The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The Watchmaker Anology is Proof for God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,217 times Debate No: 31849
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




From Wikipedia:
1. The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer.
2. As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the universe, anything complex) necessitates a designer.

My opponent takes the position that the Watchmaker Analogy is proof for the existence of God.

This debate is about the Watchmaker Analogy, other arguments for God will be considered in separate debates.


There must be an "Intelligence Designer".

May all design spur of mere necessity? No
We can argue that, for instance, whilst the structure of a solar system may be explained by the laws of physics that merely shifts the argument towards physics. Why are the laws of physics this way?
Even discussing the metastructure of multiverse that allows for multiple universes - each one with a specific configuration of the laws physics - one must ultimately discuss that very own structure.

Why are we conscious beings?
Our conscience is but a consequence of the evolution of neurons, with dendrites that expand for meters? No. No mere physiological interaction may account for all human experiences, and reasoning; The conclusion is a simple syllogism of the proposition: we are capable of thinking because we suffer such intelligent design; intelligence may spur only from an intelligence source and this clearly leads to the conclusion of the existance of a higher, precedent, intelligence.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent extends his argument beyond the confines of the Watchmaker Analogy. The philosophical argument of the REASON for the laws of physics is outside the realm of this debate. This is more akin to the Moral Law argument than the Watchmaker Analogy.

My opponent has brushed past the classic argument of the eye and individual life forms to a sweeping concession of the point of the solar system. This concession concludes the debate.

I would point out that there are less intelligent lifeforms that are proven to have grown in intelligence to the modern man. Trace back to the caveman, trace back to the apes.

Interaction with cavemen and apes is less common today than in times past. So I take the example of the house cat and the domesticated dog. These are quite obviously intelligent, displaying emotion appropriate to the situation.

Finding a watch in the desert is cause to wonder if there is a watchmaker. Finding a tree in the forest would cause one to assume a parent. This moves the debate to micro-evolution vs macro evolution, which is outside the scope of the debate.


Let me point that my opponent seemed to simply past through the fine-points in my argument: the recursive nature of the structure of the universe is such that only a intelligence could design it - setting aside philosophical considerations of the reason behind such action. The consideration is in explaining the how, not the why.

As my opponent is clearly aware the clockmaker argument is more than a mere explanation of a solar system; if I define rules by which a system can produce logical and strucured output - not considering the system in question -, does this diminuish my intelligence in anyway? does this negate my own existance?
If the external observer has only my system, may it be complex or not, to contemplate how may she conclude my existance?
My opponent offers then a fallacy nonsequitur through which attempts to conclude the debate when a mere corollary of my thesis suffices as an explanation.

The hability to feel, or to behave accordingly is best explained through biology and neurology; however the fact that simple lifeforms, such as cells can coexist through well-defined mechanisms and form the existance of higher degree, and provide every conceivable human experience may not be mere consequence of Darwins' evolution, as my opponent implicitly defends.

Where there exists a forest now, there was a desert somewhere on the past; how did the first tree spur into existance if not by design?

In conclusion let me point out to my opponent that the my simples presentation of design examples does not require the shift of the debate.
Debate Round No. 2


Evolution. Big things come from small things. Complex things come from un-complex things.

To say that trees come from a desert is gravely misunderstanding the scientific matters in play.

Trees come from seeds. Seeds in topsoil grow.

Where do seeds come from? Less complex seeds.


fmmarques forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by fmmarques 3 years ago
Thanks for debating with me. I have never had to defend a fallacy. This will prove very hard =). But I'll try my best.
Posted by Nimbus328 3 years ago
I suspect that anyone who knows the formal name of the argument knows it's flaws. It disturbs me that so many have brought it up in previous debates.
Posted by rottingroom 3 years ago
oh yeah, and the wiki article you posted pretty much ends this debate. So, what's the point?
Posted by rottingroom 3 years ago
Awe I was excited to challenge on this debate until I noticed you were the Con. I would have blown it out of the water.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
I'm new here, but if you want a light debate I could try arguing this as you've outlined it.

Admittedly even as a Christian I don't believe watches are proof of a higher power, but since when do we have to believe what we say? :)
Posted by Nimbus328 3 years ago
Lots of people use The Watchmaker as proof of God, especially on this website, there has not been time to address it properly in one debate.
Posted by Yraelz 3 years ago
Lol, it is literally referred to as "the watchmaker fallacy" on the wiki article you cite.
No votes have been placed for this debate.