Actually it does make some sense.
If the atoms on your keyboard suddendly jumped up and sang a rendition of Bing Crosby’s “I’m dreaming of a White Christmas” at you, and I then piped in with “complex enough for you?”, you’d look pretty silly repeating your line of:
Just how much complexity is needed before a designer/creator becomes “sensical” to you, Qadgop the Mercotan?
You mean like a micro-processor?
That seems too easy, I may have misunderstood your question.
Unfortunately we are the result of his 3rd grade science project. I think I read somewhere that he never was very good at science.
When you look at a bicycle, do you believe that mere observation of the bike alone doesn’t even lean towards the likelihood of a designer?
If you think that’s a valid assertion to make in this sort of debate, then we’re obviously talking past one another completely here. We don’t even seem to be on the same topic.
I am trained in science, not sophistry.
As such, I’ll leave it to others more patient than I to carry on this thread, if they so choose.
But surely a world-designing intelligence is a complex entity in and of itself. Why couldn’t our physical world with all its complexity have emerged from this non-physical world on its own, rather than by the hand of a creator?
Assuming a creator requires that you account for two complex systems; whereas if you don’t assume a creator, you just have to account for one. Either way, you are left with a complex system that apparently emerges from nothing. Occam’s Razor therefore would seem to argue that a creator is superfluous.
If you accept that an extraterrestrial intelligence can emerge spontaneously, then why not an atom?
:dubious: Watchmaker analogy - Wikipedia
It’s not a coincidence, it’s a necessary consequence of physical laws; as to why they are exactly as they are, it’s true that there’s some current ambiguity because the fundamental constants of the standard model of particle physics do not appear to be set in stone, so to speak, so there’s no real necessity for them to be that way. However, that may merely be a fault in our understanding, and it could be that they are the only way they can be, as well – that we in fact live in Leibnitz’ ‘best of all possible worlds’, due to some form of a variational principle (which, generally speaking, says that processes in nature happen in such a way that a certain quantity, known as the action, is minimized – I’ve not really got time to go into the details, but just think of it as nature considering all possible ways to do something, and then deciding on the optimal case; our universe might well be that optimal case).
Or, you could subscribe to something like the anthropic principle, which essentially states that we’re observing the universe as it is because, if it were different, we wouldn’t be here to observe it. There also might be infinitely many ‘parallel’ universes, among which at least one would have to admit physical characteristics the way we observer them. There’s even been the proposition of a kind of cosmological evolution (by Lee Smolin), going on the assumption that basically, black holes are ‘child-universes’, and thus universes in which many black holes are created are more successful in an evolutionary fitness kind of way, and the conditions that lead to the formation of black holes are those that also lead to the formation of matter, and chemical processes that end up as life forms…
Point being, there are a number of alternative hypothesis to a creator god other than ‘it just happened by chance’ – which would, I agree, be pretty insufficient if provided as the sole alternative --, and all of those are considerably more ‘sensical’ than the notion of an all-powerful being that is able to instigate creation without somehow itself needing a creator (by the way, this kind of special pleading for the supernatural – ‘it’s not scientific, so it don’t need to play by the rules’ – doesn’t really work out, in this case because I can just as easily claim that the universe doesn’t need a creator as you can that god doesn’t need one, but in general because there’s no real way to reason about such a notion, and thus no way to conceive of its existence as something other than a ‘I don’t really want to have to bother with logic right now’-catch all; or, it’s surprisingly difficult to conceive of something that can exist while simultaneously being ‘non-scientific’).
Well that’s not quite what I believe. I believe that the intelligent designer exists outside of time, and exists eternally, hence, did not, at some point, “emerge spontaneously”.
Not really relevant, I feel.
Most “Challenges to the Watchmaker Analogy” are to do with things other than the mere observation of the (object) alone.
So how does a being which exists outside of time (and presumably space, as well) create and interact with objects in space and time? For that matter, what does it mean to exist outside of time?
Or you’re dodging it.
Well, duh. Nobody’s desputing that atoms or watches exist.
There is nothing in the unverse which is analogous to your example.
What non-man made example in the universe do you see that is analogous to a bicycle? What do you see in the universe that shows “design” that was not made by people or animals?
I mean this with no disrespect, but you honestly don’t seem to have much knowledge about atoms and what science has found regarding them. Because of our understanding of nuclear mechanics, we have been able to narrow down what could be possible in terms of creating atoms. We have solid theories. We can test these theories.
If you are knowledgeable on this topic and still reject the idea that we know how atoms are created, then please tell me what processes occur within stars to make it appear that they are forming elements.
Indeed, it seems as though you’re prepared to entertain any number of hypothesis, many of which are based on nothing more than speculation - but you just won’t entertain the idea of a creator?
But even atheists are forced to believe that either:
If you find the idea of an uncreated creator a bit silly, then you also have to find point 1 equally silly. To believe in point 2 takes more faith than any religious fanatic could ever dream of possessing.
So what?
Good question.
Well, time is what allows us to not do everything all at once, so that would be how the Creator is having to do everything - all at once. That’s how he/she/it would get around the “time” problem.
You need to show a necessity for a creator. That’s how it works. If there’s no necessity for magic, there’s no reason to consider it. Are you familiar with Occam’s Razor? The Razor requires that all natural explanations be eliminated before you need to consider magic.
There is no reason not to believe option 1. The “something” does not have to be this physical universe. That’s just the current (or a current) manifestation of an underlying and eternal quantum matrix.