The Watchmaker Anology is Proof for God
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.