Paley's Watch

This is not my personal beliefs rather just a topic I wish to discuss.
The classic statement of the teleological argument is that of William Paley in his Natural Theology. Paley likened the universe to a watch. Like a watch, he said, the universe consists of many complex parts functioning in harmony towards some useful end. In a watch the various parts are ordered such that they measure time; in the universe, such that they support life. The two are, in this respect, similar. This comparison forms the basis of Paley’s argument for intelligent design. In the case of a watch we take these properties to constitute evidence of design. If we were to stumble across a watch in a natural environment, lying on a heath, to cite Paley’s example, then we would instantly know, because of its order and complexity, that it was designed. Order and complexity are the marks of design. If order and complexity constitute evidence of design in the case of a watch, though, then they must also constitute evidence of design in the case of the universe. The case of the watch thus illustrates the fact that the order and complexity of the universe is evidence that the universe was designed. Insofar as the universe is observed to consist of many different parts functioning in harmony to accomplist a purpose, then, we have reason to believe that it was created for that purpose by an intelligent agent.

Iacov: What ARE your personal beliefs on the watch?

admin: Personally I do believe in intelligent design but in the case of paley's watch I think the arguement disproves itself. Clearly if the watch had a creator and that creator was in a position to create does it not stand to reason that something created the creator? This argument negates the fact that eventually something simply must exist without a creator. Atheist would say it was a infinite amount of potential energy that simply was. Christians will say it was their god that simply existed. Even my own beliefs in Asatru Paganism which states that one worlds death will always result in the birth of a new world, at some point something must have simply existed without creation.

Iacov: So why do you believe in intelligent design? I feel like your response sounds less of an argument against the watch, and more against the watchmaker. Maybe there is an infinite regression of watchmakers, IDK. The argument doesn't really tell us anything at all about who the watchmaker might be.

I think for me, I just disagree with the premise that something with order and complexity must be designed. I don't see any logical reason why that should be true. Nor do I see a lot of order and complexity in the universe. Entropy is necessarily higher than ever. In my view there is no need for something to ever have existed without creation, because that depends on a very narrow view of time.

admin: I would argue that the paley's watch theory is a arguement for the watch's creator so it would be resonable for me to make a arguement against the watch's creator. Now my personal beliefs are not very traditional I believe in intelligent design not as in the gods specifically designed us rather that they put in action a specific set of events knowing full well that those events would lead to the creation of the universe as we know it.

Iacov: Ok but WHY do you believe that?

I guess I see a distinction between saying a conclusion is absurd and saying an argument is logically fallible.

Iacov: Like a watch, he said, the universe consists of many complex parts functioning in harmony towards some useful end.
From what I see, the universe as a whole is pretty functionless (as far as I know).
If we were to stumble across a watch in a natural environment, lying on a heath, to cite Paley’s example, then we would instantly know, because of its order and complexity, that it was designed.
No, because we recognized its distinct form as being engineered, not because we examine the entire structure and determine how much complexity it has and whether it could be formed via natural processes.
Order and complexity are the marks of design.
Take a look at this:


This snowflake is complex since it contains many very fine symmetrical features and is ordered since it is symmetrical. Does that mean it is designed in the sky every time before it is formed? It turns out that this forms by natural processes (process of crystallization), not a sky designer.
Insofar as the universe is observed to consist of many different parts functioning in harmony to accomplist a purpose, then, we have reason to believe that it was created for that purpose by an intelligent agent.
Well, I am pretty sure this isn't true of the universe, but I guess that will depend on what you think of as "accomplishing a purpose". You can say the moving solar system has a purpose of sustaining life on earth and giving time for sleep, but we can also say this has no purpose and we are just gradual results of natural processes that adapted to this environment.
Clearly if the watch had a creator and that creator was in a position to create does it not stand to reason that something created the creator?
Not exactly, the nature of the creator and the conditions it was in will inevitably be different from us, and so it may either have not been designed or you could play the God card and say it always existed and needs no explanation.

Iacov: This is not my personal beliefs rather just a topic I wish to discuss.
The classic statement of the teleological argument is that of William Paley in his Natural Theology. Paley likened the universe to a watch. Like a watch, he said, the universe consists of many complex parts functioning in harmony towards some useful end. In a watch the various parts are ordered such that they measure time; in the universe, such that they support life.

There is the problem, right there. That the purpose of the universe is to support life is a bare assertion. In reality, 99.99...9% of the universe is extremely hostile to life as we know it. Even if we confine ourselves to the solar system, 99.99% of it is lethal to life based on the volume of space. To think that the universe was "designed" to promote life is to ignore the vast majority of it. Any "designer" worth the name would have done a far better job had that been the intent. For a start most of the Sun's energy just dissipates out into space. Only a tiny percentage actually warms the planets and most of the planets are too close or too far away for liquid water to exist on the surface. No, the solar system is not designed otherwise it would be a Dyson Sphere and efficiently use the heat and light from the limited life of the Sun.

The current state of the universe is temporary. Peak star production occurred several billion years ago. The universe is already on a slow but sure decline into darkness once all the hydrogen runs out. If anything, assuming design, the universe was designed to produce black holes because that will be the state of the universe for most of its life once the last star has winked out. The purpose is not a thin coating of life on a small rocky planet here and there but the black holes which will dominate the universe after a trillion years.

The two are, in this respect, similar. This comparison forms the basis of Paley’s argument for intelligent design. In the case of a watch we take these properties to constitute evidence of design. If we were to stumble across a watch in a natural environment, lying on a heath, to cite Paley’s example, then we would instantly know, because of its order and complexity, that it was designed. Order and complexity are the marks of design.

A flawed analogy. We have experience of watches being created. We have no experience (knowledge) of universes being created. Order and complexity are not necessarily indicators of design by themselves since there are numerous examples in nature (eg. the rings of Saturn) of spontaneous order and complexity.

If order and complexity constitute evidence of design in the case of a watch, though, then they must also constitute evidence of design in the case of the universe. The case of the watch thus illustrates the fact that the order and complexity of the universe is evidence that the universe was designed. Insofar as the universe is observed to consist of many different parts functioning in harmony to accomplist a purpose, then, we have reason to believe that it was created for that purpose by an intelligent agent.

The trouble with ID'ists is that they look at nature and say "nah, nature can't do that". They engage in question begging. If everything they look at shows evidence of design, then what is an example of something not designed? You will never get a satisfactory answer because they can't entertain the notion. They see design everywhere.

I would argue that the watch argument states if something not only appears designed but ***had a beginning*** then we can logically conclude that beginning was the result of a purposeful intelligent act. Watches are not, and were never said to be eternal, God on the other hand is, so would not be included in that line of reasoning.

Also, I would be very wary of using a snowflake to discredit the argument. The teleological argument doesn't state that all things that appear to be complex must have been created. I would say the argument states all things that not only appear complex but ***serve a specific and unique function*** would have been designed to fulfill that function.

A snowflake may appear complex (and therefore designed) however the snowflake really serves no specific purpose. A bacteria flagellum on the other hand not only is complex, but also serves as the cell's locomotive. Therefore concluding that this was a purposeful act intended that the cells may move would be completely within reason.

For example, if I was walking through the forest and saw a tool that might resemble a spear, perhaps a sharp pointed stick, I can conclude that either the tool was the result of natural processes or made purposefully by an outside intelligence. Now suppose I found the same tool with blood on it. I can infer that the tool was created with the goal of hunting in mind, and can reason that the tool was the creation of a hunter.

Again, complexity or appearance thereof isn't the only point of the argument.

"
There is the problem, right there. That the purpose of the universe is to support life is a bare assertion. In reality, 99.99...9% of the universe is extremely hostile to life as we know it. Even if we confine ourselves to the solar system, 99.99% of it is lethal to life based on the volume of space. To think that the universe was "designed" to promote life is to ignore the vast majority of it. Any "designer" worth the name would have done a far better job had that been the intent. For a start most of the Sun's energy just dissipates out into space. Only a tiny percentage actually warms the planets and most of the planets are too close or too far away for liquid water to exist on the surface. No, the solar system is not designed otherwise it would be a Dyson Sphere and efficiently use the heat and light from the limited life of the Sun. "


I don't think anyone argues that the ***entire universe*** was created to support life, but rather the fact that our small portion of the universe (earth, sun, moon) are capable of supporting life is the strength of the argument.

Iacov: To state that order and complexity are the marks of intelligent design is one thing but to deduce that because of those two conditions alone constitute intelligent design is erroneous.

Order and complexity are also the marks of evolution by natural selection. The laws of nature (which have no evidence of intelligent design) produce order and complexity is a by-product of time. In the case of evolution of life, we are looking at 2.5 billion years which gives rise to a lot of complexity.

It is more logical to assume that intelligent design would produce life with much less complexity. There is no way that a creator would ever sit down and design a convoluted mishmash of protein, water, and trace elements. From what we now know from science there is no apparent evidence whatsoever to suggest that life was created.

O.S.A: I don't think anyone argues that the ***entire universe*** was created to support life, but rather the fact that our small portion of the universe (earth, sun, moon) are capable of supporting life is the strength of the argument.

On the contrary, I think that is the weakness of the argument.

I fail to see the reasoning. Either the entire universe is designed or none of it is, otherwise you are just cherry-picking where you look for design. There is nothing special about our solar system as opposed to the billions of others in the Milky Way (let alone the whole universe) in terms of how it is "constructed". Remember that our Sun didn't exist until about 4.5 billion years ago which is less than a third of the life of the universe. Are you suggesting that the "designer" intervened late in the piece and plonked down our solar system in the outer arm of a random spiral galaxy amongst billions? How does that make any sense?

In fact, there is little doubt that our solar system formed through entirely natural processes. We can actually observe star (and solar system) formation still occurring in nebulae via telescopes. There is no designer at work. Another thing to consider is that our solar system could not have developed much earlier than it did. It required at least two or three generations of stars to die in supernovas to produce the heavier elements of which the rocky planets (including Earth) are made. The early universe had only hydrogen and helium and it took time for the heavier elements to be seeded into emerging star systems to create rocky planets such as ours.

O.S.A: I don't think anyone argues that the ***entire universe*** was created to support life, but rather the fact that our small portion of the universe (earth, sun, moon) are capable of supporting life is the strength of the argument.

I should add that you have not addressed how the vast majority of the solar system is obviously hostile to life. You basically ignore the parts that are inconvenient to your argument and focus on only the Sun, Earth and Moon. It begs the question. Why would a designer create the dozens of other planets and moons, the asteroid belt, and the Oort cloud full of comets? What purpose do they serve? Now extend that to the whole galaxy and then the entire universe which is vast beyond human comprehension.

If the universe consisted of only the Sun, Earth and Moon (in a still wasteful configuration) you might have a case. The fact that it doesn't destroys any argument for a designer.

O.S.A: I would argue that the watch argument states if something not only appears designed but ***had a beginning*** then we can logically conclude that beginning was the result of a purposeful intelligent act. Watches are not, and were never said to be eternal, God on the other hand is, so would not be included in that line of reasoning.

Unfortunately you can neither prove that the universe had a beginning nor that the universe appears designed. The universe (and the solar system) have no evidence of design. As for God being "eternal" (whatever that means) that is only an ad-hoc property assigned to God to immunize him from such criticism. You have no knowledge of God so you can't just attribute things to him by definition.

A snowflake may appear complex (and therefore designed) however the snowflake really serves no specific purpose. A bacteria flagellum on the other hand not only is complex, but also serves as the cell's locomotive. Therefore concluding that this was a purposeful act intended that the cells may move would be completely within reason.

You are making an arbitrary distinction. It could be argued that the crystalline shape of a snowflake is essential to its integrity as a snowflake. It serves the purpose of keeping the snowflake from breaking apart. Therefore you would have to conclude that the formation of a symmetrical ice crystal is a purposeful act. You are caught in contradiction and such an argument clearly fails.

For example, if I was walking through the forest and saw a tool that might resemble a spear, perhaps a sharp pointed stick, I can conclude that either the tool was the result of natural processes or made purposefully by an outside intelligence. Now suppose I found the same tool with blood on it. I can infer that the tool was created with the goal of hunting in mind, and can reason that the tool was the creation of a hunter.

Sure, but what is your point? Firstly you use loaded language, calling it a "tool" even before you had established if it had a purpose or not. Secondly, isn't it possible that an animal had accidentally run into the sharp stick? Why do you automatically exclude this possibility?

However, where your argument really breaks down is the idea of purpose. A tool (or a watch) has a purpose outside of itself. It is useful to a human who constructed it. For your analogy to hold with life (eg. a flagellum) it must have a purpose outside of itself. What is that external purpose of life to an alleged designer? You have no answer because there is none. The only purpose of life is itself. Therefore your argument by analogy about purpose fails.

dee-em: " I fail to see the reasoning. Either the entire universe is designed or none of it is, otherwise you are just cherry-picking where you look for design. "

I never stated parts of the universe are not designed, just that specific parts were designed with the intent to harbor life. There is no cherry picking and the need for this dichotomy is entirely unwarranted.


I should add that you have not addressed how the vast majority of the solar system is obviously hostile to life. You basically ignore the parts that are inconvenient to your argument and focus on only the Sun, Earth and Moon. It begs the question. Why would a designer create the dozens of other planets and moons, the asteroid belt, and the Oort cloud full of comets? What purpose do they serve? Now extend that to the whole galaxy and then the entire universe which is vast beyond human comprehension.

You're argument is as follows:

"The universe doesn't function like I would have created it if I was the designer, therefore there is no designer."

Again, nobody has stated that the entire universe should have to support life the burden of proof is for you to explain ***why***the existence of a Creator rests or falls on whether or not the universe can harbor life in it's entirety. Any designer by definition would have at least some creative capabilities, and creating bodies, galaxies, etc, for the sake of creating them is completely to be expected from any designer who has again, creative capabilities, The vast majority of the universe being "hostile to life" would only be a problem if Theism somehow rested on the supposition that the Designer was supposed to make the entirety of creation to support life.

That supposition is entirely arbitrary. Imagine having fish in a fish tank. The fish tank is beautiful and is the perfect environment of the fish. Now suppose for the sake of the discussion that the fish reasoned and said "Because the ***entire house*** is not a tank perfectly suited for us, this fish tank was not designed, because surely any designer of tanks would have made the entire house to house fish!

See how silly that line of reasoning is? Also God being eternal is not "ad hoc" nor did I arbitrarily attribute this to Him to solve a problem. The same could be said for the atheists who argue for the eternality of the universe. The universe is the totality of time space and matter and a Being responsible for the creation of the universe must necessarily be outside of time in order to initiate the creation of time.

And yes, a deer or something could have stabbed itself on the spear, any number of explanations could be given. Perhaps a hiker tripped and cut himself. The point was considering the nature of the object infering that the object in question could have been used for hunting is entirely within reason.

O.S.A: "
I never stated parts of the universe are not designed, just that specific parts were designed with the intent to harbor life. " -- And the only identifiable way to determine the two is the presence of life, right? Circular logic is circular.

RE the fish tank, it becomes real moot when the Fish Tank designer swings buy, tosses in some fish food, and clearly doesn't live in the fish tank.

RE: eternality of God, time is a construct of intellect, it is not required for existence of things that have no consideration of the universe around it.

FaustianJustice: Wow that was a botch job of quotations. Ho hum, first post, and it looks like that. D'oh.

O.S.A: I never stated parts of the universe are not designed, just that specific parts were designed with the intent to harbor life. There is no cherry picking and the need for this dichotomy is entirely unwarranted.

Stating (asserting) something is one thing. Providing evidence or a reasoned argument for your assertion is another. Since you cannot identify any difference between the formation of one tiny part of the universe and the rest, you are indeed cherry-picking the part you are familiar with and ignoring the remainder.

You're argument is as follows:

"The universe doesn't function like I would have created it if I was the designer, therefore there is no designer."

That is not my argument at all. You have asserted that if something has a purpose ("serves a specific and unique function") then this is strong evidence of design. I am pointing out that there is no such apparent purpose to the bulk of the solar system (and the vast remainder of the universe). You don't deny it. Yet you still insist that there is evidence of purpose and therefore design. I am drawing your attention to the inherent contradiction in your position.

Again, nobody has stated that the entire universe should have to support life the burden of proof is for you to explain ***why***the existence of a Creator rests or falls on whether or not the universe can harbor life in it's entirety.

Not at all. The BoP rests on you to explain why you cherry-pick one tiny insignificant part of the universe as exhibiting purpose/design and ignore the rest. If you assert design, then it begs the question. What is the rest of the universe for? If 99.99...9% of the universe is natural what leads you to think our little corner is unnatural? All you are doing at the moment is asserting it. You assert purpose (and hence design) without any explanation of what the purpose is.

Any designer by definition would have at least some creative capabilities, and creating bodies, galaxies, etc, for the sake of creating them is completely to be expected from any designer who has again, creative capabilities,

Again you are reasoning based on assuming your conclusion. You assume that there is a designer/creator (for no obvious reason) and then proceed to tell us how creative he is. You must recognize how circular such reasoning is. You also fail to explain how his purpose is life in our miniscule neighbourhood but nowhere else (to the best of our knowledge). It highlights the fact that your argument is completely ad-hoc.

The vast majority of the universe being "hostile to life" would only be a problem if Theism somehow rested on the supposition that the Designer was supposed to make the entirety of creation to support life.

It's only logical. If you assert that the designer had a purpose here (ie. that life was important to him), then why not everywhere? No rational designer over engineers for no good reason. The only way you can overcome my objection is to identify a purpose for the vast majority of the universe independent of life. Can you do that?

That supposition is entirely arbitrary. Imagine having fish in a fish tank. The fish tank is beautiful and is the perfect environment of the fish. Now suppose for the sake of the discussion that the fish reasoned and said "Because the ***entire house*** is not a tank perfectly suited for us, this fish tank was not designed, because surely any designer of tanks would have made the entire house to house fish!

Unfortunately your analogy does not work. Your fish tank is unique in the house. That is not the situation with solar systems and galaxies (the major building blocks of the matter-based universe). Stars can vary in size but it is all variations on a theme. There are billions, if not trillions, of solar systems similar to ours in the universe. Your analogy would have to be a vast array of fish tanks with only one containing fish. Those fish might very well reason that their "fish tank" could not have been designed for them since there are no fish in the other observable tanks. Your house analogy is obviously flawed.

Also God being eternal is not "ad hoc" nor did I arbitrarily attribute this to Him to solve a problem.

I didn't mean you specifically but theists in general. And yes, it is completely ad hoc since it is not based on knowledge. It was an attribute arbitrarily assigned to God by theists to avoid the problem of God having a beginning. You can't deny this.

The same could be said for the atheists who argue for the eternality of the universe. The universe is the totality of time space and matter and a Being responsible for the creation of the universe must necessarily be outside of time in order to initiate the creation of time.

This a topic for another thread but I would just like to point out that if you are "outside of time" then you can't create anything. For something to be created there has to be a moment where it doesn't exist and then a moment where it does. Creation (or any action) is a temporal process. It is incoherent to talk about creation (or even existence) without time.

And yes, a deer or something could have stabbed itself on the spear, any number of explanations could be given. Perhaps a hiker tripped and cut himself. The point was considering the nature of the object infering that the object in question could have been used for hunting is entirely within reason.

Unfortunately you used the words "specific and unique function". You have refuted yourself.

Also, since you haven't addressed my objection regarding an external purpose (as opposed to life), I think we can dispense with this analogy as being another failure.

FaustianJustice: Welcome aboard. Yes, this quoting system is going to take some getting used to. :-)