Hello boys and girls, and welcome to another installment of the God’s argument series: Proofing God Exists. In this episode we will visit another argument that creationists like to use to prove God existence which is the Watchmaker analogy.
The Watchmaker analogy was formulated from William Paley, an opponent of Charles Darwin’s evolution’s argument, although the watchmaker argument has been there since Voltaire and Descrates era. The Watchmaker analogy argues that a watch is an object with complex mechanism in play. And to make such a complex object, there has to be a watchmaker in play to create it. And if you use the same argument as to how trees, animals, humans are complex objects, then it is justifiable that there has to be a creator of such complexities.
This argument, however, falls apart, the same as how the causality argument falls apart with the same reasons. If a complex object needs to be created by a creator, namely God, then there has to be another creator which created God, since he is also a complex object. Unless, you are purposing that God has the power to travel the time backward and creates himself thus he can create the world which makes the whole argument in paradox, then the existence of God itself is contradictory.
This argument also ignores that to make something even existed, you need the material to produce it. So in conclusion, if God creates everything, where does he get the material to create the world since it’s nothing from the beginning? Did he popped out the universe (or the watch) out of thin air? So anyway, if you are aiming to rebute the argument on this controversy, a whole discussion of this can be seen at: https://randomnessthing.com/2011/10/11/proofing-god-exist-the-causality-argument/
However, that’s not my main aim of debunking the Watchmaker Analogy. I’m taking a different perspective in making a counter-argument in this theory. What I’m talking about is that this argument often use as a justification that human sees the world as it is. I’m assuming they are talking about God setting laws to the universe (in this case science) and makes humans sceptic to their God. Then they are saying that you can’t prove God using science because science is the limitation or border to limit humans from seeing God.
However, this assumption again crumbles on its own premise. It creates a dilemma of a God who has limited power. By saying that God creates science as a limiter to the universe, it limits God’s power to intervene with people lives because he has to obey by the science he has created to make the universe works. If he disrupts his own law, the universe we live in will be crushed. This explains why God can’t make people disappear instantly, he has to use either earthquake, heart attack, or death to eliminate people. That’s why your prayers often don’t come in the things you are expecting because God has to work through people to give his grace. That’s why it is so hard to determine a miracle that God’s created since he has to obey the science that he has created, which makes him an impotent God.
However, if you are saying that God is an omnipotent being and can perform miracles all he wants, then God is practically ignorant to the suffering that happens in the world. You have to admit that with all his omnipotence, God just doesn’t care if a child in Africa dies because of starvation. God doesn’t care that thousands of children is abused to do labour work everyday when they are supposed to enjoy their childhood. This of course is the problem of evil and suffering which will be the next discussion for this series.
In the end, this argument left us choosing which kind of God the universe has: an impotent God or a malevolent God?