AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → The Watchmaker Argument

55 8541
SuperSparky
offline
SuperSparky
5 posts
Nomad

Put simply, the Watchmaker Argument is that something complex has a designer. In the comparing case, a watch. The watch is complex, and thus has a creator. Like this, an entire being or even just a single body part of the being is complex, and thus needs a creator.
That is where religions come in, claiming that life as we know it is complex and thus was designed.
However, some argue on the case of evolution and natural selection. If all complex is designed, who designed the designer? This side believes that natural adaptations over millions of years is simpler than the ideal of a designer.

I myself bend towards the second point, as natural selection itself is simpler than design.

Discuss.

  • 55 Replies
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

I submit this video for your consideration on this subject.

Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

To those not well versed in the philosophy of religion and the arguments therein might find the watchmaker argument to be something very convincing. But, as with most arguments pro theism, it just doesn't work.

First, let's examine a possible line of argument developed from the original text.

1) A watch is complex
2) Therefore, a watch must have a watchmaker
the analogy
1) The universe is complex
2) Therefore, the universe must have a watchmaker

Clearly, the universe doesn't have a watchmaker, so a direct syllogism like this simply won't work. What the theist probably means is this:

1) A watch is complex.
2) Therefore it must have a creator.

But here, (2) does not follow from (1) without the following suppressed premise:
(P): For any x, if x is complex, then x must have a creator.

We must accept P to get from (1) to (2) above, but accepting this creates a necessary infinite regress. For the creator of the universe must certainly be more complex than the universe itself. This means that the creator must, in turn, have a creator. Of course, the theist wants the buck to stop with God, so to speak, so they must reject the suppressed premise (P). With the denial of (P), (2) no longer follows from (1).

More sinisterly is a false analogy between a watch and nature (or the universe). Even if we grant that both are "complex" (notice, we haven't defined the word here - this turns out to be quite a challenge for the argument as well), they certainly aren't complex in the same way. The watch's formation was done with a goal in mind, that the watch would perform a certain function based on the already existing laws of nature. But the laws of nature themselves, the universe, and the natural objects therein don't have this feature. You could argue here that they do have this feature of playing a role or purpose in the universe that was designed from the beginning, but this response begs the question. If you're assuming everything in nature is designed to function in a certain way in order to prove that there's a designer, then that's clearly question begging.

There are many other problems with the argument, but these are the two standard responses that came to me. It's a philosophically interesting argument, but simply doesn't hold water.

whyismynametom
offline
whyismynametom
263 posts
Nomad

haha is this a stupid attempt to put down religion? All this watchmaker stuff is just a cover up for a real question, who made the universe? Religion is one answer the other is and atheist saying "its not religion, its something else, but i don't know what it is", some say a big bang, but that doesn't explain much either bec. were did the matter come from? its a rule that you can't create something out of nothing, scientist believe that, so either believe one or the other because not one man on earth can prove anything to anyone about this, and that's that.The only argument here is merely saying "I'm right but have no proof behind it"

Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

The difference is, scientists can say, 'we don't know for sure, but...' whereas religion, because of the various holy books - goes rather like 'well it says it happened like this in my qu'ran, Torah, Other equally holey holybook'

Maverick5762
offline
Maverick5762
240 posts
Peasant

Yeah well, like Moegreche said... Complexity isn't really defined.

How do you say something is more complex than something else? Even if you could, where is the cutoff? How complex would something need to be to need a creator?

The whole watchmaker argument is just silly =/

samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

Funny you bring this up, basically this argument is used to appeal to ones common sense and does not necessary deal with creation but with the idea of person. Logically humans are complex mentally and emotionally and are also unique in these areas so a maker could potentially be needed. It's a beautiful analogy that is better taken symbolically than literally as it meshes better with both science and religion when viewed this way.

Maverick5762
offline
Maverick5762
240 posts
Peasant

Funny you bring this up, basically this argument is used to appeal to ones common sense and does not necessary deal with creation but with the idea of person. Logically humans are complex mentally and emotionally and are also unique in these areas so a maker could potentially be needed. It's a beautiful analogy that is better taken symbolically than literally as it meshes better with both science and religion when viewed this way.


I really don't think you just said anything at all really... At least not towards the point of the OP or about what he was saying...
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

The argument does not have to deal with creation I was offering an alternative to this viewpoint which would negate his original question unless he planned to make this a creation verse evolution thread in which case this is a duplicate.

Maverick5762
offline
Maverick5762
240 posts
Peasant

The argument does not have to deal with creation I was offering an alternative to this viewpoint which would negate his original question unless he planned to make this a creation verse evolution thread in which case this is a duplicate.


Still, what are you talking about. You are being very vague and....what the heck are you talking about? lol
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

Still, what are you talking about. You are being very vague and....what the heck are you talking about? lol

I think samy is pointing out how intuitively appealing this argument is. It is related to the OP in that it gives a particularly salient strength to the Watchmaker's Argument.
You are right, Mav, to be worried about this turning into another evolution thread. That's why we have to be super careful to only assess this one particular argument.
I thought my overview a few posts up might get the ball rolling. I have 2, I think, standard refutations of the argument. They should be fun to play with.
DDX
offline
DDX
3,562 posts
Nomad

2) Therefore, the universe must have a watchmaker

it may be, because of mood altering medication but... shouldnt it be universe maker?
Gradient
offline
Gradient
36 posts
Nomad

So let me get this straight (pus IS intended), the watchman's argument is that:

1. Something objectively simple can occur randomly.
2. Something complex has no chance of occurring randomly.
3. Therefore, something complex must have been designed.
4. Either the designer of that complex thing was also designed by somebody, OR he was not designed.
5. But, according to this principle, if something was not designed, then it occurred randomly.
6. AND because complex things can't occur randomly, it means that God is simple.
7. We, as humans, are complex because God designed us.
8. If we are complex and God is simple, then we are above God.
9. If we are above God, why do we pray to Him?

wajor59
offline
wajor59
909 posts
Nomad

it may be, because of mood altering medication but... shouldnt it be universe maker?


Ha,ha, DDX, I caught that too but why not go ahead and discuss what you consider the similarities or differences to be?
The universe is complex, humans are complex and differ from a mechanical object that is made, not created.

The watch is composed of "known" objects that are also made with/by human hands. These component parts are also made with human hands or at least fashioned by hand. The watch crystal is usually from the quartz family with the clear being called "rock crystal" and this is a natural occurring material, not lab grown since there is an abundance of this material. To my knowledge every other component piece of the watch is made, fashioned, tooled by hand, or by the watchmaker.

The universe was not made by "human" hands, humans were not made by human hands
Gradient
offline
Gradient
36 posts
Nomad

Can't we just use my reverse logic to conclude that the watchmaker argument is actually a proof AGAINST praying to divinities? It would be much faster...

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

it may be, because of mood altering medication but... shouldnt it be universe maker?


Well, I was using that argument to preserve the original watchmaker argument as best I could. I wanted to show that "first stab" kind of argument because it showed that it doesn't work. We have to accept suppressed premises in order to get a generic creator, rather than just a watchmaker.
To see how the syllogism breaks down, let's take a different example. You're walking along the beach, find a watch, and conclude there must be a watchmaker. Later, you find a CD and reason there must be a CD maker. The reason I used watchmaker rather than universe-maker is to point out this gap. Under this interpretation of the watchmaker argument, there would have to be a creator for every distinct object in the universe - or at least a creator of every distinct kind.

I hope this discussion clears all that up. Think about what's happening: the argument is supposed to go from finding a complex particular thing (a watch or whatever) and from this concluding that there's an omnipotent omniscient creator of all the universe. Clearly, this just doesn't follow.
I also really appreciate the irony of the argument. The very argument they're using to try to prove a creator should mean that the creator also needs a creator. But clearly this has to be denied by the theist.

So let me get this straight (pus IS intended), the watchman's argument is that:


Some of your premises here aren't needed or defended by the watchmaker's argument. For example, it has nothing to say about the existence of simple objects. I think the problem with the argument ultimately comes down to question begging on what it is for an object to be complex. It seems like, in this scenario, that we conclude an object is complex simply because we know it to have a creator. But this is what the argument is trying to prove.

Anyway, just for clarification, here is my best stab at the argument:

1) For any x, if x is a sufficiently complex object, then there exists some y such that y is more complex than x and y created x.
2) There is an x such that x is a sufficiently complex object.
/ There exists some y such that y is more complex than x and y created x.

So if this argument proves anything, it only proves that a unique complex object must have some kind of creator. It does not show there is only one such creator. It also can't be expanded to define what gets to create what. I mean, God didn't make the watch. So where does the regress end?
We can add a premise to try to define a foundational point where creation stops, but this (I believe) will generate a logical contradiction within the argument. Then it becomes trivial.

Can't we just use my reverse logic to conclude that the watchmaker argument is actually a proof AGAINST praying to divinities? It would be much faster...


I don't see how we could go about even beginning such a project. I don't see any argument being able to do that, much less an argument like this. If you have some thoughts on how to get the ball rolling on this front, please do share.
Showing 1-15 of 55