The Watchmaker Argument - Debunked (Teleological Argument - Refuted)

The

watchmaker

analogy, most famously presented by William Paley in his theological work entitled Natural Theology, is a recurring

argument

for a designer who, by way of analogy, claims that complexity requires a designer. The way Paley put it is essentially this: If you were walking through a field and some sort of clock was lying on the ground, you wouldn't assume that they came together by chance because they are two neat and complicated ones, but rather you would assume that they had a conscious and intelligent designer as an analogy. Paley then went on to argue that because life and indeed the universe is ordered and complicated, it must also have had a conscious and intelligent designer, while Paley's presentation of this

argument

is the most famous since his time. , many theists and deists have developed versions of their own, for example, Ray Comfort often uses the analogy of a painting and a painter, while Ian Juby likes to use the analogy of a building and a builder, however, despite The many versions of this argument, all fundamentally the same, claim that complexity requires a designer, so what exactly is wrong with this? argument, I mean, the title of this video promises to discredit it and yet we're a minute in and we haven't even started, so let's start with its most critical flaws, let's continue with this first and foremost and what discredits the

watchmaker

for If only.

The argument is that it is a false analogy, an analogy is a comparison between things that have similar characteristics for the purpose of explaining a principle or an idea and in this case Paley insists that a comparison can be made between the complexity of a clock and the complexity of a clock. the universe that both imply that they had a designer, however, the last step is flawed because it concludes that because two things share a quality in common, which is complexity, they must also share another quality in common, a designer, when this you just can't logically conclude if you could. then, using the same flawed logic, countless other absurd qualities could be attributed to the universe, for example, the clock is complex, the clock was invented in the 15th century, the universe is complex, therefore the universe was invented in the 15th century just because two objects share one. quality in common, this does not necessarily mean that they share another, therefore, from the beginning, the watchmaker's argument is a false analogy, a second objection and one very closely related to the first is that he commits a fallacy of false cause, which does by saying that complexity and order can only be caused by a designer when not only has this never been proven to be true, it has actually been proven to be completely wrong, but we get to evolution in just a second, essentially how all people cause fallacies, the watchmaker's argument. mistakenly confuses correlation with causation, recognizes a relationship between complexity and designers and then concludes that one necessarily implies the other To demonstrate once again this floor from an unrelated example, we can take a look at the following temperatures have been increasing over the last few centuries while at the same time, the number of Pyro has been decreasing, that is what pirates call the world and global warming is a hoax, there may be a correlation between temperatures and pirates, just as there is a correlation between complexity and designers, but this does not necessarily imply the other and this leads us comfortably to another major problem with the watchmaker's argument: it completely ignores evolution by natural selection without delving too deeply into it.

It has been completely and absolutely proven that natural selection is an unconscious process that has given rise to countless complex processes. and purposeful organisms that, without an understanding of natural selection, in fact give the impression that they were deliberately designed or, in other words, we know for sure that nature can and has produced remarkably complex organisms without a conscious hand and smart behind them. The thing is, the reason we recognize a watch as designed actually has nothing to do with how complex and purposeful it is, but rather it is because we already know that the watch was designed.

We have literally millions of examples of watches created by a designer and yet there are zero examples of watches made without a designer and, in contrast, we have zero examples of life created by a designer and literally millions of examples of nature creating complex life. A fourth major flaw in the watchmaker's argument is that evoke emits a special appeal. fallacy or completely self-refuting, its central premise states that purpose and complexity require a designer and therefore, if we take the watchmaker's argument to its logical conclusion that there is a God and that he created the universe and everything in it, then applying the logical arguments themselves we must conclude that God also had a designer and so on for infinity, by definition, special pleading is an argument in which the speaker deliberately creates an exception to his argument without justifying why and that is precisely what one must do to prevent the watchmaker's argument from completely refuting itself, therefore the watchmaker's argument either refutes itself or commits a special pleading fallacy despite that each of the four previous objections alone defeats the watchmaker's argument.

Additional issues to make matters worse, the watchmaker's argument contradicts itself. The argument first assumes that a clock is different from nature, which indirectly claims that it is simple and random; However, he then claims that since the universe is so complicated and orderly, it must also have had a creator's rampage gives the universe two incompatible and contradictory qualities the watchmaker's argument does not imply one designer implies that there are many designers after finding that clock on the floor imagine if you then saw next to a shoe, you would assume that a watchmaker made that shoe, of course not, you would assume that a shoemaker made it, therefore, according to the analogy, life must have a creator of lives, children must have a child creator, etc., implying that there are many creators instead of just one, of course, one creator. could be responsible for creating more than one thing, but until we show that they are just an assumption, the watchmaker argument acts as if a watchmaker created a wash out of nothing when this is simply not true.

A watch like all human creations is a reorganization of energy and matter that already existed. A watchmaker cannot create a watch literally from nothing and so the watchmaker's argument can only really argue that the designer of the universe reorganized energy and matter. matter that already existed the watchmaker's argument does not support theism even if it were accepted to be a sound argument, it would only prove that the universe had a designer of the universe and that was it, it would not prove that a particular religion is true or, as it Hitchens expressed, even if the watchmaker's argument were valid, you as a theist still have all your work cut out for you, in addition to the watchmaker's argument not supporting theism, your logic is also inconsistent with the description of most gods. monotheists and certainly the Abrahamics and the all-powerful and all-loving God would not create organisms with the suboptimal type of design. that can be seen in nature, from vestigial organs to birth defects and pregnancy complications, it cannot logically follow that an all-powerful and loving God could be responsible for this meaning, which if the watchmaker's argument were valid, this would mean that the God who created the universe is not even omnipotent or benevolent or both, to summarize, the watchmaker's argument is flawed because it is a false analogy, it commits a false cause fallacy, it completely ignores evolution by natural selection, it commits a special pleading fallacy or it completely refutes itself. contradicting it does not imply one designer but many designers acts as if watches were created from nothing does not support theism and does not support the concept of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God is not a solid argument in fact it is completely, as you may have noticed, this video is a little longer than many of my others, but to be completely honest with you, I think it had to be that way, although the watchmaker's argument is completely flawed, it is nevertheless what I personally consider one of the best arguments for a deity that has ever existed and therefore deserved this royal kick thanks for the view and I leave you with this overwhelmingly powerful argument for considering the armored skeptic has a YouTube channel the armored skeptic has 300,000 subscribers rules of rationality has a YouTube channel therefore rationality rules, you have 300,000 subscribers