The Instigator
byaka2013
Con (against)
The Contender
somerandomvideocreator
Pro (for)

The Watchmaker Argument for God is Logically Sound

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
somerandomvideocreator has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 200 times Debate No: 106005
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

byaka2013

Con

Resolution:
THE WATCHMAKER ARGUMENT FOR GOD IS LOGICALLY SOUND


This debate discusses the topic of the Watchmaker Argument. Con argues it is flawed, while pro argues the opposite.

Argument
  1. Imagine you are walking across a field, and see a watch lying upon the ground.

  2. You wouldn’t assume that it had come together by chance, because it is too complex.

  3. Rather, you would assume that it had a conscious and intelligent designer.

  4. Because life and the universe is ordered and complicated, it too must have had a designer.



Burden of Proof
I will say BOP is shared, but changes can be made.

Structure
Round 1- Acceptance
Round 2- Opening Arguments
Round 3- Rebutalls/ More Arguments
Round 4- Rebutalls/ Closing Arguments


Thank you to anyone who accepts, and good luck.



somerandomvideocreator

Pro

It rests on a subtlety.

Argument
Imagine you are walking across a field, take a nap, wake up, and see a watch lying upon the ground.
You wouldn"t assume that it had come together by chance, because it is too complex.
Rather, you would assume that it had a conscious and intelligent designer.
Because life and the universe is ordered and complicated, it too must have had a designer.
Debate Round No. 1
byaka2013

Con

I MUST ADMIT THIS IS NOT MY NORMAL STYLE OF DEBATING. HOWEVER, I FEEL THIS LIST FORMAT WILL BE ADEQUATE FOR THE DEBATE. LISTED BELOW IS THE ARGUMENT AS MY OPPONENT PUTS IT, ALONG WITH THE FLAWS WITH IT. ANY ONE OF THESE FLAWS ALONE IS DEVASTATING, LET ALONE ALL 12.

WATCHMAKER ARGUMENT

  1. Imagine you are walking across a field, take a nap, wake up, and see a watch lying upon the ground.

  2. You wouldn’t assume that it had come together by chance, because it is too complex.

  3. Rather, you would assume that it had a conscious and intelligent designer.

  4. Because life and the universe is ordered and complicated, it too must have had a designer.


FLAWS

  1. Straw Man. This argument asserts that atheists believe the universe happened by chance, when this is not true.

  2. False Analogy. The Watchmaker Argument assumes that because 2 things are alike in 1 or more respects, they are alike in some other respect. If we ignore this, we could say that because both the watch and universe are complex, and the watch was made in the 16th century, the universe was made in the 16th century.

  3. False Cause. The argument asserts that complexity and order can only be caused by a designer. To the contrary, however, it is quite the opposite. The Watchmaker argument confuses correlation with causation when it comes to complexity and designers.

  4. Ignores Evolution. We know for a fact that nature can, has, and does produce remarkably complex organisms due to evolution by natural selection, something ignored in the argument.

  5. Black and White Fallacy. Since the Watchmaker argument ignores another possibility, it also commits a Black and White Fallacy.

  6. Prior Knowledge. The reason that we recognize a watch as designed actually has nothing to do with complex and purposed it is. Rather, it is because we already know that the watch was designed. By contrast, we have no examples of designers in nature, but trillions by evolution.

  7. Special Pleading. This argument’s core purpose asserts that complexity requires a designer. However, if we extend this logic, clearly God must be very complex. Therefore, he must have had a designer, and it cannot be himself, according to the Kalam Argument, common sense, and the Immaterial Designer argument by use of basic physics and thermodynamics.

  8. Contradiction. The argument initially assumes that the watch is distinct from nature, by indirectly claiming that the universe is uncommon and random. However, it then states the universe is complex. Which one are we to believe?

  9. Implies More. After seeing that watch, imagine if you then saw beside it a shoe. Would you assume a watchmaker made that? No, but a shoemaker did. Clearly the same applies to God.

  10. Creatio Ex Nihilio. The Watchmaker argument acts as if a watchmaker creates a watch from nothing, and is also created by nothing. This is not true and has never been demonstrated.

  11. Doesn’t support theism. Even if we accept the conclusion, it would not prove a god exists, let alone a very specific one. All it would say is that the universe had a complex designer.

  12. Incompetent Design. This logic is inconsistent. An all powerful and all loving God would surely not create organisms with this type of mediocre at best design (flaws in nature such as windpipe= food pipe, etc- something that fits natural selection but not intelligent design).

Clearly, this argument is flawed.
somerandomvideocreator

Pro

Straw Man. This argument asserts that atheists believe the universe happened by chance, when this is not true.
The question then becomes, what do atheists believe caused the universe?

False Analogy. The Watchmaker Argument assumes that because 2 things are alike in 1 or more respects, they are alike in some other respect. If we ignore this, we could say that because both the watch and universe are complex, and the watch was made in the 16th century, the universe was made in the 16th century.
The only important parts are that both the universe and the watch are complex and have a beginning.

False Cause. The argument asserts that complexity and order can only be caused by a designer. To the contrary, however, it is quite the opposite. The Watchmaker argument confuses correlation with causation when it comes to complexity and designers.
The watchmaker argument does assume that complexity can only come from a designer. However, that is a different assumption.

Ignores Evolution. We know for a fact that nature can, has, and does produce remarkably complex organisms due to evolution by natural selection, something ignored in the argument.
Evolution only works once you have a life form, a universe, a star, and a planet.

Black and White Fallacy. Since the Watchmaker argument ignores another possibility, it also commits a Black and White Fallacy.
What is the other possibility?

Prior Knowledge. The reason that we recognize a watch as designed actually has nothing to do with complex and purposed it is. Rather, it is because we already know that the watch was designed. By contrast, we have no examples of designers in nature, but trillions by evolution.
Suppose you were shown two paintings. One is a splatter painting, whereas the other one was not a famous painting, but an accurate depiction of the human form (or something like that). We can assume that even though we did not know the non-famous painting, it was designed, whereas the other one, we cannot be sure. We consider anything sufficiently complex designed.

Special Pleading. This argument"s core purpose asserts that complexity requires a designer. However, if we extend this logic, clearly God must be very complex. Therefore, he must have had a designer, and it cannot be himself, according to the Kalam Argument, common sense, and the Immaterial Designer argument by use of basic physics and thermodynamics.
This is where the subtlety in the logic comes in. The other premise that I showed in my argument is that a watch did not exist at one point in time and now it does. Theists believe that God is eternal.

Contradiction. The argument initially assumes that the watch is distinct from nature, by indirectly claiming that the universe is uncommon and random. However, it then states the universe is complex. Which one are we to believe?
Implies More. After seeing that watch, imagine if you then saw beside it a shoe. Would you assume a watchmaker made that? No, but a shoemaker did. Clearly the same applies to God.
The same argument could be made without the nature, but just a floating watch. The watch is the universe, the field is irrelevant. As for the second part, all that means is now we have two people, one who created a watch, one who created a shoe. If you are saying that the watchmaker argument does not rule out polytheism, that is true.

Creatio Ex Nihilio. The Watchmaker argument acts as if a watchmaker creates a watch from nothing, and is also created by nothing. This is not true and has never been demonstrated.
This simply puts the question back one step. Suppose I saw a computer rather than a watch. All this is saying is pushing the problem back to the computer parts, and the same argument applies.

Doesn"t support theism. Even if we accept the conclusion, it would not prove a god exists, let alone a very specific one. All it would say is that the universe had a complex designer.
Define god. What is the difference between a complex designer and a god? This does not prove that there is a single god, certainly, but it does prove that a god exists.

Incompetent Design. This logic is inconsistent. An all powerful and all loving God would surely not create organisms with this type of mediocre at best design (flaws in nature such as windpipe= food pipe, etc- something that fits natural selection but not intelligent design).
First of all, that assumes that evolution and theism are incompatible, which is already a false assumption. I know that this is a Wikipedia page, but I think it provides some useful information:
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
byaka2013

Con

"Straw Man. This argument asserts that atheists believe the universe happened by chance, when this is not true.
The question then becomes, what do atheists believe caused the universe?"

Well this is a classic example of dodging the question. However, I will fuel your appetite for misrepresentation. Atheists generally believe the Big Bang is what caused the EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE, but 'before' that, our understanding of physics gives out. What is to say the universe had a cause at all? You have the BOP.

"False Analogy. The Watchmaker Argument assumes that because 2 things are alike in 1 or more respects, they are alike in some other respect. If we ignore this, we could say that because both the watch and universe are complex, and the watch was made in the 16th century, the universe was made in the 16th century.
The only important parts are that both the universe and the watch are complex and have a beginning."

OK, sure. But the point (which you missed) was that the same 'logic' (or the lack thereof) could be applied to anything and lead to ridiculous conclusions, showing how faulty the argument.


"False Cause. The argument asserts that complexity and order can only be caused by a designer. To the contrary, however, it is quite the opposite. The Watchmaker argument confuses correlation with causation when it comes to complexity and designers.
The watchmaker argument does assume that complexity can only come from a designer. However, that is a different assumption."

Actually, it does. The argument does this by asserting that one would assume a complex thing can exclusively come from a designer, in premise 3.


"Ignores Evolution. We know for a fact that nature can, has, and does produce remarkably complex organisms due to evolution by natural selection, something ignored in the argument.
Evolution only works once you have a life form, a universe, a star, and a planet."

Not necessarily true, Mr. Video Creator. Even if we accept this, your response is still irrelevant.


Black and White Fallacy. Since the Watchmaker argument ignores another possibility, it also commits a Black and White Fallacy.
What is the other possibility?

It ignores evolution by means of natural selection.


"Prior Knowledge. The reason that we recognize a watch as designed actually has nothing to do with complex and purposed it is. Rather, it is because we already know that the watch was designed. By contrast, we have no examples of designers in nature, but trillions by evolution.
Suppose you were shown two paintings. One is a splatter painting, whereas the other one was not a famous painting, but an accurate depiction of the human form (or something like that). We can assume that even though we did not know the non-famous painting, it was designed, whereas the other one, we cannot be sure. We consider anything sufficiently complex designed."

Again, we DO know that both paintings were designed, because that is the definition of the painting it's how we define a painting. This rebuttal is just factually wrong.

"Special Pleading. This argument"s core purpose asserts that complexity requires a designer. However, if we extend this logic, clearly God must be very complex. Therefore, he must have had a designer, and it cannot be himself, according to the Kalam Argument, common sense, and the Immaterial Designer argument by use of basic physics and thermodynamics.
This is where the subtlety in the logic comes in. The other premise that I showed in my argument is that a watch did not exist at one point in time and now it does. Theists believe that God is eternal."

If theists believe God is eternal, 1: Where is the evidence? 2: Why would you use a non eternal watch as your metaphor for God's creation in the Watchmaker Argument? and 3: You flatly just ignored the question. What subtlety are you talking about? Before Earth. there were no humans and so the concept of time was and is irrelevant to this argument. Again, you are contradicting yourself while simultaneously avoiding the question.

"Contradiction. The argument initially assumes that the watch is distinct from nature, by indirectly claiming that the universe is uncommon and random. However, it then states the universe is complex. Which one are we to believe?"

Hello? You just ignored this argument. Maybe it was my bad for paragraphing poorly.

"Implies More. After seeing that watch, imagine if you then saw beside it a shoe. Would you assume a watchmaker made that? No, but a shoemaker did. Clearly the same applies to God.
The same argument could be made without the nature, but just a floating watch. The watch is the universe, the field is irrelevant. As for the second part, all that means is now we have two people, one who created a watch, one who created a shoe. If you are saying that the watchmaker argument does not rule out polytheism, that is true."

No, you don't see. The watch was pre designed by humans and is a part of nature. It doesn't rule out polytheism, so thanks for that.

"Creatio Ex Nihilio. The Watchmaker argument acts as if a watchmaker creates a watch from nothing, and is also created by nothing. This is not true and has never been demonstrated.
This simply puts the question back one step. Suppose I saw a computer rather than a watch. All this is saying is pushing the problem back to the computer parts, and the same argument applies."

What? Computer parts? I don't follow. If the same argument applies, wouldn't it favor me? Please explain this.

"Doesn't support theism. Even if we accept the conclusion, it would not prove a god exists, let alone a very specific one. All it would say is that the universe had a complex designer.
Define god. What is the difference between a complex designer and a god? This does not prove that there is a single god, certainly, but it does prove that a god exists."

I just googled 'God'. Here's your definition. A deity is a supernatural being considered divine or sacred. OK, so the difference is fuzzy because God exists as a concept in the mind, (please don't use the Ontological Argument), and there are several different interpretations of him. It blatantly does NOT prove any god exists.


Incompetent Design. This logic is inconsistent. An all powerful and all loving God would surely not create organisms with this type of mediocre at best design (flaws in nature such as windpipe= food pipe, etc- something that fits natural selection but not intelligent design).
First of all, that assumes that evolution and theism are incompatible, which is already a false assumption. I know that this is a Wikipedia page, but I think it provides some useful information:

I read the article. All it says is that God 'works in mysterious ways' and so we essentially shouldn't question things that APPEAR flawed. This is simply an argument from ignorance. Natural selection and theism are pretty incompatible. Theism by definition is the opposite of the scientific method, whereas evolution is not.
https://en.wikipedia.org......


This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by missmedic 1 month ago
missmedic
It would be the lack of evidence or the contradictory evidence that makes a person an Atheist.
Posted by somerandomvideocreator 1 month ago
somerandomvideocreator
How come nobody asks "What is the evidence for atheism?", but people ask, "What is the evidence for Christian beliefs?"
Posted by missmedic 1 month ago
missmedic
The only thing more worrisome then a faith based belief, is the certainty it is held with. Can I get an amen.............
Posted by squonk 1 month ago
squonk
In our day-to-day lives, we all rely on reason & evidence to differentiate between true claims and false claims...it doesn't matter whether you're Christian or atheist.

If you were accused of murder, should the Judge send you to prison based on faith that you're guilty? Or must there be empirical evidence that you committed the murder? There's no controversy here; we decide whether or not a person is guilty or not based on evidence & reason.

The difference between the faithful and the faithless is that, when it comes to the truth of the Christian religion, believers decide to forego the use of reason & evidence (which, hypocritically, they use to evaluate all other truth claims). According to the faithful, we ought to believe in the Christian God and the divinity of Jesus REGARDLESS of the evidence.

Should we believe in the guilt of murderers REGARDLESS of the evidence?
Posted by edster911 1 month ago
edster911
@missmedic

The difference between the faithful and the faithless is that we (the faithful) live our lives to reach the kingdom of God which has only been promised to us through Christ. Whereas the faithless live their lives to reach a better existence in this world. If you don't believe in eternal life- why even try?
Posted by missmedic 1 month ago
missmedic
Faith doesn"t bring us beyond reason, as amply shown by the fact that not a single problem " be it scientific, philosophical or socio-political " has ever been solved or even mildly ameliorated by faith. On the contrary, faith has a nasty tendency to make bumbling simpletons of us, to waste our energies, time and resources on pursuit that do not improve the human condition, and at its worst it convinces people to drive planes into skyscrapers, or to mount "holy" crusades to slaughter the "infidel." Faith is not a virtue, it is a repudiation of one the few good things human beings have going for them: a little bit of reason. Faith is a contradiction to reason, because the more you know the less you believe.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 month ago
FollowerofChrist1955
byaka2013;
Noble gesture. However you realizes that AS (emphasis) believers God does not require Us to prove anything to unbelievers. That's the 1st point!

Secondly to attempt to reason with those who have forsaken all reason is futile and without merit! That was proven by Thomas Paine back in the 1700"s upon his admission: "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."

My debate on Atheism-Entitled (Atheist, are under Gods wrath, no attempts should be made to convert them) , ( Atheism - A lost reality! A hopeless, helpless cause!) and (Atheism is Stupidity and Based on Imaginings having no Basis in Facts).

Allow me to explain! Here you have a folk who have heard of God, Heaven, Hell, the Soul, eternal torment and suffering and despite the promise of an eternity of abject horror STILL (emphasis) absolutely refuse to search for themselves?

They do not care for their souls, Leave them to Satan then. Provided you HAVE warned them that "IF you die, before going to the Cross of Jesus to make things Right? You SHALL DIE IN SIN (emphasis) and Hell is your destination enroute to The Eternal Lake of Fire!

When I showed the scientific research conforming the Existence of the Soul .. you never saw such shock, followed by silence, followed by forfeiture of the debate! check it out yourself? Here:
http://www.debate.org...

nice of you to try though!
Posted by squonk 1 month ago
squonk
Watchmaker argument is bunk
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.