• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Watchmaker Argument - Discussion

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
30,900
Reaction score
19,304
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Watchmaker analogy - Wikipedia

Or: Teleological argument - Wikipedia

So let's boil it down to the simplest form for the discussion. At least to start.

The concept is rather clear:

a design implies a designer

That which is complex, requires a design, which obviously implies something designed it.

A watch doesn't exist without a designer.
Therefore the Universe couldn't exist without a designer.

First question right from the gate, if you presume the concept has merit, that a design implies a designer, why then jump to the conclusion (in the case of the universe/life as we know it) that the designer must be one specific "god"? Or any "god"/"gods" at all?

Does the watchmaker analogy (in terms of God/universe/life) hold water, or fall apart rather quickly?
 
So let's boil it down to the simplest form for the discussion. At least to start.

The concept is rather clear:

That which is complex, requires a design, which obviously implies something designed it.

A watch doesn't exist without a designer.
Therefore the Universe couldn't exist without a designer.

First question right from the gate, if you presume the concept has merit, that a design implies a designer, why then jump to the conclusion (in the case of the universe/life as we know it) that the designer must be one specific "god"? Or any "god"/"gods" at all?

Does the watchmaker analogy (in terms of God/universe/life) hold water, or fall apart rather quickly?
An elegant argument and spot-on.

It does not jump to God as conclusion; it gracefully sweeps a gesture in God's direction.
The conclusion is a no-brainer.
Only God could design such a thing as a universe?

The analogy goes to the existence of God.
Religion goes to the nature of God and the Design.
The former is a matter of reason.
The latter is a matter of faith.
 
Watchmaker analogy - Wikipedia

Or: Teleological argument - Wikipedia

So let's boil it down to the simplest form for the discussion. At least to start.

The concept is rather clear:



That which is complex, requires a design, which obviously implies something designed it.

A watch doesn't exist without a designer.
Therefore the Universe couldn't exist without a designer.

First question right from the gate, if you presume the concept has merit, that a design implies a designer, why then jump to the conclusion (in the case of the universe/life as we know it) that the designer must be one specific "god"? Or any "god"/"gods" at all?

Does the watchmaker analogy (in terms of God/universe/life) hold water, or fall apart rather quickly?

If not a "god," what/who else would be a "designer"? The word implies an intelligent, thinking entity.
 
Both arguments are rooted in the same motivation, taking what is discovered by system of process reasoning and bend those understandings to Bronze Age mythology. The criticisms of both arguments are accurate, the presumption of "designer" does not equate to the concept of Monotheism or Polytheism. If anything the origins of the universe create questions about time and dimension.
 
It’s one of the best arguments I’ve come upon. It takes, imo, a true leap of faith to believe something as highly sophisticated as the human body came about by chance. The miracle of birth demonstrates over and over again that happenstance is a belief without a solid foundation.
 
Watchmaker analogy - Wikipedia

Or: Teleological argument - Wikipedia

So let's boil it down to the simplest form for the discussion. At least to start.

The concept is rather clear:



That which is complex, requires a design, which obviously implies something designed it.

A watch doesn't exist without a designer.
Therefore the Universe couldn't exist without a designer.

First question right from the gate, if you presume the concept has merit, that a design implies a designer, why then jump to the conclusion (in the case of the universe/life as we know it) that the designer must be one specific "god"? Or any "god"/"gods" at all?

Does the watchmaker analogy (in terms of God/universe/life) hold water, or fall apart rather quickly?
So...in this design is Earth the only planet where god created us in his image? I say his because that is how most religions refer to it as.
 
Watchmaker analogy - Wikipedia
Or: Teleological argument - Wikipedia
So let's boil it down to the simplest form for the discussion. At least to start.
The concept is rather clear:
That which is complex, requires a design, which obviously implies something designed it.
A watch doesn't exist without a designer.
Therefore the Universe couldn't exist without a designer.
First question right from the gate, if you presume the concept has merit, that a design implies a designer, why then jump to the conclusion (in the case of the universe/life as we know it) that the designer must be one specific "god"? Or any "god"/"gods" at all?
Does the watchmaker analogy (in terms of God/universe/life) hold water, or fall apart rather quickly?
The assumption of the argument is the argument's conclusion.
So, the reasoning makes a nice, neat circle.
Very tidy.
 
Who or what designed the designer?
 
The assumption of the argument is the argument's conclusion.
So, the reasoning makes a nice, neat circle.
Very tidy.
The assumption of the argument is that design implies a designer.
The conclusion of the argument is that God exists.
Where's the circle?
Even if you retreat to the penultimate conclusion, namely, that the design of the universe implies a designer God, where is the circle?
Who or what designed the designer?
This is not part of the analogy and instead changes the subject.
Special Pleading.
By rote.
 
The assumption of the argument is that design implies a designer.
The conclusion of the argument is that God exists.
Where's the circle?
Even if you retreat to the penultimate conclusion, namely, that the design of the universe implies a designer God, where is the circle?

This is not part of the analogy and instead changes the subject.

By rote.

Everything complex has a designer.


Its the very first line of the theory.
 
The assumption of the argument is that design implies a designer.
The conclusion of the argument is that God exists.
Where's the circle?
Even if you retreat to the penultimate conclusion, namely, that the design of the universe implies a designer God, where is the circle?
This is not part of the analogy and instead changes the subject.
By rote.
The assumption of the argument is that design implies a designer.
The conclusion of the argument is that a design is evidence there is a designer.


The God stuff is secondary to that.
We're supposed to assume that w/e designed the design is God.
 
Who or what designed the designer?
That’s probably why the designer is called God. His existence isn’t depended on the existence of something else.
 

Yep, special pleading is the basis of nearly every theist argument.

Remember, it's exactly what we have in the Cosmological argument as well. "Something can't come from nothing." Except god, of course, he's special.
 
That’s probably why the designer is called God. His existence isn’t depended on the existence of something else.

Would it matter if God was called Homer instead?
 
Watchmaker analogy - Wikipedia

Or: Teleological argument - Wikipedia

So let's boil it down to the simplest form for the discussion. At least to start.

The concept is rather clear:



That which is complex, requires a design, which obviously implies something designed it.

A watch doesn't exist without a designer.
Therefore the Universe couldn't exist without a designer.

First question right from the gate, if you presume the concept has merit, that a design implies a designer, why then jump to the conclusion (in the case of the universe/life as we know it) that the designer must be one specific "god"? Or any "god"/"gods" at all?

Does the watchmaker analogy (in terms of God/universe/life) hold water, or fall apart rather quickly?
It holds water in probability. ID does nothing to denote number or gender of said creators. Even if we go with the VR idea of our reality, the designers still fit the definition of deities, relative to us. The complexity and interaction of...well everything, certainly argues towards ID, but just because the odds of it all happening randomly are 1 in 10^100, doesn't mean that one time can't have occured.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
The assumption of the argument is the argument's conclusion.
So, the reasoning makes a nice, neat circle.
Very tidy.

Mmmmhmmm.

Circular arguments and special pleading. Not surprising they can't come up with a better argument when they're literally trying to prove storybook characters into existence.
 
It holds water in probability.

Not it doesn't. You have no idea what the probabilities are.

Or maybe I'm wrong, by all means provide us with the probabilities. Not broad unprovable generalizations, but the actual numbers you used in both cases to arrive at your claim.
 
That’s probably why the designer is called God. His existence isn’t depended on the existence of something else.

And we're back to special pleading, thus making the theist's argument invalid.
 
Who or what designed the designer?
That can be a Down the Rabbit Hole type answer or a Temporal Loop one. If we assume the VR possibly, we effectively come back to square one. Are they in turn also in a VR, that created a VR? How far does that travel? The later can be an effective perpetual motion machine. Life (not necessarily limited to humans) might evolve to the point of a linked singular mind (the individuals now akin to cells in a body) that at the end of time, goes back and creates it's beginning with the big bang and manipulating events to result in itself. The possibilities are endless.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
"Something can't come from nothing." Except god, of course, he's special.

Not necessarily. My Ouroboros example aside, God can still come from outside our known existence. Referencally (sp?) to us, that's from nothing, but not necessarily absolutely.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom