that this is a subjective matter?

Well, I was using the Christian God as an example. And, as Descartes said, you cannot really 'KNOW' anything. But the Christian God is contradictory (omniscient yet lacking foresight, for example), as so logically must not exist.

But I think you are right, I only believe that what I think is true, is true. But you could say that for anything.

I believe that killing is bad, because I know that it is good to be alive. You are right, this is not a belief that can be proven logically. Yet, does the fact that it is instinctive, make it any less relevant? I am completely convinced that killing is wrong. Others may think I am wrong, but I am me.

Humans have to power to see REASON. We can bypass or ignore dangerous and unnessesary instincts like murder.
I believe that is an imperative.

Originally Posted by Xei

I think subjectivists believe that a fact can be true for somebody, yet a contradictory fact can be true for somebody else. Or is that not what you meant?

Originally Posted by Xei

I am completely convinced that killing is wrong. Others may think I am wrong, but I am me.

How can you justify "good" and "bad" outside of your own thoughts? What is their basis in the universe at large?

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

Humans have to power to see REASON. We can bypass or ignore dangerous and unnessesary instincts like murder.
I believe that is an imperative.

I'm not saying I condone murder, obviously. I'm just saying that murder is not inherently 'bad', since 'bad' is a human concept which is objectively irrelevant.