Ah, should've expected the theists to go off on some ridiculous tangent, rather than actually address the topic. Then again, this topic is all about the ways this apologetic argument is flawed, so, no wonder; there was no reasonable way they could address it.

For the record, since I know it's confusing, the watchmaker argument defines simple and complex by appealing to our knowledge of the differences between the watch found and the sand of the beach it was found on. Compared to the sand, the watch is clearly designed by an intelligent being and this is illustrated by its complexity of construction compared to sand. However, adding in "God created everything" destroys this comparison.

So, by saying "nuh-uh! Sand is complex!" you're proving the flaw of the argument.

(March 6, 2021 at 7:18 pm)Five Wrote: Ah, should've expected the theists to go off on some ridiculous tangent, rather than actually address the topic. Then again, this topic is all about the ways this apologetic argument is flawed, so, no wonder; there was no reasonable way they could address it.

For the record, since I know it's confusing, the watchmaker argument defines simple and complex by appealing to our knowledge of the differences between the watch found and the sand of the beach it was found on. Compared to the sand, the watch is clearly designed by an intelligent being and this is illustrated by its complexity of construction compared to sand. However, adding in "God created everything" destroys this comparison.

So, by saying "nuh-uh! Sand is complex!" you're proving the flaw of the argument.

Not to mention the whole attempt at cheating by pointing to a man-made object whose construction we can observe in real-time or at the very least are within the preview of human artifice. When I look at a shell I don't see a watch or anything comparable and only by conflation or false comparison can this be done.

(March 6, 2021 at 7:18 pm)Five Wrote: Ah, should've expected the theists to go off on some ridiculous tangent, rather than actually address the topic.

You're more than welcome to engage with theists. Odd to observe from a distance and gripe when a topic meanders.

(March 6, 2021 at 5:29 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(March 6, 2021 at 5:11 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I didn't need to look them up.  Physics has demonstrated their existence.  It hasn't demonstrated they have no structure.  Until it does, you can't assert them as elementary particles.  For someone who talks shit about other people's knowledge of physics, you seem to know dick about it.

Meanwhile, in all your shitposting, the point still has not been addressed.  Let me remind you of what it is:

You are incredibly dishonest. You said, specifically, that two hydrogen atoms constituting complexity is absurd. I replied that hydrogen is demonstrably not simple because there are simpler components of it, namely the elementary particles, do you agree with this particular reply? No? Are they the simplest that we will ever discover ? we don't know, their very existence still proves, irrefutably, that hydrogen is complex, and thus your silly objection evaporates into thin air.

I'm dishonest? I said two hydrogen atoms constituting complexity, treating hydrogen atoms as atomic as they were at one time and still are today to many. Upon your pointing out the technical flaw, I rephrased it as two elementary particles, no matter how you care to define them, and that is what you have been replying to for several posts. For you to pretend that I hadn't clarified my point and was still defending hydrogen as an elementary particle just makes you a dishonest twat. You have been focusing on the question of elementary particlehood as if that were the point and as if you didn't know it wasn't the point because of my explicitly pointing it out. Now, for you to accuse me of dishonesty after you've repeatedly tried to pretend I hadn't is the utmost in bullshit and lies.

Answer the point or concede the point. This "hydrogen being an elementary particle is essential to your point" is a bunch of crap. I've already said otherwise.

(March 6, 2021 at 5:29 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Once again, it's not I who asserted them as elementary particles. This is the term employed in modern physics, you can take it up with all these theoretical physicists who use the same terminology to describe the simplest known existent items, maybe you will be surprised when you realise they are a bit smarter than you thought when they picked the terminology. And Wtf does any of that require proving a negative assertion like "they have no structure" which is an infinite regress, because we can grasp the idea of the infinitesimal. we simply deal with we know. It's known that sand is really not a simple particle because it contains lots of molecules, which in turn contain these newly discovered elementary particles, THEREFORE sand is really incredibly complex, so much so that there is ongoing research to unravel more of the mysteries of subatomic particles.

Whether scientists think they are elementary particles or not is irrelevant. You defined complex as anything which is an aggregate of simple elementary particles, and cited Wikipedia which stated that an elementary particle is one without substructure. That becomes your chosen definition and yours to defend, not that of scientists. If you can't show that there actually are elementary particles, i.e. no infinite regress, then your definition of complexity is vacuous as there are no simple, elementary particles. I never mentioned sand and indeed have not, as my entire point was a retort to your claim that your interlocutor could not scientifically define simple, to which I replied that I could, i.e. simple is defined as not complex, pointing out that if you've got a scientific definition for complex, my definition of simple is valid. Since then it's been nothing but you running around the mulberry bush throwing red herrings with wild abandon to avoid facing the problem with a) your definition of complex, and b) your argument that complexity under that definition indicates design. As I recall, the last time we argued you did the same exact thing before you tucked your tail between your legs and fled.

Answer the objections given or fuck off. Telling me so-and-so uses the word the way you do and obsessing about ground already ceded just makes you an ass.

(March 6, 2021 at 5:29 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: That's all I need to reject OP's silly description of sand as simple, in comparison to watches. As if he is some omnipotent agent capable of grasping quantum field theory in the blink of an eye.

I could give a rat's ass. I wasn't defending the OP.

(March 6, 2021 at 7:59 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: You're more than welcome to engage with theists. Odd to observe from a distance and gripe when a topic meanders.

I did engage. Odd for you to tell me to do something that I already did in a post you quoted. Probably shouldn't have snipped out that part.

(March 6, 2021 at 9:41 pm)Five Wrote:

(March 6, 2021 at 7:59 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: You're more than welcome to engage with theists. Odd to observe from a distance and gripe when a topic meanders.

I did engage. Odd for you to tell me to do something that I already did in a post you quoted. Probably shouldn't have snipped out that part.

I see you've met Breezy.  He likes to cherry pick.

(March 6, 2021 at 9:41 pm)Five Wrote: I did engage.

Rehashing your initial thread post after criticizing participants hardly qualifies as engaging. Do better.

(March 6, 2021 at 10:08 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 6, 2021 at 9:41 pm)Five Wrote: I did engage.

Rehashing your initial thread post after criticizing participants hardly qualifies as engaging. Do better.

Pot meet kettle.

(March 6, 2021 at 7:18 pm)Five Wrote: For the record, since I know it's confusing, the watchmaker argument defines simple and complex by appealing to our knowledge of the differences between the watch found and the sand of the beach it was found on. 

First of all, there is no such thing as the "watchmaker argument", it's an analogy meant to help you understand the teleological argument. Those who call it an argument, like you, are merely attempting a strawman to excuse themselves from dealing with the actual argument, which you didn't address. Secondly, your knowledge of both the watch and the sand approaches zero when we take the recent findings in particle physics into account, which established the existence of a lot of fundamental particles we simply had no idea that they existed.

So, maybe you should be less assertive regarding sand.

(March 6, 2021 at 7:18 pm)Five Wrote: Compared to the sand, the watch is clearly designed by an intelligent being and this is illustrated by its complexity of construction compared to sand.

And why do you consider the sand not complex? Can you answer this question, please? Or, even better, give us clear criteria to distinguish between simple and complex constructions. A word of warning: if you define complex objects as human designed objects, then you are begging the question of whether sand is designed, you already excluded sand from your definition to reach the conclusion you want.

(March 6, 2021 at 7:18 pm)Five Wrote: So, by saying "nuh-uh! Sand is complex!" you're proving the flaw of the argument.

Yes. Sand is complex. Disagree? Pick a textbook on particle physics, randomly choose a chapter, do you encounter some difficulty understanding the content? Congratulations, you finally got it, sand is complex.

I am uncertain how the focus shifted to sand. Can we get back to the actual argument?

Quote:The watchmaker analogy or watchmaker argument is a teleological argument which states, by way of an analogy, that a design implies a designer, especially intelligent design an intelligent designer, i.e. a creator deity.

.............

Watches and timepieces have been used as examples of complicated technology in philosophical discussions.

.............

Paley used the watchmaker analogy in his book Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature.....:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

— William Paley, Natural Theology (1802)

Read further for Criticisms