Paley arguments and counter arguments Edit
http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/paley.shtml 1) Their reply includes the fallacy of Who made God.
- Counter-objection: The argumentum ad ignorantiam works both ways; from the fact that something has not been proved, no conclusion can be drawn. Implicitly, as well, there is a disanalogy in composite functions of watch and universe. The purpose of a watch is evident, whereas the purpose of the universe is not.
reply: Since the sentence itself hasn't been proved how could we then draw the stated conclusion? It is a variation of the one from Hitchens described by Berlinski.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_flower_of_chi054271.html His atheism nonetheless had a kind of shambling boisterousness that made Christopher Hitchens seem a Mirabeau to Richard Dawkins's Saint Just or Sam Harris's Robespierre. Hitchens was uninterested in subtle analysis. On the masthead of the Daily Hitchens, there is the legend: What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. The difficulty with this assertion is straightforward. If it has been asserted without proof, why should it be believed, and if not, where is the proof? I asked Hitchens about this during a break in our debate. We had retreated to a forlorn hotel loading ramp in order to have a cigarette. "Well, yes," he said, "it's just a sentence."