on why the watchmaker argument fails

We know the contrivances of human beings whenever we see them. If I should find a bicycle assembled, I wouldn’t have to rock my head trying to discover its source. Everyone who has seen a bicycle knows to what ends they are produced and by whom. We do not have the same knowledge for things occurring in nature. I cannot tell, when I meet an elephant that there was a purposeful designer who wanted it to crash plants.

To say something happened by chance, does not rule out a designer. It could have been experiment and this result was a chance result. It was never planned.

The theist has no reason to limit the being of the universe to this

The only possible explanation for the structure is that it was designed by an intelligent being, not some random physical process.

For what is intelligence? It includes

the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, and problem solving

many properties which would rule out the god of theism; an all knowing god can’t learn, reason nor plan. Such a god can’t be creative. We are told, for example if you believe the Abrahamic religions, that god said and it was. In a scenario such as this, the god need only wish and it is.

The question of how did the universe come to be is not made easier in supposing an intelligent designer. I could grant you a designer and ask why must we stop at one designer? If one argues from man made things to the universe, then we see that many things have components built by different people; someone a roof, someone windows and doors and another walls. So, then, we can be certain there is no contradiction in saying there is a designer for trees, another for elephants and another for fish and for all other million of things that exist.

I contend this blogger has not demonstrated his claim.


on death

In the last post on the subject, I did ask whether death is bad for us. Reactions varied from those who take the Epicurean/ Lucretian position, that death is nothing us or death like the period before our birth has nothing on us. Or take the position of Hariod that there’s no ‘I’ to be decimated by death. There is the further position that in some situations, death is actually a good.

The movie Solace explores this last position. Charles Ambrose has extraordinary powers. He is also a murderer on a mission. He murders are quick and from what we are told, painless. But his victims, he argues are spared extreme pain and suffering. Dr. John, the other psychic, tells him to stop playing god, he says about god’s work, he is unimpressed. In a chance meeting at a restaurant between Dr. John and Ambrose, he, John, asks if Ambrose knows or understands the value of the few hours or days to a dying person? That the prospect of life, even if painful is much preferred to death?

So the question we come to then, is, are there compelling reasons to justify mercy killing?



Death note

Suppose you had the power to choose who dies, when and how they die by simply writing their name on a paper or saying it loudly, would you do it?

This is the theme of a movie by the same name as the title of this post.

The main antagonist kills a guy who beat him up and rapidly graduates to killing bad guys across the continents and gets a girl he admires in school involved.

A detective comes to town to help local police identify the mysterious killer and this is where everything gets interesting.

The moral question, here, is can we decide that a pedophile or a thief deserves to die? Especially where we know they really are guilty? Can it be up to us?

Or is this the problem with human beings as Satan in Mysterious Stranger by Mark Twain concludes.

On the emancipation of women

And here I will let Kropotkin speak for himself

Why has woman’s work never been of any account? Why in every family are there mother and three or four servants obliged to spend so much time at what pertains to cooking? Because those who want to emancipate mankind have not included woman in their dream of emancipation and consider it beneath their superior masculine dignity to think ” of those kitchen arrangements”, which they have put in the shoulders of that drudge- woman.

To emancipate woman is to free her from the brutalizing toil of kitchen and washhouse; it is to organise your household in such a way as to enable her to rear her children, if she is so minded, while still retaining sufficient leisure to take her share of social life.

god’s problem

Caroline in this post writes that their belief in god demands that they consider homosexuality as objectively immoral.

She goes on to write

The funny thing is, many if not most of those who advocate for the legitimacy, normalcy, and morality of homosexuality also reject God as a moral lawgiver. So they have no objective standard by which to judge its moral status. And without an objective, transcendent standard, they likewise cannot judge the morality of opposing homosexuality.

Religion and by extension, its gods and angels are not the sources of our morality. We act morally because we have reason and are social beings. Without the need to exist in social groups, it is unlikely we would have developed any moral codes.

No man is responsible for his make. So, if we are creatures of god(s), how we turn out is god’s problem, they should deal with it.

It seems Caroline plays fast and loose with her bible to defend whatever position she wants. The good book does says in Luke 6:37, and I am certain Caroline takes these as the words of Jesus

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

In the Euthyphro dilemma, Socrates asks if what is moral is so because god commands it or god commands it because it is moral. Depending on your answer to this question either what is moral depends on god’s whim or god has no control over what is moral.

In a world governed by an omnipotent god, one who only need utter a word and it be done, can one act against such a god’s will? At what point is god freed from being responsible for things done by its minions in a world where it has absolute power and sovereignty?