Paley's Watch

[imported_Adam Warren]

'In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, that, for anything to the contrary, it had lain there for ever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I found a watch on the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place. I should hardly think of the answer I had before given – that, for anything I knew, the watch had always been there. Yet why should this answer not serve for the watch as well as the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first? For this reason and for no other, that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different parts had been differently shaped to what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would be carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is no served by it.'

— William Paley 1743-1805

[imported_Adam Warren]

This is a much trickier argument to tackle.

[Chavez]

Apparently so, as evidenced by the lack of responses.....

...still, as a way to "trick" atheists/agnostics into "admitting" God must exist, it probably works VERY well.

[Jacob Singer]

How, exactly?

[Chavez]

Adam Warren
'In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, that, for anything to the contrary, it had lain there for ever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer.Okay, here he sets it up - you stub your toe upon a stone, and there is no way of knowing how long it has been there. "Forever" is a possibility, and while most would grant that it is HIGHLY unllikely that it has been there "forever", one is not able to really disprove it.
But suppose I found a watch on the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place. I should hardly think of the answer I had before given – that, for anything I knew, the watch had always been there. Yet why should this answer not serve for the watch as well as the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first?Well, to answer his questions, obviously it's less likely for the watch to have been there because a watch is obviously created by an intelligent hand for a specific purpose, unlike a rock, which is just, well, rock. So whereas the rock could have been sitting there "forever", the watch, which had been created by the hand of man, obviously couldn't have, for various reasons having to do with the advance of civilization and how long certain technologies have been extant.
For this reason and for no other, that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different parts had been differently shaped to what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would be carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is no served by it.'More or less reiterating what I said before, but the key is in the phrasing:

if the different parts had been differently shaped to what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would be carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is no served by itWhich one could extrapolate to the conditions which allow life to exist on Earth - a few degrees warmer or colder, less oxygen or carbon dioxide, the alteration of any one of a number of significant variables would have caused life on Earth to not be able to exist (not as we know it, anyway).

Hence, if you admit that it's impossible that the watch could have merely been laying there forever, you must admit that it's impossible for a complex creation such as the universe and life in it to exist without the hand of an intelligent being creating it.

I'm unsure of the when this wager was put forth, and of the prevalent scientific thought at the time, but I'd be willing to wager myself that this trap of sophistry is the end result of the whole thing.

[voltes5]

This argument kinda makes my head hurt. Ow.

From my understanding of that paragraph, the Watch was purposefully designed to work as a working watch to do one thing: to tell time. Thus, he concludes that such a purposfully-designed watch is equivalent to a purposefully-designed universe.

But these are the flaws:

1) Paley assumes that the universe is designed to work PERFECTLY (as the Watch works "perfectly" [i.e., it works]).
Flaw: The Watch is a simple object, the universe is not. If something goes wrong with a piece from the watch, the whole watch becomes "useless." The universe has blazing suns and black holes yet it does not detrimentally affect human beings (perhaps other planets and hypothetical lifeforms).

2) Paley assumes that there is a PURPOSE for the universe to exist.
Flaw: It's very easy to find the purpose of a watch. But it's not logical to compare it to the universe.

3) Paley assumes that a "designer(s)" have motives for creating the universe.
Flaw: Why must a designer have a motive? Couldn't a designer create for the sake of creation? Why are "accidents" not factored in? Also "coincidences and happenstances"? It is possible for something to be created accidentally. The designer of the universe could be an infantile idiot (such as The Beyonder). :)

4) Paley assumes that the "designer(s)" does not make mistakes.
Flaw: This relates to the 3rd flaw. The designer of the watch is not "perfect." Mistakes can happen and not impossible.

[Chavez]

voltes5:

From my understanding of that paragraph, the Watch was purposefully designed to work as a working watch to do one thing to tell time. Thus, he concludes that such a purposfully-designed watch is equivalent to a purposefully-designed universe.That's my understanding as well - at least, if my thoughts on why the wager was put forth are correct. Which they may not be, I make no guarantees on my accuracy..... :D


1) Paley assumes that the universe is designed to work PERFECTLY (as the Watch works "perfectly" [i.e., it works]).
Flaw: The Watch is a simple object, the universe is not. If something goes wrong with a piece from the watch, the whole watch becomes "useless." The universe has blazing suns and black holes yet it does not detrimentally affect human beings (perhaps other planets and hypothetical lifeforms).
Certainly, there is great variety in the universe; I am somewhat of a mind that the wager was put forth BEFORE we had knowledge of advanced astrophysics; as it is, if we think of it as "the world" instead of "the universe" (yes, I AM changing terms midway through the argument), the world DOES work perfectly to support human life.

2) Paley assumes that there is a PURPOSE for the universe to exist.
Flaw: It's very easy to find the purpose of a watch. But it's not logical to compare it to the universe.
But one of the oft-used, simple-minded retorts to a puzzling situation is that "We cannot know the mind of God"; perhaps our ignorance of the PURPOSE of the universe is merely a product of our limited intellect. Or, as it often appears too be interpreted, the purpose of the universe is to support human life.

3) Paley assumes that a "designer(s)" have motives for creating the universe.
Flaw: Why must a designer have a motive? Couldn't a designer create for the sake of creation? Why are "accidents" not factored in? Also "coincidences and happenstances"? It is possible for something to be created accidentally. The designer of the universe could be an infantile idiot (such as The Beyonder). :) Damn voltes, bringing the Beyonder into this is uncalled for! wink

I don't know that Paley assumes that there is truly a "motive" for creating the universe; it's just that the way the world works (with such elegant laws such as (A squared + B squared = C squared)and the Unified field theory) implies intelligent design, much like a watch. I suppose the argument would be much the same had the object in question been the Mona Lisa. And certainly there are accidents and happenstances - but a creation as involved and intricately designed as the universe is as likely to have occurred by happenstance as, say, a watch or the Mona Lisa - one may say anything is possible; but the PROBABILITY is extremely low in all 3 cases.


4) Paley assumes that the "designer(s)" does not make mistakes.
Flaw: This relates to the 3rd flaw. The designer of the watch is not "perfect." Mistakes can happen and not impossible.Well, if this is a "God-as-watchmaker" argument, it doesn't behoove one to call God imperfect. wink

Fact is, science today shows us that there are (on a universal scale, at least) extremely slim parameters that allowed human life to develop as it did (according to the theory of evolution); the analogy of a planet being perfectly suited for human life and the accuracy of a Swiss watch is not that much of a stretch.

[voltes5]

Chavez:
Certainly, there is great variety in the universe; I am somewhat of a mind that the wager was put forth BEFORE we had knowledge of advanced astrophysics; as it is, if we think of it as "the world" instead of "the universe" (yes, I AM changing terms midway through the argument), the world DOES work perfectly to support human life.Actually, I think it is a much better choice to choose "the world" instead of "the universe."

And, yes, it's compelling argument to say that the world does work perfectly to support human life. I will agree.

BUT. Isn't that homosapien-centric? Is it "perfect" on the basis that human beings are capable of living on Earth? How about the dinosaurs who have lived before us? Is it "life" in general that makes the whole Earth-setup "perfect"?

Also the mechanisms in a watch don't have the ability to "better" or "worsen" the whole watch. We, human beings, have the ability to be considerate of the environment or not.

Chavez:
But one of the oft-used, simple-minded retorts to a puzzling situation is that "We cannot know the mind of God"; perhaps our ignorance of the PURPOSE of the universe is merely a product of our limited intellect. Or, as it often appears too be interpreted, the purpose of the universe is to support human life.Again, this is a compelling point.

BUT. If we did know the purpose of the universe, is it a "good" or "bad" thing? Here's the thing, every human being is different and has his/her own way of "interpreting" things. Again, by saying that the purpose of the universe is to support human life is very homosapien-centric and one-sided. Though we may have "limited intellect," it's not fair to collect the human race into that one "stereotypic" notion.

I guess I'm thinking like Galadriel: "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future."

Chavez:
Damn voltes, bringing the Beyonder into this is uncalled for! wink

I don't know that Paley assumes that there is truly a "motive" for creating the universe; it's just that the way the world works (with such elegant laws such as (A squared + B squared = C squared)and the Unified field theory) implies intelligent design, much like a watch. I suppose the argument would be much the same had the object in question been the Mona Lisa. And certainly there are accidents and happenstances - but a creation as involved and intricately designed as the universe is as likely to have occurred by happenstance as, say, a watch or the Mona Lisa - one may say anything is possible; but the PROBABILITY is extremely low in all 3 cases.Again, a very compelling point.

Just because a design appears to be "intelligent," it does not mean that it's created by an "intelligent" designer. Yes, the probability of a watch or a Mona Lisa is extremely low, but it doesn't mean that it's "impossible."

Actually, as I'm typing this, I'm starting to think that it seems to be logical for a "designer(s)" to have created the universe.

But then again, who has created the "designer"? It's that damn chicken and the egg brainbuster again.

Chavez:
Well, if this is a "God-as-watchmaker" argument, it doesn't behoove one to call God imperfect. wink

Fact is, science today shows us that there are (on a universal scale, at least) extremely slim parameters that allowed human life to develop as it did (according to the theory of evolution); the analogy of a planet being perfectly suited for human life and the accuracy of a Swiss watch is not that much of a stretch.I agree, it's not much of a stretch, but see, we're assuming that planet Earth is meant for human life. I just can't agree to that notion. Especially if you believe in the Evolution Theory, humankind descended from one creature then evolve to what we are today.

When I think of that, perhaps the Big Bang was actually the birth of consciousness. Like the first creature that was supposed to be mankind, that Big Bang Consciousness started a chain of events leading to the birth of our universe.

Then again, what is that "accident"? Was it done on purpose? Then someone would have created it! Then -- error error error does not compute.....

[Chavez]

voltes5
Actually, I think it is a much better choice to choose "the world" instead of "the universe."
As do I, but as the world exists within the universe and is suject to all applicable laws...

...if it's fine with you, I'd prefer to use "the world" as well.

And, yes, it's compelling argument to say that the world does work perfectly to support human life. I will agree.

BUT. Isn't that homosapien-centric? Is it "perfect" on the basis that human beings are capable of living on Earth? How about the dinosaurs who have lived before us? Is it "life" in general that makes the whole Earth-setup "perfect"?

Also the mechanisms in a watch don't have the ability to "better" or "worsen" the whole watch. We, human beings, have the ability to be considerate of the environment or not.Interesting point about humans being able to affect the "watch"; still, that's really a bit of a quibble - no analogy is perfect.

Chavez
the purpose of the universe is to support human life.Again, by saying that the purpose of the universe is to support human life is very homosapien-centric and one-sided.
This is to address both your previous point and this one: yes, to assume the world exists MERELY to support human life IS homo-sapien-centric and one-sided; but it is also quite in line with the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Chavez
I don't know that Paley assumes that there is truly a "motive" for creating the universe; it's just that the way the world works implies intelligent design, much like a watch. I suppose the argument would be much the same had the object in question been the Mona Lisa. And certainly there are accidents and happenstances - but a creation as involved and intricately designed as the universe is as likely to have occurred by happenstance as, say, a watch or the Mona Lisa - one may say anything is possible; but the PROBABILITY is extremely low in all 3 cases.Just because a design appears to be "intelligent," it does not mean that it's created by an "intelligent" designer. Yes, the probability of a watch or a Mona Lisa is extremely low, but it doesn't mean that it's "impossible."Granted; but the idea of a watch/the Mona Lisa being spuriously created is so low as to be all but impossible - probably FAR less likely than the room full of monkeys banging out the works of Shakespeare.

Actually, as I'm typing this, I'm starting to think that it seems to be logical for a "designer(s)" to have created the universe.

But then again, who has created the "designer"? It's that damn chicken and the egg brainbuster again.Heh - yes; positing that question to true believers and hearing their panicked shouts of "God just IS, and has always been" never fails to amuse....

perhaps the Big Bang was actually the birth of consciousness. Like the first creature that was supposed to be mankind, that Big Bang Consciousness started a chain of events leading to the birth of our universe.

Interesting thought; not sure if I understand what you mean by it, though. :confused:

[Jacob Singer]

voltes5:
And, yes, it's compelling argument to say that the world does work perfectly to support human life. I will agree.Um, except that pesky three-quarters of it that are vast oceans, or the poles, or huge stretches of uninhabitable desert, or glaciers, or any other part of the world that doesn't give a flying crapola if it supports human life or not.

[voltes5]

Chavez, I have actually responded to you, point by point, but it's now gone. I accidentally pressed the "back button" from my mouse and now I'm mad as hell! :mad:

Anyway, I think you have given me good arguments about the possibility of a "designer" out there. I have always considered myself an "atheist who would like to be an agnostic" and this discussion is keeping me on that level.

[voltes5]

Something's a bit screwy with the message boards. Jacob's post just came out from nowhere. I was sure I was refreshing this thread just in case someone posted anything.

I mention that, because Jacob's comment made me want to disagree with Chavez again. Hehe. I'm such a fickle girly-man.

[Jacob Singer]

Perhaps God is speaking to you, voltes.

Oooh, quick, look over your shoulder!

AAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

[DaveB]

Here's another way to look at it, though:

perfection is relative.

The only reason a watch and the Mona Lisa seem "perfect" to us is that they mirror aspects of our existence.

As for the world... an intelligent designer is not necessary. Those Shakespearean monkeys may not have a shot at banging out Shakespeare, but that's because they're limited (in terms of time and space, even moreso than intellectually).

As far as we know, existence is infinite in both time and space. The odds, therefore, are infinite, and it might just be that there have been infinite permutations on our existence that work to varying degrees. Perhaps humanity was all set to evolve on another planet, but the oxygen content was a little off. Maybe humanity has existed or does exist on another world, and people happen to have tails. And there may be zillions and zillions of slightly varying worlds as well as inconceivably different worlds.

The thing to remember is that with infinite odds, there are infinite possibilities.

I think the only reason it seems there was some intelligent designer behind the creation of the world is that all we know, as humans, is the world (or the universe, etc.). Our idea of "perfection" is based entirely on our existence, and everything we create that seems good or perfect to us mirrors our perception of this "perfect" existence.

[Chavez]

Don't Stop DaveB-lieving

I think the only reason it seems there was some intelligent designer behind the creation of the world is that all we know, as humans, is the world (or the universe, etc.). Our idea of "perfection" is based entirely on our existence, and everything we create that seems good or perfect to us mirrors our perception of this "perfect" existence.And THAT is why the Paley's watch argument fails.

Or as they said in Solaris (and I'm paraphrasing) - "given the infinite nature of the universe, the fact that conditions exist that could spawn human life is inevitable."

[Chavez]

voltes5
Anyway, I think you have given me good arguments about the possibility of a "designer" out there. I have always considered myself an "atheist who would like to be an agnostic" and this discussion is keeping me on that level.The funny thing is that I'm merely wearing my "true believer" mask for the purposes of the debate; when Scooby and the gang catch me and pull off my disguise at the end of the episode - *gasp* - it's Mr. Agnostic! wink

[Adverb]

Chavez
Fact is, science today shows us that there are (on a universal scale, at least) extremely slim parameters that allowed human life to develop as it did (according to the theory of evolution); the analogy of a planet being perfectly suited for human life and the accuracy of a Swiss watch is not that much of a stretch.The logic of this statement is backwards. Its not that there are set parameters for a human, and that the universe was created to provide an environment which will coincide with those parameters. Instead, it's that the universe is set up with whatever parameters it has and humans arose so that their needs could be satisfied by those parameters.

The first statement is saying that in order to transport eggs safely (humans) we need an egg carton (the world) that will fit snuggly around them. But in reality the egg carton (the universe) existed first, therefore only eggs that would fit snuggly (humans) would have a chance to come into existence and survive.

So, its not the planet that's perfectly suited for us, but instead it's human who are perfectly suited for the planet.

[Chavez]

Adverb, Sense Offender
The logic of this statement is backwards. Its not that there are set parameters for a human, and that the universe was created to provide an environment which will coincide with those parameters. Instead, it's that the universe is set up with whatever parameters it has and humans arose so that their needs could be satisfied by those parameters.

So, its not the planet that's perfectly suited for us, but instead it's human who are perfectly suited for the planet.Not if you're a CREATIONIST.

[Adverb]

Even if.

[Seabass Inna Bun]

The Watchmaker analogy is bollocks too. You know the watch cannot have been there forever because you already know someone had to build it. You already know people build watches. If you didn't, you might just think you've come across some really amazing fruit or something.

But you can't already assume that someone designed the Universe. This is what the argument is trying to prove. Otherwise you're just saying "it's true because it's true".

[Nelson]

Don't Stop DaveB-lieving:


I think the only reason it seems there was some intelligent designer behind the creation of the world is that all we know, as humans, is the world (or the universe, etc.). Our idea of "perfection" is based entirely on our existence, and everything we create that seems good or perfect to us mirrors our perception of this "perfect" existence.Excellent post daveB.

Question: WHERE do we acquire the concept of perfection?

[imported_Adam Warren]

As imperfect beings, are humans capable of recognizing perfection?

[imported_Adam Warren]

Seabass,

I disagree. Paley's analogy has a great abstract strength; it forces atheists to admit a 'faith' in their ability explain things. While this does not verify the presence of God, it reduces discourse to a level of contrasting faiths.

The watch/universe anology is fallacious due to its God of gaps nature; Paley attributes the unexplained — our world — to God. His likening the universe to a functioning thing — thus a creation — is also silly, as the cosmos operates out of necessity; the universe could Not exist if it was non-functional(are all functioning things creations?). This flips Paley's analogy to the question 'why?', from it's intended answer, God.

[Chavez]

Adam Warren

I disagree. Paley's analogy has a great abstract strength; it forces atheists to admit a 'faith' in their ability explain things. While this does not verify the presence of God, it reduces discourse to a level of contrasting faiths.

Nice to know I was correct in my interpretation. :D