• 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

JustHanging said:
You are describing a probability, not a possibility. You are saying one way "fits better". What numbers did you use to arrive at your conclusion?

(ie it's possible that Harry Potter created the Universe.)
Click to expand...
Yes, I am noting that one possibility has a higher probability, but I am not dismissing the other possibilities, because there simply is not enough evidence yet to go one way or the other.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
The lack of ability to conceive of such a thing has no impact upon it's reality.
Click to expand...

So when it's proposed that our Universe does not require a creator, doesn't that response support such a proposal?

Isn't that exactly what defeats the "Watchmaker Argument"?
 
JustHanging said:
That is a fallacy called special pleading. The premise is: "That which is complex, requires a design."

Yet you are saying that your God doesn't require a designer, so the premise isn't true, and thus the Watchmaker argument invalid.
Click to expand...
What if we call God, The Big Bang. Would special pleading still apply?
 
JustHanging said:
That is a fallacy called special pleading. The premise is: "That which is complex, requires a design."

Yet you are saying that your God doesn't require a designer, so the premise isn't true, and thus the Watchmaker argument invalid.
Click to expand...

I think this is a presumption especially when you start addressing individuals. There is no denying that there are people who so argue that God comes from nothing, but that doesn't necessarily make them the ones also stating "That which is complex, requires a design."

I claim the Christian faith, and as such believe in a singular Creator Deity (God for simplicity's sake). However, I do not assume He came from nothing. I also do not presume His origin is something we are capable of comprehending right now.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Data, data, data

Overitall said:
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.
Click to expand...

highly sophisticated - Is hardly a design criterion. In natural processes (& even in engineered ones), the simpler the process, the fewer the moving parts, the better (more stable, more robust, more enduring) the design. The Young Earth theological argument counts the human generations in the Bible, & comes up with an age for the universe of about 6,000 years.

We know from geology, astronomy, stellar physics, biology & biological clocks in trees & species that the universe runs to the billions of years of existence.

That span of years provides sufficient time for chance to operate in biological systems & reproduction, with better designs (to call them that, but it's not clear that there's a designer present, overseeing the processes) enduring & reproducing over time, displacing inferior designs. The solid foundation referred to above is statistical in nature, & it's perfectly solid.
 
Dragonfly said:
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?
Click to expand...



The teleological argument for the existence of God being, in major part, that man is not capable of any imaginable explanation nor understanding of natural existence that is explained by spontaneous creation, which is about all we've come up with so far, scientifically. It is obvious man, unlike the inherent intelligent design of a watch, did not design life. Therefore, there must have been a supernatural, intelligent force that created/designed life as the most logical explanation.

First of all, because we're not able to fully explain our creation other than some version of spontaneity does not mean there must be a god that did it all. Therefore that the universe couldn't exist without a designer/creator, implying a supernatural being like God, is a false premise but for mere imagination of the possibility.

Secondly, it is said to be impossible for man to understand God, His "plan" or design. So we are still in the state of not knowing fully how we came into existence, but for moving science further forward to learn more, since we can't possibly know or understand God. At least in the case of science, we learn more and can possibly find a scientific answer to the question of our existence whereas not possibly so with God.

Lastly, in the case of at least the Christian faith, there is not only no real depth of understanding God, there is no questioning, either. Real faith does not go down the road of the need for any science of any kind, quasi or not, in an attempt to explain our existence other than to have faith in God being all that is necessary. To go down that road is to question God and faith and thus not have faith.
 
Overitall said:
What if we call God, The Big Bang. Would special pleading still apply?
Click to expand...
If you change the original mover from a being with volition to non-sentient forces, you take the wind out of the sail of the assumption that design necessarily implies a designer.

If a designer can be a collection of non-sentient forces interacting, then the whole argument kinda goes to ****.
The "design implies a designer" argument's no longer even internally consistent.

Once you let go of the idea that a design necessarily implies a designer, then the special pleading associated with that argument also goes away.
You take on all the issues of the new argument instead of the issues with the other, previous argument.
 
Re: Data, data, data

It most certainly does make sense, in fact, it is the only explanation that makes sense...

"Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God." Hebrews 3:4
 
JustHanging said:
Then the premise is false, and the argument invalid. That's the way logic works.



That has nothing to do with the premise being false, and thus the argument invalid.



This is all interesting, but has nothing to do with making the argument valid. If the premise is false, then the argument is invalid. Period. You have admitted the premise is false, thus you have admitted the argument is invalid.

Do you have a new argument using the above as it's premises?
Click to expand...
I think I see where we are disconnecting. I am working on the overall argument of ID, which is what I took more from the OP, as opposed to the specific argument that led the OP to ID. I am agreeing to the conclusion without agreeing with how he got there, and then pointing out the possible reasons why the conclusion would still be valid.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
I think this is a presumption especially when you start addressing individuals. There is no denying that there are people who so argue that God comes from nothing, but that doesn't necessarily make them the ones also stating "That which is complex, requires a design."
Click to expand...

Yep. And God must be complex. So we're right back to special pleading.

I claim the Christian faith, and as such believe in a singular Creator Deity (God for simplicity's sake). However, I do not assume He came from nothing. I also do not presume His origin is something we are capable of comprehending right now.
Click to expand...

That is a good explanation of your position. Thank you.

But the soundness of the Watchmaker argument has nothing to do with your personal position on Christianity. It has to do with the premises being demonstrably true, and the argument valid. As I have shown, the premises are not true, and require special pleading.
 
Re: Data, data, data

Elvira said:
It most certainly does make sense, in fact, it is the only explanation that makes sense...

"Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God." Hebrews 3:4
Click to expand...

And we're back to special pleading, thus making the premise false, and the argument unsound.
 
Dragonfly said:
So when it's proposed that our Universe does not require a creator, doesn't that response support such a proposal?

Isn't that exactly what defeats the "Watchmaker Argument"?
Click to expand...

The argument is based on premises which may or may not be true. Right now there is no evidence to definitely conclude one way or the other. ALL premises on this issue stem from subjective ideas that cannot be proven. The "Watchmaker Argument" can neither be defeated nor defeat.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Dragonfly said:
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?
Click to expand...

A design does imply a designer.

The watch maker argument is the story that if you are walking along a beach where there is no sign of human involvement, just a completely natural setting, and you saw a watch, you could tell it was designed. Which I think is a terrible argument for a god. The watch looks designed when you see it against the back drop of nature. If nature were designed, then the watch wouldn't stand out.

And if we look at the universe we have stars exploding and a whole lot of really terrible design. To say that it shows some amazing complex designer is laughable. If you just narrow it down to our own planet you have a world in a delicate balance where much of the world can't sustain human life, an abundance of salt water and numerous areas that lack drinkable water etc.

Give me god like powers and knowledge and I could improve the world drastically for nearly every single person in 5 minutes.
 
Overitall said:
What if we call God, The Big Bang. Would special pleading still apply?
Click to expand...

What if there are Multi-Verses?

What if a group of "Einsteins" and "Hawkings" in another Universe created our Universe as an experiment?

Would those alien Einstein's and Hawking's be "gods"?
 
Re: Data, data, data

southwest88 said:
... with better designs (to call them that, but it's not clear that there's a designer present, overseeing the processes) ...
Click to expand...

I think this is part of the problem. We tend to use the word design to attribute to structure, but it leaves an implication that might not be true.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
bluesmoke said:
Therefore that the universe couldn't exist without a designer/creator, implying a supernatural being like God, is a false premise but for mere imagination of the possibility.
Click to expand...

The problem is that many who point out this false premise then go on to claim a premise that a designe/creator cannot exist. Also a false premise. Or more to point neither premise can be proven.

Lastly, in the case of at least the Christian faith, there is not only no real depth of understanding God, there is no questioning, either. Real faith does not go down the road of the need for any science of any kind, quasi or not, in an attempt to explain our existence other than to have faith in God being all that is necessary. To go down that road is to question God and faith and thus not have faith.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Personally, while I have my belief, it is based upon my personal experience. Events that evidence to me that my belief has foundation. Furthermore, I constantly question the basis, and even the details of my faith. The majority of people of faith (not just Christian) do so also, in my experience. Science explains how the universe works, and does not one thing to show (currently at any rate) how the workings were put into place. Science and religious faith are not incompatible.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Dragonfly said:
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?
Click to expand...

There are several reasons it falls apart quickly.

The statement "a design implies a designer" is circular. A design implies a designer by definition because a design IS something that was created by a designer.

It is also a non sequitur (or maybe a red herring) to the extent of what it is actually meant to demonstrate, because the unstated premise is that nature appears to be designed. To the contrary, there's nothing about nature that resembles any kind of actual design, except to the extent that actual designs have copied structures in nature (directly or by necessity).

And it suffers from the problem of infinite regress, which is painfully obvious in the analogy itself. To wit: the analogy is meant to demonstrate that human life was designed by some other intelligence. To do this, the analogy likens the "other intelligence" to a "watchmaker," which in reality is a human life. So who designed the watchmaker? And so on.

Finally, it ignores the fact that we have actual evidence that watches are designed by people. We can observe people designing and building watches right now. We have no corresponding evidence whatsoever with respect to the universe or life on earth.
 
maquiscat said:
The argument is based on premises which may or may not be true. Right now there is no evidence to definitely conclude one way or the other. ALL premises on this issue stem from subjective ideas that cannot be proven. The "Watchmaker Argument" can neither be defeated nor defeat.
Click to expand...

That is where you are wrong. If you can't prove the premises, the argument is defeated. Otherwise you have to accept the Purple Unicorn theory of creation:

1. Undetectable Purple Unicorns circle the moon.

2. If something is undetectable and purple, it created the universe.

Therefore Undetectable Purple Unicorns created the universe.
 
roughdraft274 said:
A design does imply a designer.
Click to expand...

While true in and of itself, that doesn't mean we will not use the word on things that were not actually designed.

The watch maker argument is the story that if you are walking along a beach where there is no sign of human involvement, just a completely natural setting, and you saw a watch, you could tell it was designed. Which I think is a terrible argument for a god. The watch looks designed when you see it against the back drop of nature. If nature were designed, then the watch wouldn't stand out.
Click to expand...

There is a fault to this logic. Many plants and animals around out in their backgrounds, or even more so outside their backgrounds of origin. A polar bear would stand out in the woods. Seeing the watch outside its natural context, doesn't mean there isn't a source where you would see hundreds of watch naturally growing.

And if we look at the universe we have stars exploding and a whole lot of really terrible design. To say that it shows some amazing complex designer is laughable. If you just narrow it down to our own planet you have a world in a delicate balance where much of the world can't sustain human life, an abundance of salt water and numerous areas that lack drinkable water etc.

Give me god like powers and knowledge and I could improve the world drastically for nearly every single person in 5 minutes.
Click to expand...

That is subjective opinion. What you think is ideal isn't someone else's. Why should things last forever? If you are creating creatures who can reproduce, why would you not include population controls, such as diseases and limited habitats?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Josie said:
If not a "god," what/who else would be a "designer"? The word implies an intelligent, thinking entity.
Click to expand...

There is also 'emergent properties caused by complex interactions applied by a probability filter'. That gives the illusion of being a designer, without there actually being a designer.
 
Overitall said:
What if we call God, The Big Bang. Would special pleading still apply?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what you call things, so long as everyone agrees on what the terms being used mean. We are discussing the soundness of a logical argument.

You could call God "Big Bang" or "Ooogaoakdkdkdadaaakadoofkljf," and if you then say "Ooogaoakdkdkdadaaakadoofkljf" doesn't need a designer, it would still be special pleading.
 
JustHanging said:
That is where you are wrong. If you can't prove the premises, the argument is defeated. Otherwise you have to accept the Purple Unicorn theory of creation:

1. Undetectable Purple Unicorns circle the moon.

2. If something is undetectable and purple, it created the universe.

Therefore Undetectable Purple Unicorns created the universe.
Click to expand...

The inverse to these premises.

1. There are no Undetectable Purple Unicorns

2. Nothing created the universe. It just is.

These premises are also false because they cannot be proven.

Ultimately, we have not enough evidence to create any provable premise on the creation of the universe.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
The inverse to these premises.

1. There are no Undetectable Purple Unicorns

2. Nothing created the universe. It just is.

These premises are also false because they cannot be proven.

Ultimately, we have not enough evidence to create any provable premise on the creation of the universe.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And if you can't create a provable premise, a logical argument like the Watchmaker Argument is defeated before it ever got off the ground. Those are the rules of logical arguments.

EDIT: From Here: Definition:Logical Argument - ProofWiki

Thus:

An argument may be valid, even though its premises are false.
An argument may be invalid, even though its premises are true.
An argument may be invalid and its premises false.


To be sure of the truth of a conclusion, it is necessary to make sure both that the premises are true and that the argument is valid.
 
As posted in another thread:

Do we need to define "god" here?

God as in the biblical god?
God as in any force that could have created the universe - but not the biblical god?

Something else?

If you insist that "God did it", your probably going to be best off defining what you mean by "god".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom