(March 1, 2021 at 10:29 am)Five Wrote:(March 1, 2021 at 1:26 am)Ryantology Wrote: 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.
