if they believe there was a cook

[Userme]

Hi
Former USA president Ronald Reagon, said the below. I did not understand what he meant by "ask them if they believe there was a cook"
Could you please explain. Thank you very much.
+++++++++
“I have long been unable to understand the atheist in this world of so much beauty. And I’ve had an unholy desire to invite some atheists to a dinner and then serve the most fabulous gourmet dinner that has ever been concocted and, after dinner, ask them if they believe there was a cook.”

https://www.guidelines.org/devotional/the-nagging-questions-atheism-doesnt-answer/

[Peter Moylan]

He
>
is trying to say that if the existence of a meal implies that there
is a cook, then the existence of the world implies that there was a maker.

My reply: there were lots of things that Ronald Reagan was unable to
understand.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Userme]

Now, I understand what he wanted to say. Thank you so much. I am not
big fan of him but I saw a youtube clip about that so I wanted to
understand what he meant by that. Thanks again.

[Hibou]

Le 08/12/2022 à 02:22, Peter Moylan a écrit :
> On 08/12/22 12:44, Userme wrote:
>
>> Hi Former USA president Ronald Reagon, said the below. I did not
>> understand what he meant by "ask them if they believe there was a
>> cook" Could you please explain. Thank you very much. +++++++++ “I
>> have long been unable to understand the atheist in this world of so
>> much beauty.  And I’ve had an unholy desire to invite some atheists
>> to a dinner and then serve the most fabulous gourmet dinner that has
>> ever been concocted and, after dinner, ask them if they believe
>> there was a cook.”
>>
>> https://www.guidelines.org/devotional/the-nagging-questions-atheism-doesnt-answer/
>
> He
>>
> is trying to say that if the existence of a meal implies that there
> is a cook, then the existence of the world implies that there was a maker.

Yes, it's a variant of the 'watchmaker argument', which has long pleased
limited minds - one sees a watch, and infers there must have been a
watchmaker.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy>

> My reply: there were lots of things that Ronald Reagan was unable to
> understand.

Credit where it's due. At least he understood that a dinner requires a cook.

[Hibou]

Le 08/12/2022 à 06:36, Hibou a écrit :
>
> Yes, it's a variant of the 'watchmaker argument', which has long pleased
> limited minds - one sees a watch, and infers there must have been a
> watchmaker.

Hmm. I should've said it has long pleased limited minds to apply it to
the Universe. It is, of course, reasonable in the case of watches.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

And suppose it was the former guy inviting a group of Christians to a
dinner of hamberders and ketchup, followed with one scoop of icecream
for each (or two for the former guy), and asking them the same question?

Anyway, the answer to userme's question is that the atheists would
realize that there was a cook, and that therefore a "designer". They
would then all fall on their knees worshipping the designer of the
universe.`


--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[Dingbat]

One would expect a chef and several cooks to have prepared such a dinner. So, Reagan ought to have believed in several gods.

[Hibou]

Yes, several, but not too many. "Too many cooks spoil the broth."

It's the Gourmet Theory of the Origin of the Universe - a theory that
was probably cooked up in the Big-Bang Burger Bar (HHGG reference).

[Lionel Edwards]

Verily I say unto thee, beyond those are "farmer" gods, and beyond that "weather" gods, who
created earth, wind and fire. All are worshipped in the great cathedrals of St Marks and St Sparks.

[occam]

On 08/12/2022 07:46, Hibou wrote:
> Le 08/12/2022 à 06:36, Hibou a écrit :
>>
>> Yes, it's a variant of the 'watchmaker argument', which has long
>> pleased limited minds - one sees a watch, and infers there must have
>> been a watchmaker.

When you see an (inanimate) watch, it is a correct to infer that there
is a watchmaker.

>
> Hmm. I should've said it has long pleased limited minds to apply it to
> the Universe. It is, of course, reasonable in the case of watches.
>

I hope you realise that your reference to 'limited minds' implicates
Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes and a lot of other great(er) minds of the past.

For a good read, the Blind Watchmaker (Richard Dawkins) is a good start.

[Hibou]

Le 08/12/2022 à 08:52, occam a écrit :
> On 08/12/2022 07:46, Hibou wrote:
>> Le 08/12/2022 à 06:36, Hibou a écrit :
>>>
>>> Yes, it's a variant of the 'watchmaker argument', which has long
>>> pleased limited minds - one sees a watch, and infers there must have
>>> been a watchmaker.
>
> When you see an (inanimate) watch, it is a correct to infer that there
> is a watchmaker.
>
>> Hmm. I should've said it has long pleased limited minds to apply it to
>> the Universe. It is, of course, reasonable in the case of watches.
>
> I hope you realise that your reference to 'limited minds' implicates
> Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes and a lot of other great(er) minds of the past.

My "limited minds" was cavalier, I admit.

The argument is by analogy, and works only if the two things (the watch
and the Universe) are analogous. To assert that they are is a huge and
unjustified step.

> For a good read, the Blind Watchmaker (Richard Dawkins) is a good start.

Yes. I see it is fifteen years since I read it. My note says,
"Thoughtful and convincing; would be better divided into sections, shorn
of repetition, and with more diagrams." I'd have to reread it to see if
that was fair.

[Dingbat]

You wouldn't worship the chef and cooks who made your dinner. Kids
don't worship Santa. So, is it certain that deducing a creator or creators
would lead to worship of it or them?

[Hibou]

Le 08/12/2022 à 09:10, Dingbat a écrit :

> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, the answer to userme's question is that the atheists would
>> realize that there was a cook, and that therefore a "designer". They
>> would then all fall on their knees worshipping the designer of the
>> universe.`
>
> You wouldn't worship the chef and cooks who made your dinner. Kids
> don't worship Santa. So, is it certain that deducing a creator or creators
> would lead to worship of it or them?

It's about keeping on good terms with those who have power over our
lives. We laud cooks to stop them flobbing in the soup - and those who
believe in gods do the same with them.

[J. J. Lodder]

Userme <leza...@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://www.guidelines.org/devotional/the-nagging-questions-atheism-doesnt-ans
wer/

FYI, <www.guidelines.org> is a reli-prop site.
It is merely 'The Argument from Design',
dumbed down to the point that even Ronnie could understand it,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Yes, and there is Jonathan Hoag to judge the final result.
It is a strange profession, but I guess someone has to do it,

Jan

[Peter Moylan]

On 08/12/22 17:36, Hibou wrote:
> Le 08/12/2022 à 02:22, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>> On 08/12/22 12:44, Userme wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Former USA president Ronald Reagon, said the below. I did not
>>> understand what he meant by "ask them if they believe there was
>>> a cook" Could you please explain. Thank you very much. +++++++++
>>> “I have long been unable to understand the atheist in this world
>>> of so much beauty. And I’ve had an unholy desire to invite some
>>> atheists to a dinner and then serve the most fabulous gourmet
>>> dinner that has ever been concocted and, after dinner, ask them
>>> if they believe there was a cook.”
>>>
>>> https://www.guidelines.org/devotional/the-nagging-questions-atheism-doesnt-answer/
>>
>> He is trying to say that if the existence of a meal implies that
>> there is a cook, then the existence of the world implies that
>> there was a maker.
>
> Yes, it's a variant of the 'watchmaker argument', which has long
> pleased limited minds - one sees a watch, and infers there must have
> been a watchmaker.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy>

The difference is that the watch appears to have been intelligently
designed. If our universe was designed, then the designer should be sent
back to design school.

[occam]

If you were put in charge, which rules of nature ('God') would you
change? 'Design' does not necessarily mean specifying every component
down to the last atom. It could also mean designing a set of rules, and
let the system find its own equilibrium.

[occam]

On 08/12/2022 09:32, Hibou wrote:
> Le 08/12/2022 à 08:19, Dingbat a écrit :
>> On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 5:44:55 PM UTC-8, Userme wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> Former USA president Ronald Reagon, said the below. I did not
>>> understand what he meant by "ask them if they believe there was a cook"
>>> Could you please explain. Thank you very much.
>>> +++++++++
>>> “I have long been unable to understand the atheist in this world of
>>> so much beauty. And I’ve had an unholy desire to invite some atheists
>>> to a dinner and then serve the most fabulous gourmet dinner that has
>>> ever been concocted and, after dinner, ask them if they believe there
>>> was a cook.”
>>>
>>> https://www.guidelines.org/devotional/the-nagging-questions-atheism-doesnt-answer/
>>
>> One would expect a chef and several cooks to have prepared such a
>> dinner. So, Reagan ought to have believed in several gods.
>
> Yes, several, but not too many. "Too many cooks spoil the broth."

Maybe several gods *did* create the universe, all in their own image.
That would explain the nature of the current mess. Who left that dark
matter where the other gods could not see? Who left the door open and
allowed the universe to escape the finite container into what became the
Hubble universe? And those black 'singularities' - shouldn't they have
been patched up before the release of Universe 1.0?

[Hibou]

Well, yes, but an omniscient and omnipotent god (the favourite type) can
foresee all that. He has no need to run the experiment.

[Hibou]

Le 08/12/2022 à 11:27, Peter Moylan a écrit :

> On 08/12/22 17:36, Hibou wrote:
>>
>> Yes, it's a variant of the 'watchmaker argument', which has long
>> pleased limited minds - one sees a watch, and infers there must have
>> been a watchmaker.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy>
>
> The difference is that the watch appears to have been intelligently
> designed. If our universe was designed, then the designer should be sent
> back to design school.

Occam suggests there may be several divine designers. Perhaps the one
responsible for our Universe was an apprentice.

There are other differences between a watch and the Universe. Suppose I
postulate a Creator and a Universe, the latter comprising the fabric of
space-time and all the matter and energy in it, and the former being
separate from His creation.

Well, this doesn't work. The Creator lies outside time, but creation (an
instance of cause and effect) is a temporal process. It makes no sense
to talk of creation outside time.

I think this is sufficient to refute the watchmaker analogy.

[Madhu]

* Hibou <tmsp7d$2r4$2 @gioia.aioe.org> :
Wrote on Thu, 8 Dec 2022 13:35:41 +0000:

> There are other differences between a watch and the Universe. Suppose
> I postulate a Creator and a Universe, the latter comprising the fabric
> of space-time and all the matter and energy in it, and the former
> being separate from His creation.
>
> Well, this doesn't work. The Creator lies outside time, but creation
> (an instance of cause and effect) is a temporal process. It makes no
> sense to talk of creation outside time.

all that just boils down to is the dictum "Wherof one cannot speak,
thereof one must be silent." Both the medieval jewish doctors and I
think C S Lewis have used that - (so after special relativity "God is
outside spacetime")

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

Just for PTD, a BBT quote;

'I don't object to the concept of a deity, but I'm baffled by the notion of
one that takes attendance'

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Jerry Friedman]

Strange and unpleasant. *keeps the car windows closed*

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 4:10:44 AM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:

> You wouldn't worship the chef and cooks who made your dinner. Kids
> don't worship Santa. So, is it certain that deducing a creator or creators
> would lead to worship of it or them?

Jefferson acknowledged a Creator (who endowed people with
certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness*) but did not worship it.

*The third one altered from the original (Locke's?) "property."

[Peter T. Daniels]

Context?

[lar3ryca]

I have, on more than one occasion, said "If you truly understood
evolution, you would praise your god for his cleverness."

--
Dogs have owners, cats have staff.

[lar3ryca]

Hmm... Microsoft as an example of 'the Chosen People'?

>> It's the Gourmet Theory of the Origin of the Universe - a theory that
>> was probably cooked up in the Big-Bang Burger Bar (HHGG reference).
>>
>

--
I sneezed a sneeze into the air.
It fell to earth, I know not where,
But hard and cold were the looks of those.
In whose vicinity I snoze.

[CDB]

On 12/8/2022 4:10 AM, Dingbat wrote:

> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> Userme said:

>>> Hi Former USA president Ronald Reagon, said the below. I did not
>>> understand what he meant by "ask them if they believe there was a
>>> cook" Could you please explain. Thank you very much. +++++++++ “I
>>> have long been unable to understand the atheist in this world of
>>> so much beauty. And I’ve had an unholy desire to invite some
>>> atheists to a dinner and then serve the most fabulous gourmet
>>> dinner that has ever been concocted and, after dinner, ask them
>>> if they believe there was a cook.”

>>> https://www.guidelines.org/devotional/the-nagging-questions-atheism-doesnt-answer/

>>
>>>
And suppose it was the former guy inviting a group of Christians to a
>> dinner of hamberders and ketchup, followed with one scoop of
>> icecream for each (or two for the former guy), and asking them the
>> same question?

>> Anyway, the answer to userme's question is that the atheists would
>> realize that there was a cook, and that therefore a "designer".
>> They would then all fall on their knees worshipping the designer of
>> the universe.`

> You wouldn't worship the chef and cooks who made your dinner.

You might if you were on the menu.

[Ken Blake]

Thank the laud the cook didn't flob in the soup.

[Paul Wolff]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2022, at 19:26:15, Madhu posted:

>
>* Hibou <tmsp7d$2r4$2 @gioia.aioe.org> :
>Wrote on Thu, 8 Dec 2022 13:35:41 +0000:
>> There are other differences between a watch and the Universe. Suppose
>> I postulate a Creator and a Universe, the latter comprising the fabric
>> of space-time and all the matter and energy in it, and the former
>> being separate from His creation.
>>
>> Well, this doesn't work. The Creator lies outside time, but creation
>> (an instance of cause and effect) is a temporal process. It makes no
>> sense to talk of creation outside time.
>
>all that just boils down to is the dictum "Wherof one cannot speak,
>thereof one must be silent." Both the medieval jewish doctors and I
>think C S Lewis

I think you're thinking of Lewis W., not Lewis, C.S.

>have used that - (so after special relativity "God is
>outside spacetime")

--
Paul W.

[bruce bowser]

On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 9:22:37 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 08/12/22 12:44, Userme wrote:
>
> > Hi Former USA president Ronald Reagon, said the below. I did not
> > understand what he meant by "ask them if they believe there was a
> > cook" Could you please explain. Thank you very much. +++++++++ “I
> > have long been unable to understand the atheist in this world of so
> > much beauty. And I’ve had an unholy desire to invite some atheists
> > to a dinner and then serve the most fabulous gourmet dinner that has
> > ever been concocted and, after dinner, ask them if they believe
> > there was a cook.”
> >
> > https://www.guidelines.org/devotional/the-nagging-questions-atheism-doesnt-answer/

> He
> >
> is trying to say that if the existence of a meal implies that there
> is a cook, then the existence of the world implies that there was a maker.
>

> My reply: there were lots of things that Ronald Reagan was unable to
> understand.

One of which was "the dismissal" which was famous in Australian politics?

[J. J. Lodder]

lar3ryca <la...@invalid.ca> wrote:

> On 2022-12-08 05:35, occam wrote:
> > On 08/12/2022 12:27, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> On 08/12/22 17:36, Hibou wrote:

Indeed. Why bother to write out all those petabytes of information
when it will easily write itself?

It is ridiculous to assume that a truly intelligent creator
would bother with such tedious tasks for no good reason,

Jan

[Sam Plusnet]

On 08-Dec-22 6:36, Hibou wrote:

> Le 08/12/2022 à 02:22, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>> On 08/12/22 12:44, Userme wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Former USA president Ronald Reagon, said the below. I did not
>>> understand what he meant by "ask them if they believe there was a
>>> cook" Could you please explain. Thank you very much. +++++++++ “I
>>> have long been unable to understand the atheist in this world of so
>>> much beauty.  And I’ve had an unholy desire to invite some atheists
>>> to a dinner and then serve the most fabulous gourmet dinner that has
>>> ever been concocted and, after dinner, ask them if they believe
>>> there was a cook.”
>>>
>>> https://www.guidelines.org/devotional/the-nagging-questions-atheism-doesnt-answer/
>>
>> He
>>>
>> is trying to say that if the existence of a meal implies that there
>> is a cook, then the existence of the world implies that there was a
>> maker.
>
> Yes, it's a variant of the 'watchmaker argument', which has long pleased
> limited minds - one sees a watch, and infers there must have been a
> watchmaker.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy>
>

>> My reply: there were lots of things that Ronald Reagan was unable to
>> understand.
>

> Credit where it's due. At least he understood that a dinner requires a
> cook.
>
I suspect that should be:
Credit where it's due. At least he could deliver his lines in a
convincing manner.
The real credit should go to his scriptwriters.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Sam Plusnet]

And hence this universe does not exist.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Sam Plusnet]

There is one aspect of the Watchmaker analogy which could be applied.

I often suspect that the whole thing is a bit of a wind-up.

--
Sam Plusnet

[GordonD]

On 08/12/2022 08:19, Dingbat wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 5:44:55 PM UTC-8, Userme wrote:
>> Hi Former USA president Ronald Reagon, said the below. I did not
>> understand what he meant by "ask them if they believe there was a
>> cook" Could you please explain. Thank you very much. +++++++++ “I
>> have long been unable to understand the atheist in this world of so
>> much beauty. And I’ve had an unholy desire to invite some atheists
>> to a dinner and then serve the most fabulous gourmet dinner that
>> has ever been concocted and, after dinner, ask them if they believe
>> there was a cook.”
>>
>> https://www.guidelines.org/devotional/the-nagging-questions-atheism-doesnt-answer/
>
>>

> One would expect a chef and several cooks to have prepared such a
> dinner. So, Reagan ought to have believed in several gods.

The Pope and I are almost in agreement on this. He believes in only one
god more than I do.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[Peter Moylan]

On 09/12/22 00:35, Hibou wrote:
> Le 08/12/2022 à 11:27, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>> On 08/12/22 17:36, Hibou wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, it's a variant of the 'watchmaker argument', which has long
>>> pleased limited minds - one sees a watch, and infers there must have
>>> been a watchmaker.
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy>
>>
>> The difference is that the watch appears to have been intelligently
>> designed. If our universe was designed, then the designer should be sent
>> back to design school.
>
> Occam suggests there may be several divine designers. Perhaps the one
> responsible for our Universe was an apprentice.

Heinlein's novel /Job? includes that idea.

[Peter Moylan]

An interesting idea. I must admit that I had not considered the
possibility of an amoral god.

[occam]

It is not too difficult to conjecture - just watch any natural disaster
befalling a large group of people.

'God', like 'morality', is a human invention. Laws of nature are not.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

Occam (nee Ockham) is the chap to whittle the number of interventionist
gods down to the right number.

[occam]

...is a valid Wordle word


(nee Ockham)

... isn't

is the chap to whittle the number of interventionist
> gods down to the right number.
>

Yes, buy 'em bulk, sell 'em retail

[Ken Blake]

There are 12 listed here:

https://museumfacts.co.uk/evil-gods-you-should-steer-clear-of/

[Jerry Friedman]

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 12:04:06 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 12:14:26 +1100, Peter Moylan
> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On 08/12/22 22:35, occam wrote:
> >> On 08/12/2022 12:27, Peter Moylan wrote:

[watchmaker argument]

> >>> The difference is that the watch appears to have been
> >>> intelligently designed. If our universe was designed, then the
> >>> designer should be sent back to design school.
> >>>
> >>
> >> If you were put in charge, which rules of nature ('God') would you
> >> change? 'Design' does not necessarily mean specifying every
> >> component down to the last atom. It could also mean designing a set
> >> of rules, and let the system find its own equilibrium.
> >
> >An interesting idea. I must admit that I had not considered the
> >possibility of an amoral god.

> There are 12 listed here:
>
> https://museumfacts.co.uk/evil-gods-you-should-steer-clear-of/

"Amoral" might not be a strong-enough word for them.

I might have added Odin, who was one of the good gods but liked to
set up battles where a a lot of brave warriors would be killed.

The article was interesting, but the teenage writing put me off a bit.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Dingbat]

Reagan would not whittle his stubble with Occam's razor.

[J. J. Lodder]

There is also Russell's unnamed wicked demiurge
who sets out to create the worst of all possible worlds.
Russell of course doubted that it would differ in any way
from the Leibnizian one.

Unfortunately Russell didn't bother to write a novel about it,

Jan

[occam]

On 09/12/2022 20:24, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 12:04:06 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 12:14:26 +1100, Peter Moylan
>> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/12/22 22:35, occam wrote:
>>>> On 08/12/2022 12:27, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> [watchmaker argument]
>
>>>>> The difference is that the watch appears to have been
>>>>> intelligently designed. If our universe was designed, then the
>>>>> designer should be sent back to design school.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you were put in charge, which rules of nature ('God') would you
>>>> change? 'Design' does not necessarily mean specifying every
>>>> component down to the last atom. It could also mean designing a set
>>>> of rules, and let the system find its own equilibrium.
>>>
>>> An interesting idea. I must admit that I had not considered the
>>> possibility of an amoral god.
>
>> There are 12 listed here:
>>
>> https://museumfacts.co.uk/evil-gods-you-should-steer-clear-of/
>
> "Amoral" might not be a strong-enough word for them.

'Morally-neutral' is what I would have used when I referred to the laws
of nature. 'Amoral' has a negative connotation, implying ulterior
motive. I do not believe that gravity, electromagnetic forces, nuclear
forces, and the other rules of nature have any morality embedded in
them. (To be honest, my first take of 'amoral' (Peter M.), was that he
meant it mean 'neutral'.)

[Peter Moylan]

To some extent I did, but the boundary is fuzzy. I meant a god who set a
universe in motion without any interest in whether the result would be
good or bad for the inhabitants. A refusal to take any moral responsibility.