• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
    Results 1 to 25 of 65
    1. #1
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082

      Atheists' Responses to the Watchmaker Argument

      Hiyah.

      I'll start this by saying that I'm not Christian or in any way religious (that is to say, I follow no religion), and frankly I think that anybody who takes that book to have any kind of literal truth is barmy; but that's not what this is about.

      However, one thing that's always troubled me about atheists is the way in which the watchmaker argument is dealt with. Sure, most of us can see that the world's major religions' versions of God are nonsense. However, this doesn't discount the possibility of God, defining God as 'a conscious creator'.

      Really, I think the whole watchmaker thing is at the heart of why people originally thought up the idea of Gods. But as our scientific knowledge increases, I can't help but shake the feeling that it's amazing that there should ever have been a world in which intelligent beings with such immersive environments for us to live in. When you take into account all the different factors that have to be exactly right; you need self assembling membranes and genetic material to start evolution off, and for that to happen all of the configurations of the electron shells of each element has to be exactly the right shape so that the different necessary compounds can form and reactions can take place, you need gravity to be just right so that you get a vast number of habitats in the universe to make it probable that evolution might kick off, you need the two forms of energy and mass to exist in the right proportions, you need all the different types of particles and the correct proportions between atomic forces so that you have any mass in the first place, etcetera etcetera...

      When you multiply these probabilities together, you come to the conclusion that the chance of conscious beings arising from the dust is next to nothing. So, what I'm asking is, 'how you deal with the perceived design in the universe for conscious life with meaningful experiences'? Why all this instead of nothing? Or instead of the hugely more likely bland mush of energy and matter?

      For it seems quite natural to think that design implies intent, and intent implies a mind.

      Thanks for your time.
      Last edited by Xei; 02-02-2008 at 12:38 AM.

    2. #2
      Member petersonad's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2007
      Gender
      Location
      USA
      Posts
      110
      Likes
      4
      It is an act of balance and completion.

      As we speak, knowledge is being balanced with experiences.

    3. #3
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      When you multiply these probabilities together, you come to the conclusion that the chance of conscious beings arising from the dust is next to nothing.
      But existence is infinitely complex. Also, consciousness only seems significant to consciousness. The chances of a rock in your yard being exactly where it is is close to infinitely small also. It doesn't mean something intended to put it there.

      What is the probability of God existing?

      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      For it seems quite natural to think that design implies intent, and intent implies a mind.
      Why would design imply intent? Such an explanation only adds a much harder to explain variable.

      Would the existence of God imply that he had a creator? He would be a design. If he does not need a designer, why would laws of science that are not limited to our universe?
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    4. #4
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      But existence is infinitely complex.
      I don't see what you mean by this, or what relevance it has?

      And besides, presuming there is a TOE, one could describe the whole cosmos very simply.
      Also, consciousness only seems significant to consciousness. The chances of a rock in your yard being exactly where it is is close to infinitely small also. It doesn't mean something intended to put it there.
      I see consciousness, the idea of a being that can percieve the world around it, to be of ultimate importance. If you do not agree with that idea and think that consciousness is completely insignificant then you have refuted my argument. But I believe that there is no value to a reality which cannot be experienced, and a mechanism by which there can be experience to be an ultimate goal. Is this not a view you share?
      Why would design imply intent?
      Well, if something has been designed to perform a function then surely there must have been some being with a motivation to design it?
      Would the existence of God imply that he had a creator? He would be a design.
      That's a good question. One answer I can propose is that the reality in which the designer exists does not follow the same method of logic. Perhaps it can be explained without a designer. In the same way that causality is paradoxial in a universe with a single time dimension (there must have been a first cause yet there is no cause without a cause) and the only way to answer it is to suggest that causality does not obey the same rules beyond our universe, the infinite loop of designers can be solved in the same way.

      That seems to be a bit of a rubbish answer though.

      Another one I could suggest is rephrasing the question 'why does the universe seem to have been designed for consciousness' to 'why does the universe seem to have been designed for a vibrant conscious experience'.

      The same logic applies and the idea of a God falls out again, I think.

    5. #5
      Haha. Hehe. Mes Tarrant's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2007
      Gender
      Location
      New Zea-la-land
      Posts
      6,774
      Likes
      32
      I skimmed through the replies, but this "argument" thing is quite old. To sum it all up, you're saying that the universe is too complex and everything works together too brilliantly for it to have been an accident. Well, you are proposing an answer that is way more complex. Because you don't know how something works, you automatically attribute it to some being in the sky. Where is it, this being? How did it come to be there? Why did he do some of the things the way that it did? These questions are at once infinitely complex and empty, because to answer these you would just have to make up stories. And here comes the bible, the koran, etc etc.

    6. #6
      The Wondering Gnome Achievements:
      1 year registered Referrer Silver Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points
      thegnome54's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Sector ZZ 9 Plural Z Alpha
      Posts
      1,534
      Likes
      21
      Here is Douglas Adams' response to this argument:

      Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Adams
      imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.
      UM's rock example was also quite elegant.

      Quote Originally Posted by xei
      But I believe that there is no value to a reality which cannot be experienced, and a mechanism by which there can be experience to be an ultimate goal. Is this not a view you share?
      You are begging the question here. By positing objective values and goals to the universe, you are suggesting a conscious creator.

    7. #7
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      Thanks for your reply.
      Quote Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant View Post
      I skimmed through the replies, but this "argument" thing is quite old.
      Yeaaah... and it was traditionally called the Watchmaker Argument, I think it was Thomas Aquinas who tried to link it in with God. Don't worry, I know it's old.
      To sum it all up, you're saying that the universe is too complex and everything works together too brilliantly for it to have been an accident. Well, you are proposing an answer that is way more complex.
      It's not about complexity at all. You probably missed it in your skimming, but the rules that govern the whole universe are probably immensely simple. However, the constants must be extremely fine tuned for there to be conscious beings. That's how I'm stating the argument.
      Because you don't know how something works, you automatically attribute it to some being in the sky.
      That's not really true at all. It's not because I don't know how something works. The reason I suggested that the universe was intended to be the way that it is is because, when you make the assumption that consciousness is 'the ultimate' (sorry for the frankly ridiculous vocab I have to use here, but I think the message is conveyed...), it is immensely unlikely that that should have ever have come about, unless something was striving to attain that 'ultimate'.
      Where is it, this being? How did it come to be there?
      I don't see how that's relevant, considering we're dealing with something outside of our spacial dimensions..?
      Why
      did he do some of the things the way that it did?
      Well, the idea was that it did what it did so that there would be conscious beings in a varied world of meaningful experiences.
      These questions are at once infinitely complex and empty, because to answer these you would just have to make up stories. And here comes the bible, the koran, etc etc.
      Not much to say for this, just that I thought the questions were quite simple and had quite simple answers, and also making up a load of fairy tales solves nothing. I didn't have to do that and it wouldn't have helped anyway.

    8. #8
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      Quote Originally Posted by thegnome54 View Post
      Here is Douglas Adams' response to this argument
      Yeah, I've heard that before, and I love Adams by the way.

      However, I'm talking about absolutes here. It's kind of like how the mathematician Pascal assigned numbers to outcomes in his wager (although I think his wager is rubbish). I'm saying consciousness is the ultimate, the infinite.

      Douglas was talking about how the world seems suited to us, and therefore religious types say, wow, look, the sun is just the right temperature for me to survive, must've been God! Of course, the case is actually that we fit into the world like a puddle, depending on how it is shaped.

      It's a different thing for absolutes though. I'm saying that no reality, or a reality with no consciousness, is worthless. It has a value of zero. A reality in which consciousness does arise, however, has a value of infinity. And however improbable, for some reason, the universe has chosen to go for the option in which there is consciousness.

      It's not a case of saying, ooh look, my consciousness is just the right type to fit into this universe. Because I'm saying that consciousness is indivisible. You either have it or you don't, and the reality either allows it or does not allow it.

      You are begging the question here. By positing objective values and goals to the universe, you are suggesting a conscious creator.
      Well yes, I'm saying that consciousness is the infinitely desirable. The universe, although extremely improbable, went for the desirable option, instead of simply not existing at all or forming a mush as it would have done probabilistically, therefore the universe 'desires the desirable'...

      Please tell me if this is flawed logic.

    9. #9
      The Wondering Gnome Achievements:
      1 year registered Referrer Silver Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points
      thegnome54's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Sector ZZ 9 Plural Z Alpha
      Posts
      1,534
      Likes
      21
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      Well yes, I'm saying that consciousness is the infinitely desirable.
      Desirable to who? There's the issue.

      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      The universe, although extremely improbable, went for the desirable option, instead of simply not existing at all or forming a mush as it would have done probabilistically
      The problem here is that if it had done either of those, you wouldn't be here to notice. It's like picking a random number from 1-1,000,000, and throwing away every number other than 777... if you do this a bunch of times, you will eventually be very surprised to get a 777 (at a probability of 1 in 10,000, no less). For all we know, the universe may have collapsed several million times before existing as it does today.

      Beyond even that, there is the issue of using probability to assess this problem. Probability is a human invention which is used to approximate the effects of uncontrolled variables on the outcomes of trials. There is no probability in the real universe, only what actually happens. We might say that there is only a small probability that the strong force is strong enough to hold atoms together, but that's only because we don't know WHY the strong force is what it is, or for that matter WHAT it is in the first place. These probabilistic statements are the result of human ignorance.

    10. #10
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      Desirable to who? There's the issue.
      Yeah, English vocab fails me here. I mean... the way the universe should be, for maximum virtue.

      Yes that sounds very stupid but um... I think maybe you get the idea? I'm saying that as an objective truth, consciousness is infinitely better than no consciousness.
      The problem here is that if it had done either of those, you wouldn't be here to notice. It's like picking a random number from 1-1,000,000, and throwing away every number other than 777... if you do this a bunch of times, you will eventually be very surprised to get a 777 (at a probability of 1 in 10,000, no less). For all we know, the universe may have collapsed several million times before existing as it does today.
      Yes, that is a very good argument. However, what you say has no solid scientific basis.

      You suggest the possibility that the universe has collapsed enough times over to counter the improbability of a meaningful universe arising. However, scientific evidence tells us that the universe isn't going to collapse. It's going to expand forever. How come the one universe in which there is consciousness seems to be the one universe which goes against your suggestion and won't collapse again? It seems just as unlikely as the original proposal to me.

      And I don't think you can say that about probability in this situation. I mean firstly, the universe is inherently probabilistic anyway, probability is not a mere human concept to model our ignorance. And secondly, I don't see why probability becomes invalid here. Say there is 1 universe which has intelligence for every 999,999 which do not. I don't have to really mention probability to make the original logical argument: the 1 universe which has sentience is reality, whilst the other 999999 universes are not, which suggests that there was some purpose which selected the 1 universe with sentience. How is this invalid, in terms of probability as a flawed human concept? I don't think it is...

    11. #11
      The Wondering Gnome Achievements:
      1 year registered Referrer Silver Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points
      thegnome54's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Sector ZZ 9 Plural Z Alpha
      Posts
      1,534
      Likes
      21
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      Yeah, English vocab fails me here. I mean... the way the universe should be, for maximum virtue.
      No, the problem is that 'virtue' and 'should' are human concepts. These are all inside of the heads of little monkeys on planet earth. Objectively, these statements make no sense.

      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      I mean firstly, the universe is inherently probabilistic anyway, probability is not a mere human concept to model our ignorance. And secondly, I don't see why probability becomes invalid here.
      Probability is a mere human concept. What did you think it was?

      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      Say there is 1 universe which has intelligence for every 999,999 which do not. I don't have to really mention probability to make the original logical argument: the 1 universe which has sentience is reality, whilst the other 999999 universes are not, which suggests that there was some purpose which selected the 1 universe with sentience. How is this invalid, in terms of probability as a flawed human concept? I don't think it is...
      It's invalid first because you can't know that the other universes do not exist (since they lack observers by definition), and also because in order to use probability here we need to know how 'likely' it is for the universe to exist in different ways. For all we know, it is 100% likely that the universe be the way it is. There is no way to determine the probability that the universe be different, since we have no examples of this and we don't even comprehend the way this one works as it is.

    12. #12
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      I don't see what you mean by this, or what relevance it has?
      Arguments regarding low probability of events that are not illogical have no significance when they concern infinitely big and complex settings. You might say there is a God because you won the lottery and winning the lottery has such a low probablility. The truth is that if you have a one in ten million chance of winning the lottery, and ten million people played the lottery, it is not crazy that somebody won.

      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      And besides, presuming there is a TOE, one could describe the whole cosmos very simply.
      The cosmos has infinite detail.

      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      I see consciousness, the idea of a being that can percieve the world around it, to be of ultimate importance. If you do not agree with that idea and think that consciousness is completely insignificant then you have refuted my argument. But I believe that there is no value to a reality which cannot be experienced, and a mechanism by which there can be experience to be an ultimate goal. Is this not a view you share?
      No. I think experience is our goal because experience is what makes us operate. The vast majority of the universe does not give a damn about experience. Experience is a requirement for giving a damn. Experience means nothing to something without experience.

      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      Well, if something has been designed to perform a function then surely there must have been some being with a motivation to design it?
      That is a restatement of your earlier statement. I still don't understand the argument behind it. Why does consciousness have to be involved in a designing process? Why can't gravity, electron transfer, erosion, heat transfer, and other processes of physics make it happen without consciousness being involved? What is so special about consciousness, other than the fact that beings that have it make a big deal of it?

      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      That's a good question. One answer I can propose is that the reality in which the designer exists does not follow the same method of logic. Perhaps it can be explained without a designer. In the same way that causality is paradoxial in a universe with a single time dimension (there must have been a first cause yet there is no cause without a cause) and the only way to answer it is to suggest that causality does not obey the same rules beyond our universe, the infinite loop of designers can be solved in the same way.

      That seems to be a bit of a rubbish answer though.

      Another one I could suggest is rephrasing the question 'why does the universe seem to have been designed for consciousness' to 'why does the universe seem to have been designed for a vibrant conscious experience'.

      The same logic applies and the idea of a God falls out again, I think.
      The only consciousness we know of is on this little spec of dirt we are on right now, and the brains that generate consciousness here make up an astronomically tiny percentage of the spec of dirt's total mass. The universe was "designed" mainly for stars to burn. Those flame balls have specs of dirt floating around them, and we are just something insignificant happening on one of those zillions of specs of dirt.

      If you think the "logic" might not apply to God, then do you consider the possibility that it might not apply to the rest of existence?
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    13. #13
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      Quote Originally Posted by thegnome54 View Post
      No, the problem is that 'virtue' and 'should' are human concepts. These are all inside of the heads of little monkeys on planet earth. Objectively, these statements make no sense.
      Well, I suppose we're just at odds in the way we think of the world there. In my opinion, there is only one objective moral truth, and that is that consciousness is infinitely more desirable than no consciousness, and to me that is self evident. Of course you may disagree.
      Probability is a mere human concept. What did you think it was?
      Come now, I know you're intelligent enough by far to grasp quantum physics. Particles do not have fixed positions or velocities, the models which predict their behaviour is based on probability.
      It's invalid first because you can't know that the other universes do not exist (since they lack observers by definition), and also because in order to use probability here we need to know how 'likely' it is for the universe to exist in different ways.
      Yes but equally you cannot use the assumption that there are other universes.
      For all we know, it is 100% likely that the universe be the way it is. There is no way to determine the probability that the universe be different, since we have no examples of this and we don't even comprehend the way this one works as it is.
      Doesn't really change the logic. Okay, this is the only possible universe. It's still just as unlikely that the only possible universe has constants and variables which cause consciousness to arise.
      Last edited by Xei; 02-02-2008 at 03:20 AM.

    14. #14
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      It's still just as unlikely that the only possible universe has constants and variables which cause consciousness to arise.
      It would be just as unlikely that the only possible universe has constants and variables which cause lightning to arise. But there was a 100% chance that things in general would arise. I still don't see what is so special about consciousness. I am fascinated by it, but I AM consciousness. That makes me biased, so my feelings don't count. What is there to back claims of the significance of consciousness other than feelings?
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    15. #15
      The Wondering Gnome Achievements:
      1 year registered Referrer Silver Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points
      thegnome54's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Sector ZZ 9 Plural Z Alpha
      Posts
      1,534
      Likes
      21
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      In my opinion, there is only one objective moral truth
      Where does it come from? That implies a god, doesn't it?

      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      Come now, I know you're intelligent enough by far to grasp quantum physics. Particles do not have fixed positions or velocities, the models which predict their behaviour is based on probability.
      Yes, the HUMAN MODELS which we attempt to use are based on probability. That means probability is a human invention designed to account for our lack of understanding of causality.

      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      Doesn't really change the logic. Okay, this is the only possible universe. It's still just as unlikely that the only possible universe has constants and variables which cause consciousness to arise.
      No, because there would be a reason why this is the only possible universe. If you have a reason for it, that means that the probabilities are not equal. Just because there are two options does not mean it is 50/50, and likewise just because we can conceive of millions of options does not mean that it is one in a million for each option.

    16. #16
      On the woad to wuin R.D.735's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Gender
      Location
      Mostly in my right hemisphere
      Posts
      340
      Likes
      0
      The main problem, as I see it, is that the 'watchmaker' argument fails because there are just too many equally-plausible alternatives to the existence of a god. Arguing that the god hypothesis is more probable than any of the alternatives is nigh impossible, and the more plausible alternatives there are, the greater is the perceived likelihood that a god is not the answer to the question of why the laws of the universe are what they are, and have produced everything that exists.

      It's good to note, however, that the universe is particularly inhospitable to life, and to everything that people perceive as 'good.' The laws of the universe permit the existence of life, but they also predict that all life will eventually end at the heat death of the universe. The same biochemistry that forms the basis of life also dooms every organism to death, whether by aging, accident, or disease. The universe, for all of its beauty, is astoundingly empty, not just of life, but of everything else.

    17. #17
      Drivel's Advocate Xaqaria's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2007
      LD Count
      WhoIsJohnGalt?
      Gender
      Location
      Denver, CO Catchphrase: BullCockie!
      Posts
      5,589
      Likes
      929
      DJ Entries
      9
      Can we stop letting religious discussions spill over in to the philosophy section?

      The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
      Art
      Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles

    18. #18
      widdershins modality Taosaur's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Ohiopolis
      Posts
      4,843
      Likes
      1003
      DJ Entries
      19
      If a provisional polytheist may interject

      Watchmaker rests on three main premises:
      1. Fit (things fit together)
      2. Complexity / improbability
      3. Self-evident 'madeness'

      Adams' puddle gets at the basic problem of Fit: we fit here because we formed here, and everything fits together because it formed together. Consider waves on the ocean; we wouldn't ask 'How do they fit so smoothly together?' It's evident they arise from the same medium which by it's nature takes myriad forms. If we see an especially tall wave with very intricate curls of foam, we don't say 'Who made that?' but perhaps consider the forces at work on the water and think 'I'm lucky to have seen such a wave.'

      Complexity has been well covered under the assumption that life and consciousness are exceptional, but I disagree. Even if one extends consciousness only to entities much like ourselves, our knowledge indicates myriad pockets where it might arise. Taking an 'average' of the universe and calling it inhospitable to life is myopic. The universe is not a uniform mass, but an unevenly distributed field of engines of compounding complexity (the stars). Entropy may be at work, but if it were characteristic of the system, we wouldn't have the elements comprising our bodies, much less the bodies themselves. In this context, human consciousness is not exceptional, but continuous with the properties of matter/energy. Whether you say form arises from consciousness or consciousness from form, it's quite natural.

      As for #3, it's equally evident--immediate, visceral, and visible--to me that phenomena are spontaneously and interdependently self-creating.
      If you have a sense of caring for others, you will manifest a kind of inner strength in spite of your own difficulties and problems. With this strength, your own problems will seem less significant and bothersome to you. By going beyond your own problems and taking care of others, you gain inner strength, self-confidence, courage, and a greater sense of calm.Dalai Lama



    19. #19
      Call me "Lord" again... Lord Bennington's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2007
      Gender
      Location
      New Joisey
      Posts
      259
      Likes
      0
      [QUOTE=Xei;681898]Original PostQUOTE]

      Basically, therwe are an inifinite number of possible universes that eventually crunch and form a new one. Some crush very quickly, others are too flawed to support intelligent life. But eventually, one comes along that alllows for inteligent life and is around long enough to support it, aka, ours. Yes, a small percentage of universes will allow that, but get a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and we all know what will happen.
      -Ben

      "In watermelon sugar the deeds were done and done again as my life is done in watermelon sugar. I'll tell you about it because I am here and you are distant."

      R.I.P. Harry Kalas

    20. #20
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      The problem is there isn't really any scientific evidence of that. The many worlds hypothesis for quantum physics is a minority interpretation, and, unless we have underestimated the amount of matter in our universe by about 100x, there isn't going to be a crush.

      UM: Well, in my opinion, awareness is the only thing of 'value' in the universe. Not the only thing of value to conscious beings, but the only thing of value at all.

      Gnome: No, it is currently thought that randomness is an inherent part of quantum mechanics. There is not yet any evidence that there is some underlying deterministic mechanism, although it is a possibility.

      RD: Well, I'm certainally not suggesting any sort of classical God. I'm just suggesting a cause with an intention. What are your other suggestions for a solution to the watchmaker argument?

      Xaqaria: This has nothing to do with faith, and even if it were, religion is a philosophical topic.

      Tao: As I said, I'm not taking the ignorant creationist viewpoint here. I understand that we've evolved to become suited to the world. What I'm talking about is the unlikelihood of a universe with conscious beings with meaningful lives, one requirement of which is for evolution to be possible at all. And I agree that the phenomena are self creating, as I stated in my original post, but that is only a result of reality. If the universal constants were slightly different, there would be no mass, or none of the right molecules such as phospholipids or water or ribonucleic acids.
      Last edited by Xei; 02-03-2008 at 01:37 AM.

    21. #21
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      UM: Well, in my opinion, awareness is the only thing of 'value' in the universe. Not the only thing of value to conscious beings, but the only thing of value at all.
      I know you have that opinion. Why do you have that opinion?
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    22. #22
      widdershins modality Taosaur's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Ohiopolis
      Posts
      4,843
      Likes
      1003
      DJ Entries
      19
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post

      Tao: As I said, I'm not taking the ignorant creationist viewpoint here. I understand that we've evolved to become suited to the world. What I'm talking about is the unlikelihood of a universe with conscious beings with meaningful lives, one requirement of which is for evolution to be possible at all. And I agree that the phenomena are self creating, as I stated in my original post, but that is only a result of reality. If the universal constants were slightly different, there would be no mass, or none of the right molecules such as phospholipids or water or ribonucleic acids.
      In what sense is it unlikely? This argument confounds me. Here's the world. We're in it. Yes, it's marvelous how all the possibilities endlessly collapse into just one actuality--it's a great show, each and every 'time.' It's even better that we get to watch and nudge things about a bit. It can even be great fun to personify the whole process or various bits of it, but you're not observing the world when you do that; you're putting something into it, praising or thanking or cowering before your own reflection.
      If you have a sense of caring for others, you will manifest a kind of inner strength in spite of your own difficulties and problems. With this strength, your own problems will seem less significant and bothersome to you. By going beyond your own problems and taking care of others, you gain inner strength, self-confidence, courage, and a greater sense of calm.Dalai Lama



    23. #23
      The Wondering Gnome Achievements:
      1 year registered Referrer Silver Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points
      thegnome54's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Sector ZZ 9 Plural Z Alpha
      Posts
      1,534
      Likes
      21
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      in my opinion, awareness is the only thing of 'value' in the universe.
      I've challenged you on this like eight times now, and you still haven't given me a straight answer. Could you go back and try?

    24. #24
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      Tao: well, it is unlikely because there are many variables which must be within small ranges.

      Gnome and UM: well, because if there is nobody there to observe the universe, then nobody cares. There is such a thing as 'moral objectivism' you know, it's not as if I'm the only one with a ridiculous, incomprehensible viewpoint.

      I'm saying that there is a definite objective moral, which is that consciousness is good, and no consciousness is bad.

      If you don't agree with that, fine. You could explain your point of view to me, sure, although Gnome, I do remember you expressing some views on consciousness in the past which seem totally wrong to me (such as saying that you don't care if your friends are philosophical zombies); to me that's just clearly not how things work.

    25. #25
      widdershins modality Taosaur's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Ohiopolis
      Posts
      4,843
      Likes
      1003
      DJ Entries
      19
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      Tao: well, it is unlikely because there are many variables which must be within small ranges.

      Gnome and UM: well, because if there is nobody there to observe the universe, then nobody cares. There is such a thing as 'moral objectivism' you know, it's not as if I'm the only one with a ridiculous, incomprehensible viewpoint.

      I'm saying that there is a definite objective moral, which is that consciousness is good, and no consciousness is bad.

      If you don't agree with that, fine. You could explain your point of view to me, sure, although Gnome, I do remember you expressing some views on consciousness in the past which seem totally wrong to me (such as saying that you don't care if your friends are philosophical zombies); to me that's just clearly not how things work.
      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?

      I'm sold.
      If you have a sense of caring for others, you will manifest a kind of inner strength in spite of your own difficulties and problems. With this strength, your own problems will seem less significant and bothersome to you. By going beyond your own problems and taking care of others, you gain inner strength, self-confidence, courage, and a greater sense of calm.Dalai Lama



    Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •