Some Schmo wrote:And incidentally, it wasn't an argument for atheism; it was an argument against the idea of an all-powerful creator.
If I recall correctly, this is correct. By parsimony one could easily just imagine a complex universe without an equally or more complex creator to explain it since that complex creator requires at least as much of an explanation as the complex universe does. Obviously that is not an argument against the possibility of a Creator, merely an argument against the necessity or utility of one.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Some Schmo wrote:I suggest you actually read the relevent portion of the book rather than try to argue against my synopsis of it. It's quite likely your misunderstanding of his argument is the result of basing it entirely on what I said about it.
Why yes, I am responding to your version of the argument. As that is what is being forwarded on this message board. How mendacious of me.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:I don't think it just poofed into existence. It's either that or it always existed perhaps because time does not apply to it perhaps something else. I'm not picking one. There's not any other option available. You got one?
More baseless assertions. Time does not apply? And that's because...?
Maybe time is dependent upon post-big bang physics such that temporal causation doesn't really apply to anything "before" it. Some physicists argue as such. I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm saying it doesn't have to.
And there are only two options because.... you can't think of any more? Well then, there must only be two!
Name me some more then. I proposed my list as logically inclusive like A and not-A.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:The universe, regardless of whether God exists, is the "all powerful creator" so to speak.
And evolution explains why that creator can largely be blind, deaf, dumb, heartless, and otherwise unintelligent and yet "create" some very incredible and beautiful things.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Some Schmo wrote:And incidentally, it wasn't an argument for atheism; it was an argument against the idea of an all-powerful creator.
If I recall correctly, this is correct. By parsimony one could easily just imagine a complex universe without an equally or more complex creator to explain it since that complex creator requires at least as much of an explanation as the complex universe does. Obviously that is not an argument against the possibility of a Creator, merely an argument against the necessity or utility of one.
Because god, himself, would need to be the product of long gradual evolution. Complex things don't just pop into existence (they evolve over millions of years), and god would have to be the apex of complexity.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:Why is God the apex of complexity? What does that even mean? Mind you, you are asserting this given that God exists within the logical context of a universe. I'm not talking about a physical universe. I'm talking about all that there is to existence. The universe, regardless of whether God exists, is the "all powerful creator" so to speak.
In order for something to create something else, doesn't that thing have to be at least as complex and the thing being created?
And what more is there to existence than the physical universe? Now you're just making stuff up.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:The universe, regardless of whether God exists, is the "all powerful creator" so to speak.
And evolution explains why that creator can largely be blind, deaf, dumb, heartless, and otherwise unintelligent and yet "create" some very incredible and beautiful things.
And chemistry explains how water can form from hydrogen and oxygen. That doesn't mean God does not exist.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:Because god, himself, would need to be the product of long gradual evolution. Complex things don't just pop into existence (they evolve over millions of years), and god would have to be the apex of complexity.
That's an argument against God.
It's an argument against the utility of using God to explain the complexity observed elsewhere. It's an argument against a certain conception of God--one that is complex but not the product of evolution.
Still, I think Dawkins stated things differently than Some Schmo.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO