“Professor : Do you believe in God ?
Student : No, sir.
Professor : So, you are an Atheist ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Assume you are walking in a park and you happen to find a watch lying
on the ground. Can you say that the watch had a creator? As something as
complex and orderly as a watch could not have been created by itself?
It would definitely require a more complex creator. Right?
I can’t see whats right with that. First of all even if we assume that
watch maker argument is valid (which it isn’t), it would just support a
claim of the creator, not the claim of a Christian God. Anyways, the
first problem with the argument is that you concluded that the universe
will require more complex creator because universe itself is complex. So
according to your own logic, the creator who is even more complex
demands a creator even more so.
Professor : No, God was never created. He existed since the eternity.
You just committed special pleading fallacy. You gave a logic that
complexity requires a creator. And the main conclusion that you made
(God) itself does not follow your own logic, and so you are assuming
your main conclusion to be an exception to your own logic without any
Yet there are many more problems with the argument. The argument is
self contradicting. In the argument when person picks up the watch and
assumes that it is complex and orderly, unlike natural stuffs
surrounding it(soil and grass) which he did not pick up to draw his
conclusion, he indirectly concludes that nature is not complicated and
orderly. And then while making conclusion the person assumes that nature
is complex and orderly so it requires a creator. Hence your argument is
giving two incompatible and contradicting qualities to nature. The
actual reason why person draws the conclusion why watch has a designer
because he knows that watches are made by watchmaker, and there is no
example of watch ever created without a creator. He could have not drawn
the same conclusion by picking the soil nearby because we have zero
example of soil being created by a creator.
Furthermore your argument makes false
analogy fallacy. You conclude that since watch and universe have one
feature in common (i.e. complexity) they will have another feature in
common too (i.e. a conscious creator or designer). By your logic:
-Watch is complex
-Watch has a designer
-Universe is complex
-Therefore universe too has a designer
Using the same faulty logic we can conclude:
-Watch is complex
-Watch was invented in 15th century
-Universe is complex
-Therefore Universe was invented in 15th century
(Few students started chuckling. Professor realized how wrong he was.)
Another problem with your logic, which assumes that complexity cannot
come from something simple, is that it completely ignores evolution
which is accepted as a fact in scientific community, according to which
complex organs like human eye can evolve from simple organs like light
sensitive cells over a long period of time with small changes over each
generation. And no, human eye is not perfect. It has a blind spot. There
are organisms in nature which does not have this fault, like octopus.
There is this fault because evolution takes place over millions of year
and it cannot go back to the drawing board to correct mistakes like this
which will require changing the structure of the human eye. Many birds
also have an additional translucent eyelid (which humans don’t) that
allows them to look directly into the sun, at length, without damaging
their retinas. Humans have very poor night vision and we can see only an
infinitesimally small range of electromagnetic waves in the entire
electromagnetic spectrum. That’s because organs evolve according to the
requirement for survival.
And also we do not necessarily need to
observe something directly to conclude that it happened. Otherwise any
detective would never be able to conclude who committed the crime. But
just like when there are tons of evidences like fingerprints, DNA
record, motive etc a detective can conclude who committed the crime.
Similarly because of tons of evidences like genetic similarity and
fossil records we can conclude that evolution is a fact. And by the way
we can directly observe small-scale evolution in organisms with short
(Professor just cross checked all these facts on google and realized how ignorant he was towards science)
And yes you were right that I don’t know everything but I don’t need to
know everything to say that an omnipotent God is highly improbable.
Professor : How so?
Student : Do I need to know everything to say that a square circle does not exist?
Professor : No you just need to know the definitions of square and circle. A square circle is logically impossible !
Student : Exactly. Similarly I just need to know what omnipotence is to say that omnipotence is logically impossible.
Professor : How is omnipotence logically impossible?
Student : Omnipotent being is the one who can do anything and everything. Can god create a stone so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?
Professor : (In a hurry without thinking much) YES! Obviously. He is God. He can do anything.
Then he just created a stone which he cannot lift. So there is
something he cannot do (lifting that stone). So he is not omnipotent.
Professor : What if he lifts that stone?
If he lifts that stone then he failed in the task of creating a stone
so heavy that he himself cannot lift. Which still makes him NOT
omnipotent. Omnipotence is logically impossible. Yet I’ll not claim to
know that an omnipotent god does not exists. I am humble enough to have
an open mind and will accept the existence of God when an indisputable
evidence is provided in support of it. Till then I cannot accept the
claim that God exists. Which is what atheism is. It just rejects
theistic claims about existence of God because of lack of evidence. It
is a lack of belief in existence of God. Atheism does not itself makes a
claim that “God does not exists”. It just REJECTS the claim that “God
exists”. For now when I am faced with difficult questions like “where
did the universe come from? Why there is something instead of nothing ?”
I will just say I don’t know which is humbling ,honest and true. And
claiming to know the answers to these difficult questions is
intellectual dishonesty, as it is quite evident that for now nobody
knows answer to these questions.
(Now the professor was just waiting for the
class to get over as he never had such a comeback from a student in his
entire life. While the student felt a little playful. )
Student : Sir, do you Believe in Santa Claus ?
Professor : Absolutely Not !
Student : Can you prove that Santa Claus does not exist?
Professor : No
You can’t prove Santa Claus doesn’t exist and at the same time we have
all these evidences for the existence of Santa Claus, like the books:
“The Santa Claus Book” and “The Polar Express”. Yet you choose to not
believe in Santa Claus.
You know what… You just hate Santa Claus.
Maybe because you never received gifts from Santa Claus and you lost
faith in him. There is still time. Accept Santa Claus and you’ll Receive
Gifts. Even if you don’t think there is enough evidence, just have
faith in Santa Claus as all this is a test and one day you’ll receive
(The entire class bursts into laughter)
Student : Psalm 14:1, “the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God”*. If even the fool gets it, then what’s your problem?
(The professor smiled accepting his defeat and humbly replied)
Professor : I learned a lot today…. And I realized I have lot to learn.
To understand the actual world as it is, not as we should wish it to
be, is the beginning of wisdom. And the link between the objective truth
of the universe and what we know about it is science (not faith). That
is what leads to the development of mankind.”
* The reasonable person says that there is no verifiable evidence for any specific god…yours or anyone else’s…and no correlation between nature existing, and your sectarian god beliefs…!
The moral person says to the religious…stop making unverifiable claims…and pretending unverifiable claims are “facts”…That’s just dishonest, and intended to confuse the naive…and defraud them by deceitful assertions/unprovable pretenses…!