Good answers to repeated Theist questions.

2005 Best Debater

Many newbie theist debaters ask questions and make assertions which have already been well refuted. Use this thread to post links to or post refutations of such items for handy reference.

Agnostic · Post 2: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:55 pm Post subject:

Zzyzx response to a literal global flood
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6164

Once a week could you check the thread for new links and add them to the OP so that people don't have to search the thread for what they want? I will be adding more when I find them.

Atheist · Post 3: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:01 am Post subject:

I often find myself having to refute the watchmaker analogy, especially as of late. The Intelligent Design movement has been spreading like wildfire (or so it seems), and I think its this sort of new movement has been fueled by the recent popularity of the internet - which is why I've given this idea special attention. I myself can understand why its a horrible argument, but in the past I've found that its much harder to convince people other then myself of that.

So one day I spent a few hours pondering just this one question, in hopes to get a very simple rebuttal to this idea that might speak. I think I came up with a very good rebuttal.

For those who might not have encountered the watchmaker argument, I will repeat it here, and also add in the emotional aspect that is often thrown in by Christians.

The Watchmaker Argument

Imagine that you're walking down the beach one day and a glint catches your eye. Now, you notice that nothing else on this beach is giving off this reflection of light, so curiosity gets the best of you and you walk over to investigate. Once you reach your destination, you reach down part the sand back only to find a nice shiney pocketwatch. Immediately you begin to ponder where this pocketwatch came from. You open the face of the watch and notice that it has a face and moving hands that relay information to you, information in the form of telling you what time it is. You look up and down the beach, neither the sand nor the water have this ability. You decide to look into this matter even more, and you open the pocketwatch only to find a system of gears working in perfect harmony. Again you look up and down the beach and neither the sand nor the water has the intent or the purpose this pocketwatch has. You think to yourself, surely the sand couldn't have coughed up this pocketwatch, nor could the water have. This watch could only have come from a watchmaker.

The analogy is, that complex items like a watch, require a maker. Since this is so, other complex items also have a creator, including the universe and life itself.

/end arguement

Now I haven't had the opportunity to spring this question yet, but I think it will be effective enough to trip this argument/analogy up, and open up the discussion for further critiques.

Rebuttal to the Watchmaker Argument:

So simply because watchmakers have the ability to make watches, God exists?

Lets pose a counter hypothetical situation. Lets pretend that we live in a world where humans cannot create anything, painters cannot paint paintings, builders cannot construct buildings, watchmakers cannot make watches, and hunters cannot even make simple spears. None of humanity can create anything. What can you find on the beach that would ignite this idea of a creator? There isn't anything you would find on the beach that would look out of place. Since this is so, this tells you something very important. This entire argument relies on the fact that we know that humans can create things. So lets focus on that one idea.

Again, this argument focuses on the fact that we humans can create things. We all know that watches come from watchmakers, that's simple. This argument takes advantage of this knowledge, and without notice, applies it to everything. The watchmaker argument claims that because a watch is complex and requires a creator, all complexity requires a creator. That is a big jump to make, and it gives us no reason to make that big jump.

Lets ponder this sort of jump in logic. Pretend I have a leaf and a twenty dollar bill. I first observe the leaf under a microscope and discover that it has cellulose structures which make it up. I then look at the twenty dollar bill under the microscope and also discover that it is made up of cellulose structures. I then take my already established knowledge that leafs grow on trees, and apply it to the twenty dollar bill and come to the conclusion that twenty dollar bills grow on trees.

How is this any different from the watchmaker argument? You're taking your alraedy established knowledge that watches come from watchmakers, and are applying it to all complexity for no reason. I say "no reason", because the argument doesn't tell us why we should apply the knowledge that the complexity within a pocketwatch requires a designer, to all complexity. Just like no reason was given in the leaf and twenty dollar analogy.

Again, this argument takes advantage of already known facts, facts about watches being made by watchmakers, and tries to apply it to everything with complexity. The only way this argument works is through blind faith. Blind faith is required here because we see no reason to use the idea that watches require a watchmaker and apply that to everything in existance.

This is blind faith repackaged, and since you didn't notice it I feel compelled to ask you one simple question. If you missed such an obvious attempt to repackage blind faith and present it as if it were some sort of deep philosophical idea, what else have you missed?

/end rebuttal

What do you guys think? Do I need to modify or change anything?

There are several ways to attack this idea, but these arguments have failed for me in the past. I honestly think that the other rebuttals I've used only "click" when you're looking at it from an atheists perspective. Hopefully this is more of a neutral argument that everyone can understand.

Absurdism · Post 4: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:21 am Post subject:

Or you could point out that if you continued down the beach you would find a wall made a break layer, it was created by someone different and thus it supports polytheism not theism

Agnostic · Post 5: Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:09 pm Post subject:

I like your watchmaker rebuttal Taneras. I think the heart of your argument is solid.
If I'm not mistaken - your main point is that "believers" are making a flawed assumption for cause based on inconclusive data? I hope that's right. I like the analogy with the twenty dollar bill.

There's only a couple minor changes I would suggest.
Tighten it up a little bit. Maybe remove the list in the first paragraph. ..."painters cannot paint, builders cannot build, watchmakers cannot make watches..." and just leave, "Lets pretend that we live in a world where humans cannot create anything."
I think it will get the same point across. You can always clarify if they misunderstand you.

The last paragraph I would change it to simply read, "This is blind faith repackaged."
Leave out the rest. It comes across slightly aggressive. The more neutral the argument the less resistant your listener will be and it will increase your chances of swaying their belief or convincing them of your idea.
The less resistance the better IMO.

Amateur Astronomer · Post 6: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:48 pm Post subject:

This is my general rebuttal of the first cause argument or the Cosmological Argument: