The Meaninglessness of Meaning

[Kingpin]

Pyrrho, I find your analogy about the clock parts being thrown on a workbench do not make it tell time very interesting.  You say only when they are put in the right order.  Are you saying that if you throw them on a workbench and it did tell time you would not classify that as a miracle?  If not, would it be a pure anomaly? or basic statistical probability?

We can all pretty well know why you like this example, as it reminds you of Paley's watch.

The point though, it that stuff doing things and interacting with other things gives rise to additional properties not in the constituent parts separately.  A fire gives off heat, but the log before it burns may be cold, as may the oxygen necessary for burning to take place.  It is the chemical reaction that gives off heat, not the individual chemicals by themselves.

It is important to remember such things to avoid committing the fallacy of composition and the fallacy of division.

You say the right order, but is that right order defined by a mind or an unguided mindless process?

The "right order" is defined in terms of whatever it takes for them to give the specified result.  Thus in the case of the clock example, whatever arrangement it is that would allow it to tell time.

As for your question about a mind or being unguided and mindless, it does not matter how the order occurs; a fire is a fire whether it occurs naturally or is made by a person who intends to make a fire.

 You state "properly" does not necessitate design but if there is no design to it how can you say that is the proper arrangement?

The "right order" is defined in terms of whatever is necessary for the specified result.  In order for there to be a fire, there needs to be fuel and oxygen and some catalyst to get the fire going.  A fire is a fire whether it occurs due to nature or design.

 I find it odd that you can know with certainty that throwing clock parts on a workbench will never make it tell time (forgo the fact that the parts exist at all or that all of the "necessary" parts are being thrown together) but you can assume that the infinitely more complex human could be derived from being "thrown at a workbench".  Doesn't make sense.

In the case of a clock, I know going into the matter that it is made by people and is not natural.  (Not to mention the fact that your statement of my claim goes beyond what I stated.)  In the case of people, the matter gets more complicated, but I seem to recall you indicating that you believe in evolution.  If so, this is a strange thing for you to be asking about, because evolution gives you the answer to how a human could come to be without being designed.

I'm glad to see at the end you see the difference between your fire analogy and the watch.  Not to mention fire in itself is not making something more beneficial or new.  My point being is that in your use of the watch analogy you found it preposterous that it would be able to tell time if thrown at a workbench.  I was likening that to the big bang theory of this universe being "thrown at a workbench" and out of that, comes immense order and complexity.  You found it absurd in the watch, but wholly accept it as plausible in something infinitely more complex as the universe.   

I do not find macroevolution convincing by any means, there are a lot of assumptions and leaps there.  Evolution and natural selection in describing variations within a species, yes.  The pure mathematical probability of beneficial mutations in single cell organisms giving rise to more complex ones leaves me highly suspicious.