Ramble. Focus. Ramble.

Paley’s Intelligent Design

The design of the watch implies that there is a watchmaker.

The design of the universe implies that there is a God.


6 comments on “Paley’s Intelligent Design

  1. Wyrd Smythe
    January 16, 2014

    So what happens when science presents an explanation for how the universe occurred? Suppose there was a reasonable explanation for how watches grow?

    The original “Blind Watchmaker” argument, as you surely know, was based on the idea that the human eye was one par with a watch and both clearly were designed. Except that we now know exactly how eyes did, in fact, evolve. No watchmaker was involved.

    • hadeelnaeem
      January 16, 2014

      Yeah, the Argument from Design doesn’t quite fit with evolution.

    • hadeelnaeem
      January 16, 2014

      Fair point.

      • Wyrd Smythe
        January 16, 2014

        I wonder about DNA. I’ve never yet seen a really good explanation of how RNA (which pre-dates DNA) managed to evolve from organic chemistry. Most accounts I’ve read do a bit of hand-waving about “self-replicating clays” and quickly move on to how the eye, for example, clearly did evolve.

        Yeah, but it’s the first jump that really matters. No RNA, no DNA. No DNA, no us!

        And then there’s the “turtles all the way down” problem. God created the universe. Okay… what created god? The universe was created by the big bang. Okay… what made the big bang happen? At some point you have to accept that something just is (but what is it, really).

        Turtles, man…. turtles all the way down!

      • hadeelnaeem
        January 16, 2014

        HAHA, that is a strong point you have there and so awesomely put. I never thought on those lines.

        So what is the first jump then? God? And god just is? So that’s why we believe in God? We just want to give a name to that first jump, right?

      • Wyrd Smythe
        January 16, 2014

        For now (and up to now), it’s your choice. What amuses me no end is that here Atheists and Theists converge on a gnostic view based on … (ta da) faith!

        There is no real proof one way or the other. Science has an edge for being a self-correcting search for the truth, but it’s limited to the physical universe. Philosophy is necessary for exploring the metaphysical universe.

        Science finds no place or requirement for god (but then god requires neither place nor explanation (if you believe in god)). But why does every human society apprehend a metaphysics of some kind? Why has there never been an Atheist society?

        Either humans are wired to perceive god (which we may someday discover about the human mind), or we’re all perceiving something that’s really there. At this point, we don’t know, and the choice is yours.

        If you take a gnostic view, it will be based on your belief in something: god, mother earth (gaia), the human spirit, flying spaghetti monsters or the cosmic muffin. Spinoza (and Einstein) thought “god” was in the principles of physics. That jump has many names!

        The Agnostic view is really the only intellectually valid one right now. Only faith (the “heart”) can take you in another direction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on February 19, 2013 by in Philosophy.
%d bloggers like this: