The Universe Needs a Designer!
The argument that "Something this complex couldn’t have just *happened* or *always existed* — so I believe that God created it" utterly fails for a couple of reasons.
First, the implicit argument is something like:
Premise 1)
It is highly unlikely that something as big and as complex as the universe could just accidentally pop into existence (or always existed).
And
Premise 2)
A rational person ought to believe the most likely of explanations.
Therefore,
A rational person can believe "God" or something with the same skill-set has to be the reason for the universe to exist based on this argument.
This argument fails because the first premise and the conclusion contradict each other.
A being that could conceive of and create the universe with all of its size and complexity must be more complex than the universe itself.
However, it is even more unlikely that something even bigger and more complex than the universe just accidentally popped into existence (or always existed).
So given the two possible explanations you have
A) The really unlikely "universe always existed/popped into existence on its own" option;
or
B) the even more unlikely "an even more complex being "God" always existed/popped into existence on its own, and created the universe"
And given premise 2, the person ought to reject the less likely of the two explanations (explanation B).
Sure, "God did it" is an explanation.
The problem is that it’s just an even MORE unlikely explanation than the universe just existing by itself.
And being that "A rational person ought to believe the most likely of explanations" – a rational person cannot accept the God-hypothesis based on this argument.
Adding ever more complex/unlikely Gods doesn’t help the case at all, either. Each additional God fails even more exquisitely than the previous to Premise 2.
Wait a minute, you might say, I still have a few outs! Which is true, but they’re about to be closed off.
The first is to argue that something less complex/big as the universe can just pop into existence, and design the universe.
Fine, be explicit and state it like this and I’ll be satisfied with this out: "The God that created the universe is not as big or as complicated and complex as his creation. The universe is of a higher order of complexity than the God I think exists."
The second is to try to argue that God is exactly as complex as the universe – but this immediately fails because then the universe popping into existence is exactly as likely as God popping into existence…so there’s no need to posit anything extra beyond the universe popping into existence at all.
The final objection that I can imagine is to argue that we don’t need the premise
"A rational person ought to believe the most likely of explanations."
in a couple of different ways.
The first is "who cares if my beliefs are rational?" In which case you have just excused yourself from rational discourse and there’s nothing else to be said to you at all.
The second is, "A rational person can believe explanations based not on what is more likely… but on something else" — but you don’t want to go this route, because then the first premise is moot, and you have to come up with a completely different argument for your belief in God.
Comments appreciated.
Too many people misunderstand the law of parsimony. They think that because an explanation has fewer words that means the explanation is simpler. Most people don’t stop to examine what exactly “god” is or means.
Warning Comment
Hmmm…interesting. It does nothing to shake my faith in God, but it does cause me to rethink this argument. However, this does beg the question: If you can believe that the universe popped into existence on its own, then why do you think it unlikely that God could always exist or pop into existence on His own? It seems that if you can believe that about the universe, it’s not a big leap…
Warning Comment
…to believe that about God. However, the Bible does say that God has always existed. He has no beginning or end; He *is* the beginning and end. And I do know that this must be taken on faith, but it requires no more faith than believing that the universe came about via random processes.
Warning Comment
Also, I must apologize for not having posted it yet. I have begun to write it, but I’m finding it increasily difficult to sit down in front of a computer and compose entries of this nature, what with school, concerts and things like that monopolizing my time. I will finish it as soon as I can (and want to finish it soon).
Warning Comment
“It seems that if you can believe that about the universe, it’s not a big leap to believe that about God.” Works both ways, really. If you can believe that something called God can be eternal, for instance, why not the universe? At least we know that the universe exists. It takes no faith. Personally, I don’t think that the universe could “pop” into existence from literally nothing. Given that, at some point we must fall back on something which is ultimately eternal. There is no compelling reason why this could not be the very energy that makes up the whole of the universe. And there is certainly no compelling reason to believe in any non-material entities existing beyond what we believe and observe.
Warning Comment
“Also, I must apologize for not having posted it yet.” Take your time 🙂 I only want to read it when you are confident that it is complete and accurately reflects your thinking.
Warning Comment
Sorry: first note should read “beyond what we seeand observe.”
Warning Comment
http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=A312092&entry=21020 Here ya go
Warning Comment
ryn; You don’t get how the notion that there could both be a god and he/she/it not have been respondsible for creation pertains? You believe it’s ME that sets up the notion that on OD atheists and theists are constantly on opposite sides of the dancehall? Are you serious? Did you not read my entry? Have you never read any of your own? Do you need cliff notes or something?
Warning Comment
Ok, the flip is off my chest. I realize a good chunk of the entry was about child welfare, a good chunk about strawberry shakes, and only a third applied to your entry and of that I took my own liscence to add what I found interesting. But to simplfy as you seemed to get confused (as per your note “… I’m confused …” the part about minimally adeqaute design (as in the title) pertained to …
Warning Comment
Your argument that the theist argument of design and occams razor rationale was invalid (hence the title The Universe Needs a Designer). It seemed self evident to me. I’m I really that opaque? Are you really that obtuse? Or did you just skim my entry for qoutes from your entry?
Warning Comment
http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=A312092&entry=21022 Maybe that’ll work better for ya.
Warning Comment
Good point! Though you could probably shorten it down to just the points or something. But yeah I totally concur – There is no logical reason that tells us that something complex must have been created. In fact, it is more complex and fantastical to believe it was created by some being than it just existed.
Warning Comment
RYN: Thank you for sharing. Positively reinforced debate is a good learning tool and (provided it is good natured) can bring people together to think. Therefore allow me to offer another theory. It appears as though your logic only works out if we are referring to mass, matter, or something equally materialistic that can be experienced by the humans natural sensory perception…
Warning Comment
…Now lets suppose God is a purely spiritual being. (which the bible claims he is) That would mean that God was made entirely of some form of energy. Wikipedia tells us that energy is not an object or a substance but is quantifiable in a way such that it cannot be created or destroyed. However, it can create and destroy…
Warning Comment
…this would mean that a more intellectually complex being, made of energy, could be infinite and create something even as complex as our universe. See what I mean? One mistake many christians and atheists alike mke is keeping God in the human box of “magical creature with a beard” that our anscestors created. Couldnt God be omnipotent while being a very complex phenomenon of physics? thanks.
Warning Comment
Have you read Dean Overman’s book, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization? Or perhaps even Lee Strobels book , Case for a Creator? They are very good reads. Also, to further see the design argument from a non-religious perspective you may want to look into a group called the “raelians” they also have some very colorful theories. Thank you my friend, for your interest.
Warning Comment
Why is a belief in God irrational?
Warning Comment