The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[zwanzig]

And another reason why the watchmaker argument completely fails, is that theists claim that their god designed everything.

That is a failure of a specific argument for a specific watchmaker who is, himself, not a made watch.

If you assert the existence of infinite watchmakers going all the way up (and perhaps down, we are made watches who make watches which, maybe someday, will be sufficiently advanced to make their own watches), it's not failing until you add excess complexity by further asserting extra qualities to our watchmaker.

I don't understand this. I thought the main crux of the argument failing was the complexity issue. Like Simon said, if everything is an example of God's creations, then you have nothing to compare with "this is what a thing looks like that was not created by God". So, there's no reason a watch is any different than sand and an appeal to the complexity of it needing a designer has failed.

Can you explain a bit more what you're talking about with the watchmaker?

[Ryantology]

That is a failure of a specific argument for a specific watchmaker who is, himself, not a made watch.

If you assert the existence of infinite watchmakers going all the way up (and perhaps down, we are made watches who make watches which, maybe someday, will be sufficiently advanced to make their own watches), it's not failing until you add excess complexity by further asserting extra qualities to our watchmaker.

I don't understand this. I thought the main crux of the argument failing was the complexity issue. Like Simon said, if everything is an example of God's creations, then you have nothing to compare with "this is what a thing looks like that was not created by God". So, there's no reason a watch is any different than sand and an appeal to the complexity of it needing a designer has failed.

Can you explain a bit more what you're talking about with the watchmaker?

Simon is saying that the argument completely fails because of specific groups of people making specific claims. I agree that complexity is a really poor basis to prove the existence of a watchmaker, but the idea that the universe is a creation doesn't fail simply because the most popular arguments in favor of this are not very good. 

My conception is that the universe demonstrably includes watchmakers who are intelligent and imaginative enough to sufficiently to create universes, though not with a level of complexity rivaling that in which we exist. If we can, someday, create universes containing sentient, intelligent entities created by us, that proves that it is possible, and therefore we have to accept the possibility that our universe, and all of us, may possibly also be creations.

[John 6IX Breezy]

The medical literature is full of examples (genetic or otherwise) of failed reductions in complexity. Mutations often result in loss of proper functioning rather than alterations. That is why there are many vestigial organs.

[Fake Messiah]

The medical literature is full of examples (genetic or otherwise) of failed reductions in complexity. Mutations often result in loss of proper functioning rather than alterations. That is why there are many vestigial organs.

Nature is full of living beings who have organs on different levels of development, as the eye: with some animals having eyes reduced (missing components) compared to other animals. The same goes for other organs like the heart, brain, lungs, etc.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Nature is full of living beings who have organs on different levels of development, as the eye: with some animals having eyes reduced (missing components) compared to other animals.

Since evolution seeks to explain this diversity, the diversity itself cannot be evidence of evolution. A different argument needs to be made. One that addresses irreducibility directly.

[Fake Messiah]

Nature is full of living beings who have organs on different levels of development, as the eye: with some animals having eyes reduced (missing components) compared to other animals.

Since evolution seeks to explain this diversity, the diversity itself cannot be evidence of evolution. A different argument needs to be made. One that addresses irreducibility directly.

Well, it is addressing it because we are talking about reduced organs. And irreducible complexity got its final nail in the coffin in Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2004 when the judge, after months of testimony, ruled it to be bullshit.

(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. ... It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Well, it is addressing it because we are talking about reduced organs.

The continuity factor is what needs to be addressed. We know diversity exists. But you have to show that organisms are more than just discontinuous pockets of irriducible complexity. You cannot do that by pointing at discrete organisms.

I'm not attached to the idea of irriducible complexity. My only claim is that the medical field exists on account of functions being irriducible.

[Fake Messiah]

Well, it is addressing it because we are talking about reduced organs.

The continuity factor is what needs to be addressed. We know diversity exists. But you have to show that organisms are more than just discontinuous pockets of irriducible complexity. You cannot do that by pointing at discrete organisms.

I'm not attached to the idea of irriducible complexity. My only claim is that the medical field exists on account of functions being irriducible.

Well, you obviously don't understand it. Here's a PBS Nova documentary explaining why irreducible complexity is a hoax.

They address that particular issue after the 1hour 6 minute mark.

[Brian37]

The continuity factor is what needs to be addressed. We know diversity exists. But you have to show that organisms are more than just discontinuous pockets of irriducible complexity. You cannot do that by pointing at discrete organisms.

I'm not attached to the idea of irriducible complexity. My only claim is that the medical field exists on account of functions being irriducible.

Well, you obviously don't understand it. Here's a PBS Nova documentary explaining why irreducible complexity is a hoax.

They address that particular issue after the 1hour 6 minute mark.

Two books, by Victor Stenger.

"God The Failed Hypothesis"

And 

"The New Atheism"

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Nature is full of living beings who have organs on different levels of development, as the eye: with some animals having eyes reduced (missing components) compared to other animals.

Since evolution seeks to explain this diversity, the diversity itself cannot be evidence of evolution. A different argument needs to be made. One that addresses irreducibility directly.

Boru