The watchmaker

[nPeace]

A thing.


Well, it's either a thing or not a thing (i.e. nothing).

Very funny.
What is energy, force, spirit? Are these objects... or nothing?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Very funny.
What is energy, force, spirit? Are these objects... or nothing?

I don't see how this is relevant.

And BTW: it was you who used the term "object" in the first place:

If one finds a complex object, and understands, in fact, knows that that complex object did not come about on its own.
He can use reason and logic, to conclude that objects far more complex would also require a builder - one more advanced in understanding.

So what did you mean by "object?"

 

[Ponder This]

Did you read my post? I just gave an example of an object that was designed but has an apparent lack of design (a decorative fake rock).

Paley seems to assume that inferring design (or the lack of it) is straightforward, but when we actually get into it, we quickly see that it isn’t.

What criteria would you use to determine whether or not something is designed?

Paley argues that a stone lacks apparent design (in fact, your fake rock also lacks apparent design).
Paley says it's not easy to infer from lack of apparent design that the stone is not designed. Your fake rock is designed, as opposed to not designed. All of this is consistent with Paley's point of view.

The analogy does not give the criteria for design. It's not the intent of the analogy to specify such a criteria.

Thank you. This is simply perfect, and I hope a lot of your fellow believers read this. You're absolutely correct - the watchmaker analogy IS NOT argument material in any way, shape or form. Though even you have to admit that this is how it is used, time and time again.

I am honestly curious... when the analogy IS used as an argument, and IS used to attempt to prove the created aspect of the universe, what would you call this fallacious use of the analogy form?

I don't think there is a problem with using analogies to explain or clarify. For example, a person asserts that:
"Things that appear to be designed suggest a designer"
(where as "Things that don't appear to be designed don't suggest there was no designer")
and uses an analogy to help explain this reasoning.

Saying that the universe is designed because watches are designed is analogical reasoning.
A conclusion does not logically follow from analogical reasoning.
It does not follow as a matter of logical necessity that because we associate a designer with the apparent design of watches, there must be a designer associated with the apparent design of the universe.

There are many possible answers to arguments for the creation of the universe. Those arguments generally don't involve proving that watches aren't created...

If someone insists on using the watch analogy as an argument (instead of as an analogy), then I would call it an inappropriate generalization (or proof by example).

Structure:

I know that X is such.
Therefore, anything related to X is also such.​

For the Watchmaker Argument:

I know that watches have makers
Therefore, the universe (which is related to a watch) has a maker.​

Argument form:

I know that x, which is a member of group X, has the property P.
Therefore, all other elements of X have the property P.​

For the Watchmaker Argument:

I know that a 'watch', which is a member of the group of 'things that appear to be designed' has the property of 'having a designer'.
Therefore, the universe, which is an element of 'things that appear to be designed' has the property of 'having a designer'.​

This is a logical fallacy.

 

[Ponder This]

Did you read my post? I just gave an example of an object that was designed but has an apparent lack of design (a decorative fake rock).

Paley seems to assume that inferring design (or the lack of it) is straightforward, but when we actually get into it, we quickly see that it isn’t.

What criteria would you use to determine whether or not something is designed?

Paley argues that a stone lacks apparent design (in fact, your fake rock also lacks apparent design).
Paley says it's not easy to infer from lack of apparent design that the stone is not designed. Your fake rock is designed, as opposed to not designed. All of this is consistent with Paley's point of view.

The analogy does not give the criteria for design.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Here is how an automatic Mechanical Watch works.

It was designed to work day after day - not by someone pushing a button, but by the energy stored within it.
We did not see the designer, nor did we see him/her/it assemble the parts and set it in motion.

But we can go and see the watchmaker, and can actually observe him assembling watches. If we take the watch and trace back all evidence of its origins, we see the ultimate maker of the watch. You CAN'T do this with God and His supposed "creation." There's a HUGE chasm of difference there that can't be overcome by any number of YouTube videos.

Without a cause, matter took form, and ignited. Uh huh.

This is just as plausible as ANY story that "God did it". And it would do you well to remember that there are quite a few such stories... not just yours.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thank you.



How do you know that
unless you assume.


If I had
I could still come to the correct conclusion that the house was built, by the knowledge I have of other things - like a matchbox, a cardboard box, etc.
The fact is, my experience is all I need to use my senses and come to a reasonable, and logical conclusion. If there is no verifiable evidence to show otherwise, then I have good reason to accept what the evidence suggests.

I think I am being quite reasonable, hence why you guys are having such difficulty producing a reasonable counter argument.


Never said I did. If I did, please point out the post. Thanks

You're talking about it as though it does.

 

[nPeace]

I don't see how this is relevant.

And BTW: it was you who used the term "object" in the first place:


So what did you mean by "object?"

I did mention objects.
I said

If one finds a complex object, and understands, in fact, knows that that complex object did not come about on its own.
He can use reason and logic, to conclude that objects far more complex would also require a builder - one more advanced in understanding.

What I am referring to here by using object, is this definition.
A material thing that can be seen and touched.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Saying that the universe is designed because watches are designed is analogical reasoning.

In my opinion, reading this statement plainly, however, like you have posted here, only further exposes how ridiculous it is. "The universe is designed because watches are designed." Precisely the reason people dress it up - because it's lack of merit when plainly stated is overwhelmingly obvious.

This is a logical fallacy.

We're in agreement here. Utilizing the watchmaker analogy in an argument proposing a creative intelligence behind the creation of the universe is an employment of logical fallacy.

 

[Ponder This]

In my opinion, reading this statement plainly, however, like you have posted here, only further exposes how ridiculous it is. "The universe is designed because watches are designed." Precisely the reason people dress it up - because it's lack of merit when plainly stated is overwhelmingly obvious.


We're in agreement here. Utilizing the watchmaker analogy in an argument proposing a creative intelligence behind the creation of the universe is an employment of logical fallacy.

Using the analogy in an argument is not the same thing as using an analogy as an argument.
Simply because someone uses an analogy does not mean they have or have not committed a logical fallacy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I did mention objects.
I said

What I am referring to here by using object, is this definition.
A material thing that can be seen and touched.

So you wouldn't apply that argument to something that can't be seen or touched?

And if the god you're proposing can interact with the physical, in what way is it not material?

 

[nPeace]

But we can go and see the watchmaker, and can actually observe him assembling watches. If we take the watch and trace back all evidence of its origins, we see the ultimate maker of the watch. You CAN'T do this with God and His supposed "creation." There's a HUGE chasm of difference there that can't be overcome by any number of YouTube videos.


This is just as plausible as ANY story that "God did it". And it would do you well to remember that there are quite a few such stories... not just yours.

You may not actually find the watchmaker, but I agree, you can find a watchmaker that can reconstruct the watch, and even show how it is done. This is because watchmaking is an ongoing practice, isn't it?

Here on earth we may be able to trace some things, that seem to be no longer in existence. I say seem, because things once thought extinct are turning up all the time.
In the universe, they may be able to trace very little... if any.

You can't find a shop in the universe marked "CREATOR", neither are you going to see a dinosaur start forming from the dust beneath your feet, but what you find both in the universe and here on earth, is evidence for a creator.

 

[nPeace]

So you wouldn't apply that argument to something that can't be seen or touched?

And if the god you're proposing can interact with the physical, in what way is it not material?

If I am speaking of something that can't be seen or touched, how can I call it an object? I can't.
The only way I can call it an object, is if I have some evidence that it is indeed possible to be seen and touched, but it is hidden from my vision - in some sort of stealth mode or something.

I don't consider our thoughts to be an object, neither do I consider wind an object. Both interact with the physical. So I can't see the reasoning in what you are asking.

It doesn't matter which way you put it, man cannot, and will not, now, or ever, be able to examine everything - no matter how much he imagines it.

 

[nPeace]

You're talking about it as though it does.

So?

If you and some friends were out camping in an isolated place, and you all saw an object fall from the sky, and land in the midst of all of you. After a split second, it took off almost at bullet speed, and disappeared in a flash of light.
Would you and your friends say you were hallucinating just because others didn't believe you, or care about, your unproven "dream"?

I believe in an almighty supreme intelligent designer, and there is no skeptic thinker that will close my mouth, from saying that - there is evidence God is.

 

[Milton Platt]

I don't see how this is relevant.

And BTW: it was you who used the term "object" in the first place:


So what did you mean by "object?"

Not only that, but when does an object become "not complex"? We need to know that to distinguish what "complex" is.
And as everyone has pointed out ad nauseam, if complex objects require a more complex designer, then god would require a designer by definition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So?

If you and some friends were out camping in an isolated place, and you all saw an object fall from the sky, and land in the midst of all of you. After a split second, it took off almost at bullet speed, and disappeared in a flash of light.
Would you and your friends say you were hallucinating just because others didn't believe you, or care about, your unproven "dream"?

I believe in an almighty supreme intelligent designer, and there is no skeptic thinker that will close my mouth, from saying that - there is evidence God is.

Nice story, it has nothing to do with the rest of your post.

so what evidence do you have?

 

[Milton Platt]

So?

If you and some friends were out camping in an isolated place, and you all saw an object fall from the sky, and land in the midst of all of you. After a split second, it took off almost at bullet speed, and disappeared in a flash of light.
Would you and your friends say you were hallucinating just because others didn't believe you, or care about, your unproven "dream"?

I believe in an almighty supreme intelligent designer, and there is no skeptic thinker that will close my mouth, from saying that - there is evidence God is.

I would believe I saw something that I did not have a reasonable explanation for. And this has what to do with a god????????

 

[Milton Platt]

Very funny.
What is energy, force, spirit? Are these objects... or nothing?

Energy is the motion of molecules
Force is applied energy
I have no idea what spirit is, as nobody can even prove it exists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How do you know that
unless you assume.

You don't have to assume. Flowers occur in nature. No assumption is necessary to conclude that. The assumption only comes into the picture when you assert design.

If I had
I could still come to the correct conclusion that the house was built, by the knowledge I have of other things - like a matchbox, a cardboard box, etc.

How? If you have two objects, neither of which you have ever seen before and neither of which you have any knowledge of the formation of, and I told you one was designed and one was not, what could you do to tell them apart?

The fact is, my experience is all I need to use my senses and come to a reasonable, and logical conclusion.

But design isn't a logical conclusion when applied to nature.

If there is no verifiable evidence to show otherwise, then I have good reason to accept what the evidence suggests.

And how does the evidence suggest design?

I think I am being quite reasonable, hence why you guys are having such difficulty producing a reasonable counter argument.

You're really not being reasonable. You're asserting you can identify design independent of prior knowledge, and yet literally everything you have said contradicts that. You've asserted design as an inherent facet of the complexity of a thing, yet shown no actual reasoning behind how you come to that conclusion. It's really quite simple:

We recognize design by contrasting it with nature. Without nature for comparison, assertions of design are meaningless. So how can you, without clear and unambiguous evidence of its creation process involving design or any evidence of a designer, assert that nature is designed?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I am speaking of something that can't be seen or touched, how can I call it an object? I can't.
The only way I can call it an object, is if I have some evidence that it is indeed possible to be seen and touched, but it is hidden from my vision - in some sort of stealth mode or something.

So you aren’t arguing that a song, say, needs a designer?

I don't consider our thoughts to be an object, neither do I consider wind an object. Both interact with the physical. So I can't see the reasoning in what you are asking.

But both are physical phenomena. They aren’t objects themselves, but they are objects doing things.

It doesn't matter which way you put it, man cannot, and will not, now, or ever, be able to examine everything - no matter how much he imagines it.

But the only things we can make justified claims about are the things we know. You’re claiming to know that God exists and that we can deduce this from “design” in nature. This leaves us with two options:

- say that your position might be justified, in which case we can say that God’s existence and his design of his creation are within the scope of human rational inquiry, or

- say that God is beyond human inquiry and dismiss your argument as nothing more than you just making stuff up.

Which is it?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Using the analogy in an argument is not the same thing as using an analogy as an argument.
Simply because someone uses an analogy does not mean they have or have not committed a logical fallacy.

This is true, however the analogy can be shown to be weak via something like counter-analogy or the display of unintended consequences - things which are present in abundance against the watchmaker analogy.