For Atheists: Watch in the Sand?

Question

Suppose you find a watch in the middle of a desert. What would you conclude? Would you think that someone dropped the watch? Or would you suppose that the watch came by itself?
http://islam.thetruecall.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=123&mode=&order=0&thold=0

Answer 1

Someone dropped it. It can't just turn up there.

Answer 2

Now, suppose you saw that watch mate with another watch.

Suppose you saw that its offspring inherited characteristics from both parents.

Suppose that there was an entire population of watches that had to compete for a limited supply of springs, ratchets, cogs, faceplates, and other parts to build new watches.

Suppose some watches were better at getting parts than others.

Suppose the watches that couldn't get adequate parts couldn't reproduce.

Suppose that every once in a while, a watch was born with a random feature that wasn't in either parent.

Suppose that one in a thousand of these random features made the watch better at getting new parts.

Suppose these watches were more successful at making new watches, passing on the new trait.

Suppose you dug up a few old, non-working watches that were similar to the existing watches, but with a few traits that were different.

Suppose the deeper you dug, the more primitive the older watches seemed to be.

If I had seen all of the above, I'd conclude that the watch got there through the same processes — reproduction, mutation, and competition — that led to me or you being here.

See, living things do all of the above. So if this is supposed to be some kind of analogy to evolution, I fail to see your point.

Peace.

Answer 3

why are there still sun dials when there are watches? watches evolved too, except they are memetic not genetic; made from ideas. the idea of the watch didn't pop into someones mind. it evolved through time, from stick in the ground measuring the progress of the sun, then marked candles that burned down the hours, then water clocks, then simple mechanical clocks powered by weights, then by springs and clockwork. it is so much like the process of natural evolution.
the paley watch argument was demolished way back in the 19th century. watches are inorganic and need to be fabricated, life on the other hand is made up of carbon organic molecules. they do not need outside intervention, they do as the laws of nature dictate, form the basis for RNA and DNA which are replicating molecules and they do their own thing without any help.

Answer 4

humorous which you look to think of this argument is unique. enable me ask you a question. till now you discovered the watch, why wasn't each thing you observed a pointer to God? Why did you may desire to locate a needless to say guy-made merchandise? Why wasn't the sand sufficient? trees? The planet? The solar? No. None of those issues could make your component acceptable, could desire to they? so as to deduce layout interior the universe, you had to hit upon some thing guy-made, that needless to say and clearly grow to be no longer organic and were prepare by applying some thing. And yet, you declare you may then infer from that, that each thing organic is obviously designed to, even although you may desire to no longer gain this rapidly. Ah, why do I waste my time? you do no longer care do you? in simple terms as you do no longer care that your stupid argument may be utilized to tutor ANY god, no longer basically your guy or woman.

Answer 5

Sure.
And a very primitive tribe may conclude only a God could have produced it, but I wouldn't drop to my knees and start worshiping whoever made the watch.
Life had to have an origin, but it does not follow that its originator is divine. Besides, even admitting, for the sake of argument, that there is a God, nothing in the presence of life forces the conclusion that this God cares for our worship one way or the other.

Answer 6

Amazing how people still seem to think this is a "new" and "compelling" argument.

"How could this just be like this? It's just too amazing to have happened by chance!"

Can I refute the argument in one sentence?

If a watch in a desert implies a creator by having order and purpose (watch) within a context of disorder and/or lack of purpose (desert), then what is the context that we place our universe in that will contrast our seeming order and purpose?

In other words, watch:desert:creator :: universe:??:creator.

You have nothing to contrast, your analogy doesn't work, thanks for playing.


Saul

Answer 7

Atheist or not anyone would answers that someone dropped the watch.
Why you think atheist are dumb enough to choose the other option?

Do you see why anybody cannot break through the veil of religion? It needs sufficient knowledge, wisdom.

Your analogy is poor, revise it and maybe your question gets to be taken more seriously.

Answer 8

Why is it always a watch? You'd think one of them would have the originality to suggest something different once in a while. Even a button is too complex to have occurred naturally. It's still a hopeless argument for the existence of God, however.

Answer 9

Somebody else dropped it in the sand.

Of course, given an infinite period of time, and infinite sand and wind, you'll eventually get a watch.

However, this is not proof of a god, becuase as I stated above, given the massive numbers of stars and planets in this universe, then it is inevitable that something unique will happen on one of them.

Answer 10

I Myself would assume that, since a man in some distress obviously dropped the watch, he might have OTHER valuables on his person, so I would go looking for the body.

Pure Logic, No?!

Answer 11

I would assume that the watch was dropped by someone. Of course, if I was presented with strong scientific evidence that showed how the watch was created by natural physical processes and was not dropped by anyone, I would be convinced that no one dropped the watch.

Maybe you should study science instead of reading your sci-fi novel.