The proof is the watch itself. It is a naturally occurring item – irrefutably, because it is there.

You seem to base your observations on an assumption that the human race is not a part of nature, hence our creations are somehow not a part of nature. As usual, the truth is much, much simpler, and can be observed directly. The human race is and will always be a part of nature – hence our creations are naturally occurring (though they may not always be aesthetically pleasing).

• Well, It’s not Miss Personality is It?

Just for fun, let’s assume that the bad old argument from (supposed) design could establish the truth of the proposition ‘there is some god X.’

Notice that the design argument never managed to affirm the existence of a single unique god; instead of a monopoly there could be a duopoly or a committee. Or, my favorite, a cosmic dung beetle. (Ancient Egyptians surmised one created the Earth.)

However, let’s humor the advocate for design some more — assume there is one and only one designer, the god X. Now, just how do you establish that ‘god X = your god Y’? Where I assume Y is one of the divinities served up to us by a big-4 near eastern monotheism.

How do you get ‘some god X = the god X = monotheist god Y = xian God’? First, the god X is an *It*, not a He or (God forbid!) a She. Just where does Its male persona come from? Historically conditioned? Say it ain’t so.

Why does It happen to care one iota about Its universe, and you in particular? How do you establish a caring personhood for a male gendered absolute spirit who created a universe and who happens also to be an unrepentant misogynist?

It just ain’t obvious. You can’t cite scripture because that would be question begging. Why place any credence in your unaesthetic, immoral, homicidal, “God” rather than the gods of Epicurus?

• How can I possibly talk about someone who has never been?

Now, just because you can appear to talk about gods, does not mean that any entity, being, ground of being, spirit . . . from a superordinate moralized metaphysical realm does exist, or could exist.

No doubt, I can have opinions about a fictitious character named ‘Hamlet’ as presented by Shakespeare in his play, ‘The Tragedy of Hamlet.’ I can also have opinions about a fictitious character named ‘God’ as presented in the synoptic gospels of ‘The New Testament.’

All I can know about these characters is what I read in allegedly *sacred* primary sources directly devoted to them. I can no more find God by doing cosmological research than I can disinter Hamlet’s bones in a chapel at Elsinore.

bipolar2 ©2008

Sorry, apparent “violations” of entropy result from not understanding the concept. Entropy presupposes a total and closed system — in such a system *total* entropy can only increase.

There are “local” exceptions of decreasing entropy — tons of them. Like the organization of matter/energy that’s you. Or, of a star being formed. Or, your humble ice maker making ice. Ordered states come about naturally. They are not designed. Ice does not required an Icy God to design it.

But, looking for gods in nature (natural theology) hasn’t had much supporta since 1800. The big-4 monotheisms (zoroastrianism, post-exilic judaism, xianity, and islam in historical order) simply fail for more obvious reasons. (There are lots of monotheism killers out there on this site.)

Of course, devotees of the big-4 simply will never accept the possibility that their views can be *falsified* in any manner: not by empirical evidence, not by self-contradiction embedded in the concept of God, not by cross-religion comparisons of god claims, not by aesthetics (what cosmic order?), not by ethics (God is through and through immoral).

What is the truth status of any of their claims? Their claims are neither true nor false. They are not statements at all. They are propaganda. In the case of xianity, arrogant, inverted elitism, anti-intellectual, and disgusting fideism.

bipolar2

As I said, I can’t prove that the universe needs a creator, and you can’t prove that the universe doesn’t need a creator. When all is said and done, we both make 1 assumption.

Assumption 1: There are 10 designers of the universe

Assumption 2: There is 1 designer of the universe

Assumption 3: There is no designer of the universe because we see no evidence of design

Do you see how assumption 2 assumes less than assumption 1?
Do you see how assumption 3 assumes less than assumption 2?

Then can you see why the claim that both sides are assuming equivalent amounts is not true.

Even if you had a designer, do you have a way to get from there to Jesus rather than Thor or Horus?

To assume that absolutely everything needs no designer, without any proof whatsoever, is essentially the same as assuming everything is designed.

You claim to start from a naturalistic point of view that has the least number of assumptions, but assuming that the universe needs no creator via naturalistic creation is no different then assuming that the universe needs a creator. I can’t prove that the universe needs a creator, and you can’t prove that the universe doesn’t need a creator. You are not making less assumptions when you assume God is not necessary. Naturalistic view assumes God is not necessary, while the divine assumes God is necessary. The assumption based on the necessity of this entity (god) still exists whether you assume the necessity or assume god isn’t necessary.

I don’t believe complexity proves design, until it can be reasonably shown that naturalistic processes cannot account for the entity. If naturalistic processes are exhausted, and cannot account for the existence of an object, evoking a designer is an acceptable rationale. You can’t prove the designer but you can’t prove that the paper clip or the watch came from a naturalistic process either. In which case either assumption is legitimate until proven otherwise. And stubbornly holding out for a naturalistic process to explain the watch is no different then stubbornly holding out for proof of designer.

Thanks for reading and commenting, guys. Much appreciated.

You are in error, nothing in thermodynamics precludes an open system to get perfectly ordered. The Second Law allows a decrease in entropy in s system coupled to a larger increase in the surrounding bath. Crystals like diamond or table salt are pretty ordered.

The process to make a car from a pile of iron ore and crude oil involves a great organization; however, no one of the steps in the factory implies a net decrease in entropy. Released heat and waste stuff are the key.

How can anything, created or not, defy the laws of thermodynamics? In what way, for example, might a cannonball defy the laws of thermodynamics? Can ‘created’ things also defy other natural laws, such as gravity?