Causality and Watchmakers Revisited.

The first time I ever heard the watch maker argument I thought it very strange. The idea that someone uneducated finds a watch in the wilderness and it is painfully obvious that the watch is designed because it is not like the natural things around it. It seems bad inductive reasoning to then postulate that the natural things around it are also designed because they were the original reference point to ascertain non-design.

If you follow it through using deductive reasoning then yes there were forces which brought the watch together, including consciousness. A mountain also has causes, but these do not apparently include a designer. Neither do the causes of trees, although there is apparent purpose, it is clear that the perceived purposefulness is due to the way the environment has shaped the needs and strengths of the tree.

This is simply the idea that things have a cause and the attribution of intelligence behind the cause is an egocentric one with no real reason behind it other than wishful/lazy thinking.

——————————————-

This has been an open response to:

“Every time you see a building, you know it has a builder.  What proof do you need that a builder built the building even if you never saw the builder? The answer is that the building is proof that there is a builder.

Every time you see a watch, you know it has a designer.  What proof do you need that there is a designer even if you never saw the designer?  The answer is that the watch is itself proof that there is a designer.

When you see the universe and how it is built and designed to sustain life, what proof do you need that it has a creator even if you never saw the creator?  The universe itself is proof that it must have been creative.”

Advertisements

About (V)nemoni)(s

The views and opinions expressed here are purely my own. I am not affiliated with and business or political body. All content is either my own work, items in the public domain, or items used under the terms of Fair Usage for criticism, commentary, or education purposes. (Also; only a fool would take anything posted on here seriously.)
This entry was posted in Atheism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Causality and Watchmakers Revisited.

  1. “It seems bad inductive reasoning to then postulate that the natural things around it are also designed because they were the original reference point to ascertain non-design.”

    Such a conclusion would certainly be fallacious. Nice counterargument.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s