''God’s own complexity implies that He also had a designer. Either the theist is arguing for an infinite regress of God-designers and designers of God-designers, etc., or he is contradicting his own assumption that complexity requires design. By using God as an “explanation” the theist is doing nothing more than explaining complexity (in living things) with complexity (God’s). But this amounts to assuming what one is trying to explain, which is no explanation at all. It just moves the mystery back a step.''
God was outside of the universe to have been able to make it.If He was the same as the universe, the universe would have already been there in God.Entropy shows that there was a beginning, so God was/is not of the universe.Because of this, we don't know if complexity and designing apply to the nature of God at all.
It doesn't matter that god was outside the universe, being outside the universe doesn't automatically make you have no cause. My argument still stands''assumes humans determine whether or not something is designed by seeing if it has an accurate adjustment of parts—that is, if it shows complexity. But this is certainly mistaken. We know that something is designed not by its complexity, or even the degree to which it appears to serve a purpose, but by looking for ways in which it differs from nature. In other words, nature is the benchmark against which we compare an object to see if it is designed.
This is an example that shows God. God, being different than humanity, designs differently. God's machinery is different than the machinery of mankind. Yet it is similar in the fact that approximately 100% of man's machinery uses the machines of God, and uses examples of the way the machines of God work to make mans' machinery work.I don't know if you understood my point here. My point was that your method to determine whether something is designed or not is flawed.For example, many naturally occurring rock fragments just happen to have a sharp edge that is well-suited for serving the purpose of chopping meat, though this does not lead us to believe that these fragments were designed. Yet, we have found clearly manufactured prehistoric chopping and cutting stones that were designed. How do we know they were designed and not just examples of fortuitous rock fractures? Clearly it is not because they are sharp, since naturally occurring rocks are also sharp; and not because they are complex, since they have neither parts nor complexity; and not because they serve a purpose, since obviously random events can make a rock very sharp. We know these stone hand axes were designed because they have markings on them that differ from what one would find in nature—that is, they have signs of manufacture.
One of the purposes why God designed sharp rocks was so that man could use the example of them for cutting... for learning how to cut.Another was for the beauty in the blending of their complexity... multitudes of atoms and molecules blended in all kinds of ways in each rock, always moving as machinery works - because absolute zero isn't quite attainable that we know of.The markings on mans' tools are often different from those on God's machines, because the goals and usages are for different purposes, even though the general appearance of the tools may be similar.
How do you know that god designed the rocks?Because the proper criterion for establishing design is difference from nature, and not complexity or apparent usefulness, we can know that something was designed even when it is both extremely simple and has no identifiable purpose at all. ''
There is really no simplicity in nature. The appearance of simplicity may seem to be there at first glance. But detailed scientific examination is proving that simplicity doesn't exist. In fact, the universe is so complex that to the simple minded there is simplicity, but to the complexly minded there is complexity.The fact that mankind is not able to separate anything of the universe, to be a self-enclosed universe unit, completely separate from the universe, thereby making it to be its own universe that is the same as this universe but not part of it, shows that every part of the universe is complex with regard to the whole that it is part of.
No one said there is simplicity in nature. My point is that the method for establishing design is difference from nature and not complexity. The fact that something is complex does not always indicate design, hence the rock example.''we don’t know something is intelligently designed because it shows complexity; we know it is designed because it shows signs of manufacture, and the only way we know something is manufactured is by comparing it with nature or by having direct experience of its manufacture. Now, if the criterion for determining design is comparison with nature, then it makes no sense to apply that criterion to nature itself since nature provides the very benchmark for making the comparison.''
The whole structure of the universe is the sign that it was designed. An art museum proves that people design differently among themselves. Certainly the Designer of all things is going to design differently than people can even imagine at times. Complexity certainly shows design.How is the whole structure of the universe a sign that it was designed? An art museum proves nothing because we know people made the paintings/art. We don't know whether someone designed the universe or not. My whole argument is to show that complexity does not show design, hence again, the rock example and many many more.
Badecker: ''Scientifically speaking, I don't know what the Creator really is''
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19350390Nice quote. I like it.'Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. The assertion that it must be the particular God that the arguer has in mind is a complete non sequitur. Why not the deist God? Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument that would allow one to determine any attributes of the first cause. (You have failed to explain this problem over and over)
That is the problem with modern science. It is so weak at this stage that it is unable to dabble with things outside of the universe. In fact, it can barely determine that something outside of the universe can even exist.
So you agree with me?There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. This can be seen by realizing that for any directed acyclic graph which represents causation in a set of events or entities, the first cause is any vertex that has zero incoming edges. This means that the argument can just as well be used to argue for polytheism. (You yourself say that machine have makerS with S)''
We are aware of only one universe, and, therefore, only one first cause. Nobody can tell if there were or weren't many first causes. We barely even know a little about our universe. Do you expect us to be going beyond it?Note that it is "machineS," not "machine." Note that there isn't just one person who makes a machine. Rather there are many people who have made machines.Polytheism, when the gods join entirely together, becomes monotheism. Is this part of the scientific proof for the existence of God, or are we getting into religion?One universe can have more than one cause. Just like a mountain forming has different causes and all of them play an important role. ''If you get a bunch of engineers together, and manufacturers, etc., they build a car. A car might last a long time if it is not used. But without replacing parts, it might last only 20 years.
The point is that this is the best the combined will of a bunch of people can do.
When we are talking about component parts of God, we could be talking about many spirits and minds working together. But, if this is the case, jointly, they are one God, just as there is one Ford or one GMC.''
Nice.You don't answer at all here, the point is simple, even if all your arguments were true you still don't know what the first cause is, there is no evidence pointing to anything. You have failed to address this question like 10 times by now.
Thank you. But you are slightly mistaken. Not knowing what the First Cause is, has to do with not knowing what He is scientifically. One of the attributes we can apply to Him is that He is God. So from an extremely general, scientific standpoint, we know what He is. He is scientifically God.''can apply to Him '' Why to him, how do you know the first cause is a him, how do you know the first cause has awareness?The other huge problem as I mentioned is that when you say everything has a cause and then you say God did it the most immediate and obvious reply is to ask, “But what caused God?”. The standard answer is, “Ah, but God has no cause, god is an exception to that rule”. So essentially, an entire layer of pointless complexity called God is invented and then declared to be an exception to the rule that everything has a cause. If you want to get into the game of deciding that there is no cause for the first cause, then it would be far simpler to simply decide that the universe itself has no cause, there is no need to invent additional and utterly pointless layers of complexity, especially when there is no credible objective evidence that can justify such a leap. So you see, you basically say that everything has a cause and then you are saying that not everything has a cause, you understand this?
Imagine that you were in God's "realm," completely aware of God. If God has a cause from the standpoint of His realm, you might know it, and maybe even know what it is. But you would be entirely different than what you are now if you were in God's realm. Why? Because if you were the same as you are now, you would be part of the universe, and God's realm would be this universe.From the standpoint of our knowledge in the universe, scientifically we probably can't know if God has a cause or not. The word "cause" is of this universe. The cause concept didn't necessarily exist until the universe existed. I don't see how science in its limited ability could have determined if cause could have existed or not before the universe existed. Even the concept of "before" might not have existed "before" the universe.Causation is an integral part of the universe. Perhaps it the universe DID come about without a cause. Such a concept would go a great deal further in making God scientifically "palatable" to us.Do you understand that when we talk about subjects or concepts that are outside of our ability to comprehend, that the talk isn't always going to be clear?
[/quote]
