• 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

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

I think a computer programmer running a simulation works


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Paley:

"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there...every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."

Problems:

1. A contradiction. First Paley distinguishes the watch from nature, but then attempts to create an analogy simply through complexity. Complexity does not denote design.

2. The materials to make the watch already exist, but then we have to believe that a creator made the universe out of nothing.

3. False analogy:
A watch is complex
A watch has a watchmaker
The universe is also complex
Therefore the universe has a watchmaker

Then it should apply elsewhere:

Leaves are complex cellulose structures
Leaves grow on trees
Money bills are also complex cellulose structures
Therefore money grows on trees

Like most analogies, it is somewhat weak and it ignores important aspects: it does not tell us who is the watchmaker, it merely assumes it is a god, therefore it is not sound evidence for a god, and like the cosmological argument it breaks down at the point where one enquires, who made the watchmaker?

Although I try to avoid using Dawkins as a source owing to an irrational hatred of the man evinced by those who cannot disprove his claims, he sums it up perfectly:

"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."

The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins, 1986
 
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...

It's a rather stupid argument, good for those who don't like to think a lot.

We know exactly how watches are made.

We know almost nothing about how universes are 'made' or if they even are. Someone calling it 'designed' won't magically make it so.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Paley:

"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there...every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."

Problems:

1. A contradiction. First Paley distinguishes the watch from nature, but then attempts to create an analogy simply through complexity. Complexity does not denote design.

2. The materials to make the watch already exist, but then we have to believe that a creator made the universe out of nothing.

3. False analogy:
A watch is complex
A watch has a watchmaker
The universe is also complex
Therefore the universe has a watchmaker

Then it should apply elsewhere:

Leaves are complex cellulose structures
Leaves grow on trees
Money bills are also complex cellulose structures
Therefore money grows on trees

Like most analogies, it is somewhat weak and it ignores important aspects: it does not tell us who is the watchmaker, it merely assumes it is a god, therefore it is not sound evidence for a god, and like the cosmological argument it breaks down at the point where one enquires, who made the watchmaker?

Although I try to avoid using Dawkins as a source owing to an irrational hatred of the man evinced by those who cannot disprove his claims, he sums it up perfectly:

"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."

The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins, 1986
Click to expand...
Paley's analogy is right on the money. Dawkins' criticism of Paley's analogy is merely a matter of contrary assertion. NWO_Spook's criticism of Paley's analogy misses the point of analogy generally and of Paley's analogy in particular.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
It's a rather stupid argument, good for those who don't like to think a lot.

We know exactly how watches are made.

We know almost nothing about how universes are 'made' or if they even are. Someone calling it 'designed' won't magically make it so.
Click to expand...


Well said.
 
Angel said:
Paley's analogy is right on the money. Dawkins' criticism of Paley's analogy is merely a matter of contrary assertion. NWO_Spook's criticism of Paley's analogy misses the point of analogy generally and of Paley's analogy in particular.
Click to expand...

LOL! Somethingsomethingsomethingmilkshakesomethingsomething.

You literally just said the equivalent of nothing. He explained exactly why Paley's analogy is specious, and all you can do is flap your arms and run in circles trying to distract from that fact. He didn't miss the point; he dismantled it.

That you can't accept that, for whatever reason, is utterly irrelevant to its reality
 
Last edited:
Tanngrisnir said:
LOL! Somethingsomethingsomethingmilkshakesomethingsomething.

You literally just said the equivalent of nothing. He explained exactly why Paley's analogy is specious, and all you can do is flap your arms and run in circles trying to distract from that fact. He didn't miss the point; he dismantled it.

That you can't accept that, for whatever reason, is utterly irrelevant to its reality
Click to expand...

I just ignore his noise these days, for it is of little merit.
 
Individual said:
And while that took billions of years to evolve into what exists today, change is constantly taking place without a God(s) involvement.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting there's a god.

Just presenting some things that have at least the appearance of design.

When looking at Saturn's Rings...well

_92731132_whatsubject.jpg
 
RAMOSS said:
That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Click to expand...
Hitchen’s razor. Yes, I agree. However, without imagination we would still be flinging poo at each other.
 
Dragonfly said:
Does a Black Hole have another "side"?
Click to expand...
No idea. I would like to think it leads somewhere to something to some time. But, like everything else in this part of DP, answers are in short supply.
 
can2man said:
What do you speculate to be on the other side of black holes?
Click to expand...

There is no other side, there is only the inside of the black hole. Now, what that is, I have no idea.
 
KevinKohler said:
I don't think it is, but perhaps you can explain why yo do?
Click to expand...
In both the cosmological argument and the watchmaker analogy argument, the whole point of the aeguments is to account for the existence of the universe. The "Everything has a cause" of the former argument and the "everything shows design" of the latter establish in each case the class of things that the argument attempts to account for. The class of things in both cases is the natural world, the universe. God does not belong to the class of things in need of explanation. God is not a member of the set these arguments set out to account for. To ask, at the conclusion of these arguments, the argument-question about a non-member of the set explained changes the subject -- it is an entirely different question which neither argument contemplates in its set-up.
 
What is "design" and what is not? What differentiates one from the other?
 
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...

Who designs every single snowflake?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom