Watchmaker argument is a bad argument for the existence of God

Omar2345’s defence of strawmen argumentsYou acknowledge that my version of the argument is better than the one you’re attacking. Ignoring your opponent’s improved version of the argument whilst responding to your own, Weaker, Version is a classic case of strawmanning! Nowhere in your opening challenge did you specify that you were only willing to engage with William Paley’s presentation of the watchmaker analogy – in fact you even started off the debate by stating “I will like my opponent to start and give the argument as well. ” I started and gave my version of argument; if you can only handle the argument in its feebler forms then I wonder how you can be so confident in your atheism. William Paley didn’t even invent the watchmaker analogy – for example Jean-Jacques Rousseau presented a version in 1762 (1), 40 years before Paley. Therefore, I see no reason why Paley’s version should be the only version permitted. I guess you were expecting a creationist to pop up and present an incoherent mess, Ready for you to decisively demolish and parrot the standard responses. I’m sorry to disappoint. William Paley’s versionYour quote uses the phrase “Every indication of”, Which would imply that Paley is referring to more than one factor (i. E. Not just complexity). The watchmaker analogy quote that you give is an introduction that forms part of an entire book (2); you complain that I’ve added extra words to his argument however what about the additional 199, 000 words that Paley himself adds in the following chapters? You also ask where I get the idea that Paley is responding to scientists. As I have already explained in my previous two rounds and you've completely ignored, The concept of a clockwork universe was very fashionable at the time; either it’s a massive coincidence that Paley goes with what was the most widely used metaphor for the universe by his contemporaries or it is deliberate attempt to respond to them. Does God not run like clockwork? The definition of God, Which you go onto quote, Defines God as a “supreme being”. A supreme being is not a clockwork-like mechanism, Therefore if God were to exist, He would not run like clockwork. God’s transcendenceI brought up God’s transcendent nature in response to your ‘who made God’ comment – it wasn’t an entirely new argument in support of theism. If you agree that this is off-topic then presumably you’re happy to drop your ‘who designed the designer’ line of enquiry. Inductive reasoningThe fact that you had to go off and Google what inductive reasoning is suggests to me that you don’t really understand the difference between inductive and deductive arguments. The Standford Encyclopedia points out that “there is no doubt that analogies have suggested fruitful lines of inquiry in many fields” (3) In other words, You cannot label an argument as bad simply because it’s an inductive analogy. If you take the watchmaker argument to be a deductive proof of God’s existence then I would agree that your criticisms succeed, However if you instead treat it as a weak form of inductive reasoning, Which it was originally intended as, Then I believe that it has some merit and your criticisms end up missing the point. Your comment about needing observable evidence demonstrates your complete lack of understanding in this field – it is precisely when we have no direct evidence/deductive arguments that inductive reasoning becomes useful. For example, It’s when a detective is first at the murder scene that they resort to inductive reasoning (e. G. If most other shootings in that part of town are gang related, They might assume that this one is too and start off with that line of enquiry) Once forensics, CCTV and witness statements etc have been collated, Their inductive arguments either get discounted or replaced with stronger evidence. Therefore, If we have no stronger arguments to help us figure out why the universe is the way it is then this is the perfect time to resort to inductive ones such as the watchmaker analogy. To concludeOmar 2345’s version of the watchmaker argument is a strawman – by their own admission it is less reasonable than the one I am presenting and defending. Adding background, Explaining it and correcting misunderstanding is not padding. Therefore, All Omar 2345 has done is shown that their strawman version of the argument is a bad one. They have failed to show that the watchmaker analogy in it’s strongest form has no merit. 1. Https://evolutionnews. Org/2012/04/reason_not_reve/2. Http://darwin-online. Org. Uk/content/frameset? ItemID=A142&pageseq=1&viewtype=text3. Https://plato. Stanford. Edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/#Exa