I don't deny that there are meaningful counterarguments to the watchmaker argument. My only goal is to establish the idea that the watchmaker argument is rational. It's an argument that makes sense and can be applied in a reasonable way to understanding the world around us.

Edit: As an aside, I do think that it's reasonable to argue that watches have "evolved" over time as different technologies have become available and people have innovated new ways of creating them.

Methodological naturalism is not ontological naturalism, the view that the supernatural does not exist. You are conflating things.

And no, science does not need methodological naturalism. Labels of phenomena are irrelevant, it's what we observe that is relevant.

Conjecture all you like. Ad hominems are weak. Complex numbers seem pretty obviously man made to me.

I'm sure it's obvious to you. But you've already admitted to have not thought much about the topic.

But anyone who has studied quantum mechanics will recognize that there's something utterly indispensable about the complex numbers, and it's hard to argue that they're somehow less physical than something like the square root of two. Or that the complex numbers must somehow be man-made but the square root of two is not.

I note you've ignored my point that this is irrelevant. Guess it wouldn't work as a distraction if you didn't though.

I didn't claim they were dispensible.

If you want to talk about the difference between inference from evidence and ad hominem, we can have that conversation. I just don't think it's worth my time to try to explain it.

But in what sense are the imaginary numbers obviously man-made if they seem to be woven into the fabric of the universe? If man didn't exist, it seems plausible that imaginary numbers should exist at least at the same level as other numbers since there's no reason for the universe to care whether *we* say that i is "imaginary" any more than it cares that we call certain numbers to be integers.

You have yet to put forward any meaningful statements that show any depth of thought, and I don't anticipate that you'll start doing that. So I'll leave things here with the comment that it seems to me that you don't seem to exhibit anything to indicate that you've got a reasonable chance of making a meaningful statement with regards to either the ontology of numbers or the rationality of beliefs.

And yet you still haven't said why it's relavant and have continued with the ad hominem attack. Same old Aaron.

I'm glad the point was brought up as I've thought about something I've never found it necessary to consider before. But it's not relevant to the question

Again, inferring from data and ad hominem are different things. Do you refute that you've failed to put forth anything that demonstrates depth of thought? If so, I ask that you quote yourself. Until then, I have no reason to believe that my assessment is inaccurate.

I'm not saying that your argument is weak because you're somehow a bad person. I'm saying that the fact that this argument is weak is an indication that your ability to make well-structured and meaningful arguments is weak.

Did you notice how quickly you jump back and forth between something that you've never really thought about before and the claim that such-and-such is "obvious"? I take that as an indication of a general habit of thought, and that the habituated thinking patterns are not that strong.

Are you willing to enter anything meaningful into the record on the true topic at hand?

Here's your first statement in this thread (in its entirety):

You then made a statement that Original Position (not a theist) pointed out that this general position you've taken was wrong. ("Few prominent atheists claim that the existence of God is logically inconsistent with the available evidence (eg including Dawkins).")

Next, you challenged the issue of rationality and evidence with respect to math. Specifically, I said:

And you made some reply about "the rules of mathematics" as if that was a meaningful response to my statement. And that's where we seem to be right now.

So I'm still waiting for you to put forward a thoughtful expression of whatever is that you're thinking, rather than short sentences that indicate an absence of careful thought and consideration of the topic at hand.

I really don't know why you brought up the Mathematics point to begin with. Mathematics is basically a collection of rules, and the investigation of the product of those rules. That is all the evidence that is needed that 1+1 does not equal 3. It would therefore be irrational to believe that 1+1=3, when the rules of mathematics clearly imply that it isn't. It was a poor analogy, and therefore I did not feel it needed a detailed argument as it's irrelevant to the point, because believe it or not, mathematics and religion are not very alike.

Before we embarked on your distraction quest, you had stated that using a definition of rationality of "I would say a logical conclusion is one that can be sensibly drawn from the evidence available.", that this does not mean belief in god is irrational, to which I said we clearly disagree on what is sensible.

To me, when presented with a raft of possibilities, it is sensible to examine the evidence and assess the most likely case. Given there is no evidence for the events of the bible, and plenty of evidence that parts of it are impossible, or false, it does not seem sensible to me to draw the conclusion that it is true.

Are you quite certain?

Based on the certitude that "math is basically a collection of rules" I can see why you might think this, but you seem to be "irrational" in the sense of this thread, as the evidence does not preclude other conceptions of mathematics.

It was an example, not an analogy. Also, quoting Calvin and Hobbes is probably a bit of a weak way to push your argument forward. Just sayin'.

Okay, but the question was about believing in God (unspecified), not that the Bible is true. So this suggests sloppy reasoning on your part.

It's also a false claim that "there is no evidence for the events of the Bible" and such sweeping statements belie a lack of knowledge on your end. (Note: I do not claim that there is evidence for every event of the Bible.)

While this post is better, you still seem to lack any real argumentation. If I were you, I'd at least try to clean that up a bit. It would make you appear less ignorant.

.

Really? Why is that? Does a link like this not work for you?

http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1991/03/06

You're welcome to assume whatever you choose. I'm responding to the statements in this thread, and none of them at any point specifically seemed to identify Christianity before this point.

But you seem to have turned your cards face up. There's no "winning" against you because you've apparently pre-supposed something about all definitions of God. I'm not at all surprised that this is true, but I am surprised that you've made it an explicit part of your position.

Yes, I'm not playing fair by specifying the christian god from the bible, because it's such an obscure definition. I'll do you a deal, I'll concede that there are definitions of god which aren't irrational to believe if you concede that it's irrational to believe what's written in the bible.

I'll concede that there is a vast array of irrational ways to believe in the Bible.

I wasn't going to say anything about this, but I decided that it was a bit too juicy not to point out.

There's a deep failure in your intellectual integrity because you're treating your beliefs as bargaining chips in a negotiation. Seriously, doing this stuff pretty much negates anything you have to say. What is the content of your intellectual foundation if you treat the content of your beliefs like this instead of actually measuring them with regards to their quality?

I had considered rejecting your "offer" to play you down that path, but decided that it's not worth it. However, if you want to be anything more than a joke, you're going to have to do better than this.

No more unreasonable than being part of a whole and recognizing the whole is greater than you, the part.

But, that is more philosophy, leas religion in my view, so maybe not what the OP was looking for.

Haha, way to take things too seriously. I'm hardly going to change my beliefs as the result of a bargain with some random on the internet.

The point was you move the goalposts when the conversation gets too specific. I'm not actually convinced you are a theist tbh, I think you just like pointing out holes and this is an area where people have very strong views but not much can be proved so there always are some holes and it's more fun to argue with atheists. Means you have to dodge a lot to keep the conversation general though as it's hard to defend the specifics in the bible.

I know I won't get an answer on this, but which parts of the bible do you personally believe, particularly interested in the creation of the earth, miracles, people living to 900 and the resurrection? You seem to be at least semi intelligent, so the best way to convince me on this would be to lay out how you came to a belief in god.

You are correct that Methodological naturalism is not Ontological naturalism because one is a philosophy making a truth claim, and the other a practical method of application of that philosophy, the 'tool', if you like. Along with Philosophical naturalism and Scientific materialism, Ontological naturalism (Also known as Metaphysical naturalism) holds that there is nothing but the natural.

This is quite clearly not only failing to give assent to the idea of the supernatural, but explicitly rejecting it.


Yes it does, but since you think it doesn't, you can explain what work the scientific criteria are doing?

(Corrective, Falsifiable, Predictive, Repeatable, Testable, Useful, Internally or Externally Consistent, Parsimonious)

Since the first 5 specifically can't be applied to the supernatural, the work they are intended to do is to ensure that no scientific hypothesis could have a non-natural, non-physical explanation. In your view, they are not needed, so can you explain why they exist?

Really? Then why are you here..... It doesn't matter whether or not Aaron is a theist, it's utterly irrelevant to whether or not what he says is correct. That you think it matters says a lot about how you reason.

And if the second is simply an implication of the first? As I said, they are mutually dependent, which you haven't addressed.

Fair enough, but you'll understand that 'you're wrong for reasons that you don't understand' isn't convincing when those reasons are not given.

I think you're making a big mistake here, that is to assume that anything we have evolved to do is rational and good. This is not the case. Have a read into 'Cognitive Biases', see what you think then.

'Implementation' of beliefs is not part of the scope of the OP, only the acquisition of those beliefs.

Not only is this trivially incorrect but it fails to recognise the multiple times I've pointed out that you could easily prove me wrong by showing me that main stream scientific theory that has a supernatural element. That's one way you could falsify what I'm saying. So even if you actually managed to do that and prove me wrong about science, it would prove me right about my viewpoint being falsifiable.

Your viewpoint isn't internally consistent here. You've set up a situation where I'm either right about science, or about my viewpoint being falsifiable, and failed to factor in a method of doing that, that I've given to you myself several times ITT.

The 'data' isn't 'against' me. I've dealt with every single criticism


Yes I am and have explained why multiple times. I've included and accounted for the scientists that completely reject MN or use a version that includes the supernatural, and those that work with it despite having contradictory personal beliefs.


I can't understand why you keep saying this despite the multiple times that I've dealt with it.

I see, so how would you falsify your view that god exists? I don't really need any of the other scientific criteria with which to challenge your viewpoint about god because I know you can't even satisfy that one.


I'm not getting any 'data', what I'm getting is multiple repetitions and variations on the words 'you're wrong'. And this, despite that I've explained not only my viewpoint, but the logic behind it to show how it's internally and externally consistent. I've explained why the scientific criteria are needed, I've explained why PN through MN is used and what implications that has the information discovered using it, and all I've had in return is 'no, you're wrong, you don't understand it'. That's not good enough.

So, what do I need to accept that I'm wrong? Much better than what I've had... Not one person, yourself included has satisfactorily explained why not a single main stream scientific theory has a supernatural element, or why the scientific criteria exist when they can't be applied to the supernatural. If you could, as one example, explain why a theory needs to be falsifiable to be taken seriously as 'scientific', if falsifiable is a concept that can't be applied to anything supernatural?

It may be irrelevant to whether what he says is correct, but there no right or wrong on where you drawn the line of what is a "sensible" conclusion to draw from any evidence. I'm here because I am interested in the subject and want to hear other views, is that ok with you? I wasn't saying I'm never going to change my views, I might change them as a result of hearing a good argument or interesting point of view or evidence I wasn't aware of, not because I made a tongue in cheek bargain to make a point that someone took too seriously.

Aaron presents himself as capable of rational thinking, so I'm genuinely interested in how he reasons through the words in the bible and decides what to take literally and what not to.