Pattern recognition: design features (bible, quote, faith, God)

[Bud235]

In the 19th century, a British theologian named William Paley once went to a forest, he found:

a) a watch
b) a piece of rock

He claimed he found a proof of God. Because, a) is complex and meaningful, it shows design features; while b) is simple and meaningless, there is no design features. He extended it the analogy to: A) humans are complex and meaningful, therefore the only plausible answer is it is Intelligently Designed by God; while B) a piece of rock remains simple and meaningless.

To summarize Sir Bill's analogy:

a). a watch and humans are complex and meaningful implies their designers.

b). a piece of rock, on the other hand, is simple (has nothing to it) and meaningless (it doesn't do anything), and therefore implies no designer (random).

Do you agree?

[SoCalAngel2009]

God created a) and b). He is a loving, creative genius... the likes of which no person on earth will EVER rival. And rather than give God the respect and admiration He so rightfully deserves... many thumb their noses at Him, rather than being humbled and in awe.

And when I speak of God, I'm not referring to any wrathful God that's in the Bible... as this is another tale of fiction and must not be believed.

[Dusty Rhodes]

Originally Posted by Bud235

In the 19th century, a British theologian named William Paley once went to a forest, he found:

a) a watch
b) a piece of rock

He claimed he found a proof of God. Because, a) is complex and meaningful, it shows design features; while b) is simple and meaningless, there is no design features. He extended it the analogy to: A) humans are complex and meaningful, therefore the only plausible answer is it is Intelligently Designed by God; while B) a piece of rock remains simple and meaningless.

To summarize Sir Bill's analogy:

a). a watch and humans are complex and meaningful implies their designers.

b). a piece of rock, on the other hand, is simple (has nothing to it) and meaningless (it doesn't do anything), and therefore implies no designer (random).

Do you agree?

There is flawed logic in the notion of "because it is simple there is not a designer, but complex things do require a designer" Anyone who says that an inert piece of rock is useless has not seen the Hope Diamond. Do I think a designer was necessary for either the diamond or a living animal, well...Nope, I do not, other that the design slowly played out against the backdrop of geological time by the process known as evolution. Some people seem to over think this thing.

[nightflight]

Originally Posted by Bud235

In the 19th century, a British theologian named William Paley once went to a forest, he found:

a) a watch
b) a piece of rock

He claimed he found a proof of God. Because, a) is complex and meaningful, it shows design features; while b) is simple and meaningless, there is no design features. He extended it the analogy to: A) humans are complex and meaningful, therefore the only plausible answer is it is Intelligently Designed by God; while B) a piece of rock remains simple and meaningless.

To summarize Sir Bill's analogy:

a). a watch and humans are complex and meaningful implies their designers.

b). a piece of rock, on the other hand, is simple (has nothing to it) and meaningless (it doesn't do anything), and therefore implies no designer (random).

Do you agree?

Why is a rock meaningless? Stone is used to make buildings; rocks hold soil; rocks contain minerals; and if that's not enough, much of the earth is made of rock.

Also, if god is the designer, why did he design polio? Ebola? Malaria?

[cleatis]

There are a few problems with this. Design indicates a purpose, and while many have their beliefs as to the purpose of life, it is still a pretty open subject. Another problem with this is that even if this concludes there must be a creator, that still doesn't mean it's god. It could be from a variety of causes. And as one eager Christian has already pointed out to me: analogies only run parallel for so long - after a certain point the two things in comparison aren't similar enough to be compatible any more. Which could be the case with this quite easily. Because while humans (and all living things for that matter) are complex that doesn't mean it was intended that way. It could be the result of environment. I'm not trying to make the evolution vs creation case here - which this thread will no doubt come to be, I'm just trying to show the relativity of this.

[rifleman]

A thoughtful and detailed analysis of the crystalline structure of your rock, or of it's sub-atomic particle physics, would prove beyond any doubt that it has some very complex characteristics well beyond the scope of almost all of the usual public.

Let's not overlay simplistic, scientifically illiterate hominid thinking, particularly that of a guy walking through the woods and coming to those conclusions, to things we obviously know so little about.

[justme58]

I am sure if the theologian's pet rock turned out to be a nugget or emerald bearing piece of strata, the conclusions he reached would be vastly different but I guess he somehow would find some way to accredit his fictitious find to the almighty lawd after staking a claim and depositing said rock in the local precious gem/gold exchange.

As rifleman and others have pointed out, we know how diamonds are formed and no god required for that and going with my altered assertion, your designer theory falls flat on its face and said theologian would have tossed his faith and become a mining magnet hanging out with the Rockefellers if his claim yielded any more shiny rocks and we would never ever have heard this lame argument for an intelligent designer.