This thread will NOT turn into a God talk in the traditional sense, its useless to bring it up anyway, especially here. But could anyone who is interested please read the following passage and tell me after... Quote: How do they cope with the argument that any God capable of designing a universe, carefully and foresightfully tuned to lead to our evolution, must be a supremely complex and improbable entity who needs an even bigger explanation than the one he is supposed to prove? What is being said here?God must be complex.- or -God must be simple.
-
Nothing bad...
-
I think there trying to say that it's circular reasoning.
The argument that complex structures are so highly evolved they must therefore be designed contradicts itself in that any god, without design, must be even more complex. The logic dead ends. You can't use the complexity of a structure to prove it must be designed by an even more complex structure.
-
Well this is from Richard Dawkin's book and its his counter argument to a common Christian belief that God, in essence, is simple.
I just ask this because on another forum I'm having an evolution debate with a Baptist minister (who insists that he is Christian) and he brought up this book and said that Dawkins was saying that God must be simple. This is the quote he gave me and I just don't see it, I see Dawkins saying that God must be complex.
I know this is boring and of no interest to anyone else, but I'm just making sure that I'm not seeing this wrong.
-
I think such arguments will get nowhere without paying attention to the meaning of the terms "simple" and "complex", and without consideration that simple principles often lead to complex outworkings.
-
I see neither. The quote seems out of context and therefore able to be interpreted as anyone would like.
-
seems to me like its saying how do you rationalize saying he is simple when he created everything and connected it is such complex and intricate ways?
-
Yes, see that whats I read, but this other guy seems to see the exact opposite..