Form formal logic by Peter Smith ex.1
in answers he said that it's invalid argument but he don't say why ?
if we found by chance a watch or other piece of intricate mechanism we should infer that it had been made by someone. But all around us we do find intricate pieces of natural mechanism, and the processes of the universe are seen to move together in complex relations; we should therefore infer that these too have maker.
We have some relevant part of the information that is implicit.
Premise: Every (artificial) mechanism has a maker.
Premise: The world around us is full of natural mechanisms.
Conclusion: Therefore, there must be a maker for all these natural processes that move together in complex relations.
Are we sure that the "laws" for artificial mechanisms do apply also to natural ones ?
When contemplating an idea such as this, it is vital to keep in mind the balance that must be retained between sensory perception and intuitive perception. By our intuition, we would like to think that there is a higher being that watches out for us and that put the stars into place. However, our sensory perceptions cause us to believe that scientifically, there cannot be a God and that all things came to be through a random process that we would like to be identified by scientific principle.
The issue with both of these sides of the coin, per se, is in that of their slavery unto themselves. If one is to base thought solely upon science as we know it, certain aspects of reality and mechanisms of thought are left untapped because the mind is enslaved by scientific principle. And likewise, if one is to rely on feelings alone, other areas of thought are put aside due to enslavement by emotion.
I would go as far as to say that we are in no place to identify specifically just what created everything as we know it. On one hand, no science can prove that random processes produce what we understand to be life and structure. On the other hand, no science can prove that there is a higher being that created it all. However, one can claim that that being is simply above our border of understanding, and therefore it cannot be quantified or identified. And, one can claim that, according to the scientific principles that we know today, it is plausible that physical reality happened by chance through various processes.
In time, or out of it rather, we may come to understand how we came to be. Once unbound by time, that ever-evasive constant of quantification and understanding of our physical reality, might we know the truth.
It's self-contradictory since "natural mechanism" by definition means "no maker". A watch can be "explained" by referring to a maker. The natural stuff around us can be explained by science which does not involve a maker. It's the "natural" stuff around us for which we cannot find a scientific (i.e. naturalistic) explanation that seems to call for a maker.
I suspect what the writer had in mind is the classic creationist argument which roughly claims that some things (e.g., eyeballs) are too complex to be explained in naturalistic terms. Therefore (we are told), there must be a supernatural explanation (like a divine "maker"). There are lots of problems with this. One is that it takes our current inability to explain something scientifically as final. Not only can we not now explain X scientifically, we will never be able to do so. But science never says "never". It just says "not yet".
