What if you Find a Watch in The Sand?

sirajstc

Well-known member
  • Apr 2, 2008
    58,814
    1,618
    113
    ~*~CeYLoN..~*~
    Suppose you found a watch in the middle of the desert. What would you conclude? Would you think someone had dropped thewatch? Or would you suppose that the watch came by itself?




    Of course, no sane person would say the watch just happened to emerge from the sand. All the intricate working parts could not simply develop from the metals that lay buried in the earth.




    The watch must have a manufacturer. If a watch tells an accurate time, we expect the manufacturer must be intelligent. Blind chance cannot produce a working watch. But what else tells accurate time? Consider the sunrise and the sunset. Their timings are so strictly regulated that scientists can publish in advance the sunrise and sunset times in your daily newspapers. But who regulated the timings of sunrise and sunset? If a watch cannot work without an intelligent maker, how can the sun appear to rise and set with such clockwork regularity? Could this occur by itself? Consider also that we benefit from the sun only because it remains at a safe distance from the earth. A distance that averages 93 million miles. If it got much closer, the earth would burn up. And if it got too far away, the earth would turn into an icy planet making human life here impossible.




    Who decided in advance that this was the right distance? Could it just happen by chance? Without the sun, plants would not grow. Then animals and humans would starve. Did the sun just decide to be there for us? We need to experience sunrise. We need the sun’s energy and its light to see our way during the day. But we also need sunset. We need a break for the heat, we need the cool of the night and we need the lights to go out so we may sleep. Who regulated this process to provide what we need? Moreover, if we had only the warmth of the sun and the protection of the atmosphere we would want something more beauty. Our clothes provide warmth and protection, yet we design them also to look beautiful. Knowing our need for beauty, the designer of the sunrise and the sunset also made the view of them to be simply breathtaking. The Creator who gave us light, energy, protection and beauty deserves our thanks. Yet some people insist that He does not exist.


    What would they think if they found a watch in the desert? An accurate, working watch? A beautifully designed watch? Would they not conclude that there does exist a watchmaker, One who appreciates beauty? Such is God who made us.


    :)
     

    ex-muslim Ahmed

    Well-known member
  • Mar 7, 2009
    3,355
    767
    113
    Watchmaker analogy and Blind watchmaker

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    The watchmaker analogy, or watchmaker argument, is a teleological argument for the existence of God. By way of an analogy, the argument states that design implies a designer. The analogy has played a prominent role in natural theology and the "argument from design," where it was used to support arguments for the existence of God and for the intelligent design of the universe.
    The most famous statement of the teleological argument using the watchmaker analogy was given by William Paley in 1802. In 1838, Charles Darwin's formulation of the theory of natural selection was seen as providing a counter-argument to the Watchmaker analogy. In the United States, starting in the 1980s, the concepts of evolution and natural selection became the subject of national debate, including a renewed interest in the watchmaker argument by both popular atheists[1] and the intelligent design movement.[citation needed]


    The Watchmaker argument

    The watchmaker analogy consists of the comparison of some natural phenomenon to a watch. Typically, the analogy is presented as a prelude to the teleological argument and is generally presented as:

    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 entire universe) necessitates a designer.
    In this presentation, the watch analogy (step 1) does not function as a premise to an argument — rather it functions as a rhetorical device and a preamble. Its purpose is to establish the plausibility of the general premise: you can tell, simply by looking at something, whether or not it was the product of intelligent design.
    In most formulations of the argument, the characteristic that indicates intelligent design is left implicit. In some formulations, the characteristic is orderliness or complexity (which is a form of order). In other cases it is clearly being designed for a purpose, where clearly is usually left undefined.



    Richard Dawkins

    Main article: Richard Dawkins
    Dawkins also gives an explanation for complex artifacts, one where a design is not necessary.
    Dawkins demonstrates through computer simulation that "highly complex" systems can be produced by a series of very small randomly-generated yet naturally selected steps, rather than an intelligent designer.
    He further points out the self-refuting nature of the argument: that if complex things must have been intelligently designed by something more complex than themselves, then anything posited as this complex designer (i.e. God) must also have been designed by something yet more complex.
    In a Horizon episode also entitled The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins described Paley's argument "as mistaken as it is elegant". In both contexts he saw Paley as having made an incorrect proposal as to a certain problem's solution, but did not disrespect him for this. In his essay The big bang, Steven Pinker discussed Dawkins' coverage of Paley's argument, adding: "Biologists today do not disagree with Paley's laying out of the problem. They disagree only with his solution."
    In his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins argues that life was the result of complex biological processes. Dawkins makes the argument that the comparison to the lucky construction of a watch is fallacious because evolutionists do not consider evolution "lucky". He tells the reader that evolutionists consider the evolution of human life the result of millions of years of natural selection. He therefore concludes, evolution is a fair contestant to replace God in the role of watchmaker.
     

    AncientGlory

    Member
    Jan 18, 2010
    1,131
    67
    0
    Australia
    Why watch maker argument does not make sense

    Dawkins blind watchmaker is not the only argument against watchmaker paradigm by paley.

    Here are some other arguments (I'm directly cutting and pasting from the internet).


    False analogy


    The watchmaker is a false analogy because it assumes that because two objects share one common quality, they must have another quality in common.

    A watch is complex
    A watch has a watchmaker
    The universe is also complex
    Therefore the universe has a watchmaker

    The last step is wrong, because it concludes something that is not supported by the criteria. It is best clearified by another example:

    Leaves are complex cellulose structures
    Leaves grow on trees
    Money bills are also complex cellulose structures
    Therefore money grow on trees (wich, according to the idiom, they don't)

    Contradiction

    The argument first assumes that a watch is different from nature, which is uncomplicated and random. It then states that since the universe is so complicated, complex, and ordered it too must have a creator. Thus, the argument gives the universe two incompatible qualities.

    Shoemakers

    What if you went further down the beach and found a shoe. Would you assume that a watchmaker made that shoe? Of course not, you would assume a shoemaker. Therefore, according to the analogy, created life must have a lifemaker, the sun a sunmaker and snowflakes a snowmaker. This implies that there are several creators in the world, responsible for all kinds of creation.

    The watchmaker's father

    Just like all watches have watchmakers, so do all watchmakers have fathers. Therefore, with the watchmaker anology, god has a father. Who is the father of god? and who is the father of the father? etc... This leads to an endless series, and the only way to end the series is to say that the original god just is without an origin and a cause.

    Watches out of nothing?

    The things used by the watchmaker to make watches already exists, but the theists claim that their god created things ex nihilo, from nothing. So the analogy is false here too.


    source
    http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm
     

    Aarya

    Member
    Dec 3, 2006
    523
    30
    0
    Down under
    ඔය ඔරලොසුව ඩාල ගිහින් ගොඩක් කල් නම් දැන් බැට්‍රි බැහැල තියෙන්න Ona :rolleyes: