It has been purported since at least the time of Cicero (before watches) that design implicates a designer and that if one were to find a watch somewhere one would conclude (with or without prior knowledge of the existence of watches) that it had been created by someone at some point. This is considered to be analogous to the idea that the existence of a complicated, functioning universe (which, itself, keeps time and is the basis of our idea of time - the Earth is actually a giant sundial) necessitates a designer.
What this argument is lacking is that if Man were to be theist and find a watch (or for that matter, a coke bottle, fire, etc.) and not have ever known what a watch was before, Man would conclude upon discovering its function that the watch was a sort of magic and wonderful gift from God. After the batteries/winder spring went out and the watch failed to continue keeping time, Man would conclude that the watch was some sort of demon trickery. After Man subsequently smashed the watch, he would discover that it had moving gears, sprockets, springs, and other parts inside and discover it to be a man-made, mechanical contraption. If Man were unable to repair or reverse-engineer the watch; he would shrug and say "the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away."
If this is the case, then this proves that the nature of the Universe does not constitute a creator, but the nature of Man constitutes the need to create the properties of a creator (or else the structure of fallible argument is flawed). Either way, the creation and destruction of the watch are falsely attributed to God. If this type of thing is falsely contributed to God, then it's wholly conceivable that any idea of God as a creator, moralizer, or even as existent based upon worldly truth is falsified; and this falsification is a part of human nature.
It doesn't necessitate a creator ("God"), but it does open up a lot of questions. If I were to find a foreign, technologically complex and indescribable object that had crashed into Earth, I would not be prone to any presuppositions as to where it came from or who/what made it. I would keep a fully open mind (as much as is possible in the human state!) and investigate and analyze the object, and draw the most rational conclusion from that. My conclusion may or may not be accurate, and I certainly would not consider my conclusion to be the "ultimate truth." This is where people are generally morons and fall victim to the belief that their conclusion, or some other prior conclusion from someone else that sounds really good, is the ultimate truth of the matter.
ReplyDelete