The Watchmaker Argument - Debunked (Teleological Argument - Refuted)

As 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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. 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…
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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: / rationalityrules
Tweet with me on Twitter: / rationalityrule
And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: / 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.

[@jonhillman871]

God is complex. Therefore, God is a watch.

[@rickypeggy-suejones7899]

jon hillman I don’t know, therefore God.

[@mtausk]

Illogical answer called False equivalence fallacy.

[@theomegaconcern9564]

That made me laugh out loud. Thank you

[@viperviperviper2]

We, humans, cannot even comprehend the definition of complex and yet we are making such silly and pathetic logical arguments.

[@mtausk]

@@viperviperviper2 Rather illogical. Not everything complex is a watch :) Watches can be complex but not everything complex is watch. Jon Hillman just wanted to sound smart :)

[@joslynstuff]

Worth noting the watchmaker puts his mark on his work he doesn't make it anonymously and then hide all evidence of his very existence .

[@rationalityrules]

Haha great point :P

[@mvsawyer]

The watchmaker also finds a reasonable market in which to sell his watches. In contrast, God found a tribe of slaves who were afraid where the Sun went at night to reveal himself to.

[@heristyono4755]

where's the fun on that?

[@chriscopeland1455]

his mark is us we are made in his likeness

[@DonaldKronos]

chris copeland - So are you saying we're all watch-makers or that we're all omnipotent gods? Saying that we who can be seen are just like someone who can't be seen doesn't make it true. You could just as well say the Flying Spaghetti Monster made us in his image and that proves he had a humanoid form and that he formed us from pasta.

[@YeetZmeN]

PewDiePie has a YT Channel PewDiePie has the most subscribers. Rationality Rules Has a YT Channel. Therefore, Rationality Rules has the most subscribers

[@lalitkumar-cl6qx]

T series

[@diegojesusespinozafrancia4984]

@@lalitkumar-cl6qx sad :,v

[@randomdude9135]

T series

[@konradfletcher6311]

F

[@oranges3482]

@@cadenbraeutigam1598 Atheists aren't saying there's no God. They're saying they don't have sufficient evidence to believe in one. Since Theists are saying God exists the burden of proof lies with them not the atheists.

[@johnrildo2325]

Do you ever walk out in the woods and say," there's no way that these trees planted themselves and grew over time to be what they are now. There must have been a creator who shaped each leaf and branch"? It would be ridiculous. We know that organisms currently grow and evolve on their own, so why assume that a creator was necessary in the past?

[@joshuaphilip7601]

There are many reasons to think a conscious creator is responsible for the creation of the universe. Firstly you misunderstand the argument, William Paley held the same chair as Darwin immediately before him. He had no concept of evolution which is likely why it's fair to say his argument fails. However the argument is now called the fine tuning argument which is probabilistic and demonstrates that the anthropic principles, starting conditions, universal constants are very precisely tuned to allow for life. Even evolution itself is a part of it as the system used to develop life is ridiculously complex contrary to popular belief. In fact structural evolution pretty much debunks what rr says on how evolution counters the wm analogy

[@johnrildo2325]

@@joshuaphilip7601 I don't misunderstand anything. You need more time to research other ideas.

[@joshuaphilip7601]

@@johnrildo2325 nobody now argues that because things look designed they therefore must be. We use probability. I spend lots of time researching other ideas. Also did you like your own comment?

[@johnrildo2325]

@@joshuaphilip7601 I still hear that argument.

[@ThatCrazyKid0007]

@@joshuaphilip7601 The thing is, the fine tuning argument for a conscious, intelligent designer only works if these constants can actually change. But there is no reasonable way to conclude that this is actually possible. The other possibility is that these constants literally could not have any other value, since we haven't observed them changing yet, it's a fairly reasonable thing to assume, at least just as much as a conscious designer. This would mean there is no conscious tuning, either that's the way things have always been (remember that the same is said for the conscious designer - he was always there untuned) or there are natural laws we haven't yet discovered that dictated into what values these constants would settle (the principle of settling of a system into the lowest energetic state is all around in nature for example, so it's not an unreasonable possibility). In conclusion, the fine tuning argument can not be explained only by God and since we don't have proof that favors either option yet, it shouldn't be reasonable to conclude from it that God *must* exist, it's only one of many possible explanations.

[@haffelbaffel123]

The watch is complex The watch was invented by Peter Henlein The universe is complex Therefore it was invented by Peter Henlein ALL PRAISE PETER HENLEIN

[@tobos8909]

@Ochuko Davis Which doctor specifically tuned your DNA, then?

[@PaRaSTrAsZ]

@Ochuko Davis No, my dear Sir, you have a misunderstanding here. It is not about all the same qualities, it is not about just the one quality of complexity, either. It is about the projection of the quality of being created, too. See, the watchmaker analogy says: 1. The watch is complex. 2. The universe is complex. 3. The watch had a creator. 4. Therefore, the universe had a creator. Because the watch and the universe share the quality of being complex (we just say this is right for the sake of argument), the analogy falsely assumes, that it also shares the quality of having a creator. The good Sir in the video explains this very minutely and also indicates further, that if that reasoning was plausible, we could also say that because watch and universe are complex and the watch has the quality of being made in 1950, that the universe therefore has the quality of being made in 1950. If you say, that it is only about complexity, you smuggle in the creator illegally. Hope I could help, have a wonderful day.

[@PaRaSTrAsZ]

@Ochuko Davis That is an excellent question and I for myself think there, of course, are dependencies. In your example the weight is dependent on its mass and the gravitational force, so the object would also need to have the quality of having mass and being in a system with gravity to have the quality of being "heavy", because of the definition of the terms. Now, the quality of complexity does not depend on the quality of being created not by definition and not by inference. As the good sir explains very coherently, it is that we already know the watch or watches in general are created by a designer, before we see the specific watch itself. If a newborn child would see the same watch, it would not know if it was designed or not, because it lacks the knowledge.

[@PaRaSTrAsZ]

​@Ochuko Davis But you cannot exchange the word,though. If you alter them, you get the following: 1. The watch is designed. 2. The universe is designed. 3. The watch has a designer. 4. Therefore, the universe has a designer. You now have simple tautologies, which are always true, because the quality of being designed is by definition dependent on a designer, but you got to that tautology by just giving the universe a quality you cannot demonstrate to be true. You are right, I cannot argue that the universe was not created, because I am no cosmologist. However, there are different hypothesis of what happened before the big bang; it is very likely, that time as we know it did not exist before the big bang and without time, there cannot be a beginning. But that said, my simple answer is: I do not know the answer. Does that mean, that a creator is more likely? No, it certainly does not, for several reasons, but for me, the most convincing one is simply Occam's Razor, which tells us to "not multiply entities without necessity." To assume, there would be a creator as long as we cannot prove it for certain is exactly that, and after the logic of everything having a beginning, the creator would have needed one, too, or you commit a special pleading fallacy, as the good Sir in the video has explained. And if you do not commit such fallacy, you end up in an infinite regress of creators creating creators. So it is best to not assume even one. My thought-experiment with the newborn child was, that we are conditioned throughout our life to be able to differ between designed things and non-designed things, but if we take away this ability, we cannot determine one or the other. If I see a watch, I was trained to see that it had a designer, because of thousands of different things, being made out of melted metal, which does not occur in nature, showing the time of the day, a construct created by us humans, having numbers on it, also created by us humans and so on. Now, if I would go to another planet and that planet had melted metal-formations standing around, I could assume, that they were designed, but maybe there is some form of natural influence who creates these things by itself. For me, I don't even have to go to another planet to have problems identifying things being designed or not, if I look at a termite mound from some distance, I could not tell if it was designed or just simply a rock, because I lack the conditioning to exactly see the difference in their structure, color and so on, while other people were conditioned for that and can easily identify it based on those qualities. So, from my point of view this thing does not look complex, while in reality it is certainly designed. Therefore, the quality of being designed does not correlate with it being complex. Only our experience and conditioning of differentiating designed things from the rest gives us the this ability and that means we also can be wrong about that. Hope that was not too confusing. It is perfectly fine, I cherish a civil conversation, where no insults are thrown, while you disagree on the topic and I think it is really irrational to think it is more likely.

[@PaRaSTrAsZ]

@Ochuko Davis 1. It is a tautology, because design BY DEFINITION requires a designer. It is the same as your example of something being heavy. something being heavy BY DEFINITION requires having mass and being in a system with gravitational force. Quantum particles have no apparent design because they are not designed, simple as that. 2+3. And if the universe existed before time began than it existed before its beginning in time. So it existed before the existence of time and no god is needed. My thought experiment did not aim to show that design and designers do not exist, nobody in his right mind would deny that, it shows that our ability to distinguish designed things from non-designed things stems from experience and conditioning and is therefore no ultimate authority, we can be wrong about things being designed or natural occurring. And it definitely does not come from things being complex. Your problem here is that you already presuppose a designer when you use the terms "natural design" and "artificial design" which means that in your view everything is designed so everything had a designer by default, which means you commit a begging-the-question-fallacy.

[@thejames8016]

God Is Complex Therefore God Had a Designer.

[@LynchyVidz]

#TheJames Spot on.

[@ferashannawi1136]

#TheJames false premise. And complexity is relative.

[@warspite908]

SPECIAL PLEADIIIIIING

[@ferashannawi1136]

#TheJames false premise. And seductive logic. God is not complex. And if the law of complexity-designer is obeyed by the physical laws. That doesn’t mean the metaphysical real obeys that law two. You’ll still have to build a case to prove that at least. Lol

[@chenyanhao676]

more special pleading, no, you're the one postulating that the laws of the two realms don't equate, you provide the evidence. Noone's gonna argue with the position that the two equate as atheists don't know. And what is seductive logic? God is not complex-then what exactly is god? His parts? His whole? So only he knows what he is?

[@SubCivilization]

The watch was not invented in the 15th Century. It was invented in 1995. I read it in a holy book.

[@AKhanboxing]

very underrated comment

[@JiraiyaPilled]

Super underrated

[@uncleben7306]

shockingly underrated

[@_Napoletano_]

I dont get it

[@gldistrict]

Fr time didn’t even exist back then 😒

[@roymarshall_]

I'm glad you are on KZbin to make these videos addressing specific arguments because otherwise its kind of hard to find videos directly dealing with these arguments (most of the time you find arguments/counterarguments buried in long-form videos about a related topic)

[@emily7635]

one day you may find out God is superbeing better than AI and it has super natural powers like some humans claim we are still evolving another senses...we don't really know what we are to the end so how can we make a videos stating against the Designer 😂😂😂

[@marianpalko2531]

You know what isn't complex? An A4 sheet of paper. Yet, if you found an A4 sheet of paper somewhere, you would automatically assume that it must have had a designer. And do you know why? Because every single A4 sheet of paper that the humanity has ever come across has had a designer, and it is an object that never does occur naturally. By this we can demonstrate that it isn't the complexity of an object which determines whether or not we assume that it was designed. Rather we use our already available pool of knowledge containing the data about the origin of similar/identical objects and the feasibility of a natural occurrence of those objects. Now, how many other universes do we have to compare the ours to? Exactly ZERO.

[@miltonplatt5935]

You recognize the watch as having a designer by comparing it to the rest of the natural world, which by contrast, does not.

[@Mandwar]

Marian Palko while I don't buy into the watchmaker argument whatsoever, pointing to instances where we recognise that some simple objects are designed may not actually refute it. I would think that proponents of the argument may concede that we may recognise design in some simple objects by virtue knowledge we have on said object (we know of factories manufacturing paper, etc), but complex objects require a designer by virtue of its complexity alone. So I think its sinething along the lines of "There may be many ways to identify when a designer is necessary for an object to come into being, and complexity, being one of them, is what I use to prove that this object needs a designer". I don't think proponents of the argument have done anywhere near enough to justify the premise that complexity always implies design though, it's always just been asserted.

[@simonpiper4696]

The word used is multiverse. Multi.. Meaning what

[@theconservativechristian7308]

Here's a curveball for you. Let's say you found a contraption that you didn't know what it did, how it worked, or who or what created it (if any). Does that now mean that because you don't know who (OR WHAT) created this thing (IF ANY) and since there is no other contraption like it then that means it's illogical to assume the probability of *gasp*..........*whispers* "intelligent design? DUN, DUN, DUNNNNNNNNNN!

[@adomaster123]

The Conservative Christian I mean, we still know something about it because it's a contraption, and that word automatically implies design. This is another false analogy.

[@Templetonq]

Design flaws in nature are our fault because our ancestors ate some magic fruit before we were born. Duh!

[@JohnSpike8888]

Of course. And because our ancestors ate the magic fruit (which magical sky daddy wanted them to eat anyway), other species have flaws in their anatomy also. Because god is sooooo (un)just.

[@Templetonq]

Creationists have their work cut out for them reconciling the fallen world argument with the teleological argument. If a wasp lays its eggs in a spider it cannot be just an automatic result of a fallen world. By the teleological argument it must have been designed that way, and only God could have done that.

[@tannu4377]

@@Templetonq And if the god can design the world... why the fuck did he put the magical fruit in it?

[@matheus5230]

Tannu It was a test for ours fidelity. It proves that God gives us free will and let us do even mistakes

[@collinsigbiks9701]

That's just silly, doesn't God know everything.

[@thrownswordpommel7393]

Watches are complex Switzerland is the best at watch-making The universe is complex Therefore, bow down to Switzerland !

[@huldanoren951]

Where can I join the church of Switzerland?

[@pavel9652]

@@huldanoren951 Go to the nearest bank xD

[@mattsalvatore6226]

God is complex. The watch is complex. Therefore, The watchmaker made god

[@EskChan19]

Watches are complex. God is complex Therefore. God is a watch.

[@XnonTheGodd]

I died laughing 😆🤣👍

[@paulshimkin2713]

God is actually simple though. Read Aquinas

[@gilesw9178]

You could simply reject the premise that complexity is a feature of design.

[@geoffreysorkin5774]

Hell, you could point out that in comparison to the grass or trees around it, the obviously designed thing (the watch) isn't actually complex. That a supposed intelligence was incapable of actual complexity, with only a very limited number of moving parts. Ergo, complexity is in fact a hallmark of nature, as opposed to intelligence.

[@logicalrefuge8366]

@@geoffreysorkin5774 lol, you assign the Creator human like intelligence? The complexity you're witnessing is work of the Creator. Call it nature or anything you want. You're a witness.

[@sad-pt7xd]

logical refuge okay but complexity doesn’t mean a creator made it

[@logicalrefuge8366]

@@sad-pt7xd then what? Nature made it? 🤯

[@sad-pt7xd]

logical refuge exactly, besides wouldn’t an infinite being be more complex, therefore needing a creator?

[@constantcomment7089]

Why wouldn't Paley upon finding a watch in the grass and examining its complexity remark, "Look what God has designed." Because we have evidence that watchmakers exist.

[@jsphblw]

Chris Coulbeck - You’re missing the point. The reason Paley doesn’t automatically assume that the watch was made by God is because he KNOWS that watchmakers exist and that making watches is kinda their thing. He doesn’t know how the complex beings came into existence so he attributes it to “God”.

[@lilith_speaks_out]

I love your "overwhelmingly powerful" arguments at the end. On a serious note, I hadn't even considered the that this argument implies many designers nor had I noticed the implied contradictions in the argument. Very insightful.

[@echo7227]

His logic is extremely flawed and stupid. He actually makes the watch maker analogy more believable with his nonsense

[@lilith_speaks_out]

@@echo7227 how so?

[@echo7227]

@@lilith_speaks_out he claims the watchmaker argument implies multiple designers. It doesn’t. The watch is one complex system that obviously had a designer. The universe is also one complex system that logically had to have a designer. Saying the watch maker argument implies that “life must have a life maker and the son must have a son maker” would be the equivalent to looking at a watch and saying there must have been a different designer for each little part instead of one designer for the whole His arguments are ridiculous

[@hobdns5933]

we all agree on the fact that there is a necessary existence, beacuse actual infinites are impossible, ie infinite regress , so bellow i present some simple arguments on why we go with it being god The concept of a necessary being, or a first mover, is based on the premise that an infinite regress is impossible. Therefore, even atheists acknowledge the existence of a necessary being; they just don't call it God. Their argument usually revolves around the lack of evidence, to which we counter with the idea that it makes sense to believe in a God, as there's a possibility of punishment for disbelief, whereas atheists, if wrong, face potential consequences. Morality is another area where the existence of God is often argued. The claim is that without a higher authority defining what is morally good or bad, morality becomes subjective, varying from person to person and generation to generation. The existence of good in the world suggests the existence of an inherently good, sentient being-God. Atheists might argue that natural selection created feelings like good and evil, but this seems rather odd. The complexity of life, from simple organisms to complex beings like humans, suggests intelligent design. For instance, a cell requires a multitude of functions to operate, and these functions need to be created simultaneously or in close proximity to function properly. This implies the need for a creator, as random chance seems an insufficient explanation for such intricate systems

[@hobdns5933]

​@@lilith_speaks_out we all agree on the fact that there is a necessary existence, beacuse actual infinites are impossible, ie infinite regress , so bellow i present some simple arguments on why we go with it being god The concept of a necessary being, or a first mover, is based on the premise that an infinite regress is impossible. Therefore, even atheists acknowledge the existence of a necessary being; they just don't call it God. Their argument usually revolves around the lack of evidence, to which we counter with the idea that it makes sense to believe in a God, as there's a possibility of punishment for disbelief, whereas atheists, if wrong, face potential consequences. Morality is another area where the existence of God is often argued. The claim is that without a higher authority defining what is morally good or bad, morality becomes subjective, varying from person to person and generation to generation. The existence of good in the world suggests the existence of an inherently good, sentient being-God. Atheists might argue that natural selection created feelings like good and evil, but this seems rather odd. The complexity of life, from simple organisms to complex beings like humans, suggests intelligent design. For instance, a cell requires a multitude of functions to operate, and these functions need to be created simultaneously or in close proximity to function properly. This implies the need for a creator, as random chance seems an insufficient explanation for such intricate systems

[@jtalistair6725]

What always blew my mind about this argument was the set up. If I'm walking through a forrest and I find a pocket watch, I will know it is designed because it bears such a stark contradistinction to the properties of everything else around it. Nothing about that watch can arise naturally, yet given enough patience I could sit there and watch the trees grow. I can perfectly demonstrate the natural process responsible for the production of every complex organism on this planet, and not one of those processes include or require a "designer". Yet we will never witness the construction of a pocket watch without a designer. Though to be fair, creationist aren't exactly known for their logical prowess.

[@ALMA3LOMATCHANNEL]

Firstly, if you can "perfectly demonstrate the natural process responsible for the production of every complex organism on this planet", science cannot. Secondly, theists say that not only the tree is designed; but also the process that the seed for instance follows to become a tree is designed by God and He guides the seed to follow it, the Quran 20:50 says: He answered, “Our Lord is the One Who has given everything its ˹distinctive˺ form, then guided ˹it˺.”. Actually God told us that behind every natural phenomena there is a cause and he is the causer of this cause, and told us about some natural phenomena and its cause .. for example the origin of production of milk in cows, the Quran says :"And there is certainly a lesson for you in cattle: We give you to drink of what is in their bellies, from between digested food and blood: pure milk, pleasant to drink. 16:66

[@jtalistair6725]

@@ALMA3LOMATCHANNEL So your argumdent is redundant? If the tree is so obviously designed, why use an artifical construction as an analogy? Or are you committing a begging the question fallacy? Assuming the conclusion within the premises. Any way you try to slice it, the telelogical argument is fallacious and unsound. But, so is every other theistic argument.

[@ALMA3LOMATCHANNEL]

@@jtalistair6725 What r u talking abt?! The analogy is used to let u know that spicified complexity and specified information( the information that drive the flave to become a butterfly for example) cannot in any way be the result of a natural law

[@ezekielanderson9055]

Ok, let’s debunk this debunking video. 1:33 False Analogy. First this guy says the watch is a bad analogy. His definition of analogy is “A comparison between things that have similar features for the purpose of explaining a principle of idea.” So based on his definition, there are 3 criteria. Things have to be compared. They have to be similar. And they have to explain an idea. In the watchmaker analogy, are things being compared? Yes. Are they similar? Yes. And are they explaining an idea? Yes. So I’m not sure why he thinks it’s a bad analogy. His problem lies in the comparison. He somehow thinks it is a bad comparison. I agree that correlation is not always causation. He gives an example of the same logic. He says watches are made in the 15th century; therefore the universe was made in the 15th century. It is true that this is a bad analogy because we have proof that the universe was made before the 15th century. However, there the watchmaker analogy has nothing to do with when the universe was made, so this is a straw man argument. And based on his logic, every analogy in existence is wrong because correlation is not always causation. The watch and the universe are complex, and the watch has a designer; therefore the universe has a designer. This guy thinks this is wrong. But in order for this to be wrong, there would need to be complex things that do not have a designer. However there is nothing complex does not have a designer, so it is a good analogy. I don’t see the problem here. 2:41 He says that complexity can happen without a designer. The example he gives is evolution (which has proven countless times to be not true. At least macroevolution has been). But he gets to that later. Give me one other example of something complex NOT happening by a designer. Go ahead. I’ll wait. 3:46 Evolution by Natural Selection. I laughed by guts out when I heard this one. Natural selection does not make complex things. It only rearranges preexisting traits. For example, it can make more fish have armored plates to protect from predators. Or it can make giraffes necks grow longer. But the armor and neck already existed. And those are the complex parts. Making more of something that already exists does not make it more complex. In order for complexity to occur, new information needs to be added. But natural selection cannot add information. It can only rearrange it. The new information needs to come from somewhere else. According to evolutionists, it comes from mutations. However, most mutations are not beneficial or hereditary. A mutation is only hereditary if it is on the gamete that is used for reproduction. And not every mutation in the organism will be on the gamete. In fact, most won’t. If an organism has a trillion cells, only one-trillionth of the mutations will be on the gamete and will be passed on. So there is only one in a trillionth chance that any given mutation in the organism will be passed on. So that means an organism needs to have one trillion babies for the mutation to be passed on. The organism would obviously die before that happens. So mutations can’t cause evolution. And even if a mutation was passed on, most are not beneficial. So this debunks macroevolution, thus debunking his claim that evolution causes complexity. Evolution can’t cause anything when it can’t even happen. 4:22 “The reason we recognize a watch as designed has nothing to do with how complex and purposed it is, but rather because we already know that it is designed.” And we also know the universe was designed. How can you believe something so complex randomly happened by chance? 4:45 “We have zero examples of life being created by a designer” Actually, scientists have cloned animals. That is an example of life being created by a designer. And I’m sure scientists are working towards making life from non-life. This would prove creation because it would prove life needs a designer to be made. However, if we could observe life being made randomly by chance in nature, that would prove the abiogenesis hypotheses. Because it would prove there is no designer needed. And based on that logic, we also have never seen life being made by something that is NOT a designer. We have never seen life being created at all. We’ve never once observed the abiogenesis. But, like the watchmaker analogy says, it is much more logical to conclude that we are designed because of complexity. This guy hasn’t even come close to debunking this yet. Over half way into the video. 4:55 Special Pleading Fallacy, or Self Refuting. He says that God must have had a designer. He clearly doesn’t understand the whole concept of God. According to most religions, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Something with those qualities does not need a designer; and something with those qualities can cake complex things. So God does not need a designer, or He wouldn’t be God. 5:54 Self-contradicting. “The argument first assumes that a watch is different from nature”. No, the whole point of the argument is that it is comparing nature to a watch. The argument says they are both complex, and therefore both have a designer. What part of that assumes that the watch is different from nature? This guy clearly doesn’t understand the very thing he is arguing against. 6:17 It doesn’t imply a designer. This one made me want to bang my head against the wall. It further proves my point that this guy clearly doesn’t understand the very thing he is arguing against. The whole point of the watchmaker argument is that there must be a designer. So it both implies and directly states that there must be one. Then he says that there must be many creators and not just one. But the watchmaker argument never once claims that there is ONLY ONE designer. There could be multiple designers. I don’t understand how this debunks the argument. 6:52 Ex Nihilo. Finally, an actual good point that this guy makes. He says that a watch is made with preexisting materials, so whoever designed the universe must also have made it from preexisting materials. I don’t really have a rebuttal for this one other than my earlier point that God is omnipotent. So He can do anything, and thus He can create something from nothing. Good job, dude. You made me not have a decent rebuttal for the first time and we are almost at the end of the video. 7:18 Doesn’t Support Theism. Yes it does. A designer = God. How can you not understand this simple fact? He then says that the watchmaker argument only proves a designer, not which one. But the last time I checked, the argument was never trying to prove a specific God. Only that a God exists. This is a dumb argument that I see thrown around a lot by atheists. “Your argument didn’t prove which god is real; therefore it’s not a good argument!” Proving WHICH god is the real god is a whole different subject that requires a completely different discussion. We are simply trying to get to you atheists that a god exists, not which one. Once we prove that obvious fact, THEN we can talk about which one. 7:40 Incompetent design. He then says that God wouldn’t make organisms with vestigial parts, birth defects and pregnancy complications, etc. I’ve also heard this one a lot. “God didn’t do this thing I think He should do. That means God isn’t real!” No, it just means you don’t understand God. He says that God is either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent. First of all, the “vestigial parts” do have a use. In the illustrations, he uses the human tail bone as an example of a vestigial part. This actually has a lot of uses, like keeping you balanced and being able to move your hips. And for the birth defects, that’s a result of sin. Every bad thing that happens is a result of sin. If we didn’t sin, nothing bad would happen. It’s not God’s fault that bad stuff happens; it’s our fault. 9:20 He gives another false analogy to somehow disprove the watchmaker analogy. The analogy is that a person has a youtube channel and has 300k subs. And another person has a channel, and therefore must have 300k subs. The difference between this and the watchmaker argument is that youtube channels have been proven to have more or less than 300k subs. But nothing that is complex has ever been proven to not be designed. He said there are lots of examples, but the only one he gave was natural selection, which I thoroughly debunked. Still waiting for another example of something complex NOT being designed ;)

[@jtalistair6725]

@@ezekielanderson9055 You took all that time to type all of that out. And it took me less than 2 seconds of reading to know you're a complete ignoramus with no idea what you're fucking talking about. Keep denying reality all you want.

[@Jordan21Michael]

"Let's imagine you're walking in the woods and come across a watch. The watch is beautiful and set to precisely the correct time. You'd assume it had a designer, unlike the rock next to it; which is completely useless"

[@SpaceKingDinosaur]

OR we could admit that we know watches are made by humans and do not occur naturally. If you're saying that the whole of the universe, including the rock, are made by a deity, what are we comparing the universe against? What would a universe NOT made by a deity look like, how would it be different than this one, and how would we know which is which?

[@swinde]

Jordan ... You could use the rock to smash the watch!

[@Jordan21Michael]

Swinde exactly... because the watch isn't pure and natural! I just think the entire argument is funny on it's face. "You notice a watch. It's beautiful and set to precisely the right time". Should the fact that we are noticing a symmetrical, designed watch, show that it's different from a rock or a tree? If EVERYTHING was designed for a purpose then you'd never notice the watch, because you are busy noticing the purpose and intent in everything else. But for some reason the watch is special. It has a purpose. That purpose is clear. Unlike everything else around it.

[@memesredacted]

Jordan21Michael lets imagine youre walking in the woods. there's no one around and your phone is dead. out of the corner of your eye you spot him. shia labeouf. he's following you, about 30 feet back. he gets down on all fours and breaks into a sprint. he's gaining on you. shia labeouf.

[@thejudgmentalcat]

MemesAreCancer That's just scary man.

[@biostemm]

Depending upon the criteria used, one could argue that a watch is actually far simpler than the natural world around it - even a simple rock can have millions of facets and variances in its shape and makeup, far more than the watch, which lacks any unnecessary components, or adaptation of previous iterations of watches, which are inferior in how they accomplish any given task.

[@tyzer32]

You're right..."complex" is a relative term.

[@platitudeomenw441]

A watch, I would say, is far more complex than a rock

[@EskChan19]

@@platitudeomenw441 But is it far more complex than a tree?

[@rcnfo1197]

Six years later and you have MORE than the 300,000 subscribers Armored Skeptic had at the time of this video. Well played.

[@Dan_C604]

Thank you, this is truly a powerful, clear and organized presentation. Loved it!

[@Ryder-wt9tk]

The false analogy is also an example of a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent. This argument here is valid," men are mortal, Socrates is man, therefore Socrates is mortal" however this next argument is an example of affirming the consequent," Socrates is mortal, men are mortal, therefore all men are Socrates."

[@-xARCHONx-]

Rationality Rules should have 300,000 subs

[@rationalityrules]

That's an overwhelmingly powerful argument you have there David :P

[@SpaceKingDinosaur]

Seconded!

[@thejudgmentalcat]

David du Preez It. Just. Makes. Sense. 300,000 subs. Brilliant!

[@neilforbes416]

He's well on the way to achieving that goal.

[@angeloortiz2769]

*300,000,000

[@terribletimmy9908]

Cure for a swollen head.. Golf & watching this. I feel intellectually miniscule & quite inadequate. On the upside, i'm really glad, ecstatic in fact, that your bearing this torch. I cannot get enough of this. well done!

[@richardguyver6676]

Thank you Stephen: My Son's found this video, The unmoved mover and Pascal's video really useful for revision for his exam he had today.

[@itsokiie]

amazing watching this video 6 years later and he is now at 300,000+ subscribers. thank you for staying consistent and i hope you can keep growing your viewerbase and teaching generations to come!

[@wolframstahl1263]

I just rewatched this and by the end (9:30) thought "let's see how many subscribers he has by now". It's 300K. Not 299K or 301K, it's 300K. I love coincidences.

[@seanlosik3178]

You now have 300 thousand subscribers. Congratulations! :)

[@billheuber5884]

That was a great video Rationality Rules! It was very well-put and explained! I really enjoy your videos and I'm glad I'm subscribed with all the other 299999 subscribers you have!! 😉👍 Keep up the good work my friend!

[@SpaceKingDinosaur]

There's one more mistake that the watchmaker argument makes. The watch is being compared to the universe, or at least nature, to say it's complex. What is the universe being compared against? (I'm pretty sure I heard this from Matt Dillahunty.)

[@RaoulRamsaran]

mind blown...

[@SpaceKingDinosaur]

: ) Me too. That Matt is a smart fellow.

[@Oswlek]

Yes, it is contrast not complexity that indicates design. Amusingly, theists concede this when they introduce "irreducible complexity", which basically states that maximal _simplicity_ is the hallmark of design. Apologists: claiming victory on both sides of the coin for 2,000 years and counting. :)

[@zayanwatchel8780]

SpaceKingDinosaur ehh it might be an equivocation fallacy

[@steadfastneasy26]

@SpaceKingDinosaur "What is the universe being compared against? " What is available to compare the universe with?? Nothing, which is why it is a DUMB question.

[@mysteryh7174]

A watch tells time. My smartphone tells time. Therefore, my watch can make calls.

[@pbeatz911]

Watching this in 2021. Not far away from the 300k Subs brother. Keep on. Cheers.

[@ZackMaddox-gd1zk]

I’m glad I found this. I just run into a different wording of the watchmaker argument and I was kind of stumped. And I’m tired, so I think if I keep running into these arguments when I’m this tired, I’m more likely to convert for no reason. So in a nutshell, I’m too lazy and tired to debunk an argument I’ve heard before on my own so I’m looking to you to debunk it for me, thanks

[@MaccaLives]

Additionally, the watchmaker argument compares artificial objects to nature. Since all artificial objects are made by humans, and nature isn't, you can never compare the two. I realise the false analogy argument already covers that, but I think it doesn't hurt to mention it anyway.

[@yahyad3221]

Artificial Objects are made from Natures substances dumbass

[@gabrielesimionato1210]

Therefor, humans are not nature.

[@harikrishnans1421]

Nature is not man made but for theists it artificial too “”GOD”” created it 🙄

[@simonmohapi361]

Watches are complex Watches are made by humans The univers is complex Therefore, The universe is made by humans Checkmate Theists

[@galactorsus_i.n.c]

@@simonmohapi361 actually that's a amazing way to make some brain freeze.

[@N1ghthawkL06]

Can you do a video compilaiton of all logical fallacies and similars? You explain them so well and its so easy to understand

[@DCDevTanelorn]

Excellent reasoning as usual. Great job covering this topic.

[@JKJTransit]

Thank you for explaining the different fallacies with this argument!

[@GhostLightPhilosophy]

It basically boils down to : “If things had been different at the start, they would be different now”

[@christiankemp9851]

I am a Christian and love studying these theological questions. I really enjoyed this video and think it brings up a few fair points. I think the question IS NOT “Does the Teleological argument prove their is God?” But the real question is “Does the Teleological argument prove the LIKELIHOOD of God?” The answer to the second question is undeniably yes. Can we prove beyond a doubt, using scientific observance, that there is a God? No we cannot, simply because we were not there at the beginning of the universe. But the ultimate question with this argument is this: “Is it more likely that creation came into existence through accident or a creator?” For creation to be an accident it would take a ridiculous amount of luck. One slight thing is different and everything falls apart. This is why I come to the conclusion that it is more likely that the universe was created by God, who is all powerful and outside of space and time. Please comment if you have any objections or questions with my logic. Regardless of what you believe I feel like these are healthy things to talk and respectfully debate about.

[@brennanfields1380]

You and I are both in agreement that their is no way to prove or disprove either viewpoint on whether or not their is a god. But I would say that you ruling out the possibility that the universe and existence itself is a natural process is a less rational stance than their being a god simply because many of the things that we have been able to observe that we once thought were gods doing have been found to be natural processes. Rain, Stars, and planets were all thought to be the work of gods yet we have observed these being formed in nature. Yes we can’t rule out a god but I would say that stance is less rational. It is also possible that the universe itself could be eternal the same way a god is.

[@mantabsekali920]

Why it just 2 possibility ? Maybe the creation is simple in the beginning then it grow and evolve to such complex being.

[@cutekoala]

Improbable things sometimes happen There may be trillions of universes so that would bring the unlikelihood right down. The unlikelihood of an invisible god is much greater than the unlikelihood of the universe I can say unicorns cause hurricanes but it's not believable unless I produce evidence of unicorns. We can't invent beings just to win an argument or make ourselves feel better.

[@BenjaminNeville]

I'm with you on this one. There really is no way to scientifically prove there is or is not a God. I would say however there are other ways not scientific ones, to prove at least to yourself that there is one, and then after that decision on your part most everything else is simply evidence that he exists. I dislike this video because instead of talking mainly about supposed fallacies in the analogy it's mostly just arguments and theories purported as cold hard facts that when taken all together in the end not only prove that the watchmaker analogy is false or at least not useful but also to prove the non existence of God, which is not what the video is stated to be. Especially the last supposed argument about the incompetent designer which has nothing to do with the actual analogy and more on his own belief of what and who God is and why his theory of who God is and the experience which we call life are incompatible. So did not appreciate that . But I really like your response, thanks!

[@XiagraBalls]

The sole reason you're a Christian is nominative determinism. 😄

[@pimwiersinga8822]

I wrote te previous comment while watching. Your additional point thoroughly addresses the same point, among others. Bravo!

[@Shindai]

I'm late tot his one (just found the channel) but it's ironic that you say 300,000 subscribers at the end, I see you're up to 299k, almost there :)

[@hebron6296]

Nice graphic design skills, bro.

[@douglassmithe9799]

Even as someone who hasn't thought about religion vs science in a long time, this was still just really intellectually satisfying for me to watch. The way you logically deconstructed the Watchmaker Analogy was just *chef's kiss*

[@theblackspark2644]

My only issue with this video is that it acts like the watchmaker argument is the same as the design argument.

[@xxsaruman82xx87]

@@theblackspark2644 It is a formulation of it, though

[@anestisf132]

I loved your accent. I really do believe that the technical aspect of the video, the structure, and the language used were great. I appreciate that the tone of your voice and the style of debating weren't disrespectful like the majority of channels like yours, although to be honest, it could be even better ;). About the arguments, I don't think the research you did for the watchmaker argument is enough. I don't believe in youtube comments debating, so I see no point getting further into this, but I can tell you this: If you want to change people's minds, you need to really understand their argument, and not being afraid of going deeper, debunking your debunks so you can make your arguments stronger.

[@dirkdiggler2218]

Great video, this is gonna help a lot with my logic paper on the watchmaker analogy.

[@MasamiPhoenix]

So here are my two thoughts on this that get looked over a lot (or at least not delved into as much) 1) It is not the watch's complexity that tells us it is designed, but rather it's function. The watch clearly tells time, it is designed to tell time. All of it's complexity is towards a single purpose. It doesn't do a single thing that isn't about telling time. However, life doesn't have a clear function. The tree isn't only designed for a single purpose, it just IS. 2) It's not the watch's complexity that tells us it's designed, but rather our pattern recognition. Rationality briefly touches on this when he mentions that we know a watch has a creator because every watch we've seen has been built. But what if it wasn't a watch but some unknown machine. Well, we'd still know it looks like a machine, it's made of metal, it has whirling gears and coils, and runs off a battery. We recognize it is something designed, not because it's complex, but because it looks like something designed. So what if you encountered the following You are walking in the woods when you come across... a thing. You've never seen anything like it. It's an ovaliod, and appears to be made out of a slimy material, halfway between a mucous and a gelatin in consistency. It's shape is held together by a beehive latices of woven fibers made of a material that you've never seen before. It occasionally emits light and sound, in what seems like random intervals, but it might be a pattern that's too complex for you to follow. It's complex, there's no denying that. But is it a construct? Is it an organism? Is it just some strange kind of rock? There's no way of knowing, because it's too foreign to you. You cannot begin to guess if it has a designer or not, because unlike the watch, which looks like something that was designed, and unlike the tree, which looks like something natural, you've never seen anything like this.

[@ahmadieb]

The tree have many purposes one of them it is designed to be food for animals and insects and humans.

[@MasamiPhoenix]

@@ahmadieb it has many FUNCTIONS but only one PURPOSE: to reproduce. The fact that animals can eat its fruit was actually initially a function of the animals not the trees. Many (bht not all) evolved to incorporate this feature into their own functionality later.

[@ahmadieb]

@@MasamiPhoenix Ok !

[@ahmadieb]

@@MasamiPhoenix So how do you debunk the watchmaker argument?

[@MasamiPhoenix]

​@@ahmadieb Wow, I mean there are so many different ways I can debunk this argument. A lot depends on the nuance of how it's originally presented, and I can probably come up with about ten in general. The puddle argument, the bismuth argument, failed analogy, questioning whether the world looks designed, and so on. But I will go with what I feel is the best and simplest. Let's start by defining the watchmaker argument. Complexity is ultimately a red herring as RR pointed out, and can be better phrased as "appears designed," so it comes down to this 1) Everything that appears designed has a designer 2) The universe appears designed. Conclusion: The universe was designed. Now there's a lot of flaws with both premise 1 and premise 2, but I'm just going to look at the two of them together. The problem here, is that the definition of "appears designed" has two different definitions. In the first premise, appears designed means that it appears that it was constructed by an intelligence (specifically man). When we see the watch on the beach we know it was designed because it looks like something that was designed by man, and not part of nature. The same is true of carved statues, writing, and so on. Everything that "appears designed" is so because it was shaped by an intelligence. The second premise redefines "appears designed" to mean anything that has a sense of order and complexity. Everything, both manmade and natural appear orderly and complex. So here's the basic problem. 1) If you use the first definition of "appearing that it was constructed by an intelligence." then the second premise fails, because nature does not appear to be constructed by intelligence. 2) If we use the second definition of "has a sense of order and complexity" than the first premise fails because we have plenty of examples of things that have complexity and order that do not necessarily have a designer. This will always be a flaw with this argument or any similar ones. Either only things that we have designed look designed, in which case it doesn't prove anything about things we haven't designed. Or everything looks designed in which case it doesn't prove anything about things that look designed.

[@mikecrowley2472]

An alternative analogy: Out for a stroll upon the heath one day, you find a large, perfect, sphere of pure gold, its surface polished and mirror-smooth. Its perfect, geometric, sphericity marks it off as distinct from the rough rocks and soft plants all around. Neither does it have the straight edges and angular points of crystalline formations. Would you not observe this object and conclude that it must have been designed deliberately? Because of its extreme simplicity?

[@marka9556]

Well done in using simple examples that everyone should be able to understand when explaining the faulty logic.

[@pauld7522]

Fantastic and complete argument debunking the watchmaker argument!

[@filthymcnastyazz]

Then the intelligent designer is also revealing their flaws. Timepieces run fast or slow, cogs wear, springs lose elasticity. So the watchmaker is limited by material properties which they cannot overcome, therefore not omnipowerful or omniscient or omnipresent.

[@EskChan19]

Being limited by material properties is not mutually exclusive with omnipresence. Or technically omniscience. You can still be everywhere at once and still build a shitty watch. You can still know everything but just know that building a great watch is impossible. However, you're right that makes you not omnipowerful. Because in that case you could just create a perfect material that is not subject to these factors.

[@llamatime952]

a cave is complex caves are created naturally the universe is complex therefore the universe is created naturally

[@ezekielanderson9055]

Ok, let’s debunk this debunking video. 1:33 False Analogy. First this guy says the watch is a bad analogy. His definition of analogy is “A comparison between things that have similar features for the purpose of explaining a principle of idea.” So based on his definition, there are 3 criteria. Things have to be compared. They have to be similar. And they have to explain an idea. In the watchmaker analogy, are things being compared? Yes. Are they similar? Yes. And are they explaining an idea? Yes. So I’m not sure why he thinks it’s a bad analogy. His problem lies in the comparison. He somehow thinks it is a bad comparison. I agree that correlation is not always causation. He gives an example of the same logic. He says watches are made in the 15th century; therefore the universe was made in the 15th century. It is true that this is a bad analogy because we have proof that the universe was made before the 15th century. However, there the watchmaker analogy has nothing to do with when the universe was made, so this is a straw man argument. And based on his logic, every analogy in existence is wrong because correlation is not always causation. The watch and the universe are complex, and the watch has a designer; therefore the universe has a designer. This guy thinks this is wrong. But in order for this to be wrong, there would need to be complex things that do not have a designer. However there is nothing complex does not have a designer, so it is a good analogy. I don’t see the problem here. 2:41 He says that complexity can happen without a designer. The example he gives is evolution (which has proven countless times to be not true. At least macroevolution has been). But he gets to that later. Give me one other example of something complex NOT happening by a designer. Go ahead. I’ll wait. 3:46 Evolution by Natural Selection. I laughed by guts out when I heard this one. Natural selection does not make complex things. It only rearranges preexisting traits. For example, it can make more fish have armored plates to protect from predators. Or it can make giraffes necks grow longer. But the armor and neck already existed. And those are the complex parts. Making more of something that already exists does not make it more complex. In order for complexity to occur, new information needs to be added. But natural selection cannot add information. It can only rearrange it. The new information needs to come from somewhere else. According to evolutionists, it comes from mutations. However, most mutations are not beneficial or hereditary. A mutation is only hereditary if it is on the gamete that is used for reproduction. And not every mutation in the organism will be on the gamete. In fact, most won’t. If an organism has a trillion cells, only one-trillionth of the mutations will be on the gamete and will be passed on. So there is only one in a trillionth chance that any given mutation in the organism will be passed on. So that means an organism needs to have one trillion babies for the mutation to be passed on. The organism would obviously die before that happens. So mutations can’t cause evolution. And even if a mutation was passed on, most are not beneficial. So this debunks macroevolution, thus debunking his claim that evolution causes complexity. Evolution can’t cause anything when it can’t even happen. 4:22 “The reason we recognize a watch as designed has nothing to do with how complex and purposed it is, but rather because we already know that it is designed.” And we also know the universe was designed. How can you believe something so complex randomly happened by chance? 4:45 “We have zero examples of life being created by a designer” Actually, scientists have cloned animals. That is an example of life being created by a designer. And I’m sure scientists are working towards making life from non-life. This would prove creation because it would prove life needs a designer to be made. However, if we could observe life being made randomly by chance in nature, that would prove the abiogenesis hypotheses. Because it would prove there is no designer needed. And based on that logic, we also have never seen life being made by something that is NOT a designer. We have never seen life being created at all. We’ve never once observed the abiogenesis. But, like the watchmaker analogy says, it is much more logical to conclude that we are designed because of complexity. This guy hasn’t even come close to debunking this yet. Over half way into the video. 4:55 Special Pleading Fallacy, or Self Refuting. He says that God must have had a designer. He clearly doesn’t understand the whole concept of God. According to most religions, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Something with those qualities does not need a designer; and something with those qualities can cake complex things. So God does not need a designer, or He wouldn’t be God. 5:54 Self-contradicting. “The argument first assumes that a watch is different from nature”. No, the whole point of the argument is that it is comparing nature to a watch. The argument says they are both complex, and therefore both have a designer. What part of that assumes that the watch is different from nature? This guy clearly doesn’t understand the very thing he is arguing against. 6:17 It doesn’t imply a designer. This one made me want to bang my head against the wall. It further proves my point that this guy clearly doesn’t understand the very thing he is arguing against. The whole point of the watchmaker argument is that there must be a designer. So it both implies and directly states that there must be one. Then he says that there must be many creators and not just one. But the watchmaker argument never once claims that there is ONLY ONE designer. There could be multiple designers. I don’t understand how this debunks the argument. 6:52 Ex Nihilo. Finally, an actual good point that this guy makes. He says that a watch is made with preexisting materials, so whoever designed the universe must also have made it from preexisting materials. I don’t really have a rebuttal for this one other than my earlier point that God is omnipotent. So He can do anything, and thus He can create something from nothing. Good job, dude. You made me not have a decent rebuttal for the first time and we are almost at the end of the video. 7:18 Doesn’t Support Theism. Yes it does. A designer = God. How can you not understand this simple fact? He then says that the watchmaker argument only proves a designer, not which one. But the last time I checked, the argument was never trying to prove a specific God. Only that a God exists. This is a dumb argument that I see thrown around a lot by atheists. “Your argument didn’t prove which god is real; therefore it’s not a good argument!” Proving WHICH god is the real god is a whole different subject that requires a completely different discussion. We are simply trying to get to you atheists that a god exists, not which one. Once we prove that obvious fact, THEN we can talk about which one. 7:40 Incompetent design. He then says that God wouldn’t make organisms with vestigial parts, birth defects and pregnancy complications, etc. I’ve also heard this one a lot. “God didn’t do this thing I think He should do. That means God isn’t real!” No, it just means you don’t understand God. He says that God is either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent. First of all, the “vestigial parts” do have a use. In the illustrations, he uses the human tail bone as an example of a vestigial part. This actually has a lot of uses, like keeping you balanced and being able to move your hips. And for the birth defects, that’s a result of sin. Every bad thing that happens is a result of sin. If we didn’t sin, nothing bad would happen. It’s not God’s fault that bad stuff happens; it’s our fault. 9:20 He gives another false analogy to somehow disprove the watchmaker analogy. The analogy is that a person has a youtube channel and has 300k subs. And another person has a channel, and therefore must have 300k subs. The difference between this and the watchmaker argument is that youtube channels have been proven to have more or less than 300k subs. But nothing that is complex has ever been proven to not be designed. He said there are lots of examples, but the only one he gave was natural selection, which I thoroughly debunked. Still waiting for another example of something complex NOT being designed ;)

[@asytippyy352]

In fairness, complexity = creator is not the only way the analogy has been used. I've always used the watchmaker concept to give room to possibility of God while rejecting the notion of religious scriptures being statements of fact. Treating the watch as a metaphor for nature itself, the possibility of an intelligent designer creating a machine and leaving it to function quasi-independently is a decent way to reconcile the observable with the unfalsifiable. Doesn't necessarily make it a true statement, but the point was never to claim that it is to me.

[@faithfulslavepedro9501]

You now have 300k subs! Well done!

[@Egooist.]

_"Armored Skeptic has a KZbin channel. Armored Skeptic has 300.000 subscribers. Rationality Rules has a KZbin channel. Therefore, Rationality Rules has 300.000 subscribers."_ (9:20) > Check! March 2022: Rationality Rules, 300K subscribers

[@gmh2374]

Creatard: a watch is complex, and it has a designer...the universe is complex therefore it also has a designer Me (using the same idiotic logic): a snowflake is complex, and it forms spontaneously... the universe is complex therefore it also forms spontaneously And people ask why creatards are laughed at

[@brandondaniels2027]

I love when they fire back with basically saying "we don't know. Therefore God."

[@yeetri1034]

@@brandondaniels2027 Yeah. Just because we don't know doesn't mean it's god and one even said to me "When you don't know you should ask someone who knows which is me"They act like they know, even though they don't

[@ezekielanderson9055]

Ok, let’s debunk this debunking video. 1:33 False Analogy. First this guy says the watch is a bad analogy. His definition of analogy is “A comparison between things that have similar features for the purpose of explaining a principle of idea.” So based on his definition, there are 3 criteria. Things have to be compared. They have to be similar. And they have to explain an idea. In the watchmaker analogy, are things being compared? Yes. Are they similar? Yes. And are they explaining an idea? Yes. So I’m not sure why he thinks it’s a bad analogy. His problem lies in the comparison. He somehow thinks it is a bad comparison. I agree that correlation is not always causation. He gives an example of the same logic. He says watches are made in the 15th century; therefore the universe was made in the 15th century. It is true that this is a bad analogy because we have proof that the universe was made before the 15th century. However, there the watchmaker analogy has nothing to do with when the universe was made, so this is a straw man argument. And based on his logic, every analogy in existence is wrong because correlation is not always causation. The watch and the universe are complex, and the watch has a designer; therefore the universe has a designer. This guy thinks this is wrong. But in order for this to be wrong, there would need to be complex things that do not have a designer. However there is nothing complex does not have a designer, so it is a good analogy. I don’t see the problem here. 2:41 He says that complexity can happen without a designer. The example he gives is evolution (which has proven countless times to be not true. At least macroevolution has been). But he gets to that later. Give me one other example of something complex NOT happening by a designer. Go ahead. I’ll wait. 3:46 Evolution by Natural Selection. I laughed by guts out when I heard this one. Natural selection does not make complex things. It only rearranges preexisting traits. For example, it can make more fish have armored plates to protect from predators. Or it can make giraffes necks grow longer. But the armor and neck already existed. And those are the complex parts. Making more of something that already exists does not make it more complex. In order for complexity to occur, new information needs to be added. But natural selection cannot add information. It can only rearrange it. The new information needs to come from somewhere else. According to evolutionists, it comes from mutations. However, most mutations are not beneficial or hereditary. A mutation is only hereditary if it is on the gamete that is used for reproduction. And not every mutation in the organism will be on the gamete. In fact, most won’t. If an organism has a trillion cells, only one-trillionth of the mutations will be on the gamete and will be passed on. So there is only one in a trillionth chance that any given mutation in the organism will be passed on. So that means an organism needs to have one trillion babies for the mutation to be passed on. The organism would obviously die before that happens. So mutations can’t cause evolution. And even if a mutation was passed on, most are not beneficial. So this debunks macroevolution, thus debunking his claim that evolution causes complexity. Evolution can’t cause anything when it can’t even happen. 4:22 “The reason we recognize a watch as designed has nothing to do with how complex and purposed it is, but rather because we already know that it is designed.” And we also know the universe was designed. How can you believe something so complex randomly happened by chance? 4:45 “We have zero examples of life being created by a designer” Actually, scientists have cloned animals. That is an example of life being created by a designer. And I’m sure scientists are working towards making life from non-life. This would prove creation because it would prove life needs a designer to be made. However, if we could observe life being made randomly by chance in nature, that would prove the abiogenesis hypotheses. Because it would prove there is no designer needed. And based on that logic, we also have never seen life being made by something that is NOT a designer. We have never seen life being created at all. We’ve never once observed the abiogenesis. But, like the watchmaker analogy says, it is much more logical to conclude that we are designed because of complexity. This guy hasn’t even come close to debunking this yet. Over half way into the video. 4:55 Special Pleading Fallacy, or Self Refuting. He says that God must have had a designer. He clearly doesn’t understand the whole concept of God. According to most religions, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Something with those qualities does not need a designer; and something with those qualities can cake complex things. So God does not need a designer, or He wouldn’t be God. 5:54 Self-contradicting. “The argument first assumes that a watch is different from nature”. No, the whole point of the argument is that it is comparing nature to a watch. The argument says they are both complex, and therefore both have a designer. What part of that assumes that the watch is different from nature? This guy clearly doesn’t understand the very thing he is arguing against. 6:17 It doesn’t imply a designer. This one made me want to bang my head against the wall. It further proves my point that this guy clearly doesn’t understand the very thing he is arguing against. The whole point of the watchmaker argument is that there must be a designer. So it both implies and directly states that there must be one. Then he says that there must be many creators and not just one. But the watchmaker argument never once claims that there is ONLY ONE designer. There could be multiple designers. I don’t understand how this debunks the argument. 6:52 Ex Nihilo. Finally, an actual good point that this guy makes. He says that a watch is made with preexisting materials, so whoever designed the universe must also have made it from preexisting materials. I don’t really have a rebuttal for this one other than my earlier point that God is omnipotent. So He can do anything, and thus He can create something from nothing. Good job, dude. You made me not have a decent rebuttal for the first time and we are almost at the end of the video. 7:18 Doesn’t Support Theism. Yes it does. A designer = God. How can you not understand this simple fact? He then says that the watchmaker argument only proves a designer, not which one. But the last time I checked, the argument was never trying to prove a specific God. Only that a God exists. This is a dumb argument that I see thrown around a lot by atheists. “Your argument didn’t prove which god is real; therefore it’s not a good argument!” Proving WHICH god is the real god is a whole different subject that requires a completely different discussion. We are simply trying to get to you atheists that a god exists, not which one. Once we prove that obvious fact, THEN we can talk about which one. 7:40 Incompetent design. He then says that God wouldn’t make organisms with vestigial parts, birth defects and pregnancy complications, etc. I’ve also heard this one a lot. “God didn’t do this thing I think He should do. That means God isn’t real!” No, it just means you don’t understand God. He says that God is either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent. First of all, the “vestigial parts” do have a use. In the illustrations, he uses the human tail bone as an example of a vestigial part. This actually has a lot of uses, like keeping you balanced and being able to move your hips. And for the birth defects, that’s a result of sin. Every bad thing that happens is a result of sin. If we didn’t sin, nothing bad would happen. It’s not God’s fault that bad stuff happens; it’s our fault. 9:20 He gives another false analogy to somehow disprove the watchmaker analogy. The analogy is that a person has a youtube channel and has 300k subs. And another person has a channel, and therefore must have 300k subs. The difference between this and the watchmaker argument is that youtube channels have been proven to have more or less than 300k subs. But nothing that is complex has ever been proven to not be designed. He said there are lots of examples, but the only one he gave was natural selection, which I thoroughly debunked. Still waiting for another example of something complex NOT being designed ;)

[@mikejohnson2173]

I come to this because of Douglas V. Gibbs radio show. 14.90 KMET discussion Thank you!!

[@dannyspitzer1267]

Good job, best video I've seen on this topic

[@polite_as_fuck]

We know what is required to create a watch, because we have experience creating watches. We do not know what is required to create a universe, because we have no experience creating universes.

[@ezekielanderson9055]

Creating a universe would require being able to make matter, energy, space, and time from nothing. Perfectly described God.

[@evadd2]

Well done. I hope you don't mind if I use your videos in my classes. I need many tools to develop critical thinking skills.

[@rationalityrules]

More than welcome : )

[@allangow4746]

Excellent video, your logic is flawless.

[@cygnustsp]

Wow this video is old now. Love you man.

[@joescrivano5285]

6:30 “you would a”shoe”me that a shoe maker made that shoe 😂

[@haraldschuster3067]

That's shoerly a bad pun ...

[@flompydoo9067]

Ok this video crushes the Watchmaker Argument but in no way touches the Teleological Argument. Its a completely different argument and should not be included in the title.

[@theblackspark2644]

Yeah I got confused by that.

[@triadmad]

I just watched this video for the first time (Sept. 2022). After Steve gave his Armored Skeptic-Rationality Rules subscriber argument at the end of the video, I scrolled down to see how many subscribers RR has now. Oddly enough, it's something over 302,000.

[@rustyrazor2862]

You have almost reached 300,000 subs!

[@SuperElgringo1]

What if you're walking down a beach and you see a turtle, and think, look at the trouble that's having getting to the water. It can't be intelligence, it must have evolved.

[@Shunarjuna]

"Much clever! Such study! So knowledge. Many wow" 😆

[@robertjohnson1647]

This upload is pure class.

[@roseblack165]

You got one more, thought I had subscribed already.

[@proonguice8386]

God Damnit...your accent alone adds at least 20 IQ points. Not quite the same with my American accent. Just found your channel from GMSkeptic. Cheers from AZ, USA

[@TheSockDemon]

Watching this as of 2022 and saying your channel has 300k subs is actually accurate

[@TheWeirdSide1]

1 more towards the 300k Only 6 more to go! That was the most thorough debunking I can remember witnessing!

[@Musix4me-Clarinet]

9:20 I guess we knew that this irony would arrive, but...congrats. You, sir, have over 300,000 subscribers!

[@no1shere710]

Reading Richard Dawkins' book "The Blind Watchmaker" now. Brilliant. I recommend it.

[@zuckerzwerg123]

9:16 : "Rationality Rules has a youtube channel - Rationality Rules has 300 000 subscribers" (2022: 302 000) 😉😂 Congrats!

[@transporter49]

Wonderful presentation! Thank you. 🙂

[@steps0x029a]

Love the fallacy rapid fire! Left a sub :)

[@stephendurtschi9873]

At the time I'm watching this video, Rationality Rules has 302,000 subscribers. Check. Mate.

[@Skymannot6939]

Awesome well done

[@billheuber5884]

Forgot to add to my last comment, that little snort laugh at the end was brilliant! It made me laugh!!

[@mattfu2527]

Premise 1: natural selection is random and complex Premise 2: a watch is complex Conclusion: the watch is random

[@insanisstultitia3119]

Your explanations are always logical. Keep the rationality coming.

[@tale7955]

This video reminded me of a joke my philosophy teacher made when a classmate used the false analogy fallacy. "Since all men have faces, and you mother has a face, then I can conclude that you Mother is a man" I don't have to say that everybody but that kid found that hilarious.

[@PickupthePieces76]

9:30 Stephen must have hoped at some point this would come reality and would not make his point as clearly as it once did. That point has come and gone, congratz on 300+k subs man.

[@mamamia8733]

Nice debunking. I've learned a lot.

[@atheistontheroad4545]

"So Knowledge", "Many wow", "Such study", and "Much clever"? What the heck do those things mean, and why are they in the four corners of the watch graphic?

[@cerberaodollam]

knowyourmeme.com/memes/doge

[@atheistontheroad4545]

Thanks, but I still don't get it. I guess I'm too old :(

[@coffeech.1838]

Atheist In Louisiana lmao

[@kashantariq9987]

I can only help with one subscription. But i hope your channel reaches 300k soon.

[@nodieza]

Congrats on actually being over 300k subscribers now. I am assuming that wasn’t the case at the time this video was released 😂

[@douglasrasmussen480]

I appreciate the step-by-step application of rational epistemology in this and other videos, unfortunately, most religious arguments are so filled with manifold assumptions that is very difficult to engage complex analysis when the overlay of religious argument is abject simplicity.

[@matheus5230]

One more question tough: we want to find proof of extraterrestrial intelligent life finding complex machines that surely aren't natural and could not exist by chance. Why does not this apply to the universe? I honestly did not fully understand the debunk

[@martifingers]

Great takedown... probably the definitive statement on this. Good job!

[@davidreinker5600]

The argument is not that the universe must be like a watch. The argument is that complexity must be the result of design because complexity is only found as a result of design, just like the fact that a watch had to be built by an intelligence because we don't see watches building themselves (or even things far less complex than a watch being constructed by themselves). The fact a watch had a designer doesn't mean it was built in a particular year, but that is what's being asserted here for some reason. The year the watch was designed is just a quality of the watch. Therefore it doesn't follow that the universe was constructed in the same year as the watch if they were both designed.

[@spanishrose213]

Interesting!...thank you for sharing

[@royzen2]

The watchmaker argument, if true and logical. You were not going to recognize or notice that there is a watch in the first place.

[@blasecorrea8350]

Henry Dalcke how do you know it transcends the laws of nature? Do you know every single law of nature? Do you have examples of “complexities” not made of reorganized matter? How do you measure complexity? Can complexity not exist in nature or be caused by natural process? Can you prove your obvious black and white fallacious argument that if it is not “natural” (whatever that classifies) it is therefore created by a designer? Why is the designer free from necessary designing? Why is he designing the universe? The fact that you left all of that in the air completely takes any credibility from anything you said and shows that your reasoning hinges on your want for there to be a creator. No one can justify the believe in a god with logic because it requires faith- the suspension of logic and reasoning. There’s a reason the Bible says to “believe” in god instead of prove his existence, people have kind of been trying for millennia long before even Christianity was invented.

[@polite_as_fuck]

Henry Dalcke - Ok, but I fail to see how the universe or the earth transcends the laws of nature, which is precisely what the watchmaker argument is based on. No amount of semantics changes the central point of the argument.

[@TheFinalChapters]

9:30 This channel DOES have 300,000 subscribers :)

[@Josef-EU]

Another priceless video from Rationality Rules for all philosophy buffs, thank you.

[@johnsmith-tq5zn]

Here is a debate I have been having with a Catholic online lately... -What makes you sure there is a God? -Because everything must have a creator. -Then why doesn't your God have a creator? -Because God is uncreated. -Then why can't universe be uncreated too? -Because it can't be uncreated. That doesn't make sense. Everything must have a creator. He keeps repeating himself like that; it's hilarious.😅

[@adrianforbes7863]

7:57 can't forget ingrown toenails

[@HannahHoffmanMusic]

This is the most thorough refutation of the watchmaker argument I've ever encountered! Superb!

[@otangelograsso1179]

The Watchmaker argument, refuted by evolution? kzbin.info/www/bejne/g5XNm6R4fsR4sKs This video is a powerful tool to demonstrate why micro does not lead to macroevolution, why Darwins Theory of evolution does not withstand scrutiny and the enormous biological challenge that would have had to be overcome to go from unicellular to multicellular life. Some requirements for transition to multicellularity: 10.00 1, Cell differentiation: 13.32 2. Morphogenesis 18.15 3. Defining each Cell's specific function 25.40 4. Cell migration 27.07 5. Connecting adjacent cells 31.53 6. Cell-Cell communication 33.24 7. Adaptation & microevolution 43.35 8. The genetic program limiting body growth 47.12 9. Gene regulatory network 50.28 10. Setting up sexual reproduction 58.34 Endnotes: 1.02.54 Has Paley's Watchmaker argument been debunked? reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2860-has-paley-s-watchmaker-argument-been-debunked 1. Either high levels of complexity seen in the living is due to a designer, or random chance. 2. The enemy of the arise of complex self-replicating energy demanding physico-chemical structures is entropy 3. Therefore, it is far more likely that a intelligent designer did setup life, rather than chance. 1. Regulation, governing, controlling, recruiting, interpretation, recognition, orchestrating, elaborating strategies, guiding, instruct are all tasks of the gene regulatory network. 2. Such activity can only be exercised if no intelligence is present if the correct actions were pre-programmed by intelligence. 3. Therefore, most probably, the gene regulatory network was programmed by an intelligent agency. 1. Complex multicellular lifeforms depend on gene regulatory networks (dGRN's) which are a collection of molecular regulators that interact with each other and with other substances in the cell to orchestrate the expression of DNA. 2. dGRN's operate based on logic gates and their networks process chemical input signals similar to computers. These encoded instructions are based on boolean logic. 3. Logic depends on reason. Reason depends on intelligence. Only an intelligent mind can think rationally, and implement a system based on conceptual laws of logic. Therefore, the best and most reasonable explanation for the existence of complex gene regulatory networks based on boolean logic, essential for the make of complex multicellular organisms, is the creative action of a powerful, transcendent, intelligent Creator. 1. The setup of functional Information retrieval systems, like a library classification system, is always tracked back to intelligence 2. The gene regulatory network is a fully automated, pre-programmed, ultra-complex gene information extraction system 3. Therefore, its origin is best explained through intelligent setup 1. The genomic program for development operates primarily by the regulated expression of genes encoding transcription factors and components of cell signaling pathways. 2. A program can always be tracked back to a programmer. 3. Therefore, the genomic program of development most probably was programmed by a programmer. That programmer is God. 1. DNA stores information based on a code system, and codified, complex, instructional information, with the same function as a blueprint. 2. All codes and blueprints come from intelligence. 3. Therefore, the genetic code and the instructions to build cells and complex biological organisms, stored in DNA, were most likely created by an intelligent agency. 1. Protein domains appear analogous to words in natural languages in which the rules of word association are dictated by linguistic rules, or grammar. 2. The set up of words, languages, rules of association and linguistic rules, and grammar come always from intelligence 3. Therefore the set up of rules existing for protein domains is best explained by an intelligent designer 1. Cells use sophisticated information selection ( the Gene regulatory network ) encoding and transcription ( DNA & RNA polymerase machines ) transmission (mRNA), and decoding ( Ribosome ) systems. 2. Setup of information transmission systems, aka. Selection, encoding, transmission, and decoding are always a deliberate act of intelligence 3. The existence of the genetic information transmission system is best explained by the implementation of an intelligent designer. 1. Either life is due to natural processes, or intelligent design. 2. Life is not due to natural processes, 3. Therefore it is due to intelligent design. 1. Factories are the result of intelligent design 2. Biological cells are factories 3. Therefore, biological cells are designed. 1. Blueprints, instructional information and master plans, and the make of complex machines and factories upon these are both always tracked back to an intelligent source which made both for purposeful, specific goals. 2. The Blueprint and instructional information stored in DNA, which directs the make of biological cells and organisms - the origin of both is, therefore, best explained by intelligent design. 1. The implementation and construction of factory parks for specific goals depends always on planning, elaborating blueprints and codified specified instructions. 2. The make and development of cells which are literally self-replicating factories are due to blueprints, genetic instructions, stored in DNA. 3. All information storage devices, code languages, blueprints, information transmission systems, translation cyphers, with the purpose to make factories, are of intelligent origin. Biological cells are therefore the result of Intelligent design. 1. Cells components are part of a complex system that is useful only in the completion of that much larger system. A minimal Cell, in order to make life possible, requires at least 500 interdependent protein - molecular machine complexes fully functional. Basic building blocks and Intermediate biosynthesis products do have no biochemical function on their own, that's why evolution could and would not select them. 2. A discrete minimal size of each individual molecular machine, aka. proteins and holo-protein complexes made of multiple subunits and cofactors are necessary for these to be functional. 3. Each protein and holo-protein requires a minimal size and complexity to be functional. And it has only function interdependently, and correct precise energy supply, and when interconnected with other molecules in the Cell. Irreducibility and interdependence cannot evolve but depend on intelligence with foreknowledge on how to build discrete parts with a distant goal.

[@snazzyviking]

@@otangelograsso1179 see a lot of atheists will scroll past this because it doesn't conform to their confirmation bias

[@oisinbittles6253]

snazzy viking how is a theist going to talk about confirmation bias?

[@cyril8084]

@@otangelograsso1179 Gonna say this again to some other stupid theist. Go to a lab look at ecoli for an hour and watch it evolve. Look up rapid evolution and forced evolution. You'll find a large range of evidence and you'll have to admit your fallacies.

[@otangelograsso1179]

@@cyril8084 has a bacteria EVER evolved into something else than a bacteria? Namecalling ? Typical for atheist behavior.

[@north3612]

Okay so I know that people are always complaining that people stretch videos to 10 minutes, but you hit 9:43, you shouldve just added another 17 seconds, you deserve the attention!

[@taylorsessions4143]

This video has convinced me that watches grow naturally in fields. I feel so scientific now!

[@mrchoon2010]

Really? I thought tree were made by people

[@taylorsessions4143]

@@mrchoon2010 😂 it's just plain logic!