William Paley argument - animated

A short stop motion video outlining William Paley's watchmaker's analogy

Category:

Education

Tags:

• William
• paley
• analogy
• religion
• God

[AwakeAgainstAllOdds]

If you say that complex objects must be designed, then you must answer the question of who designed god. If you say that god doesn't need a designer, why not save yourself a step and say that the universe doesn't need a designer? After all, the universe is a far more plausible thing to exist than an omnipotent conciousness capable of designing the universe.

[spazydonkey]

I am amazed so much philosophy has come to a 15year old's video.

I don't do philosophy but I understand your point. There must be something in the chain somewhere that must be designed otherwise nothing would have happened. Even if a watch was the first thing to be designed. The problem comes when you start to think of God like everything else in the universe. I think that because God is not made of matter like everything else we know you cannot apply the same logic.

Just my thoughts, plz reply

[AwakeAgainstAllOdds]

@spazydonkey

I think that spontaneous complexity is

impossible, whether in a system made of

matter or energy or not. Complex systems must

arise from simple interactions. That is how

our cosmological timeline looks. simple chemicals

in the beginning, building off each other to

eventually form complex life. It makes

far more sense to assume that whatever

the origin of the universe it is simple, not complex

[spazydonkey]

yes i agree, that the universe started off as simple chemicals, but i do not think that because it is not instantaneous it disproves a creator.

However time must have been created in an instant, proving that things are able to be created spontaneously?

[drspecial757]

lol in that case those clay figures obviously had no designer,

[Nilsy1975]

@megajeev Then we are in agreement :-)

[megajeev]

also, the major gods, such as allah, god, eli, or whoever, all teach about peace. i don't see anything wrong with that, so it doesn't matter who believes in who, as long as we follow similar teachings surely we should all get along. why do you need the to show themselves anyway? there must be a single force greater than anything we know. physics suggests that energy cannot be created or destroyed. energy is everywhere. if your so 'atheist' i can easily call my god energy..i don't see the problem

[megajeev]

@Nilsy1975 i don't think it really matters does it? this video was made for lesson taught in class (pre-GCSE). it was not intended to offend anyone or create a moral stance! although the argument, floored as it may be, is not 'valid', the fact that there may be a higher power remains. 'You still have all the work of proving the deity you worship is that prime mover'. There was no mention of any 'worship' in the video, so i don't know how you can make such a bold statement.

[Nilsy1975]

@megajeev A positive ontological definition is a way of defining things, but theologians can't do this for God.

I have a cause, because causality existed with-in the universe, however we can not say whether the universe itself has a cause & no the fact that the universe could be eternal is not the essence of God. Psst... you are jumping from a prime mover God (whom, I've told you I do not deny the existence of) & Yahweh (Whom I do deny.)

[megajeev]

@Nilsy1975 im not here to enforce ideas onto you, im simply providing, what i think to to be evidence, for you to sort through. I know of the ontological argument, but I dont know of the positive ontological argument.

So you think that the universe didnt have a cause...does that mean that you, as a person, has no cause? Surely everything that has a beginning has an end, and if the universe had no beginning, then it has no end. That in itself is the essence of God right?

[Nilsy1975]

@megajeev A clue? A clue to what?

PS If you're going to spout some prime mover argument, please don't. I don't think the Universe had a cause, & until there is scientific evidence one way or the other, I'll not accept any theory of it's origin. However, a more complex cause would require a more complex explanation, & as theologians do not have a positive ontological (look it up on Google) argument for God, he is thus ruled out.

[megajeev]

@Nilsy1975 well surely the universe itself is a big enough clue

[Nilsy1975]

@megajeev No, Atheism is the lack of belief in any deities, I disbelieve in them, but I'm an agnostic atheist as I do not rule out their existence, & I'd accept one of them if they gave empirically testable evidence for their existence.  Thus if your god Yahweh or another god (e.g. Zeus) showed me empirical testable evidence then I'd not be an atheist any more.

[megajeev]

@Nilsy1975 'Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.' i thought you said you were an atheist..and then you say 'I never said there is no god'. so what are you saying?