Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Is this argument any good?

Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2010 10:11:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The Teleological Argument Against The Existence of God

P1: Beings of immense complexity that don't have a cause for their existence are very unlikely to exist.
P2: Any being capable of creating something as immensely complex as the universe would have to be even more complex than the universe itself.
P3: God is described as a being that created the universe and exists uncaused. (Given)
P4: Therefore, God must be a being of immense complexity that doesn't have a cause for his existence. (From 2 and 3)
C: Therefore, God is very unlikely to exist. (From 1 and 4)

The complexity of the physical universe is often outlined as subtle evidence for the existence of God. This argument attempts to take a principle that religious people often invoke and use it to to demonstrate the improbability of God's existence.

Oh yeah, and I actually created the argument. Essentially, I took the main thesis of Richard Dawkins' "Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit" and synthesized it into a formal syllogism.

Honestly, I don't like it, but I still think it might have some merit if it got tweaked a little bit.

Is it bad? Did I fail?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2010 10:30:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/16/2010 10:11:19 PM, Freeman wrote:
The Teleological Argument Against The Existence of God

P1: Beings of immense complexity that don't have a cause for their existence are very unlikely to exist.
P2: Any being capable of creating something as immensely complex as the universe would have to be even more complex than the universe itself.
P3: God is described as a being that created the universe and exists uncaused. (Given)
P4: Therefore, God must be a being of immense complexity that doesn't have a cause for his existence. (From 2 and 3)
C: Therefore, God is very unlikely to exist. (From 1 and 4)


The complexity of the physical universe is often outlined as subtle evidence for the existence of God. This argument attempts to take a principle that religious people often invoke and use it to to demonstrate the improbability of God's existence.

Oh yeah, and I actually created the argument. Essentially, I took the main thesis of Richard Dawkins' "Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit" and synthesized it into a formal syllogism.

Honestly, I don't like it, but I still think it might have some merit if it got tweaked a little bit.

Is it bad? Did I fail?

You're going to run into a whole bunch of issues.

Just at first glance:

Right off the bat what do you mean by "unlikely"? What are you using here to judge how unlikely God is? Prior Bayesian probability? Or something else?

If God is a metaphysically necessary being it really doesn't matter how "unlikely" his existence is anyway.

If God is not material it's unclear what you mean by "complexity".
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2010 10:45:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/16/2010 10:30:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/16/2010 10:11:19 PM, Freeman wrote:
The Teleological Argument Against The Existence of God

P1: Beings of immense complexity that don't have a cause for their existence are very unlikely to exist.
P2: Any being capable of creating something as immensely complex as the universe would have to be even more complex than the universe itself.
P3: God is described as a being that created the universe and exists uncaused. (Given)
P4: Therefore, God must be a being of immense complexity that doesn't have a cause for his existence. (From 2 and 3)
C: Therefore, God is very unlikely to exist. (From 1 and 4)


The complexity of the physical universe is often outlined as subtle evidence for the existence of God. This argument attempts to take a principle that religious people often invoke and use it to to demonstrate the improbability of God's existence.

Oh yeah, and I actually created the argument. Essentially, I took the main thesis of Richard Dawkins' "Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit" and synthesized it into a formal syllogism.

Honestly, I don't like it, but I still think it might have some merit if it got tweaked a little bit.

Is it bad? Did I fail?

You're going to run into a whole bunch of issues.

Just at first glance:

Right off the bat what do you mean by "unlikely"? What are you using here to judge how unlikely God is? Prior Bayesian probability?

Yes. What we know about the probability of specific events can, in part, be understood through our knowledge of the probability of previous events.

If God is a metaphysically necessary being it really doesn't matter how "unlikely" his existence is anyway.

True. But first, it would have to be established that God was metaphysically necessary.

If God is not material it's unclear what you mean by "complexity".

If God was capable of superimposing himself on every atom in the known universe and was simultaneously capable of creating things ex nihilo, it is hardly conceivable how Gods composure could be called "simple".
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2010 10:50:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Any being capable of creating something as immensely complex as the universe would have to be even more complex than the universe itself."

The universe is actually a system based on one to three premises. It's not complex at all, especially when you consider that at the time of alleged creation it was a singularity.
From a different angle, complexity results from simple things; organic chemistry is based in simple premises, as is astrophysics.
From yet another angle, positive infinity is significantly greater, but significantly less complex than the cosine of 44 degrees.
So basically, I think the second premise is highly questionable.
In addition, as someone pointed out, this proof only makes the existence of God unlikely, if its premises were true in the first place.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2010 11:02:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/16/2010 10:45:31 PM, Freeman wrote:
Yes. What we know about the probability of specific events can, in part, be understood through our knowledge of the probability of previous events.


We have have knowledge of beings who are uncaused to judge with which we can judge God's existence likeliness?


True. But first, it would have to be established that God was metaphysically necessary.


Arguments from contingency or it can even be definitional if you are talking to an Anslemian theist.


If God was capable of superimposing himself on every atom in the known universe and was simultaneously capable of creating things ex nihilo, it is hardly conceivable how Gods composure could be called "simple".

Define "complexity".
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 5:27:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's ... messy. Requires a lot of definition clarification. P1 and P2 would be better served as conclusions in prior syllogisms first.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 7:38:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/16/2010 10:11:19 PM, Freeman wrote:
The Teleological Argument Against The Existence of God

P1: Beings of immense complexity that don't have a cause for their existence are very unlikely to exist.

You are considering a single unique entity, not comparing Gods and saying oh well gods 1-17 were designed, so number 18 probably was. A better statement would, "this definition of God requires us to except the existence of a highly complex beng who exists wihtout cause."

P2: Any being capable of creating something as immensely complex as the universe would have to be even more complex than the universe itself.

Would he?
And why isn't he?
The former is an assumption which though sounds logical is not truly logical.
The latter is already claimed by believers.

Honestly, I don't like it, but I still think it might have some merit if it got tweaked a little bit.

Is it bad? Did I fail?

It might past muster in a debate, it's okay, just not great.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Tlhedglin
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 8:08:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am not so sure that things can only give rise to other things less complex than themselves, but I am not a hardcore scientist either....
lastrequest691
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 11:45:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/16/2010 10:11:19 PM, Freeman wrote:
The Teleological Argument Against The Existence of God

P1: Beings of immense complexity that don't have a cause for their existence are very unlikely to exist.
P2: Any being capable of creating something as immensely complex as the universe would have to be even more complex than the universe itself.
P3: God is described as a being that created the universe and exists uncaused. (Given)
P4: Therefore, God must be a being of immense complexity that doesn't have a cause for his existence. (From 2 and 3)
C: Therefore, God is very unlikely to exist. (From 1 and 4)


The complexity of the physical universe is often outlined as subtle evidence for the existence of God. This argument attempts to take a principle that religious people often invoke and use it to to demonstrate the improbability of God's existence.

Oh yeah, and I actually created the argument. Essentially, I took the main thesis of Richard Dawkins' "Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit" and synthesized it into a formal syllogism.

Honestly, I don't like it, but I still think it might have some merit if it got tweaked a little bit.

Is it bad? Did I fail?

You did not fail but I do not agree with you.
This Universe is not complex. Some things are hard to understand but this Universe is uniform throughout.
We do not see only our milky way having a large black hole in the centre- every galaxy is expected to have one. The same design is a proof that God created all of them because a designer always has a common blue print.

The Universe is ordered by one law everywhere- Light travels at same speed everywhere in the Universe.
"That song was absolutely waste of talent; you sounded like a wounded animal and who told you to play the guitar by yourself." Simon Cowell
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 11:54:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/16/2010 10:11:19 PM, Freeman wrote:
The Teleological Argument Against The Existence of God

P1: Beings of immense complexity that don't have a cause for their existence are very unlikely to exist.
P2: Any being capable of creating something as immensely complex as the universe would have to be even more complex than the universe itself.
P3: God is described as a being that created the universe and exists uncaused. (Given)
P4: Therefore, God must be a being of immense complexity that doesn't have a cause for his existence. (From 2 and 3)
C: Therefore, God is very unlikely to exist. (From 1 and 4)


The complexity of the physical universe is often outlined as subtle evidence for the existence of God. This argument attempts to take a principle that religious people often invoke and use it to to demonstrate the improbability of God's existence.

Oh yeah, and I actually created the argument. Essentially, I took the main thesis of Richard Dawkins' "Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit" and synthesized it into a formal syllogism.

Honestly, I don't like it, but I still think it might have some merit if it got tweaked a little bit.

Is it bad? Did I fail?

You need something for P1. "Unlikely to exist" is very, very weak. Essentially, it fails in the same regard as the argument that the Universe could not have spontaneously developed on its own.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 12:26:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 11:54:30 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/16/2010 10:11:19 PM, Freeman wrote:
The Teleological Argument Against The Existence of God

P1: Beings of immense complexity that don't have a cause for their existence are very unlikely to exist.
P2: Any being capable of creating something as immensely complex as the universe would have to be even more complex than the universe itself.
P3: God is described as a being that created the universe and exists uncaused. (Given)
P4: Therefore, God must be a being of immense complexity that doesn't have a cause for his existence. (From 2 and 3)
C: Therefore, God is very unlikely to exist. (From 1 and 4)


The complexity of the physical universe is often outlined as subtle evidence for the existence of God. This argument attempts to take a principle that religious people often invoke and use it to to demonstrate the improbability of God's existence.

Oh yeah, and I actually created the argument. Essentially, I took the main thesis of Richard Dawkins' "Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit" and synthesized it into a formal syllogism.

Honestly, I don't like it, but I still think it might have some merit if it got tweaked a little bit.

Is it bad? Did I fail?

You need something for P1. "Unlikely to exist" is very, very weak. Essentially, it fails in the same regard as the argument that the Universe could not have spontaneously developed on its own.

I think I may have worded (P1) rather poorly, but even Plantinga and Craig wouldn't deny the validity of the first premise. Secondly, the universe didn't become complex magically. As WJM pointed out, the universe began as a singularity. Complex things don't just pop into existence without a cause.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 12:30:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/16/2010 10:11:19 PM, Freeman wrote:
P1: Beings of immense complexity that don't have a cause for their existence are very unlikely to exist.

That kills your argument. Why?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 12:36:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 12:30:28 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 4/16/2010 10:11:19 PM, Freeman wrote:
P1: Beings of immense complexity that don't have a cause for their existence are very unlikely to exist.

That kills your argument. Why?

Or must we assume it as a necessary truth.
If so, your logic is AOK... assuming it's a truth.
If not, then it fails as an unjustifed contingent truth.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 1:15:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 12:26:03 PM, Freeman wrote:

I think I may have worded (P1) rather poorly, but even Plantinga and Craig wouldn't deny the validity of the first premise. Secondly, the universe didn't become complex magically. As WJM pointed out, the universe began as a singularity. Complex things don't just pop into existence without a cause.

I'm willing to bet they would and could deny it in a number of ways.

What is complexity?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 2:13:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 1:15:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/17/2010 12:26:03 PM, Freeman wrote:

I think I may have worded (P1) rather poorly, but even Plantinga and Craig wouldn't deny the validity of the first premise. Secondly, the universe didn't become complex magically. As WJM pointed out, the universe began as a singularity. Complex things don't just pop into existence without a cause.

I'm willing to bet they would and could deny it in a number of ways.

What is complexity?

Uhm...

Complexity is the the "quality of being intricate and compounded."

God simply can't be made of absolutely "nothing". And to say that God is made of absolutely nothing is the same as saying that God doesn't exist, or is merely an abstract concept. So, even without a psychical body, God would still have to be intricate and complex given the qualities he is assumed to possess.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 3:40:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 2:13:51 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 4/17/2010 1:15:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/17/2010 12:26:03 PM, Freeman wrote:

I think I may have worded (P1) rather poorly, but even Plantinga and Craig wouldn't deny the validity of the first premise. Secondly, the universe didn't become complex magically. As WJM pointed out, the universe began as a singularity. Complex things don't just pop into existence without a cause.

I'm willing to bet they would and could deny it in a number of ways.

What is complexity?


Uhm...

Complexity is the the "quality of being intricate and compounded."

God simply can't be made of absolutely "nothing". And to say that God is made of absolutely nothing is the same as saying that God doesn't exist, or is merely an abstract concept. So, even without a psychical body, God would still have to be intricate and complex given the qualities he is assumed to possess.

Why? All the theist needs to do is pull the WLC premise out 'we cannot know properties of God' and the argument crumbles.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 5:01:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 3:40:54 PM, Puck wrote:
At 4/17/2010 2:13:51 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 4/17/2010 1:15:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/17/2010 12:26:03 PM, Freeman wrote:

I think I may have worded (P1) rather poorly, but even Plantinga and Craig wouldn't deny the validity of the first premise. Secondly, the universe didn't become complex magically. As WJM pointed out, the universe began as a singularity. Complex things don't just pop into existence without a cause.

I'm willing to bet they would and could deny it in a number of ways.

What is complexity?


Uhm...

Complexity is the the "quality of being intricate and compounded."

God simply can't be made of absolutely "nothing". And to say that God is made of absolutely nothing is the same as saying that God doesn't exist, or is merely an abstract concept. So, even without a psychical body, God would still have to be intricate and complex given the qualities he is assumed to possess.

Why? All the theist needs to do is pull the WLC premise out 'we cannot know properties of God' and the argument crumbles.

No.... I don't think so. I think complexity is an intrinsic characteristic of any designing transcendent God.

Consider, for example, the prospect that some day we discover an advanced alien supercomputer that can generate virtual realities similar to the matrix. Even if we know nothing about the properties of this computer, we would still know that the computer must be complex.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 5:05:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 2:13:51 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 4/17/2010 12:26:03 PM, Freeman wrote:
I think I may have worded (P1) rather poorly, but even Plantinga and Craig wouldn't deny the validity of the first premise. Secondly, the universe didn't become complex magically. As WJM pointed out, the universe began as a singularity. Complex things don't just pop into existence without a cause.

You even stated in your P1 that God wouldn't have a cause for his existence so your point here borders on irrelevance.

Complexity is the the "quality of being intricate and compounded."

God simply can't be made of absolutely "nothing". And to say that God is made of absolutely nothing is the same as saying that God doesn't exist, or is merely an abstract concept. So, even without a psychical body, God would still have to be intricate and complex given the qualities he is assumed to possess.

Not complex =/= nothing. That would mean simple. I wouldn't maintain that the immaterial is "nothing" - just not material.

And now I'm certain Craig and Plantinga would reject your P1 for any number of reasons:

1. Divine simplicity or something extreme close to it like Richard Swineburne maintains.
God's properties wouldn't be "compounded".
2. Dualist considerations. And while I know you're not dualist it surprises me that you don't know this (because you seem at least familiar with their views) but things substances like the soul/mind aren't looked as things that are complex or even compounded. This is due to unity of consciousness arguments, simplicity arguments, etc.

Arguments like this go all the way back to Plato, man

And here's a more recent paper just for example:

http://spot.colorado.edu...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 5:24:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 12:26:03 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 4/17/2010 11:54:30 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/16/2010 10:11:19 PM, Freeman wrote:
The Teleological Argument Against The Existence of God

P1: Beings of immense complexity that don't have a cause for their existence are very unlikely to exist.
P2: Any being capable of creating something as immensely complex as the universe would have to be even more complex than the universe itself.
P3: God is described as a being that created the universe and exists uncaused. (Given)
P4: Therefore, God must be a being of immense complexity that doesn't have a cause for his existence. (From 2 and 3)
C: Therefore, God is very unlikely to exist. (From 1 and 4)


The complexity of the physical universe is often outlined as subtle evidence for the existence of God. This argument attempts to take a principle that religious people often invoke and use it to to demonstrate the improbability of God's existence.

Oh yeah, and I actually created the argument. Essentially, I took the main thesis of Richard Dawkins' "Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit" and synthesized it into a formal syllogism.

Honestly, I don't like it, but I still think it might have some merit if it got tweaked a little bit.

Is it bad? Did I fail?

You need something for P1. "Unlikely to exist" is very, very weak. Essentially, it fails in the same regard as the argument that the Universe could not have spontaneously developed on its own.

I think I may have worded (P1) rather poorly, but even Plantinga and Craig wouldn't deny the validity of the first premise. Secondly, the universe didn't become complex magically. As WJM pointed out, the universe began as a singularity. Complex things don't just pop into existence without a cause.

The funny thing is, you just rebutted your own P2. A singularity, an admitted non-complex thing, was the cause of all the varied complexity we see here today. It just doesn't make sense to say that "if X causes Y, X must be more complex than Y."

P1 can really only be supported with the combination of lack of evidence, lack of need, and Occam's razor - and with those three, you could jump straight to your conclusion.

The argument is bad due to false or shaky premises.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 5:29:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 5:01:04 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 4/17/2010 3:40:54 PM, Puck wrote:
At 4/17/2010 2:13:51 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 4/17/2010 1:15:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/17/2010 12:26:03 PM, Freeman wrote:

I think I may have worded (P1) rather poorly, but even Plantinga and Craig wouldn't deny the validity of the first premise. Secondly, the universe didn't become complex magically. As WJM pointed out, the universe began as a singularity. Complex things don't just pop into existence without a cause.

I'm willing to bet they would and could deny it in a number of ways.

What is complexity?


Uhm...

Complexity is the the "quality of being intricate and compounded."

God simply can't be made of absolutely "nothing". And to say that God is made of absolutely nothing is the same as saying that God doesn't exist, or is merely an abstract concept. So, even without a psychical body, God would still have to be intricate and complex given the qualities he is assumed to possess.

Why? All the theist needs to do is pull the WLC premise out 'we cannot know properties of God' and the argument crumbles.

No.... I don't think so. I think complexity is an intrinsic characteristic of any designing transcendent God.

Consider, for example, the prospect that some day we discover an advanced alien supercomputer that can generate virtual realities similar to the matrix. Even if we know nothing about the properties of this computer, we would still know that the computer must be complex.

Not remotely analogous. We don't know *what* God *is* if it existed, we can't place the label ~complex~ simply because of anthropic reasoning.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 5:33:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 5:05:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/17/2010 2:13:51 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 4/17/2010 12:26:03 PM, Freeman wrote:
I think I may have worded (P1) rather poorly, but even Plantinga and Craig wouldn't deny the validity of the first premise. Secondly, the universe didn't become complex magically. As WJM pointed out, the universe began as a singularity. Complex things don't just pop into existence without a cause.

You even stated in your P1 that God wouldn't have a cause for his existence so your point here borders on irrelevance.

Complexity is the the "quality of being intricate and compounded."

God simply can't be made of absolutely "nothing". And to say that God is made of absolutely nothing is the same as saying that God doesn't exist, or is merely an abstract concept. So, even without a psychical body, God would still have to be intricate and complex given the qualities he is assumed to possess.

Not complex =/= nothing. That would mean simple. I wouldn't maintain that the immaterial is "nothing" - just not material.

"I wouldn't maintain that the immaterial is "nothing" - just not material." That was my whole point. And given the attributes of God (omnipotence, omniscience etc.) God's consciousness- whatever it's made of- would have to be complex.

And now I'm certain Craig and Plantinga would reject your P1 for any number of reasons:

Ugh... I think you are referring to P2. Craig would deny P2 by saying something like "What could be more simple than a mind without any moving parts?" He would deny that God was complex, he wouldn't deny that complex uncaused things are statistically improbable.

Arguments like this go all the way back to Plato, man

That doesn't make them valid.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 6:07:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 5:33:39 PM, Freeman wrote:
"I wouldn't maintain that the immaterial is "nothing" - just not material." That was my whole point. And given the attributes of God (omnipotence, omniscience etc.) God's consciousness- whatever it's made of- would have to be complex.

All you're doing here is asserting "well a God would HAVE to be complex due to his attributes!" when there are numerous arguments for the opposite conclusion. I already mentioned divine simplicity and some derivations of it. If you want your argument to be taken seriously, unlike Dawkins' argument, you're actually going to have to show why God would necessarily be complex. Not just assert it.

Ugh... I think you are referring to P2. Craig would deny P2 by saying something like "What could be more simple than a mind without any moving parts?" He would deny that God was complex, he wouldn't deny that complex uncaused things are statistically improbable.

*sigh*

1. He would maintain that the mind isn't made of any parts AT ALL. Not just moving parts.
2. Well, if he denied God was complex that kind of makes your point about complex uncaused things rather irrelevant, doesn't it?
3. You assigning prior probability isn't going to work if you admit that we have no experience with complex uncaused things ("events" as you put it) to judge the likelihood or unlikelihood of God.

That doesn't make them valid.

I didn't say that they did. I brought it up because it's not like these are obscure arguments in philosophy and they are going to be something you have to deal with.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 8:19:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Thomas Jefferson said to speak of immaterial things is to speak of nothings.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 9:58:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 8:19:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Thomas Jefferson said to speak of immaterial things is to speak of nothings.

popculturepooka said, "Cool story, bro." ;)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2010 10:43:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/17/2010 9:58:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/17/2010 8:19:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Thomas Jefferson said to speak of immaterial things is to speak of nothings.

popculturepooka said, "Cool story, bro." ;)

*snickers in agreement*
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2010 11:25:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
P2 is verifiably false, insofar as there are no good reasons for believing that creators need be more complex than their creations. A certain game designer said, "mass quantities of information can easily be produced from much smaller quantities of information. A fractal is perhaps the most obvious example of huge quantities of new information being produced from a very small amount of initial information. For example, thirty-two lines of C++ code suffice to produce a well-known fractal known as the Sierpinski Triangle." So to assume that God must therefore be complex is an unfounded assertion and contra-observation.