The arguement that recently convinced me of god's existence

[RJT]

Ok guys, I need a quick answer.

Let me preface this by telling you that I like Dawkins. He seems a charming chap. And I will read him when I have more time. (Doing Soren K presently.) But I read the preface to <u>The Watchmaker</u> and the first sentence was this:


[ QUOTE ]
This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I skimmed ahead and he talks of the absurdity (my word not his) of going with a Creator. Then what he says about the origin of life is SPG spontaneous generation probability and leaves it at that (from I found with my brief skimming the book) . Tell me he has more than that for the origin life. Otherwise why the quoted first sentence?


RJT

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
OT- Back several years, one of my teachers put up the arguement "do you think our face was arranged this way by chance? that our eyes are where they are by chance? there has to be a creator..."
I raised my hand and said "Well wouldn't you be saying the same thing if we had one eye on our backs?"

Shut him up for a week or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooooooh, that's a good one. I like it! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Ten points and a gold star

[gumpzilla]

I think one substantial flaw in the design analogy is this. Part of the reason that you suspect the chair in the middle of the glade is designed is because it is an instance of an artifact that IS designed and manufactured by humans. So in this case, it's an excellent assumption to believe that it was designed and put there, because you have lots of previous evidence about chairs being manufactured. But you don't have any kind of evidence like that for mitochondria, Gila monsters or the eye. So assuming that they must have been designed isn't as safe an assumption.

EDIT: Now that I've actually read the rest of the thread, I see maurile made this point as well.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
So I skimmed ahead and he talks of the absurdity (my word not his) of going with a Creator.

[/ QUOTE ]
He doesn't write about the absurdity of "going with" a Creator. He refutes a particular argument for a Creator -- namely, the watchmaker argument. He refutes it because it's a fallacious argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Then what he says about the origin of life is SPG spontaneous generation probability and leaves it at that (from I found with my brief skimming the book).

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what part of the book you're referring to. Dawkins never wrote anything positive about "spontaneous generation." He has given a couple of plausible conjectures -- one in The Selfish Gene, and another in The Blind Watchmaker -- for how things may have gotten started. But he cautions that they are just conjectures. And spontaneous generation is not among them.

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me he has more than that for the origin life. Otherwise why the quoted first sentence?

[/ QUOTE ]
He's not referring to the origin of life (i.e., replicators) in the first quoted sentence. He's referring to the existence of complex organisms and biological features.

We don't know how the first replicators came into existence (though we can speculate about a few of the possibilities). But once those replicators did come into existence, their evolution into complex biological features such as the human eye is well understood. It is "a mystery no longer because it is solved."

[RJT]

maurile,

I should have just quoted him directly. I was going to but couldn’t find what I read (plus one can‘t cut and paste from Adobe - I couldn‘t anyway). I kind of misrepresented what he said. But my point is still the same.

Page 141:

[ QUOTE ]
To explain the origin of DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like ‘God was always there’, and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might just say ‘DNA was always there’, or ‘Life was always there’, and be done with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn’t refute The Blind Watchmaker at all. He simply dismisses it as not necessary. (page 147 and on). Then he goes on to say “We are here concerned with the kind of solution that must be found…”, (to figure out the origin of life).

This is why I think we will never understand each other (atheist and belivers). You guys seem to think he is saying something. I mean he is and he is interesting and the science must be fascinating. But, he doesn’t say anything of the origin of life. There is nothing in his methodology that leads one to a conclusion that God won’t be at the end of the tunnel. Perhaps not the God we all talk about. But, in simply dismissing the Watchmaker he says nothing. And in simply talking about how to find the solution he says nothing again.

I guess what I am really trying to say is that we believers and atheists (who read stuff like this) are really talking about the same thing. We just speak different languages is all.

RJT

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
He doesn’t refute The Blind Watchmaker at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course not. He wrote it. He does, however, refute the watchmaker argument for design. It's the point of his whole book, and he is strikingly successful.

[ QUOTE ]
He simply dismisses it as not necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]
He shows with convincing argument that it is not necessary. That's a lot different from "simply dismissing it."

[ QUOTE ]
But, he doesn’t say anything of the origin of life. There is nothing in his methodology that leads one to a conclusion that God won’t be at the end of the tunnel.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Why would he?

The Blind Watchmaker isn't an argument for atheism. It's a refutation of a specific argument for theism.

If you say it must be raining in Cleveland because the Packers just scored a touchdown, I will refute your argument by showing that just because the Packers scored a touchdown doesn't mean that it must be raining in Cleveland. In doing so, however, I would not be arguing that it's not raining in Cleveland. It may be, for all I know. But I've still refuted your reason for thinking that it is.

Similarly, Dawkins persuasively refutes the notion that just because a human eye looks designed, God must exist. Maybe He does, maybe He doesn't. Maybe it's raining in Cleveland. But the watchmaker argument is refuted.

[RJT]

Maurile,

[ QUOTE ]
He shows with convincing argument that it is not necessary. That's a lot different from "simply dismissing it."

[/ QUOTE ]

But he does not refute it is my point You had said:

[ QUOTE ]
He refutes it because it's a fallacious argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant to type “the Watchmaker” (not include the word Blind) which I think is the analogy to a creator then. Right? Again, I read this briefly.

RJT

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
But, he doesn’t say anything of the origin of life. There is nothing in his methodology that leads one to a conclusion that God won’t be at the end of the tunnel.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No. Why would he?

The Blind Watchmaker isn't an argument for atheism. It's a refutation of a specific argument for theism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misread what I wrote. Without the double negatives, I’ll re-write. His methodology does not eliminate a god at the end of the tunnel. That a god is/or is not the source of life. Or do I need to continue reading? What I gathered was on page 164 and the probabilities of life is what he talks about.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
His methodology does not eliminate a god at the end of the tunnel.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right. He doesn't refute the idea that Bush's tax cuts were wise, either. That's not the point.

As I said in my last post, he refutes the watchmaker argument -- i.e., the idea that since the eye looks designed, therefore God must exist.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His methodology does not eliminate a god at the end of the tunnel.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right. He doesn't refute the idea that Bush's tax cuts were wise, either. That's not the point.

As I said in my last post, he refutes the watchmaker argument -- i.e., the idea that since the eye looks designed, therefore God must exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maurile,

Yeah, that‘s fine.

I really am concerned (now that we are on the same page with the other stuff) with his opening statement.

[ QUOTE ]
This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t see him fulfilling the promise his all.

RJT