Dahlsim wrote:
wp1488 wrote:
wp1488 wrote:
Dahlsim wrote:
wp1488 wrote: You are using a variation of the well debunked watchmaker argument but I’ll let you continue
I guess if you say something is “well debunked” that passes for “evidence” in your world. 
By your logic then we only know that a watch had to have a watchmaker because we already know how watches are made.
Logically then, you must know of devices similar to watches that had no maker? I’ve never known of any such device but perhaps you can enlighten me.
Can you give me an example of something that was not designed?
Bumping for next time.
Having looked at this “watch maker theory debunking”, multiple long explanations. It is honestly a convoluted and irrational mess. 
No wonder your arguments are “circular”. If you make illogical statements such as these “watchmaker” debunker make and then move forward from them as though they made sense, then of course any discussion will become circular.
They arguments are nothing more than a doctrine i.e. “teaching” constructed to the support the “religion” you don’t want to call a religion.
To respond to it in detail I’ll have to post it somewhere over time and I have an idea to do that.
Let’s just say in summary, the universe of things that are “NOT designed” is endless.
For instance this would be a “painting” that has qualities of randomness:
Painting like above can be created by a Random paint generator.
Painting like this below CANNOT be generated b a Random paint generator:
You see? One of these can be the result of “Random” processes, one of them, logically speaking “CANNOT”.
We can talk about things like patterns, symmetry, information and other evidences that should constitute “proof” of design
but the truth is, even a child knows the difference. 
So are you admitting that there are things in nature that are the result of random processes and did not have a designer? If a child knows the difference, if he were to pick up the watch, and then pick up a rock sitting next to the watch, he should assume that the rock is the result of a random process and that rocks were not designed, correct? How much of nature do you feel is a result of a random process and not designed?
Rather than go through the motions on this argument I’ll save us both the trouble. If you use the watchmaker analogy(computer on a planet analogy, ray comfort’s painting/painter analogy, it’s all the same argument) and you find a watch on a beach and recognize that it’s designed because it’s so complex compared to your surroundings, and follow it out it’s conclusion that there is a god who created the universe and everything in it(which is what creationists believe and I’m assuming that also includes you), then he also created the all the grains of sand on the beach and the ocean next to the beach, right? So in actuality what you’d be doing is walking along a beach full of watches on an ocean full of watches, or standing on a planet made of watches, and you’re picking up this one watch and saying this one watch is so different from the the billions of other watches around me that it must be proof of a designer. The fact of the matter is that you wouldn’t be able to determine that the watch is designed because you would not have any basis for comparison because you don’t have a non-designed thing to compare it to. it is a self-reinforcing argument. The same with the universe. In order to proclaim that the universe is designed, you would first have a frame of reference so you’d need to first determine what a non-designed universe would look like(you actually can do this, just look outside) “this appears to be designed therefore it was designed” is not a sound argument. There IS a way to recognize that a watch is intelligently designed. It doesn’t have anything to do with complexity. It has to do with every example we have of anything remotely resembling a watch that we know of IS designed, and we have NO examples of watches occurring naturally. It is a contrast between naturally occurring and non-natually occurring.
All that aside, the argument itself takes an unnecessary leap by declaring that the designer is the god of your choice when there’s no reason to jump to that conclusion.
wp1488 wrote:Rather than go through the motions on this argument I’ll save us both the trouble. If you use the watchmaker analogy(computer on a planet analogy, ray comfort’s painting/painter analogy, it’s all the same argument) and you find a watch on a beach and recognize that it’s designed because it’s so complex compared to your surroundings, and follow it out it’s conclusion that there is a god who created the universe and everything in it(which is what creationists believe and I’m assuming that also includes you), then he also created the all the grains of sand on the beach and the ocean next to the beach, right? So in actuality what you’d be doing is walking along a beach full of watches on an ocean full of watches, or standing on a planet made of watches, and you’re picking up this one watch and saying this one watch is so different from the the billions of other watches around me that it must be proof of a designer. The fact of the matter is that you wouldn’t be able to determine that the watch is designed because you would not have any basis for comparison because you don’t have a non-designed thing to compare it to. it is a self-reinforcing argument. The same with the universe. In order to proclaim that the universe is designed, you would first have a frame of reference so you’d need to first determine what a non-designed universe would look like(you actually can do this, just look outside) “this appears to be designed therefore it was designed” is not a sound argument. There IS a way to recognize that a watch is intelligently designed. It doesn’t have anything to do with complexity. It has to do with every example we have of anything remotely resembling a watch that we know of IS designed, and we have NO examples of watches occurring naturally. It is a contrast between naturally occurring and non-natually occurring.
All that aside, the argument itself takes an unnecessary leap by declaring that the designer is the god of your choice when there’s no reason to jump to that conclusion.
Lol…what??
The irony of this line of reasoning is that the grains of sand, the water, etc. ARE just like the watch! The watch might be the MOST intricately designed thing in the scenario, but when you break the grains of sand and the water down to the molecular level, design is so apparent that saying otherwise is absurd.
Do you know why we don’t have a “non-designed” thing to compare the designed things to? Because everything was designed!
It has nothing to do with the “appearance” of being designed (although by default it does appear to be so). It has everything to do with the fact that based on everything we know about design mechanics, the watch de facto MUST BE designed. It is impossible for it not to be.
It is actually the logic of the person who says “just look, the universe is clearly not designed” that is flawed. If the Watchmaker apologists look at the watch and say, “compared to literally every single thing we can see that has been designed, this watch too has been clearly designed,” the Watchmaker detractors say, “no, just because this APPEARS to be designed doesn’t mean it HAS to be.” Not only is it counter-intuitive to common sense, it lacks supporting evidence.
Name me something as intricately designed as a watch that came to being by accident. You are not allowed to say, ” the universe” either. Use something that has been proven to have come about that appears to have design that was actually not designed.
