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?
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
1) Complexity does not require a designer.
2) If God is complex, your assumption would suggest he needs a designer.
So God could have evolved out of divine primordial soup?
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.
What? I wasn't trying to prove God exists...
I thought that was pretty clear.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I know it is a wild goose chase still,
I understood you perfectly. But you didn't understand what we are saying.
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.
No, "creation" is not a verb. Time to brush up on your knowledge of grammar, I see.
Where does existence imply a physical body? Slow down and use some logic, if you are insisting on logic, to explain your leap from point A to point Z.
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.
I think we have established that the logic is not valid.
1) The assumptions are not self-evident or provable
2) The conclusion leads to an illogical loop wherein every God would also need to be created by a God.
That was what I was trying to tell him, his arguments are illogical.
His argument is simply this,
Humans are complex hence needs a creator
God is more complex hence does not need a creator ( he says that he cannot understand god because of his complexity hence god do not need a creator. )
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.
Be careful. You are going to attract spammers with links to designer handbags.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The bBerean logic,
All beings except god needs creation. God is exempt from the premise because bBerean says so.
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/
by Alexander A. Villarasa15 months ago
There I said it.....for if there is anything at all in the universe that could indirectly prove God's existence, the DNA is it.The Higgs-Boson particle may just be what scientist says it is, the basic unit of all that...
by riddle6664 years ago
There is this fellow who said god created a body then killed it and then resurrected it to forgive humans.If you want to forgive somebody, will you dance(or do any nonsensical act) before forgiving or you simply...
by gobible5 years ago
Looking back or even today, man always invented things for his own purpose and satisfaction. So why not think God as a creator and we as His creation and He made us for his own purpose. And why struggle to prove there...
by Jefsaid6 years ago
It is entirely possible that our conscience is eternal. We may have always existed and may never cease to exist. While physically we might witness the birth and death of our perishable physical avatar, none...
by mobilemaniac6 years ago
In other words the one(Satan/Devil) who can plan things only according to or with God.Without God Satan him/it self cant exist.Take all examples from Bible.God allows all temptations to human.If he truly wants to avoid...
by Alexander A. Villarasa2 years ago
The idea of convergence that leads to emergence is one of the oldest and profoundly most beautiful explanation on how simplicity leads to complexity. Oldest because the explanations of emergence...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.