The central Logical flaw in the watchmaker analogy

[Randomstudent]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

One thing you need to consider is that in the era this was originally stated the Universe was still compared to a clock. The different pieces worked on each other and in a sense made a machine. So

The Universe is a fabulous mechanism.
All fabulous mechanisms have a builder or designer.
The Builder or Designer is God.

In this scenario God is not being described as a machine or mechanism.

Now modern conceptions of the Universe do not really make it like a clock or mechanism in the normal sense. So in it's most literal form the "watchmaker analogy" is anachronistic. I think other analogies or systems tend to be preferred now.

All of these are unfounded inferences.

"The Universe is a fabulous mechanism.
All fabulous mechanisms have a builder or designer.
The Builder or Designer is God."

From a logical perspective all these things could be false. There is no reason, other then potentially personal faith, to believe that any of these things hold true in all cases.

In fact, from the proof in my OP, when put together, "All fabulous mechanisms have a builder or designer." and "The Builder or Designer is God". We know the following to be always false assuming "God always was" and God is an unimaginably, fabulous mechanism on par with none, then all fabulous mechanisms do not have a builder/designer.

[The Matrix]

Originally Posted by Randomstudent

No, I do not seek to address the question of whether or not the universe has design elements. I seek tho address the basic proof of the watchmaker argument that says that "if something has complex inner workings (which most things do, at least on the molecular level), then it requires a designer."

Essentially the Watchmaker argument is presented as such

1. The complex inner working of a watch require a designer
2. As the watch, the complexity of X necessitates a designer

I am saying that part 2. does not logically follow when X is replace with God, if we assume God exists. If we assume God does not exists, not mentioned in my OP, it still does not follow when X is replaced by the universe. If a such a statement is not true in all cases it cannot be assumed to be true.

I am saying that the idea "if something has complex inner workings, then it requires an (independent) designer" does not logically follow because, of the reasons presented in the OP.

Good. I think it's helpful to try to spell out what exactly you're arguing. First, note that nowhere in this argument does the premise "if something exists there must be a creator" occur. It's simply not part of the argument. And I would agree that the "complexity" of God does not necessitate there must be a designer of God. But I don't see why this is a problem. "Complexity" itself is not the issue in design or "watchmaker" arguments; the relevant issue is that a thing has complexity of a certain kind, the kind that (one may argue) suggests design--like the kind of complexity a watch has, or a dishwasher. So, for example, one could argue that some aspects of cells exhibits "irreducible complexity" (Behe), which then strongly suggests a designer. I'm not right now defending these design arguments, I'm merely stressing that these arguments are made on the basis of a certain understanding of "organized complexity." And this does not necessarily imply that God would have this same sort of complexity.

[Randomstudent]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

Good. I think it's helpful to try to spell out what exactly you're arguing. First, note that nowhere in this argument does the premise "if something exists there must be a creator" occur. It's simply not part of the argument. And I would agree that the "complexity" of God does not necessitate there must be a designer of God. But I don't see why this is a problem. "Complexity" itself is not the issue in design or "watchmaker" arguments; the relevant issue is that a thing has complexity of a certain kind, the kind that (one may argue) suggests design--like the kind of complexity a watch has, or a dishwasher. So, for example, one could argue that some aspects of cells exhibits "irreducible complexity" (Behe), which then strongly suggests a designer. I'm not right now defending these design arguments, I'm merely stressing that these arguments are made on the basis of a certain understanding of "organized complexity." And this does not necessarily imply that God would have this same sort of complexity.

I used the term exists because the term complexity is subjective, which even further undermines the watchmaker argument. Additionally complexity/existence is the crux of the watchmaker's argument which is that the universe is complex/exists therefore it needs to have an intelligent/existing/sufficiently complex designer.

Very simply, a logical proof cannot be assumed to be true if it is not true in all cases. If complexity of God does not necessitate a creator then the complexity of the universe cannot be assumed to necessitate a creator either, because complexity no longer necessitates a creator in all cases.

Again, unless something is true in all cases, it cannot be assumed to be true in logic.

For example, if I have a bag of 100 marbles and all are white, then I can conclude that if I draw a marble from that bag then the marble I draw will be white. On the other hand if I have a bag of marbles and 99 are white and 1 is blue, I cannot make a logical inference assuming I will draw a white marble because in actuality I could draw a blue one. Logic does not deal in strongly/improbable unless you are making an argument about whether something is likely/sometimes the case or not. The watchmaker argument does not deal in likelyhood.

Now if you want to argue that God does not have complexity then that further undermines the watchmaker argument because if God lacks complexity/existence then it how would it be able to create a complex/existing thing like the universe? The watchmaker analogy relies implicitly, and as to intelligence explicitly, on the watchmaker having the complexity/intelligence/existence to make a watch.

[The Matrix]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Or not. These questions may, just as easily, open the door to anti-theism, which (theism) is predictably an outgrowth of an earlier age of frightened dependence on the supernatural (hence Stonehenge, reading of chicken bones and sheep's guts, virgin sacrifices, etc.).

I've stated previously that many in our so-called "modern" society seem to be happy to severely limit our explorative thinking. That if the process called science, which simply organizes the questions to get the best possible answer, does not automatically mean scientists think they know everything. It simple means they are capable of, and interested in, trying to find the right answer.

Scientists are like plumbers: they have been taught a skill and they like to use it in order to find and fix the "leaks". and then they are rather universally denegrated, as is Dawkins, and here, myself.

Theists, on the other hand, have no such interest in exploring for alternate answers, wouldn't you agree, and have, predictably and historically, sought to formally suppress such methodical Q&A efforts. Their own personal IQ limits, which we all suffer from, don't allow us, for now, to answer (or possibly understand) all the questions, but it seems evident that Christians have to have all the answers in order to not be frightened.

I, on the other hand, am quite happy to see where scientific discovery leads us. It's been doing quite well so far, at a rapidly expanding rate, esp. ni the past 10 - 15 years. I'm in good company; Hawking etc. all seek a larger truth. He even allows for a possible God, but also asks some questions if there is such an entity. His questions cannot be answered for now ether, but at least most folks have the decency to not attack Stephen given his fragile condition and somewhat more obtuse answers...

Rifleman, there are too many things here for me to properly respond to. I'll only make three points. First, you stress the need for logic and rationality, which I agree with. Making logical points requires clarity and precision of language--something that your posts could use. This sounds harsh, or insulting, but I'm not trying to be. But you are, after all, making sweeping pronouncements about the absolute falseness of the existence of God, and how "illogical" and utterly stupid such beliefs are. If you are to make these kinds of claims, then I think you should be held to your own standard. Do you agree? For example, you claim Christians maintain that "anything that is requires a greater creator." This is false (at least for Christians who have studied or thought about the issues). You have not heard this from any Christian philosopher, I can just about guarantee it. What I suspect has happened is that you either don't pay sufficient attention to their arguments, or you are careless in your summation of their arguments. You further clarified what you really think the premise is, that "since there is an organism, there must be a creator." Logically speaking--and that is what we must look to, even if it seems like "word chopping"--there is a big difference between "is" and "organism." The premises are thus vastly different. Have I made myself a bit clearer?

Second issue. You defended Dawkins' as a person, but I didn't personally attack him here. You didn't answer my criticism of his argument.

Third issue. You say good Christians don't question anything. I don't know why you insist on speaking with such sweeping generalities, but they don't help your case. They just make you seem angry and biased. And your sentiment is simply false. I am a Christian, and I question all the time. I have examined some of these issues so intensely that I created all kinds of doubts in me about the existence of God, the truth of the Bible, etc. And I still do this. I constantly question things. I constantly question my faith. Do you ever waiver in your atheistic conviction? Do you ever try to understand the best arguments that theism has to offer, put out by the sharpest Christian minds? Or do you like to only read books you already agree with? (you don't have to answer me, but I am honestly asking you these questions)

I hope you don't take this as smugness on my part, or that I'm attacking you. I'm not trying to. I suspect we could have a good conversation over a cup of coffee, even if a little heated.

[The Matrix]

Originally Posted by Randomstudent

I used the term exists because the term complexity is subjective, which even further undermines the watchmaker argument. Additionally complexity/existence is the crux of the watchmaker's argument which is that the universe is complex/exists therefore it needs to have an intelligent/existing/sufficiently complex designer.

Don't use the term "exists," it doesn't help. I'll say it again: design arguments are not concerned with existence as such, but with design. You are confusing the issues. If you still don't believe me, can I just say "trust me on this"?

Originally Posted by Randomstudent

Very simply, a logical proof cannot be assumed to be true if it is not true in all cases.

Well, strictly speaking, this is the case for deductive arguments, but it doesn't hold for inductive arguments. And many design arguments are inductive, or based on probability.

Originally Posted by Randomstudent

If complexity of God does not necessitate a creator then the complexity of the universe cannot be assumed to necessitate a creator either, because complexity no longer necessitates a creator in all cases.

Again, I would suggest that you not use the word "creator" in this context, but "designer." And I think your claim here is simply false. As I said in my previous post, there are different kinds of complexity, but design arguments are only concerned with organization complexity--the organization of a thing composed of parts. God, however, is a spiritual being and is ontologically simply--that is, He is not composed of parts. So if we say God is "complex" we can mean a lot of things, but we don't mean that he is ontologically structurally complex.

Originally Posted by Randomstudent

Now if you want to argue that God does not have complexity then that further undermines the watchmaker argument because if God lacks complexity/existence then it how would it be able to create a complex/existing thing like the universe? The watchmaker analogy relies implicitly, and as to intelligence explicitly, on the watchmaker having the complexity/intelligence/existence to make a watch.

I don't see how this follows at all. As I say above, God is thought of as ontologically simple. But this in no way precludes or contradicts His ability to either design or create.

By the way, I appreciate your level-headed attempt to argue. I think it's great. But I still suggest that you rethink your argument, since it looks like you are confusing elements from cosmological and design arguments.

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by Randomstudent

All of these are unfounded inferences.

"The Universe is a fabulous mechanism.
All fabulous mechanisms have a builder or designer.
The Builder or Designer is God."

From a logical perspective all these things could be false. There is no reason, other then potentially personal faith, to believe that any of these things hold true in all cases.

In fact, from the proof in my OP, when put together, "All fabulous mechanisms have a builder or designer." and "The Builder or Designer is God". We know the following to be always false assuming "God always was" and God is an unimaginably, fabulous mechanism on par with none, then all fabulous mechanisms do not have a builder/designer.

I should mention that I did not totally endorse the statement. However God is not seen as a machine or mechanism in most any religion I know of, which was a point I raised. You seem to want to say "well I dismiss that" but really why do you get to say a God you don't believe in has to be a machine?

My problems with the idea is that comparing the Universe to a Watch or any "Fabulous Machine" is likely false. Also, on reflecting, it is not really true a machine must have a machine-builder. A lever, a wheel, or an inclined plane are simple machines. A lever can be seen when a tree limb lands on a rock or raised surface, I believe an inclined plane could be created by glaciation, and round wheelie things likely occur in nature as well. However the part about God being of a different nature than the Universe seems fairly standard and common.

Granted you might be saying "who cares if he's of a different nature it still means he's something that needs an explanation" but I think this is off on what I feel is the core point. The point isn't "everything needs a creator" it's more that created things need a creator or at least that material things come from somewhere.

[Randomstudent]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

Don't use the term "exists," it doesn't help. I'll say it again: design arguments are not concerned with existence as such, but with design. You are confusing the issues. If you still don't believe me, can I just say "trust me on this"?

No offense, but I don't trust you. The watchmaker argument about design in the context of complexity/existence. The universe, it says, is designed because it is complex (and exists). The universe existence/complexity ARE the supposed design elements.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

Well, strictly speaking, this is the case for deductive arguments, but it doesn't hold for inductive arguments. And many design arguments are inductive, or based on probability.

The watchmaker analogy is a deductive, it is not inductive, it does not come to a "general conclusion" and it does not say it is likely the universe has a designer it says it does.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

Again, I would suggest that you not use the word "creator" in this context, but "designer." And I think your claim here is simply false. As I said in my previous post, there are different kinds of complexity, but design arguments are only concerned with organization complexity--the organization of a thing composed of parts. God, however, is a spiritual being and is ontologically simply--that is, He is not composed of parts. So if we say God is "complex" we can mean a lot of things, but we don't mean that he is ontologically structurally complex.

First any speculation about the "designer" (God's) nature is going to be unfounded logically. Secondly, intelligence implies both existence a degree of complexity (though complexity does not imply intelligence) and according to the watchmaker if something is complex it necessitates a designer. Whether something exists or is complex in some magical way, for lack of a better word, or not is outside the scope of the argument.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

I don't see how this follows at all. As I say above, God is thought of as ontologically simple. But this in no way precludes or contradicts His ability to either design or create.

If follows because intelligence implies complexity. By its definition intelligence is the ability to solve problems, plan, and reason and that under the vast majority of subjective definitions implies some sort of complexity. This is not perfect logic, but it is as close as we are going to get with subjectivity. Intelligence also implies existence, because intelligence, in part, is awareness of relationships, including of one's own existence.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

By the way, I appreciate your level-headed attempt to argue. I think it's great. But I still suggest that you rethink your argument, since it looks like you are confusing elements from cosmological and design arguments.

I would ask you re-think my argument. Forget about design, and cosmological arguments, and tell me what is wrong will the logic. I will concede that if you subjectively do not view complexity as a requirement for intelligence, or do not view existence (not necessarily physical existence, but also spiritual, or magical, or whatever existence) as a requirement for intelligence. Then you could argue that there is an intelligence that is not complex and does not exist in any way, shape or form, spiritually, magically, physically that could possibly had the potential to have designed the universe according to the watchmaker analogy.

But that doesn't make much sense.

[tigetmax24]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

Don't use the term "exists," it doesn't help. I'll say it again: design arguments are not concerned with existence as such, but with design. You are confusing the issues. If you still don't believe me, can I just say "trust me on this"?

Well, strictly speaking, this is the case for deductive arguments, but it doesn't hold for inductive arguments. And many design arguments are inductive, or based on probability.

Again, I would suggest that you not use the word "creator" in this context, but "designer." And I think your claim here is simply false. As I said in my previous post, there are different kinds of complexity, but design arguments are only concerned with organization complexity--the organization of a thing composed of parts. God, however, is a spiritual being and is ontologically simply--that is, He is not composed of parts. So if we say God is "complex" we can mean a lot of things, but we don't mean that he is ontologically structurally complex.

I don't see how this follows at all. As I say above, God is thought of as ontologically simple. But this in no way precludes or contradicts His ability to either design or create.

By the way, I appreciate your level-headed attempt to argue. I think it's great. But I still suggest that you rethink your argument, since it looks like you are confusing elements from cosmological and design arguments.

Your assertions are certainly well reasoned and sensible.

How does one have a reasoned and rational discussion with a person that insists on being totally unreasonable and irrational?

[Randomstudent]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

I should mention that I did not totally endorse the statement. However God is not seen as a machine or mechanism in most any religion I know of, which was a point I raised. You seem to want to say "well I dismiss that" but really why do you get to say a God you don't believe in has to be a machine?

My problems with the idea is that comparing the Universe to a Watch or any "Fabulous Machine" is likely false. Also, on reflecting, it is not really true a machine must have a machine-builder. A lever, a wheel, or an inclined plane are simple machines. A lever can be seen when a tree limb lands on a rock or raised surface, I believe an inclined plane could be created by glaciation, and round wheelie things likely occur in nature as well. However the part about God being of a different nature than the Universe seems fairly standard and common.

Granted you might be saying "who cares if he's of a different nature it still means he's something that needs an explanation" but I think this is off on what I feel is the core point. The point isn't "everything needs a creator" it's more that created things need a creator or at least that material things come from somewhere.

I tend to see the watchmaker analogy as a (feeble) attempt to logically rationalize the existence and deeds something that cannot, be logically rationalized.

Now, if you want to say exempt God from the logic of the watchmaker's analogy I think that opens the doors, logically speaking, to exemption everything that does not have a logically explained maker, including the universe.

Now if you want to say God is not material or energy. Then you have to change the watchmaker analogy to say. If material/energy and complex/existing, then created/designed/whatever. Then it would still be a logical fallacy, because it would either be circular logic in that X cannot come without Y and Y cannot come without X, or based on an unfounded inference that God exists...but, it would not be as logically flawed as before.

[Randomstudent]

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

Your assertions are certainly well reasoned and sensible.

How does one have a reasoned and rational discussion with a person that insists on being totally unreasonable and irrational?

You know what you have convinced me. Gnawing my own leg off would be a better use of my time then continuing this discussion.