No, YOU don’t know what an electron is, and you haven’t bothered to read any of the links that have been given to you. Go back and find the link on nuclear fission.
Incidentally, even if we didn’t know what an electron is (which we do), it would not then mean that a magic fairy must have made it.
But you’ve just violated “mere observation alone”. You can’t use your knowledge of other man-made mechanical objects and the similarities it bears to the bike.
Err… if by “non-sensical” you mean “extremely logical”, then we’re in agreement.
Really?
Because a non-physical designer requires zero physical parts, unlike an atom, so why would the designer be even more complex?
Define “complex.” I can tell you categoricvally that there is nothing yet discovered in the universe which is too “complex” to be explained by ordinary physical processes.
Interesting logic here.
Assume your premise to be true (there’s no designer), then use that premise to conclude no designer is required?
Why it is the difference between a “non-physical” entity and nothing at all (i.e. what is the difference between a thing that is non-physical and a thing that does not exist)? How does a non-physical entity interact with the physical universe.
Assertions aren’t arguments.
I’ve explained this one a few times, now.
Have you posted this in the right forum?
A response like that is better aimed at some sort of Bible-literalist Christian.
there was no such premise inherent in that statement. ILM was asking why YOU would presume a necessity for magic to explain perceived “complexity” when we have observable examples of so-called complexity existing with no need of magic.
They certainly aren’t.
Can you provide cites for any of your assertions concerning your god’s aspects and/or abilities?
What methods for exploring the properties and origins for atoms would allow for the possibility of a creator, exactly? Because science has no need to “allow for the possibility.” The scientific method involves forming a hypothesis, finding a way to test it, and then testing it over and over again. If the tests prove the hypothesis correct repeatedly, it becomes a theory.
If there the evidence doesn’t back up the hypothesis, then we look for a new hypothesis. We have had no need to discard the current theories about atoms, because all evidence supports our current understanding. There’s no hole in our knowledge that needs to be filled with a creator. We don’t “allow” for the possibility for a creator because it isn’t needed.
That’s what we keep trying to tell you.
But your explanation doesn’t work. Claims like “God is eternal” or “God just appeared” can be applied to ideas far simpler and far more plausible than God.
God is a wildly implausible claim; an obvious human ego fantasy. God is the last place, not the first that you go for an explanation. And purely as a practical matter - in all of history, the people who have tried to use God as an explanation have ALWAYS been wrong. Not a good track record.
I see what you’re saying.
The idea that the Creator exists in a non-physical timeless state is inferred only. It’s a bit like how scientists infer things about evolution, ie, “given that evolution is true, we now know that chimps and humans must have evolved from a common ancestor”.
I’m doing the same thing.
But it shouldn’t.
We understand perfectly how clocks work. This does not remove the need for a designer.
No it isn’t.
All of my positions regarding the nature of the non-physical creator are inferred from a starting premise, I haven’t just “dreamed them up”. Ie, if matter is created by the creator, then we can safely infer that the Creator is not composed of matter.
You actually haven’t. You just keep trying to declare by fiat that your fairy is subject to different logical rules than the universe. “Because I say so” is not an argument. iIf your fairy is “complex,” (and it would have to be significantly more complex than the universe) and it doesn’t need a creator of its own, then complexity doesn’t need a creator. If complexity doesn’t need a creator then the universe doesn’t need a creator.
No!
Please read the whole thread before making invalid assertions!
But I’ve repeatedly stated I am in favour of investigating how things work!
Please do not bring your baggage from debates with other Creationists to this discussion!
Very little to no complexity could make it “more sensical” that no designer is required.
No problem.
The creator is immaterial - no physical complexity required.
That’s like me saying my Creator renders your matrix unnecessary, which I have sneaking suspicion is not an argument you would accept.