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.
no no you guys are explaining in a way to complex way, here. My dog has 4 legs, therefore he is a dog. All dogs have 4 legs. My cat has 4 legs therefore he is a dog. it is called silioligy.(no idea how to spell that) It sounds like it makes sense but really doesn't at all. Like if i yell taco out loud a tiger wont attack me, im doing it and no tiger is attacking me therefore it works,(of course this is silly) same with the it is so complex there must be a creator, no this is a silly way of proving or disproving anything, it intact sounds like a child's argument. I believe in god not because of some weird thing like that but for other reasons none to myself.
Well, if anyone realy wants to make a big deal over anyof this, just believe all ways, makes everything easier, view Universe through all eyes, real and fake. Comparing anything to a clock just seems like a way to avoid a direct confrontation or debate to me.
Comparing anything to a clock just seems like a way to avoid a direct confrontation or debate to me.
But the question that arises from the comparison to the clock is litteraly "life is complicated so there must be a creator". Its not avoiding anything. The link that magegrey provided shows that with the right bits available, regardless of a creator to make the bits, life starts all by itself. This means the religious persons point of view is wrong when they try to use the blind watchmaker argument to prove there is a creator.
That includes god right? You can just have god appear from nothing, so how could god always be...
That is one of the many questions, and just like the scientist for this question i say IDK, and will wait to find out(till i die) But really this question doesn't mean mutch to me at all, for he is and that is that, why is it so important for people to dig pots up in the desert to say"look someone used this a while ago" now im not saying don't have any interest in history and that stuff, just that the obsetion with it is redicules, people are starving around the world but a organisation will spend millions diging up an old rock?
But really this question doesn't mean mutch to me at all, for he is and that is that
That's very close minded of you.
why is it so important for people to dig pots up in the desert to say"look someone used this a while ago" now im not saying don't have any interest in history and that stuff, just that the obsetion with it is redicules
An understanding of where we have been can help us better understand where we are going. Or in other words, "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana
Yea i know that, that is what im saying, but how ancient mayans made clay is not going to bite us in the dupa years from now is it?
You really think that's all there is to such excavations? They are going there not to just learn how they made clay pots but going to learn how they lived.
Who made The Watchmaker?
Good question. If the idea is something complex must be created by something even more complex then we must ask who created the creator? Thus the argument that this does not apply to the creator becomes contradictory. Or to paraphrase Carl Sagan 'If we say the creator doesn't need to be created, then why not save a step and say we don't need to be created?'
One might argue that the creator can't be created because such a being is infinite. However even here we can different sizes of infinite. So we are then left with a being with infinite complexity being created by a being of even greater infinite complexity. Leaving us with infinite infinities. (This is where dealing with infinities get's a little strange.)
But what if we were to work the concept from the other direction? In stead of everything coming from something more and more complex, we instead start with something simple and work our way up? Let's look at it like mixing batter. We take simple ingredients and end up with something more complex then the sum of it's parts. One might then argue "well someone needed to be there to mix those ingredients", Think about what was really needed. All that was needed was motion. Now what if we put something under great pressure? It will begin to eventually heat up, and heat is the result of particles in motion. So if we have pressure we have heat, if we have heat we have motion, if we have motion we have our mixing, if we have our mixing we have more complexity coming from the less complex, and since we started at the most base level we don't need to go into infinities.
Thus the argument that this does not apply to the creator becomes contradictory. Or to paraphrase Carl Sagan 'If we say the creator doesn't need to be created, then why not save a step and say we don't need to be created?'
