PLEASE! help with religous homework!?

Question

nor, fourthly, would any man in his sense think the existence of the watch, with its various machinery, acocunted for by being told that it was one out of possible combinations of material forms; that whatever he had found in the place where he found the watch, must ahve contained some internal configuration or other; and that this configuration might be the structure now exhibited, viz.,of the works of a watch, as well as a different structure.




PLEASE HELP!!!

WHAT DOES IT MEAN!!!!

Answer 1

It is the watchmaker's argument. It was used by Boyle and Pascal to prove the existence of God. However, the most famous version was William Paley's.
Here is a link explaining it fully.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
Unfortunately, like other arguments used to prove God exists, this is filled with errors.
For example, a watchmaker creates watches from pre-existing materials, whereas God is claimed to have created the universe from nothing. Thus you can not compare one to the other. Also, if I want to meet the person that made a watch, I can either meet him or one of his relatives. I can see photos of the watchmaker or view his birth certificate. In short, I can prove the watchmaker existed. I cannot do the same for God. Therefore, it is an argument that should never be used to attempt to convert someone to Christianity.

Answer 2

It's called "The Watchmaker Argument." It's an argument supporting intelligent design.

Essentially it says that a watch is too complex and works too perfectly to have not been designed. The argument then extends that claim to say that people are even more complex than watches, so they must too have had a designer.

The argument is flawed in several ways. For one, the fact that some things have a designer does not justify the inductive leap to "everything is designed."

Another problem is that a person might not actually know the watch is designed. Somebody who has never encountered a watch before might think that the watch is simply an object that exhibits a regular pattern, like the earth rotating around the sun. The argument relies on the assumption that design can be recognized, but there is no real way to test that assumption. (Dembski's filter doesn't actually recognize design.)

Answer 3

IT's the watchmaker argument or "argument by design".

Basically "Watches are really complex and we don't think THEY evolved do we? We think they had a designer! Therefore, since humans are as complicated as watches, we must have a designer too."

The problem is - humans are ORGANIC! We can reproduce ourselves, unlike watches, and in that process we improve upon ourselves. Human babies that are missing hearts or are blind don't survive and go on to reproduce (with the very recent past being an exception to that).

For more info on "The Watchmaker" look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

Answer 4

Not having the context of the statement makes it difficult. With this alone i would say.

Wherever a watch is found, someone who has never seen one might assume the surrounding area, such as a table, might have some part of making the watch what it is. Rearranging the parts of watch and table would make it become something else.

Answer 5

it is trying to make the analogy that because watches do not assemble spontaneously and must be assembled by somebody that the same is true for living things.
The analogy is faulty because a characteristic of living organisms is reproduction, whereas a characteristic of inanimate things is that they do not reproduce.

Reproduction is an essential factor in evolutionary theory (which does not apply to inanimate objects), so lack of reproduction means that for those objects evolutionary theory does not apply. It's like that bad "frog without legs can't hear" joke.

Answer 6

It's an intelligent design argument. If you found something, like a watch, you wouldn't assume it just popped in front ofyou out of nowhere, but there's a history to the watch. Some one made it, someone lost it, etc.

Answer 7

What the heck? Is that the watch/watchmaker argument? That's horrible.

If it is-it is the complexity argument used to "prove" god. The universe is too complex to exist without "someone" creating it.

Answer 8

It means somebody had to have created the watch

Answer 9

very old English maybe not clear but the point is the watch can not have materialized by accident.

Answer 10

I can't believe they are making you learn arguments for God in RE. Thats low. In my RE they just make us long "God's word" and "How to be good Christians"