• 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

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

So then, defaulting to "god did it" is false.
Based on your "These premises are also false because they cannot be proven."

Correct?
 
If not a "god," what/who else would be a "designer"? The word implies an intelligent, thinking entity.

Assuming there "has to be a designer":

Perhaps a group of "Einstein-like" and "Hawking-like" aliens in another part of the vast expanse of Multi-verses?

Why does it have to be "god"?

And what's your definition of "god"?
 
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?

This is completely bogus, because it only refers to inanimate objects. Not biological objects and living things. No designer is required for biological life.
 
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.

it's complete garbage, it may not jump to god as conclusion, but it makes another logical fallacy and jumps to a designer, without any logic
Biologicla life requires no designer, it happens

Everything complex has a designer.


Its the very first line of the theory.

And its false. So right off the bat the supposed logic starts with a logical fallacy. A default position that is unproven. IN fact, in biology, requires no designer at all
 
Intelligent design should imply plenty of life all over the Universe.

We can assume intelligent life in every galaxy. How many galaxies are there and how can we communicate with intelligent life in a different galaxy? They may be more advanced than us, but the light from their civilization may be not be visible to us for a few more hundred or thousand years.

Good point. Pretty ridiculous to make a universe of this massive size and then only make one intelligent life. Also, if it was designed, they did a piss poor job. There are many things in life that are not efficient.

Also, if designed, then the designer is an evil ****, not a loving god. Why would they design life so one species has to kill another in order to survive. Wouldn't a loving god not make life so brutal?

All those flaws, the kill or be killed nature of life, all supported by evolution., Even human's ****ty behavior.
 
Good point. Pretty ridiculous to make a universe of this massive size and then only make one intelligent life. Also, if it was designed, they did a piss poor job. There are many things in life that are not efficient.

Also, if designed, then the designer is an evil ****, not a loving god. Why would they design life so one species has to kill another in order to survive. Wouldn't a loving god not make life so brutal?

All those flaws, the kill or be killed nature of life, all supported by evolution., Even human's ****ty behavior.

From a cultural anthropological perspective, it is about defining a Tradition of moral authority for community leadership purposes.
 
Indeed. To me, design fits what I see way better than random chance making things as complicated and interactive as the universe so far discovered. I'm just not so wedded to the idea as to dismiss the possibility that it was purely random. For all we know a gazillion other Universes have started and failed, or developed randomly in ways ours did not.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

How does design fit better? For one, its not random, that's a misconception people use who can't comprehend the reality. The genetic mutations may be random, but the natural selection is not, that allows species with favorable genetics to flourish and pass on those genes. That explains the brutality of life in general. If you ever watch Discovery, you see how brutal life can be, constant fight for survival. Unless the designer is sadistic, evolution explains everything in life.
 
How does design fit better? For one, its not random, that's a misconception people use who can't comprehend the reality. The genetic mutations may be random, but the natural selection is not, that allows species with favorable genetics to flourish and pass on those genes. That explains the brutality of life in general. If you ever watch Discovery, you see how brutal life can be, constant fight for survival. Unless the designer is sadistic, evolution explains everything in life.

Careful now. If something isn't random it's what?

Many people would suggest non-random equates to ordered/designed/intended.

Just throwing that out there.
 
Careful now. If something isn't random it's what?

Many people would suggest non-random equates to ordered/designed/intended.

Just throwing that out there.

Well, they make all kinds of ridiculous logical leaps in order to try to show logic of there being a designer.
 
Who or what designed the designer?

Where was it schooled?
But, WHAT design is seen in the universe?
Basically, nothing but billions upon billions of years of evolving change, and from simplest lifeforms to more complex lifeforms.
 
But, WHAT design is seen in the universe?

Planets. Moons. Stars. Solar systems. Galaxies. Light. Vacuum. Black Holes. Orbits. Gravity. Water. Oxygen. Atmospheres. Minerals. Last but not least - LIFE.
 
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?

People can believe whatever they want to believe, but knowing how things are excludes knowing how things aren't or rather how they could have been. It assumes there were no happy accidents to borrow from Bob Ross.
 
it's complete garbage, it may not jump to god as conclusion, but it makes another logical fallacy and jumps to a designer, without any logic
Biologicla life requires no designer, it happens



And its false. So right off the bat the supposed logic starts with a logical fallacy. A default position that is unproven. IN fact, in biology, requires no designer at all

I agree, but I'm willing to go down the rabbit hole for the sake of argument (I like arguments, lol, as you'll note from my thread about human evolution). Hypothetically, lets they are correct, and we are a massively advanced, complex design, an organic machine.


Who designed the designer?
 
If the Universe was designed then it was designed to produce hydrogen, helium, maybe plastic..etc. Not us. We die instantly everywhere outside of our little enclaves.
 
I agree, but I'm willing to go down the rabbit hole for the sake of argument (I like arguments, lol, as you'll note from my thread about human evolution). Hypothetically, lets they are correct, and we are a massively advanced, complex design, an organic machine.


Who designed the designer?

And why not "designers"? Plural.
The insistence it was just one entity is rather odd.
 
Planets. Moons. Stars. Solar systems. Galaxies. Light. Vacuum. Black Holes. Orbits. Gravity. Water. Oxygen. Atmospheres. Minerals. Last but not least - LIFE.

And while that took billions of years to evolve into what exists today, change is constantly taking place without a God(s) involvement.
 
it's complete garbage, it may not jump to god as conclusion, but it makes another logical fallacy and jumps to a designer, without any logic
Biologicla life requires no designer, it happens

And its false. So right off the bat the supposed logic starts with a logical fallacy. A default position that is unproven. IN fact, in biology, requires no designer at all
Your dismissal and its concomitant unsupported assertions are duly noted. How is inferring from design to designer a logical fallacy?
 
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.
"By rote" referred to your response. Where in the watchmaker analogy do you find "special pleading"?
I've already refuted the "special pleading" charge against the cosmological argument and provided you with the quoted posts.
 
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

Not correct, because we can give example, and show how complex systems can occur as emergent properties of interactions. So, your claim is demonstrably false.
 
If the Universe was designed then it was designed to produce hydrogen, helium, maybe plastic..etc. Not us. We die instantly everywhere outside of our little enclaves.

Or maybe it was designed to produce black holes.
 
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?

As long as you define God as the creator of the natural laws of physics I have no problem believing in that God. Those laws are what determined the "design" of the universe. Without the Higgs boson that gives matter mass there would be nothingness after the big bang. That is why it is called the "God particle".
 
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 falls apart as “complex” is a relative and subjective term with no specific meaning.





To a caveman a sharpened stick is complex..

To a god the universe might be quite simple and require no creator.

Then you have the setting you are looking at it from..

From hyper space the multiverse might be quite simple.. just a bunch of bubbles in a glass..


I suspect as with all creationist narratives the vague verbiage is intended...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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.

Define complex?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom