jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (47 posts)

Complexity and God

  1. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    1.  Complexity requires a designer.

    2.  God is complex.

    Therefore, God requires a designer.

    This seems to be the central argument of Richard Dawkins against the existence of God.  What say you?

    1. bBerean profile image59
      bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Your question highlights the faulty premise primary to arguments against a creator, which is that a creator would be subject to the laws or characteristics utilized in creation.  Whoever created our existence had to be there first to do it.  They would not be subject to the laws they established to govern creation.  Neither would they be confined to the characteristics of their creation.  All of science is simply observing the amazing things created and striving to understand how they work.  Considering the complexity of the simplest aspects of creation that we are aware of, far outpace our grandest achievements, it appears we are just scratching the surface.  Expecting then to understand a creator more complex than creation, and not bound by anything we are capable of understanding is a bit unreasonable, as is dismissing his existence because of our lack of comprehension.

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So why don't you just say you don't know instead of claiming to know it was the Christian God?

        Furthermore, it's the creationist who complain about irreducible complexity requiring design.  God is irreducibly complex.  Therefore, God requires design tongue.

        Or, I could just simply posit all the same traditional attributes of God, except instead of a "person," he is a leprechaun.  You can't complain God is beyond human comprehension, and then first of all proceed to tell me that God IS somehow a person, and second of all that you know what God's attributes are and that we can understand them.  It's self-contradictory.

        1.  Anything that is beyond human comprehension cannot be discussed in or understood by words.

        2.  God is beyond human comprehension.

        3.  Therefore, God cannot be discussed in or understood by words.

        You tie yourself up when you claim such things.

        1. bBerean profile image59
          bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Those not bent on missing the point will understand, while for those who choose to, it will remain foolishness.  I'm fine with that.  Your response illustrates quite well the faulty premise I spoke against.   My first response was very clear so I won't bother further reiterating it.

          1. profile image0
            riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It is you who do not understand or speak sensibly.  It is your argument that anything complex needs a creator.  It is your argument that god is more complex than the creation that the creation, that the creation cannot understand god.  It logically follows from YOUR premises that god need creation.
            Instead of going tangentially,  address the point, if you can.

          2. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Are you just not going to respond to the tension between a theist saying God is beyond human comprehension then proceeding to tell me exactly what God wants me to believe is true and what "his" characteristics are?

            You also haven't given a good argument against the leprechaun.

            1. bBerean profile image59
              bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Why would I argue against the leprechaun?  Contrary to what is often accused, I am not telling anyone what to believe.   I am sharing what I believe and why.   God has given you a free will to reject Him, follow leprechauns or believe in exploding spots from nowhere.  Far be it from me to get in the way of that.

              1. profile image0
                Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Okay.  You still haven't answered the comprehension issue YOU brought up.  I'm still awaiting a response on that.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That's a cop out. We can say the same thing about anything we can conjure from our imaginations and it would be equally valid. And, of course, the bible does indeed assign characteristics to your God and goes on to say that we are created in His image.



        No, his existence is not being dismissed for lack of comprehension, it is lack of evidence not only for his existence but also for any complexity in nature that hasn't show itself to be a product of evolution.

      3. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If you claim we are not capable of understanding God, why do you claim to have an understanding of God? According to you, you are not capable of explaining or even understand God, but yet you keep telling us what his capabilities are? It's very confusing, you may want to step back and think about that for a while. If we are not capable of understanding God why do you insist you understand him.

        Can God make a rock so big even he can't move it?

    2. Repairguy47 profile image61
      Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      roll

    3. kess profile image60
      kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      He Should be arguing for the simplicity of God
      Otherwise his logics is forced.

      You  can only apply definitive attributes to something that is....

      So by this statement he confirms God existence.

      1. profile image0
        riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        As something that is,  is something that is not,
        God is what is and what is not,
        Thing is nothing and nothing is a thing and
        God is thing which is nothing.

    4. profile image0
      Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well, I do think that when we quantify the force generally referred to as God we have to assume there was something prior to its existence within the multiverse. Maybe the force suffers the same angst we do; wondering how it came to be and what makes it special.

  2. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    1) Complexity does not require a designer.

    2) If God is complex, your assumption would suggest he needs a designer.

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So God could have evolved out of divine primordial soup?

      1. psycheskinner profile image79
        psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If you want to propose universal laws, you have to apply them universally.

        If you can't: the law is false.

        Ergo your attempt to logically prove god has failed.

        Next.

        1. profile image0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What?  I wasn't trying to prove God exists...

          I thought that was pretty clear.

          1. psycheskinner profile image79
            psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You were stating Dawkins' summary of a key argument "proving" God (Dawkins being an atheist).

            I assumed you know that.  My mistake L guess. I now have no idea what you thought you were doing.

            1. profile image0
              Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I said the argument was against the existence of God when I started this forum...

              And the conclusion that God needed a designer was attempting to show God doesn't answer anything and the whole concept is incoherent (at least that's what I take Dawkins to be saying).

              I have no idea where you got the idea that I was citing Dawkins to PROVE God exists.

              1. profile image0
                riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Self righteous people are here only to criticize. They never read it fully to understand what is discussed, they only look where they can criticize. bBerean was better,
                his argument was
                1) the world is complex it needs a creator.
                2) the creator is highly complex, hence does not need a creator.
                He just didn't want to acknowledge the logical contradiction because it will cause his whole world to  crumble, so used clever words to hide the contradiction while the other fellow simply looked for something to criticize.

                1. bBerean profile image59
                  bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  How you two continually missed the point is confounding.  Let me try this one more time.  I was simply saying a creator would have to have existed before His creation.  If He was before it, He is outside of it.  If He is outside of creation He is not subject to the laws He makes to govern it.  My comments about complexity of creation requiring a creator logically would not extend beyond creation because we only can know about creation.  Speculating on the origin of the creator is pointless since we have no way to see outside of creation, so what sense does it make to speculate that He too requires a creator?  I have stated it several times, but didn't want to leave it with your misrepresentation here, so I have repeated it again.  What we know of Him is based on what He has told us through the bible.  I realize you don't believe any of that, which is fine, but you should be able to grasp the point, as a hypothesis, regarding why a creator would logically not be confined to the laws or attributes seen in His creation.

                  1. profile image0
                    riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I know it is a wild goose chase still,
                    I understood you perfectly. But you didn't understand what we are saying.
                    You say
                    The world is complex hence need a creator.
                    The creator's laws are different so the first premise is not applicable to it.
                    Now what I'm trying to tell you is that the first premise is put forward by YOU. When you put forward a premise it should be universally applicable otherwise the premise is false. Whatever be the god's laws, what you are doing is violating YOUR OWN premise. You cannot arbitrarily choose where all your premise apply. It is you who put forward the premise not us.
                    Regarding creation you are partially right. Creation is verb, an action mediated by one object on another.  Both objects has to exist, for creation to occur.So god has to exist, he has to have a physical body and that body is made of matter which had to exist prior. Also as creation is a verb, one cannot be outside or inside creation, that has no meaning.
                    "Speculating on the origin of the creator is pointless since we have no way to see outside of creation,"
                    It doesn't matter whether we can 'see', it is only whether your logic is valid, and it is not valid.you cannot simply put conditions on the premise because you don't like it,  either your premise should be everything is created or everything is not created. If everything is created then that premise will be applicable to the creator, the creator of the creator,  the creator of the creator of the creator and so on.... Premise is YOURS,  so it is your job to put it as valid logic.

                  2. profile image0
                    riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    PS: Since you said about the bible let me clarify,
                    We are NOT discussing whether god exist or not. We are discussing whether the logic is valid.
                    Your premise is all except god are created. But that is not how a premise is to be stated,  it is either 'all are created' or' some are created', no except can be used in a premise. Now put your premises and the conclusion in a logical format.

  3. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 4 years ago

    1.  There is no evidence that complexity requires a designer.

    2.  There is no evidence that God is complex; every human description varies from every other and there is thus no data at all on God's complexity.

    With two faulty premises, the conclusion cannot properly be arrived at.

    *edit*  Sorry, Psyche - you posted while I was typing.  Have to be quicker, I guess.

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I agree.  I'm just citing Dawkins who was basing his argument on theists constantly jumping on complexity to prove God exists.

  4. tussin profile image60
    tussinposted 4 years ago

    Be careful. You are going to attract spammers with links to designer handbags.

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Haha. Don't jinx it!

  5. bBerean profile image59
    bBereanposted 4 years ago

    Amazing how clearly those who have posted above illustrate the faulty premise I described and opposed, yet they don't even realize it.  Nothing I can say to that, except it is entertaining.

    1. profile image0
      riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Amazing, the one who put forward the premise oppose it when it does not serve the purpose.
      So things do not need creation, after all!

      1. bBerean profile image59
        bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Wow.  Let me try this as simply as possible.  Yes, everything within creation is governed by laws and within that creation complexity demands a designer.  If someone wrote your name in your driveway with apples, you would have no doubt there was intelligence behind it, but the complexity of dna, not so much.  Makes no sense. 

        Whoever put the laws that govern everything in place however, would have to have existed prior to the establishment of those laws or they could not have established them.  Why would you expect them to be subject to the laws they had yet to establish or be defined by the creation they made? 

        Where did God come from?  Of course we can't know that anymore than those who believe in the exploding spot can say where it would have come from.

        1. profile image0
          riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I do not why you cannot understand this. This has nothing to do with laws. It is YOU who put forward god as an explanation of all living things. It is YOU who said all living things are complex and the creator should be more complex by logic. Then YOU are the person who violate YOUR logic saying that not all complex being need creation. It is not God's law but your own logic, you are contradicting.
          So I''ll put it as questions that you can understand
          1. Do living beings need creation?
          2. Is the creation or creator more complex?
          3. If creator is more complex, by YOUR own  logic, the creator needs to be created.
          It is your logic and explanation that you are contradicting not God's.


          I do not know what your idea of god is,  but universe is eternal.

          1. bBerean profile image59
            bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Truly amazing.  I can't be any clearer than my two previous explanations and yet you continue to say my logic dictates God must have a creator when in fact I said just the opposite.  You continue to apply the laws governing creation and it's attributes to a creator, and then say that was my point.  I have a hard time accepting anyone could miss the point 180 degrees unless they are purposely avoiding acknowledging it but who knows?  Maybe you can.  Clearly nothing I can do about that.

            1. profile image0
              riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              OK,
              I'll explain once more taking your example,
              You saw my name written(though there is no natural equivalent),
              You immediately assumed there is a creator for that(without thinking about any other options).

              Now you are telling me that since I created(written), the laws are entirely different for me, hence I'm not created.
              But see, there is no question of laws but only logic. Your logic is, if something is there, there is an intelligent source behind that.  So if there is a name, somebody wrote it. If somebody is there, there is another body who created that. If another body is there, there is some another body that created it...so on ad infinitum. [by the same logic(NOT LAW)]. But when you come to god, you defy that logic. But you cannot arbitrarily stop that, you cannot decide where you are going to put a full stop. If you say after man, it is god and you are going to put a stop there no, I say there is a creator for god and is called Lucifer.(why can't I? There is no reason why I should or shouldn't stop there, only imagination limits).
              "God must have a creator when in fact I said just the opposite"
              You said the opposite with NO VALID reason.
              "apply the laws governing creation and it's attributes to a creator"
              It is not the laws regarding creation, but the laws of logic. If everything is created, that include god, if god is a thing. If god is nothing, then the logic is valid, you agree?
              You can either say everything is created or no creation. You cannot say everything except a,b,and c is created, for god is an explanation put forward by you to account for the organisms/objects. You cannot propose laws for god, for that is actually a limitation YOU are placing, for YOUR lack of logic.

              1. bBerean profile image59
                bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You continue to totally miss the point and I see no reason that would change.  Fortunately, it doesn't matter.  All I intended to do was express it, knowing it will be of value to some, confusing or entertaining to others.

                1. profile image0
                  riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It is OK, you are not the first person whom I am seeing who totally lack logic or comprehension.

                  1. psycheskinner profile image79
                    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    In my experience those without a logical answer resort to insults.

            2. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Once again you are just not understanding. If God is to complex to understand then how can you make the claim that he doesn't need a creator? How can you make any claim about God, if we are unable to comprehend him. You're simple stating we can't understand him, but you do.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Who says so? Why does complexity demand a designer?



          Nature does not show apples spelling out names, hence your example is meaningless. Try using examples only from nature in order to make your point.

  6. profile image0
    riddle666posted 4 years ago

    The bBerean logic,
    All beings except god needs creation. God is exempt from the premise because bBerean says so.

  7. RZed profile image60
    RZedposted 4 years ago

    Interesting conversation. There really is no right or wrong on this...it's subjective and simply an argument. Some of you need to lay off the drugs.. I think this explains the 'argument' effectively - http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/2011/ … y-and-god/

    1. profile image0
      riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It is not about right and wrong as you said, but only about the validity of the logic and thanks for the link.

 
working