[Ghost of V]

You didn't answer any of my questions, Jaakov.

[Vindictus]

If I see a watch, and you tell me it has no maker, you have to prove that it doesn't. I assume naturally that it does. If I see the universe, and you tell me it has no maker, you must prove to me that it doesn't. I assume that it does until then. I realise that is difficult to comprehend for the atheist, given the peabrain nature of what's going on between their ears, but...

Why does the Universe require a maker? This is like saying "I see a rock so it assume it was made by someone".

[Rushy]

If I see a watch, and you tell me it has no maker, you have to prove that it doesn't. I assume naturally that it does.

What made god? I assume naturally that god has a maker.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

Vaux, I get to them tomorrow. My wife will be home soon. See you then.

[Lord Dave]

If I see a watch, and you tell me it has no maker, you have to prove that it doesn't. I assume naturally that it does. If I see the universe, and you tell me it has no maker, you must prove to me that it doesn't. I assume that it does until then. I realise that is difficult to comprehend for the atheist, given the peabrain nature of what's going on between their ears, but...

Only if you were told watches are made.  If you had never seen a watch, how would you know it didn't occur naturally?

Also: watches are not naturally occurring on Earth. 

[Rama Set]

If I see a watch, and you tell me it has no maker, you have to prove that it doesn't. I assume naturally that it does. If I see the universe, and you tell me it has no maker, you must prove to me that it doesn't. I assume that it does until then. I realise that is difficult to comprehend for the atheist, given the peabrain nature of what's going on between their ears, but...

I dont know any atheists that say the universe is eternal.  I definitely believe the universe had a "maker", however I would contest that the "maker" of the universe must necessarily be a conscious being.

[Particle Person]

Also: watches are not naturally occurring on Earth.

Incorrect. Earth is inhabited by organisms which create watches through natural means.

[Rushy]

Incorrect. Earth is inhabited by organisms which create watches through natural means.

Please tell me about these organisms that naturally make watches.

[Particle Person]

They are the most dangerous and destructive animals on the planet, but they are also the cleverest. You may know of them as... Human Beans.

[Rushy]

They are the most dangerous and destructive animals on the planet, but they are also the cleverest. You may know of them as... Human Beans.

I would say something about the term "natural" not including man made objects but I thought you were referencing humans. I guess beans count as natural, but I would very much like a citation on these watch-making beans.

[Shane]

Confirmed, as a Hunan bean iattest my body naturally produces watches. 

[Rushy]

Confirmed, as a Hunan bean iattest my body naturally produces watches.

This is acceptable evidence.

[Tau]

If I see a watch, and you tell me it has no maker, you have to prove that it doesn't. I assume naturally that it does. If I see the universe, and you tell me it has no maker, you must prove to me that it doesn't. I assume that it does until then. I realise that is difficult to comprehend for the atheist, given the peabrain nature of what's going on between their ears, but...

This is an inherently flawed argument and you know it, and the fact that you're falling back on it suggests that you have no good arguments and you know it.

[Rushy]

If I see a watch, and you tell me it has no maker, you have to prove that it doesn't. I assume naturally that it does. If I see the universe, and you tell me it has no maker, you must prove to me that it doesn't. I assume that it does until then. I realise that is difficult to comprehend for the atheist, given the peabrain nature of what's going on between their ears, but...

This is an inherently flawed argument and you know it, and the fact that you're falling back on it suggests that you have no good arguments and you know it.

Or that the thread has pretty much flatlined and he is posting a bad argument combined with "only dum ppl don't beleve this!!!!11!" in an attempt to rev the thread back up to troll mode.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

If I see a watch, and you tell me it has no maker, you have to prove that it doesn't. I assume naturally that it does. If I see the universe, and you tell me it has no maker, you must prove to me that it doesn't. I assume that it does until then. I realise that is difficult to comprehend for the atheist, given the peabrain nature of what's going on between their ears, but...

This is an inherently flawed argument and you know it, and the fact that you're falling back on it suggests that you have no good arguments and you know it.

Prove that it is inherently flawed. If you can't, shut your yap.

[Tau]

If I see a watch, and you tell me it has no maker, you have to prove that it doesn't. I assume naturally that it does. If I see the universe, and you tell me it has no maker, you must prove to me that it doesn't. I assume that it does until then. I realise that is difficult to comprehend for the atheist, given the peabrain nature of what's going on between their ears, but...

This is an inherently flawed argument and you know it, and the fact that you're falling back on it suggests that you have no good arguments and you know it.

Prove that it is inherently flawed. If you can't, shut your yap.

You have a much higher standard for others than you do for yourself.

The universe is not a watch. I don't look at the Grand Canyon and assume that it's the result of a massive construction project. I assume, correctly, that it is the result of undirected natural processes over unimaginable amounts of time. You can't compare the universe to a watch without adequately explaining what makes the two similar. What property does a watch have that proves that it is intelligently designed which the universe shares but demonstrably complex natural structures do not?

[Tau]

This is starting to remind me of theoretical mathematics. You can create a universe where the logic is entirely self-sufficient (or at least appears to be), but that doesn't mean it's real.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

Explain how the universe is NOT like a watch. As a former bookie, I can tell you myself, in spite of what people stupidly say in this forum, the odds of the Earth alone (forget about the rest of the universe) being built with just the right amount of chemicals and what-not to support life is so-far from likely that its stupid. I mean, you couldn't get a bookie to offer odds on that.

And then some schmuck says that the universe may have occurred in a non-random way but still without a Creator. That, of course, surpasses every argument for stupid I've EVER heard. I mean, a universe like ours (hell, again, just leave it to an Earth like ours) occurring randomly is next to impossible, let alone it occurring naturally through non-random events, but without a Creator. That one just takes the taco for stupid.

And no, this is not ad hominem. This is statement of information. There comes a point when you have to question the intelligence of people. This is one of those times.

So, you don't question who made a doghouse, but you do question who made the dog. Explain how that is not fucking retarded. Just the fact that said dog is built with a logically put together structure indicates that its design was planned. That is why it has duplication of some bodily organisms, so one can take over if the other fails.

You still haven't proven the argument false yet. Keep trying, though. I find it humourous.

[Shane]

You haven't answered who created God, if everything requires creation

[DuckDodgers]

There are hundreds of billions of stars in the universe, likely with their own planets around them.  The fact that at least one developed life is actually very good when compared to how many planets there could be.