Articles, Blog

This Painting Proves God (Allah) Exists – Debunked

This Painting Proves God (Allah) Exists – Debunked

“Imagine that you’re visiting an art exhibition. You see a lot of pictures belonging to different
times, and there is an attendant – an attendant that introduces the pictures to the visitors. He gives information about the pictures to
the visitors. He talks about how the pictures have been
made, which period they belong to, about the duration of the making process, which materials
and colours have been used, but he doesn’t talk about which artists they belong to.” So, those of you who’ve debated
a creationist or two likely know exactly where this Muslim is going. In fact, you probably figured it out within
the first seven words… (“Imagine that you’re visiting an art
exhibition”). Yep, it’s William Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy
(“Yay!”). Wait… hang on a sec– that’s a sexy looking
card, isn’t it? If fact, do you know what? I recon it should be part of a card game in
which players earn points by debunking arguments just like it. That would be awesome, wouldn’t it? Especially if, say, the Kickstarter was to
be released in two weeks time, huh? Okay… back to business. Stated simply, the Watchmaker Analogy is a
teleological argument for the existence of god which asserts, by way of analogy, that
design implies a designer – or more accurately, that COMPLEXITY requires a designer; proponents
assert that just as a watch implies a watchmaker, and a painting (or picture? “picture”) requires a painter (or illustrator?),
life must require, so they insist, a lifemaker (“By explaining how Allah created all these
things you do not cut of the fact that there is a creator”). It’s was once, in my opinion, the greatest
argument for a god. In fact, it convinced me of deism until the
age of nine, but then I discovered evolution by natural selection, which absolutely annihilates
the argument – and I’ll explain exactly why in just a moment. This is A Painting Proves Allah Exists – Debunked. “And then you suddenly ask: excuse me, to
which artist do these pictures belong to? And the answer is surprising: sir, there is
no artist for these pictures. I gave you some information about how they
were made, which period they belong to… why are you asking? Why are you looking for an artist? You already know how it’s made. Now, what would be your reaction? Could anyone make you believe that what the
attendant says is right? Of course not!” […] “By explaining how Allah created all
these things you don’t cut of the fact that there is a creator. We believe in a creator that is behind the
curtains, and who offers these blessing by using all these reasons.” Now those of you who’ve well-acquainted
with my channel will likely know that I’ve already thoroughly debunked the Watchmaker
Analogy in a previous video, but truth be told, it’s pretty dated now… I mean, look at how young… and awkwardly
close to the camera I was… I mean seriously, I was so damn close! And white! (“That’s racist!). But if creationists are going to keep
using the same old arguments, all be them slightly altered, then we, the rational, are
going to keep using the same rebuttals, all be them, appropriately altered! However, with that said, for the purpose of
context it’s worth first succinctly recapping the argument’s history. It was first fully-fledged in 1802 by William
Paley, in his book titled Natural Theology, who essentially puts it as follows: If you
were to find a pocket watch lying upon the ground, you would NOT assume that it was produced
by natures’ randomness (“A beautiful watch began ticking one day, formed all by itself
in a wonderful way… ridiculous story, you say with a grin. Impossible! Laughable! Surely a sin!”). Indeed, you would assume, due to its COMPLEXITY,
it must’ve had a creator who consciously and deliberately willed it into existence. Likewise, Paley argued, because life is so
incredible complex, we can infer that there must be a life-creator… and we ought to
call this creator, god. It was, and to my great annoyance still remains,
an incredibly popular argument: “I just want to give you guys something to think about
here […] let’s suppose you were walking down a path (like a creek), you… you, there’s
something– and you come across a watch–” “Time out!” And what’s more, since Paley’s time theists
and deists have conjured countless additional versions of the argument, in which simply
substitute Paley’s watch with something more culturally relatable, such as, say, literature:
“Okay, I want you to imagine we walk a little further down the beach, and you see in the
sand it says ‘John loves Marry’, and you say ‘hey Joe, how did that– how did that
get into the sand?’ And I say ‘oh, yeah, it was the waves again
– the waves did that’… are you going to believe me? You’re not, are you? Because you know that natural cannot create
something so finely tuned in such a small area, can it?” “Why is it – why is our universe so finely
tuned if we just came from accident? If we just came from nature’s randomness?” And, of course, today’s most popular version:
paintings: “Imagine you’re standing looking in awe at what you think is the most beautiful
painting ever painted. […] Imagine now, that you’re back now
looking at that incredible painting, and there’s a man beside you raving about it just as much
as you did, but when he finds out that the person next to him is the actual painter he
spits on him – he cusses him out, and for some unknown reason adamantly denies that
the painting even had a painter! Then he says the unthinkable: he says it happened
by accident!” But that’s enough examples, I hear you crying. “Enough is enough! I have had it with these mother-fucking [watchmaker
analogies] on this motherfucking [planet!]” “Everyone strap in – we’re about to
open some fucking [fallacies]!” The first reason the Watchmaker Analogy
is flawed is because it commits a False Analogy Fallacy; it erroneously asserts that because
two things share one quality in common (that being, in this case, complexity), they therefore
must share another quality in common (that being, in this case, a creator), but this
simply cannot be logically concluded. It’s as fallacious, for example, as asserting
that because paintings and humans share the quality of complexity, they must also share
the quality of consciousness… The point being, of course, is that just because
two objects share one thing in common (such as complexity), that doesn’t necessarily
not mean that they share another (such as a creator). Now it’s important to note that this objection
ALONE defeats the argument. Like, really, it’s game over. That is, unless the proponent can prove that
complexity can ONLY come from a conscious creator… and this leads us perfectly to
the second fallacy that the argument commits: a False Cause. It does this, as just indicated, by attributing
a SOLE cause and effect relationship between complexity and consciousness, despite the
fact that such a relationship has NOT been proven to exist. Sure, we can infer that watches are the product
of watchmakers, and paintings are the product of painters, but the reason we can do this
actually has NOTHING to do with complexity – rather, it’s because we have observed
literally millions of these items being produced by conscious entities, and not one, ever,
being produced in any other way. However, and conversely, we have observed
literally millions of complex organisms, but have not once, ever, seen one being produced
by a conscious entity. We do, however, have overwhelming evidence
that such complexity – such seemingly deliberate design – can and has been produced by the
unconscious force that is evolution by natural selection… and here lies the third flaw
of the Watchmaker Analogy; it completely and utterly ignores evolution by natural selection. “But actually they don’t know that we
Muslims accept science already.” No – you don’t; you accept science that
doesn’t conflict with your iron-age worldview, and you misrepresent and ignore science that
does… such as evolution! Now, I’ve created numerous videos on this
topic, each saturated with evidence and resources, and so for this video I’ll keep it brief
by saying that we know, FOR A FACT, that the unconscious process that is natural selection,
has given rise to countless complex and purposed organisms, which, admittedly, without an understanding
of natural selection, do radiate the illusion of conscious design. So there, in my opinion, are the three most
damning flaws of the Watchmaker Analogy. However, those who employ the argument VERY
frequently commit additional fallacies, and I think it’s worth noting the most prominent,
and so, I’m going to do just that. The first I’d like to illuminate, and one
that proponents (at least in my experience) seriously struggle to understand, is that
of Special Pleading. If, as they insist, complexity requires a
creator, then by applying the argument’s logic to its own conclusion we can insist
that the creator (with all his or her complexity), must also have a creator… and so on and
so forth! Hence, the argument is utterly self-defeating
– even if correct, all it would establish is turtles all the way down. That is, unless the advocate creates an exception
to their logic without justification… which, of course, is exactly what they do; “By
definition, god is the uncreated creator of the universe!” “Right.” “And so the question ‘who created god’ is
actually an illogical question.” Yeah, well, I define the universe as a “The
uncreated universe”… see the problem? A second fallacy that proponents VERY frequently
commit is a Black and White Fallacy. They tend to insist that either their god
created life / the universe / whatever, or that pure random chance did: “A beautiful
watch began ticking one day, formed all by itself in a wonderful way.” “Why is our universe so finely tuned if
we just came from accident? If we just came from nature’s randomness?” “Then he says the unthinkable: he says it
happened by accident!” But god and random chance are not the only
options… are they Darwin? *smile* And even if evolution wasn’t established
– even if it wasn’t the bedrock of biology – the proponents of the Watchmaker Analogy
would STILL have the Burden of Proof to substantiate their Black and White assertion… which,
of course, they don’t even attempt to do. The third most prominent fallacy additionally
committed by those who wield the Watchmaker Analogy is a Non-Sequitur. More often than not, they act as if the argument
establishes monotheism (a single-god hypothesis), and many even act as if it establishes their
VERY specific god, but the truth is that even if the argument was valid, it wouldn’t even
substantiate monotheism. Think about it – if you saw a shoe lying
on the ground, would you assume that it was created by a painter? No, you wouldn’t – you’d assume it was
created by a shoemaker (or, funny enough, by an unconscious machine – but that’s
a whole other avenue). Hence, if the argument was a valid, it would
follow that humans have a human-maker, rabbits have a rabbit-maker, mountains have a mountain-maker,
suns have a sun-maker, and so on… implying that there must be many gods, not just one (“Allah. Allah. Allah”). Now there are many more fallacies that advocates
of this argument tend to commit, and most of which are covered in my original video,
but as for this one, I’m ready to wrap up. And so, to recap, the Watchmaker Analogy is
flawed because it commits a False Analogy Fallacy, a False Cause Fallacy, and it completely
ignores the bedrock of science that is evolution by natural selection; and proponents of the
Watchmaker Analogy frequently additionally commit a Special Pleading Fallacy, a Black
and White Fallacy, and a Non-Sequitur. As always, I’m Stephen Woodford, or Rationality
Rules, and thank you kindly for the view, and an extra special thank you to my wonderful
patrons and those of you who’ve supported the channel via merchandise and PayPal. If you’re interested in the aforementioned
Debunked card game (which I hope you are), know that should things go according to plan,
the Kickstarter will be released around the 15th of February. Anyhow, until next time my fellow apes, until
next time.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

100 thoughts on “This Painting Proves God (Allah) Exists – Debunked

  1. The guy at 4:35 made me cringe a bit. For the f…’s sake, Nature is not random at all…

  2. As far as I know, humans are part of nature, so a human writing in sand, by extension IS nature doing something deliberate and complex, even if you write "DICK!" or write your name in the snow with pee 😛

  3. You don't see paintings paint themselves. We do trees grow themselves. They are assuming a creator for something we see naturally grow itself and comparing it to a painting or watch or handwriting which we never see grow itself. So on those basic grounds alone their arguments are fallacious. But what else do they have when trying to provide evidence for fairy tales that stem from religious books?

  4. Well if paintings and watches could reproduce themselves it would limit the problem of us ever running out of paintings and watches. As far as people we have too many as is. Stop fucking and it will help with that unless some creator just starts poofing people into existence. THEN if that happens, we have a topic for discussion.

  5. Another factor to consider. Based on the watchmaker argument we could also conclude if a "creator" is responsible for complexity such as living beings it can surely create paintings and watches. But yet we only see paintings and watches being made by humans. Why is that? Why are there not paintings and watches and iphones just poofing into existence from a creator other then a human?

  6. The Qur'an Majeed(Glorious Qur'an)endorsed evolution and natural selection.It is 1400 yrs old.Who,except Allah(SWT) would have known evolution and natural selection 1400 yrs ago.Therefore Allah(SWT)has revealed the Qur'an.Therefore Allah(SWT)exists.

  7. Hey! ask Allah where the fuck my flying horse is!!! I am ready to ascend to paradise and can't get there without my flying horse! If I don't get it soon I am going to "Jack " Amun-Re's chariot and go get my 60 virgins! If there is a shortage of virgins when I et there I will settle for 59 or 58, I am not greedy.

  8. man I got a brain numbing moronic christian ad….. christians helping pay the bills of atheists 😛

  9. So they think Allah is the one true God yet their proof of this would also mean that their God Allah must also have been created so he can't be the one true God.

  10. ha got an ad for something called godlife and i've to ask "god" something and admit i'm not perfect and accept jesus how about I ask why he's such a cunt i've read his book 😀
    also kind of find the assumption that non religious people think they're perfect pretty presumptuous :/

  11. I think it would be easier to give a canvas, brushes and colors to a person who has never painted anything in his life. And then tell that person, now paint a work of art. Or tell a blacksmith, now make a watch. Everything, but everything is an evolutionary process, Watches, paintings and even humanity had to evolve, even an atom had to evolve. And a religious will surely ask me, "Where from?" My answer will always be the same; The measure of time is simply a measure (To measure a distance, you need two measurements, length and time, but to measure the length of a circle, you do not need the measure of time and you will never find where the beginning is, the middle and the end of this circle. Who can prove that there is a beginning, middle and end to everything around us?I know a lot of people will say that evolution needs the measure of time, I know that, but never forget that at first the measure of time is a creation of man, secondly, time is relative and may even cease to exist. Example: There is no time for those who are traveling at the speed of light, but out of that journey the time goes on, depending on how fast something goes.

  12. You think our universe is finely tuned for (human) life?
    OK, take a trip to Antarctica, the Sahara or Mars and see how you get on. Go on, off you pop! Douglas Adams' "puddle argument" is also a good one for dealing with the fine tuning argument.
    Also, one of your cards has "Zeus" misspelled.

  13. You think our universe is finely tuned for (human) life?
    OK, take a trip to Antarctica, the Sahara or Mars and see how you get on. Go on, off you pop! Douglas Adams' "puddle argument" is also a good one for dealing with the fine tuning argument.
    Also, one of your cards has "Zeus" misspelled.

  14. Theist: "A painting requires a painter, therefore…."
    Me: "Wait a second. How do you know that a painting requires a painter?"

    Sure, the painting didn´t paint itself but how can we know that a painter painted it and it couldn´t have come into existence by another process? Let them explain how they know that a painting requires a painter and how they rule out other causes.
    The rest is simple. Just use whatever they said to debunk their argument.
    If they can´t explain how they ruled out other causes for the existence of the painting, the first premise falls flat. If they can, apply the same reasoning to the god claim and it falls flat, because if they can´t rule out other causes, the picture example isn´t compareable to the god claim.

    Another method I often use is applying their logic to another example, where the cause is natural. Something like "a pointy pencil requires a pencil sharpener, because a pencil can´t sharpen itself. Therefore pointy rocks require a rock sharpener"
    It shows that the argument is invalid. The fact that we know one pointy thing requires a sharpener doesn´t mean that all pointy things require a sharpener. The fact that we know that one complex thing with a specific arrangement requires a creator doesn´t mean that all complex things with specific arrangements require a creator.

    That´s how I explain the false analogy fallacy in this case.

  15. If I were god the universe would be polytheistic because the very first thing I'd have created is a bunch more gods so they could create everything else. The next things I'd have created are a comfy chair and a bag of chips to enjoy while I watched my created gods go about it.

  16. When I watched this the ad which followed was from an evangelical Christian organisation. Well played, irony, well played.

  17. Love your work (mostly ;-). Correction – You pejoratively (warranted) call the Muslim beliefs, "Iron Age beliefs". While the sentiment is accurate, the age is not. The Iron Age is said to have ended in the near East with the beginning of the Achaemenid Empire in about 550 B.C. whereas the Quran is dated as early as 609 A.D. so that's about 1000 years later. So, there's less excuse for such views imo. In Western Europe is ends with the emergence of imperial Rome in 27 BC. This Iron Age beliefs is common in counter apologetics but it's inaccurate with Christianity and Judaism as well. Most of the OT was written after the Achaemenid Empire and all of the New Testament was written after Rome became an Imperial hegemon. I understand the appeal to point out their morality as "primitive" but it's inaccurate at best and ad hominem at worst. In addition it commits the fallacy of "old stuff is stupid, new stuff is awesome" it also universalizes diverse moral systems and condemns them all – Jainism is Bronze Age and I find it hard to muster contempt for "Do no harm" as the foundational moral prescript. The writers of the New Testament, anonymous thought they were, were products of the highest education available throughout the empire. They wrote in Greek and mastered it well enough to write in the voice of the uneducated masses and disciples/apostles of Jesus. Now I'm not at all convinced that Jesus was even a historical person but the people who started Christianity and it's surviving manuscripts are not accurately describes as having Iron Age beliefs. They were, unfortunately, educated for their time and were championing an evolution to the prevailing moral system of their religion. That it didn't realize such blatant moral principles of sexual equality and freedom from slavery is further testament to it's human origins.

  18. I think the watchmaker argument is weak because if I find a watch of course I’ll assume there’s a watchmaker, but not because it’s complex but because it’s a watch and I know that watches are made. The argument never had a leg to stand on honestly. It assumes complexity means a creator which is a fallacy of course, but anyone with any brains will know that a watch was made because it’s a watch.

  19. The Muslim don't know Islam if he is using a painting to prove the existence of Allah, as the image makers are deem to eternal hell fire.

  20. Do these guys even know what chance is

    Yes there could be something random in the universe since there could have been a infinite amount of universes before ours

  21. "look around you, therefore its allah's doing"
    oh yeah, it have to be the god you've grown up with. lets ignore the other hundreds of other gods because the god i born with is the real god.

  22. Among the thousands od species that exists in our planet to show while talking about natural selection… WHY A SPIDER??!!😰😰🕷️🕸️

  23. Once had i guy tell me in wonder how cool it was that phones actually fit in human hands. Think about it for a little. Smart guy

  24. So basically, same bullshit, just from a different bull. I am sorry you had to repeat 8 minutes and add another 4 on top of that to debunk the same nonsense

  25. Natural Selection and evolution is something heavily accepted in ISLAM, but the whole thing that "People evolved from apes but for some reason there are still apes is what is not accepted" u should have researched that more atleast….but still if a painting made by a person is a proof of GOD then I wouldnt have been a creationist….THIS IS FUCKING stupid and insulting….

  26. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha the painter is standing their and u spit on him ok but then I can see the painter(god) but does God show himself fuck no so Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha twats if u can ever show a watch or painting or whatever comeing about without a helping hand from man then yes u can use this argument but until then fuck off its just so stupid 👿

  27. For those out there that study Philosophy or Biology – the Watchmaker argument gets destroyed via Dan Dennetts Book " Darwin's Dangerous Idea"…
    Definitely his best work and a great addition to other Books that rather concentrate on the science of evolution instead of the philosophical aspect…
    Also, Richard Dawkins " The Blind Watchmaker" annihilated the Watchmaker argument.

  28. Jesus Christ is censor beep over Samuel L Jackson cuss words was ten times louder than the rest of the video! It was extremely jarring and annoying!! if you ever have to censor something again, lower the volume of the Damned beeps!

  29. Are you atheists still talking? Don’t you know that atheism lost the debate when Hitchens died, his drunken bludgeon style was the only thing you people had. Now he’s dead, Dawkins is a clown and Harris a fraud. Atheism is dead and it’s former members are all now SJWs, feminazis, and envrimorons. Time to rebrand.

  30. Allah is 100% real because Allah did create people more especial than animals that why humans have mind and animals don't have much mind as people. And also if Allah is not real how can life produce by it's own.

  31. But it does. Maybe you use some word other than God or Allah. But if there are an abundance of watches and paintings in the universe then there must be at least one instance of intelligence in the universe. “I think therefore I am.”

    The card game looks nice. Sorry that I am viewing this video too late to get in on the Kickstarter. I did a board game on Kickstarter too. It’s called Electromagnate. It deals with the same issue.

    In the Electromagnate universe the universe is a multi-layered/textured electromagnetic song on a loop. Then that song manifests/renders into “reality” in somewhere between 1 and an infinite number of consciousnesses. So, there is a God. If there wasn’t, it wouldn’t be possible for us to have this conversation. Or, even for one of us to imagine that we’re having this conversation. Though, I suppose, it’s possible that the last true consciousness died trillions of years ago and we’re just a couple of artificial intelligences just keeping our code from getting rusty by having a debate.

  32. The world runs on emotion not logic. I hate to admit it but it is true. Facts mean nothing to so many it is scary. I’m supposed to believe in something no one can prove but I’m not to believe provable facts. Strange.

  33. I took a picture of the spherical Earth.

    "FAKE! It's not proof! It's Photoshop! The Earth is flat & I can prove it! Look at this painting of a flat earth!"
    mic drop

  34. There's one problem with your conclusion. It argues from a point of certainty that the mechanisms of Evolution, Physics, etc… have no origin from a creator. The honest truth is there is no way to know.

    Either the universe/reality has a conscious creator… or it does not. Both assertions require proof.
    Prove there is a creator… or
    Prove the universe exists only by natural phenomenon.

    Now we get into the issue of higher dimensions. A 3 dimensional being could manipulate & change the reality of a 2 dimensional universe, & the conscious lifeforms of that 2 dimensional universe, would have no way to understand or perceive that 3 dimensional being.
    To the lifeforms in the 2 dimensional universe… everything the 3 dimensional being does, will appear to be just natural phenomenon, or the magic of a god… & they would have no way of "proving" either claim.

    Now if a sentient 5 dimensional being were to manipulate/create our universe/reality… us 3 dimensional beings would have no way to understand or perceive it. To us, this 5 dimensional being would just appear to be natural phenomena, or imagined as a god/magic… because we cannot perceive 5 dimensions.

    If a 5 dimensional hypersphere entered our universe… we would never see it for what it is. It would appear to us 1st as a point, that would expand into an expanding sphere, as it passes through our plane of existence… then shrink back down to a point & pop out of existence.

    It would be the same if a 5 dimensional being reached its hand into our universe. We would never see it for what it is… so how could we ever determin what it is, if we can't observe it?

  35. It's amazing that they always use things like paintings, machines and watches and never stones, leaves and stars

    It's like they rely on the fact that there is a difference between a stone and a clock to convince you that finding a stone on the beach is just like finding a watch

  36. Kirk Cameron, how do you spit on and curse out the painter at the same time as denying the painter exists????

  37. I find this argument humorous due to the fact that islam has outlawed almost every form of art. But wait, this stuff that god has decreed an abomination proves its own existence!

  38. I don't think I heard that ridiculous little poem about the watchmaker before. I love how it inserts that little "surely it's a sin" line, to make sure people know to never even consider it again, lest they burn in hellfire.

  39. Found a typo (if it wasn't done intentionally). He's called Zeus, not Zues (in the first card that mentions Zeus – the "Ignores Natural Selection" one).

  40. Pay no attention to that deity behind the curtain, because there is no deity behind the curtain. In fact, there isn't even a curtain.

  41. "Unconscious process of natural selection"
    Lmao. Give me one example of a part of natural selection that doesn't involve consciousness, you massive edgelord.

  42. So at the age of Nine he went from a theist to an evolutionist 🧐
    At the age of Nine I was still eating my boogers

  43. You know when you see nature and you see something manmade you recognize the manmade object immediately and recognize something natural just as easily. One had a creator and one did not.Both are complex.That is a very bad argument ,because you can clearly recognize that they are different and not the same,which is what theists are claiming.Their argument actually helps disprove their own argument by pointing out how different things with a creator are from those without a creator.

  44. If you can tell me how I was saved from a fall at 5yts old by hands that were not there and pushed upright onto the wall i was falling from. I'd love to know. If it was a dream then you are all just a part of my dream.

  45. Lets say its early in the morning, the sun isn't even up yet. You're hungry, so you throw a slice of white bread into the toaster. You go about you business, pull out the peanut butter, a knife, until you hear the distinct sound of a toater being done its cycle, pop. When you pull the toast out you see an image has formed in the darkening of the toast. It looks eerily similar to several pieces of art around your home, yes it is the son of god, jesus christ! When you look at this slice of bread you think wow, that is a complex image, clearly this couldn't have happened by accident, clearly there must be a creator. Ah ha! Yes my toaster created it, my toaster is god!

  46. God was a valid argument for the creation of the universe back in a time when humans thought we were at the center of it all.

  47. So, the Universe is “finely tuned” for life, is it? Well, where is it all then? As far as we know there’s only ONE measly planet with life on it!

  48. Just goes to show, no matter the religion, no matter the person, no matter where in the world – Theists are so deludedly ridiculous they are almost beyond parody. Ah! Men.

  49. Evolution ks a myth love pitman was a 40 yr hoax lucy was a racist masonscreation n darwin drew inaccurate bullshit pic y dont u google the flatearth brother why they lie 1 2 n 3 hes a teacher who still has to give examson these proven false bs that u hold as fact they have bern purposly hiding god from u jesus saves love repent n say the salvation prayer the bloodof all that follow u will be on ur handsshpuld u not be real sure. They lie to us bout vaccines space evolution satan hidinggod from u big surprise those whodo itr luciferian

  50. Your argument and reasoning are intricate and well crafted. But surely a more powerful dismissal of the watchmaker analogy is to suggest that’s probably why we don’t don’t find watches floating around in deep space?

  51. "Something must have designed this. That something is God."

    Always the same jumps in logic (which would be invalid even if the premise were true.)

  52. I'm walking on a lonely beach, I look down and see a watch. One can only assume that the watch had a maker. So
    to, if one looks at the earth and the universe, one assume that such a complex thing had a designer.

    But did the watch REALLY have ONE maker? I don't think so. The designer might have been able to design the watch, but he might not have has the skill to make the parts. So the God of the Design, need the machinist God of the Machine to make the parts. But it is also possible that neither the Designer or the Machinist has the fine intricate motor skill to assemble the watch. So, we have the God of the Design, the God of the Machine, and the God of Assembly.

    Now moving in the other direction, while the Machinist can cut the gears, he may not have the skill to make the Metal which comes in two parts. The Machinist relies on the Forgeman who takes big pieces of metal and break them down to more usable piece of metal. He takes block of brass and breaks it down into small disks of brass.

    Each of the people has unique skills that make them "God" to the other people involved. For example, the Forgeman can reform metal into more usable shapes, but that skill is worthless without the skill of the Smelter. The man who takes very special dirt and converts it into actual metal. But there is a genius above the smelter, he may be able to turn dirt into metal, but the Miner, knows very specifically what dirt can be converted into what metal, and how to get it out of the ground.

    Each person hold a degree of genius not available to the others. Each is a god in his own unique way, each as power over the others. The Watch simply could not exist without these multiple gods coming into play.

    The socially lowest god, the God of the Mine, the god who labors and gets his hands dirty, is actually the most powerful god, because without him the existence of the other gods is meaningless.

    So, if you accept the Watchmaker Argument is seems only reasonable that you are a Polytheist.

    The watch was not make by a single Intelligent Designer, but by several gods, each with unique power. Each an Intelligent Designer in his own right.

    Then we have the God of the Seller, the man who has to convince some buyer that the watch is indeed worthy of buying. Then we have the God of the Owner who has to decide if the watch is worthy of owning. And perhaps he has found the watch NOT
    worthy, hence the watch laying dis-guarded on the beach. The God of the Owner has the ultimate power of life and death over the watch. He gets to decide if the watch is cherished through generations, or if it is dis-guarded on the beach.

    The God of the Mine.
    The God of the Smelter.
    The God of the Forge.
    The God of the Machine.
    The God of the Design.
    The God of the Assembler.
    The God of the Seller.
    The God of the Owner.

    And while it might take a year or two to build a first prototype watch, it took 14 Billion Years to create the modern world, in that span of time, man occupies only the very smallest portion at the very end; the tiniest sliver of cosmic time. We are not the ultimate creation, we are not even the tiniest gear in the watch. Dinosaurs ruled the earth for countless millions of years, man has brought himself to the brink of destruction in about 100,000 years. That does not make MAN the shiniest penny in the pocket.

    Watchmaker = Polytheist.

    This is if you are inclined to even believe in such fairy-tales.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *