The Blind Atheist, David A. Schwartz vs. the All Seeing Watchmaker, God
I just read a stupid attempt at refuting the watchmaker argument, getting past all the rambling irrelevant glitter the author, David R Schwartz filled his attempt at a rebuttal with, he said,
“If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison?”
His argument is illogical because it’s a non sequitur, in other words, it makes zero sense. Imagine if a teacher presented a story to a student and the student, refusing to learn or accept the authority of the teacher, said to him, “How do I know this group of words you put together and call ‘A story’ was really arranged and not just randomly put together? I have nothing to compare it to, therefore it’s just a bunch of words.” Do you understand what the student is missing? The teacher has made two baseless propositions:
1. The student has assumed you can’t compare a story (an arrangement of words designed to convey understandable information) to anything that would indicate it’s a story. Wrong. You simply need a definition, an explanation, of what a story is. You don’t need to hold up to a child that doesn’t know what a story is an ANTI-STORY to help him understand what a story is, you simply explain what a story is and it would help of course to tell him one. You can also demonstrate what don’t count as stories, for example to read a nonsensical grouping of words. That could be said to be “random”, although there is no such thing as true randomness
2. He’s assumed there needs to be something random, something that is the complete opposite of disorder in order to recognize order.
3. There is no such thing is random, complete disorder, everything happens for a reason, the universe goes by physical laws that God made possible in some way. Even in the Bible, where God tells the story of the beginning of the universe, though he says that earth at first had no form, he doesn’t say, “It was moving around for no logical reason”, he is simply indicating it had no stable shape, not that there were no laws governing it’s movement.
4. The student’s argument is self-refuting. Using her logic, if you need complete disorder, randomness, to recognize order, the student could reply, “I have nothing to compare your words to or anything else, therefore I don’t recognize you, your authority, or anything you say as making sense.” Imagine if the student had two sons, and said to them, “Get your room in order, clean it up, organize.” Imagine if his kids replied, “As opposed to what? What’s the opposite of complete disorder? Therefore it’s ordered and there’s nothing to organize.” In other words the teacher’s argument is self-refuting. It contradicts, it makes no sense. The student is admitting there is design to the student by acknowledging that there is something to compare his story to by citing complete disorder: how, unless the teacher recognized order, would she know there was disorder, the opposite of it? So then he’s admitting she has the ability to measure the teacher’s story, to see if it’s designed, and not just designed, but understandable, and that there doesn’t need to be some example of complete disorder. This is what David A. Schwartz and other atheists like him do. They propose that you can’t recognize if there was a God who designed anything because there’s no OPPOSITE of design to compare to, when by their very words and every day actions, RECOGNIZING DESIGNS ALL AROUND THEM MADE BY THEMSELVES AND OTHERS OTHER THAN GOD, pretend they can’t recognize design IN NATURE, in other words, things not made by man or things other than God. That is a clear bias. Is David too stupid to recognize when he sees an idol, a statue, a clear picture of some common creature, or even some fanciful drawing of a cliche alien? Of course not. Ironically, in the Bible, God says not to make idols and points out that they can’t help you because they aren’t alive, have no functioning body parts. How much more than can we recognize that a living creature, like a human, is designed? That is how spiritually blind and arrogant people like David and other deliberate atheists are: they, in the face of the absolute obvious, endless obvious evidence, deny it, and smugly so, as if they were wiser than God himself, and that is a clear absurdity. But that is how blind people like David are, how deluded.
5. The student is also assuming THAT THERE IS something that isn’t designed. Who said there was? Why would there be an undesigned thing? There’s no reason to believe anything exists in such a state.
6. The student is also assuming that no one has an instinctive ability to recognize design, not even herself, or is suppressing her ability to do so by deluding himself (convincing herself something is true that isn’t).
7. The opposite of non-design is obvious: nothing, empty space. That is super obvious. What it comes down to is the basis for the atheists rejection of truth: “If I can’t see it, it must not exist.” So if the short sighted blind atheists can’t imagine what the opposite of design is, is too stupid to figure it out, if it’s not handed to him on a plate and singing to him, there must not be such a thing. This is truly the ultimate anti-scientific attitude, and why atheists make awful and unreliable scientists and philosophers. And you’ll fine few who claim to be a theologian because of the heavily illogical mindset. They may give a shallow appearance of being logical, but it’s smoke and mirrors, shallow imitation based on mere claims using somewhat to very fancy words, boasting and insults as the smoke and mirrors.
David went on to say, “All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed.”
Here David has made a nonsensical assumption, why would “we still have to say all non-life isn’t designed”? I don’t have to say it, David is merely making the claim I have to say it. If David sees a cloud, a beautiful cloud, if he’s saying “It’s a beautiful day,” what is forcing him to conclude the day wasn’t designed? And further, how can he recognize beauty, beautiful as opposed to what? What makes a thing, “beautiful”? Design.
Then he said, “But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don’t have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that’s exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed,”
Here David has committed another non sequitur, meaning, a completely nonsensical statement. He’s said that because we have no universes to compare ours to, we can’t say it’s designed. And why is that? As I explained above with the teacher and her student example, there is no reason to make that conclusion. David is proposing a nonsensical method to determine design. He might as well have said, “Unless I have a non-statue to compare this statue to, we can’t recognize statues” or, “Unless I have a non-planet to compare this planet to, we can’t recognize planets,” or even, “Unless there’s a flying banana with thirty eyes in it, I can’t recognize design.” Absurd, stupid, illogical, nonsense.
Then he goes on to say, “nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place.” Here you who are in your right mind can see David simply denying the endless evidence for creation, and “speaking for all”, speaking for intelligent design scientists and creationists and everyone else on the planet who doesn’t give in to his will and beliefs. That is a strong indicator of not just his extreme blindness, or arrogance, but that he’s delusional. He’s the type who pretends he can’t type into a search engine, “Bible, evidence” or pick up a book showing evidence for design in a book store or library or that none have any without bothering to read them. In other words, he’s am arrogant moron and a bitter liar. He has such a deep hatred for God and authority, his mind doesn’t even come up with the thought to do an honest study, to look around with sincerity, to do tough research without assumption, but rather to search only for, if at all, “Evidence against the Bible”, or “Proof there’s no design,” in other words, to start out biased and look only to confirm his bias and assumptions.
And in the end, David and other atheists ALWAYS fail the morality test: If there is no God, what is truly moral and why would lying be wrong if there’s no God to say, “This is wrong, it’s not good”? No atheist can say, “I am right as to what is right or wrong, listen to me, I am the one from whom all truth can be known.” Or “Believe my atheist friend here, or Buddha, he’s the right one that never lies and only says what is true,” or “It’s whatever you feel like is right.” Problem: everyone in their right mind recognizes no one person can be counted on as determining good from evil, no one, everyone is flawed. So then, if we are all morally untrustworthy FOR TRUTH, how can David or other atheists be believed about the nature of the universe or anything in it when they resort to making a clearly wrong claim about how ultimate knowledge of goodness can be discovered through someone other than God? In other words: If atheists are morally confused about what is GOOD to do or deny there is good or evil/moral right from wrong, like whether or not it’s good to lie or not, how can they be trusted with basic truths like who made if anyone, the universe? The simple and logical answer is: They can’t be trusted. That is why David in his arguments against things like the Watchmaker argument doesn’t make logical sense. And in my opinion, that is why the mentally ill narcissist Richard Dawkins resorts to making a conniving attack against God by subversively referring to him as a blind watchmaker, knowing that God or his children refer to atheists as blind themselves. Some may argue that wasn’t Dawkins’ intent by making a book title with that name, but believe he was insulting God by referring to him as an imperfect designer (atheists don’t believe anything in this universe was designed perfectly or excellently, and when they do, will find fault with something about the design or claim it could be better somehow). At the very least, Dawkins was calling God’s designs imperfect by attributing nature to coming up with imperfect designs.
Update: At 2:32 AM, about to check out some camera advertised on the net, I accidentally saw David’s profile again, and I noticed this time how he described himself. The first word in his description is, “bitter”. The second to last is, “worried”. I hope he doesn’t want to die that way, risking feeling worse for all eternity.