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.
While I appreciate the humor behind sites like these, I have two problems with it:
1) The arguments are meant to be parodies, but a lot of people just wouldn't know that unless they're fairly well-versed in the philosophy of religion. So instead, it comes off as a bunch of atheists straw-manning arguments for the existence of a god.
2) Like I said, all the arguments are simplistic misrepresentations. But this ignores the tremendous history and brilliant thinkers that are behind many of these arguments. The path, history, and evolution these arguments have taken is incredibly interesting.
So this is basically a site by atheists, for atheists. But we need not all be "angry atheists" and hold any theist as unjustified and irrational because s/he accepts some of these arguments. The teleological and cosmological arguments, just to cite two small examples, are some of the most well thought-out, defended, and among the strongest contemporary arguments for god out there. Anyone who is passionate about their beliefs should be aware of the arguments from the "other side" - if for no other reason than to know how to refute them.
Those atheists who do view the arguments listed on that site in the way they are portrayed make the rest of us look bad.
The teleological and cosmological arguments, just to cite two small examples, are some of the most well thought-out, defended, and among the strongest contemporary arguments for god out there.
Yet it is still shot down.
An argument for a first cause doesn't necessitate that, that first cause needs to be God. So it doesn't really prove any existence of a God. As I have pointed out something infinitely complex is problematic as a beginning.
The cosmological argument is the same as the watchmaker argument. It doesnt prove, in ANY way, that there is a god. It once again assumes that because we cant explain something, the cause is god.
While I'm certainly no proponent of either argument - or any argument for the existence of God, the videos you provided were from people who clearly had a 14th century understanding of the argument. Contemporary theories in set theory and exactly what causation is have made the argument much harder to get out of. But by far, the teleological argument (again, in its contemporary form) is a wonderful little argument. Again, I don't agree with either, but keep in mind my original point: in order to truly understand the "other side" we need to understand the arguments supporting their claims. Even those producing those videos you provided, Mage, are misleading. These guys are clearly intelligent, but it's not too terribly hard to shoot down any philosophical or theological argument from like 500 years ago.
All I'd like is for the atheist community to appreciate the complexity, though, and massive amounts of work behind the arguments and their refutations. Even the watchmaker argument, in contemporary literature, has taken on a life that is far different from its first iterations.
I will say this, though. Even if one of these arguments ends up proving irrefutable, the conclusions we can draw from this aren't very far reaching. Just think about the conclusion of the Cosmological Argument discussed in those videos: that there must be a first cause that was not itself caused. Aristotle called this thing the Unmoved Mover, theists call it God, but this is also compatible with views that hold the first cause to simply be an event - i.e., the Big Bang.
What these arguments well never be able to prove is any sort of notion of a western theistic God. That simply cannot follow - it's all conjecture. Though St. Anselm came really close with his essay "That Than Which A Greater Cannot Be Thought." Ontological arguments are some of the sexiest things that have ever come out of the philosophy of religion
While I'm certainly no proponent of either argument - or any argument for the existence of God, the videos you provided were from people who clearly had a 14th century understanding of the argument. Contemporary theories in set theory and exactly what causation is have made the argument much harder to get out of.
How do you figure that? If you note the second guy refuted the claim of what the cosmological argument was saying straight from the horses mouth. Unless it was a 14th century website he was quoting.
But by far, the teleological argument (again, in its contemporary form) is a wonderful little argument.
I don't see how this is a wonderful little argument either. It starts with a fallacy and ends with assertion.
All I'd like is for the atheist community to appreciate the complexity, though, and massive amounts of work behind the arguments and their refutations.
When you really look at these arguments they really aren't very good. But I do think it is important to understand them.
Even the watchmaker argument, in contemporary literature, has taken on a life that is far different from its first iterations.
Not really. If scientific advancement hasn't added support of any of these arguments but rather weakened them.
Maybe you mean the proponents of these arguments have revised them in some way, if so in what way?
What these arguments well never be able to prove is any sort of notion of a western theistic God. That simply cannot follow - it's all conjecture.
That I agree with and since that is the very point of these arguments they then fail on a fundamental level.
Ontological arguments are some of the sexiest things that have ever come out of the philosophy of religion
Considering most claim we can't fully comprehend God doesn't that go against this argument?
How do you figure that? If you note the second guy refuted the claim of what the cosmological argument was saying straight from the horses mouth. Unless it was a 14th century website he was quoting.
Hehehe, yeah, I think he went to Aquinas's Facebook page. Actually, Descartes has a Facebook page, so I bet Aquinas does too. I'm gonna go friend him But what I meant was that there are contemporary versions of all these arguments that do them more justice - at least philosophically. But hey, I'm not philosopher of religion, nor do I want to be. But I certainly wouldn't want to be accused of straw manning an argument by using a 600-year old version of it when there are better, more modern ones around.
I don't see how this is a wonderful little argument either. It starts with a fallacy and ends with assertion.
Oh, heavens no. Modern teleological arguments usually start with statistics. Granted, I think they're still fundamentally based on the so-called Merchant's Thumb Principle. But still, there's some complex math, statistical analysis and physics going on in these modern versions.
Not really. If scientific advancement hasn't added support of any of these arguments but rather weakened them.
Maybe you mean the proponents of these arguments have revised them in some way, if so in what way?
That is what I mean. But I realize now that you and I are talking past one another. I find the arguments better because they're more philosophically interesting, more well-defined, and much more difficult to refute. But you're talking straight up look at the world around us kind of mentality. And on that point, I completely agree with you. On a real, practical level, I think all these arguments for the existence of God are inane and useless. And when I say they're convincing, I certainly don't mean to say that I'm convinced at all by them. I simply mean that they're better supported - at least on an argumentative level.
Considering most claim we can't fully comprehend God doesn't that go against this argument?
Oh hells yeah. But I still think they're sexy. What I really like about them, actually, is how they just blatantly beg the question. But they do it in such a sneaky way that it took philosophers quite a while to figure out what was going on. Anselm's original ontological argument was quite the little bear for ... like ... maybe 500 years or so? I can't remember when Anselm was alive.
But still, there's some complex math, statistical analysis and physics going on in these modern versions.
From what I've seen it's usually just pseudoscience that's added to these sorts of arguments to make them seem more scientific. Yes it can make them seem harder to refute but the basic structure of the arguments remain the same. it's very similar to how Intelligence Design came out of creationism as an attempt to make creationism seem more scientific by generalizing God. The basic argument of the two remain fundamentally the same.
That is what I mean. But I realize now that you and I are talking past one another.
Your probably right about that.
Oh hells yeah. But I still think they're sexy. What I really like about them, actually, is how they just blatantly beg the question. But they do it in such a sneaky way that it took philosophers quite a while to figure out what was going on.
Also keep in mind when these arguments were first made we really didn't have the knowledge that we have today. A lot of the points they touched on were in the "I don't know" category at the time.
