Rationality Rules
Rationality RulesAs most famously presented by William Paley in his theological work titled “Natural Theology”, the Watchmaker Analogy (teleological argument) is a recurring argument for a designer, which, by way of analogy, asserts that complexity requires a designer.
The way Paley put it is essentially as follows: if you were walking across a field and saw a watch lying upon the ground, you wouldn’t assume that it had come together by chance because it’s too ordered and complicated. Rather, you would assume that it had a conscious and intelligent designer. By way of analogy, Paley then went on to argue that because life and indeed the universe is ordered and complicated, it too must’ve had a conscious and intelligent designer.
Throughout the video I pint-point several flaws and fallacies that those who use the Watchmaker tend to commit, but for a very brief summery (extremely brief), they are as follows:
- False Analogy:
An analogy is a comparison between things that have similar features for the purpose of explaining a principle or an idea, and in this case, Paley insists that a comparison can be made between the complexity of a watch and the complexity of the universe, which both imply that they had a designer.
- False Cause Fallacy:
Essentially, like all False Cause Fallacies, the Watchmaker Argument mistakenly confuses correlation with causation. It recognizes a relationship between complexity and designers, and then concludes that one necessarily implies the other.
- Ignores Evolution by Natural Selection:
It completely ignores evolution by natural selection. Without getting into it too deeply, natural selection has been completely and utterly proven to be an unconscious process that has given rise to countless complex and purposed organisms. The watchmaker argument ignores this in the attempt to substantiate it’s black and white fallacy (deliberate designer or randomness).
- Special Pleading:
Its core premise asserts that purpose and complexity requires a designer, and so if we draw the Watchmaker Argument out to its logical conclusion – that there is a god and that it created the universe and everything in it, then by applying the argument’s logic to itself we must conclude that this god too had a designer, and so on and so forth for infinity…
- Contradiction:
The Watchmaker Argument is self-contradicting. The argument first assumes that a watch is different from nature, which it indirectly claims is uncomplicated and random. However, it then states that since the universe is so complicated and ordered it too must have a creator. Thus, it gives the universe two incompatible and contradicting qualities.
- Shoemaker:
The Watchmaker Argument doesn’t imply a designer – it implies that there are many designers. After finding that watch upon the ground, imagine if you then saw beside it a shoe. Would you assume that a watchmaker made that shoe? Of course not – you would assume that a shoemaker made it.
- Ex Nihilo
The Watchmaker Argument acts as if a watchmaker creates a watch from nothing, when this simply isn’t true. A watch, like all human creations, is a rearrangement of energy and mater that already existed.
- Doesn’t Support Theism:
The Watchmaker Argument doesn’t support theism. Even if it were accepted as a sound argument, it would only prove that a universe had a universe designer – and that’s it. It wouldn’t prove a particular religion to be true.
- Incompetent Design:
An all-powerful and all-loving god would not create organisms with the type of suboptimal design that can be seen in nature. Meaning that either that god isn’t omnipotent or that it isn’t omnibenevolent – or both!
—
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules
Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule
And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules
—
As always, thanks you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video will help you defeat those who would use the Watchmaker Argument against you.
source
30 Comments
@porscheman998
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMEven though I am a Christian theist and I disagree with some of your logic, I still really enjoyed watching this video! It made me think, and I always appreciate material that makes me think whether I agree with it or not!
Keep up the great work!
@rl7012
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMHe misrepresent the argument and then acts like he is clever to knock down the straw man he built.
@anamelesswanderer
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMAll of the 9 Theistic Arguments share the fatal flaw that even if you accept the argument as true:
1. Does not prove any specific god or religion – it could be used to prove anything as true.
2. Every argument for Theism involves 5-8 or more fallacies per argument.
@anamelesswanderer
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMreally, there are like 9 arguments for the existence of god, and they're all bad arguments and fallacies that have been refuted a million times.
@anamelesswanderer
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMSo, since God is complex, who created god? Since god is complex, the property "complexity" is as old as God, who created complexity? God exists in some kind of spacetime quanta right? Who created it? The space/time in which God exists, the state of being in which God exists – what also, other than god, exists in that state? Who created that state of being?
With the watch, we know how watches are made. Watches are assembled out of premade parts which were designed to fit together in a certain way that results in a closed system. So, is the Christian god an assembler who merely took someone else's parts to create a closed system? Or did this god just "POOF" create everything from nothing? Weird how Theists think everything came from nothing because some dude who ALWAYS existed got bored and had a wank.
@theostapel
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMThe intellectual class – needs to refer to the heart – continually – deep and wonderful secrets revealed – guarant
@echocoolus13
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMFank you for fourouly wasting a sixf of an hour wasting my precious time. All of your arguments made a furry waste of time and reeks of your incompetence.
@Justwatches-y8n
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMMany philosophers have questioned whether "flaws" in the world, such as illness, disability, and suffering, contradict God's perfection. However, these arguments typically arise from our limited understanding of time and space. They often create a "false contradiction." If we believe in God’s absolute power, knowledge, and wisdom, then what appear to be "flaws" in His design are actually parts of a meaningful order. The full significance of this order is difficult for us to comprehend, as human intellect cannot grasp the universal plan.
At first glance, conditions such as "disability" or "illness" may seem like deficiencies from the limited perspective of human perception. However, these observations reflect just how distant we are from the essence of time and events. Kant’s concepts of "phenomenon" and "noumenon" are significant here. The phenomenon is the aspect of reality that is reflected in and accessible to human consciousness, whereas the noumenon is the thing-in-itself, which exists beyond our perception. Therefore, to think of "disability" as an external reality, one that is beyond our human judgment and perception, requires us to move beyond a narrow view. It is merely a reflection of a moral judgment based on a limited perspective.
Thus, the question "Why does God create disabled people?" arises from a misunderstanding of moral perfection and human freedom. If God had determined everything and created every individual exactly as He wished, human free will and moral responsibility would be nullified. Disability may seem like a "structural" deficiency, but because we do not fully understand God’s wisdom in His design, we cannot grasp its true meaning. Each individual’s circumstances represent their own internal growth, their trial, and their way of facing life. This situation may provide different lessons—patience, gratitude, tolerance, or social empathy—for others.
Ultimately, these existential "deficiencies" do not contradict God’s perfection but align with His purpose for beings, His moral values, and the universal order. Philosophers who doubt this often assess God's infinite wisdom, the flow of time, and the unfolding of events from a limited perspective. However, this world is merely the beginning of a journey toward meaning. When viewed from the perspective of the afterlife, everything ultimately becomes clear and perfect.
@Justwatches-y8n
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMquotation:It is not a false analogy at all. The whole point of analogies to make a concept easier to visualise. No one is arguing that the universe was created in the 15th century. The argument is that a watch is visibly a complex device and that the universe with all its properties and contents and life itself is more complex by orders of magnitude compared to a watch. The analogy drawn therefore is specific to the fact that specific complexity requires design. Debunk debunked.
@Justwatches-y8n
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMThere doesn’t need to be a direct correlation in the things you're analyzing for an analogy to work. What matters is establishing a meaningful connection or similarity between the two. This connection doesn’t require exact overlap or a one-to-one relationship; the main goal is to clarify an idea, guide thought, or provide a new perspective.
For example, while a clock and a human don’t have a direct correlation (a clock doesn’t have organs like a human does), highlighting their complexity and the implication of a designer behind that complexity is a perfectly valid analogy. So, when analyzing something, you don’t necessarily need data that matches perfectly; functional, structural, or conceptual similarities are sufficient.
@Justwatches-y8n
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMyou are so stupid:)that you dare to do antyhing stupid to poison people..There is no obligation to compare things of the same kind in analogies. On the contrary, the power of analogy lies in its ability to connect concepts from different categories, adding depth to thought. In your example, linking the complexity of a clock to a clockmaker and then extending this to attribute the complexity of humans to a creator is a perfectly valid and logical analogy.
Such analogies are very useful for explaining abstract or profound concepts because they allow people to grasp a complex or abstract idea by starting from something familiar. The key is to establish a meaningful and functional similarity between the two things.
@TylerDaSilva522
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMAt 6:33 your argument fails. These things were not created in the way that a human makes a watch. Therefore, in order to know what causes things inside of the universe to operate as they do, we must understand what caused the big bang and the universal constant in which ALL physical things rely upon. The real answer is: IDK.
@TylerDaSilva522
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMThere cannot be a constant universe without universal constants. And the universe started with a bang once or existed for an infinite amount of time but has cycles. Either something non-physical had to initiate this process, or the universe is cyclical and has always been "just the way it is".
@endofdaysprophet
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMTry this, WHY can you prove that the watch had a designer???
@Mando-wx6pn
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMAt this point it should be considered a fallacy.
@JasonKing-m6m
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMNo, it is not a false analogy…
Macro evolution is not a fact… only micro evolution via mutations…
No God does not need a designer because, God is infinite..
There is not necessarily "many creators". You could not say without knowing, that watchmakers make watches and shoemakers make shoes.
So a "watchmaker can't make a watch from nothing" but the Big Bang CAN make something from nothing… Bit of a contradiction yet evolutionists accept this unknown as fact too…
@BruceLyon-z9z
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMDespite our collective briliance, if there is a God, then just maybe that God is actually more creative than we can possibly imagine.
@Iefn82Jw
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMBoth the watch and the universe are complex, we know the watch has a designer not only because the watch itself is merely complex but because we know that it serves a purpose, it's complex existence has a purpose (to tell time). However we dont know what purpose the universe serves (logically speaking) it's purpose in existence could be merely to exist as well, just as every other inanimate object that exists (merely existing to exist). But again purpose is what we make of it, we give intrinsic value to something then call it purpose. So the universe if it has a purpose has a creator then again we would not know to look for a purpose in the universe, cause then we would be acknowledging to it having a creator. So the disproving or debunking of the watch clock theory. Can not be un-debunked (if that's a word)
Because it requires to look beyond the logical box we have put ourselves in, in short to put it the watch clock theory only succeeds if the universe has a purpose, and if we look for purpose in the universe we would have to be logically consistent and automatically accept that it has a creator. But the whole purpose of this theory is to determine whether there is a creator or not. Even we go go into both sections of {(purposeful) and (without purpose)} as sub topics then both would result in different conclusions, therefore we cannot un-debunk the watch clock theory debunktion (again not a word) because it would be paradoxical.
But you could ask "wouldn't that make the watch clock theory itself contradictory?" It would and wouldn't ( just listen to me here) the analogy shouldn't be to prove the existence of a creator, cause then it would be false, it should be to compare the two in general. The watch clock theory is a false analogy in its purpose of proving the existence of a creator because, the watch has purpose and the we can't prove the universe has one either because it would be paradoxical (as explained below). But it's not the watch clock theory that's just false as well it's every other theory that compares something to the universe, because ultimately we can't, not because it just doesn't exist but because we cannot grasp the knowledge of the universe's existence.
That's my conclusion.
@Iefn82Jw
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMBoth the watch and the universe are complex, we know the watch has a designer not only because the watch itself is merely complex but because we know that it serves a purpose, it's complex existence has a purpose (to tell time). However we dont know what purpose the universe serves (logically speaking) it's purpose in existence could be merely to exist as well, just as every other inanimate object that exists (merely existing to exist). But again purpose is what we make of it, we give intrinsic value to something then call it purpose. So the universe if it has a purpose has a creator then again we would not know to look for a purpose in the universe, cause then we would be acknowledging to it having a creator. So the disproving or debunking of the watch clock theory. Can not be un-debunked (if that's a word)
Because it requires to look beyond the logical box we have put ourselves in, in short to put it the watch clock theory only succeeds if the universe has a purpose, and if we look for purpose in the universe we would have to be logically consistent and automatically accept that it has a creator. But the whole purpose of this theory is to determine whether there is a creator or not. Even we go go into both sections of {(purposeful) and (without purpose)} as sub topics then both would result in different conclusions, therefore we cannot un-debunk the watch clock theory debunktion (again not a word) because it would be paradoxical.
But you could ask "wouldn't that make the watch clock theory itself contradictory?" It would and wouldn't ( just listen to me here) the analogy shouldn't be to prove the existence of a creator, cause then it would be false, it should be to compare the two in general. The watch clock theory is a false analogy in its purpose of proving the existence of a creator because, the watch has purpose and the we can't prove the universe has one either because it would be paradoxical (as explained below). But it's not the watch clock theory that's just false as well it's every other theory that compares something to the universe, because ultimately we can't, not because it just doesn't exist but because we cannot grasp the knowledge of the universe's existence.
That's my conclusion.
@mangikona123
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMNature creating complex life!! Thats BS. Evolution has been debunked by DNA. Playing word games proves nothing.
Consciousness is the straw that breaks your camels back..
How did nature make Consciousness???
@ceti_9998
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMThe stupidest arguments against God lol
@RB-kr1ww
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMIf you take a coin and flip it 1,000,000 times. You will get some sequence of heads and tails. The probability of flipping that exact sequence of heads and tails before you start is about as close to zero as you can get, yet it can happen. Would that be evidence for a creator?
@Btw_visit_____todacarne-com
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMPremises:
1. Complexity with functionality requires intelligent design
2. Biological machinery has complexity with functionality
Conclusion:
Biological machinery requires intelligent design.
The watch is just an example of evidence that supports the first premise.
@danielmartinsson899
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMI keep coming back to this argument again and again over the years. To me, its seems like the theist never evaluate this (and similar) claims. They clearly think it is a great argument, but they never stop and try to test and evaluate it.
I think the most obvious flaw here, that they always fail to grasp, is that the argument require something natural as a contrast to the created. We must assume that the rocks on the ground is natural, and that the watch is created.
But according to them, both the rock and the watch is created, so the contrast they try to make doesn't work. They stand on a beach made out of watches.
@johncoldwell7835
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMAn argument that rests on the shaky notion of evolution is very weak indeed.
@georgebowen2161
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMYou have already made an error in assuming that science and mankind knows everything. That is pure arrogance. Science is a process which is continually being changed as new things are discovered. You really need to qualify your statements with 'That we know of right now.' Who knows what further discoveries will be made that may turn this conclusion on it's head? Better to be humble and admit that we do not know everything so that in the future we aren't wiping egg from our faces. This arrogance is not limited to evolutionists. Creationists are guilty as well.
@scytaleghola5969
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMYou can't really use the process of evolution to discount the complexity argument. The process of evolution could not start until an entity of sufficient complexity, organization, and specific, necessary criteria existed. That entity, by definition, did not arise from a process of evolution.
I think you're overthinking the watch analogy. I think we are to suppose that we do not know what a watch is before we come across it in the heath. Replace the watch with some piece of unfamiliar alien technology
@BijouBakson
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMHa ha! Didn't realise religion a creationism is this easily debunkable!
@germanbrana7819
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMJust change the word "designer" for "origin" or "cause" and redo the video, thank me later and let's see how it goes for you 😉
you will get to the argument of uncaused cause, that's what Theist actually mean but say "creator" so you all understand.
@Wib0
02/22/2025 - 10:57 PMSo weak, myguy.