An uncreated universe is more plausible than an uncreated Creator.
I’m asking you why you think uninformed impressions from superficial observations have any value, or why you think those impressions should override actual evidence and rational, logical inference.
The thing here is, complexity alone never implies a designer. Absolutely never. We know of a very nice, logical process that can lead to arbitrarily complex end products, and that’s evolution. The argument that ‘looking at a bike implies a designer’ would only work if humans themselves were designed, and thus assumes its conclusion, namely that a designer exists.
It could.
There’s still the problem of where the energy came from, and there’s still the problem of how magnificent the final atom is going to eventually be in structure, design, and function. So, how much complexity is the atom needing before you would entertain the idea of an intelligence designer?
Not really, because as I’ve already stated, I’m completely in favour of pursuing answers to these questions.
Please enlighten me, the board, and the world’s scientific community.
You can accuse me of being disingenuous if you wish, all I can do is repeat that I do not understand your question, and weather any barbs you wish to throw.
I’ve re-read it a few times, and I am going to answer what I think you are asking with: the atom.
But an intelligent designer is FAR more complicated than an atom. And yet you have no trouble believing that such a fantastically elaborate being could emerge spontaneously!
The Creator did not spontaneously appear from nothing, but exists eternally.
The atom.
Why do I need another example?
So you should have no trouble believing that the universe has existed eternally.
Someone upthread already told you: an atom’s structure and subsequent behavior derives naturally from the interactions of the four fundamental forces acting upon the atom’s three component particles. These behaviors are well defined and understood, even if we don’t fully understand the nature of these forces and particles. That is, we don’t understand what an electron is, but we can fully describe its behavior and predict with stunning accuracy how it will act in a given situation.
If it exists outside time, then it couldn’t very well be a designer then could it? Because there would be no point at which the universe was designed. Such a plan would have necessarily existed outside time and never ‘come into existence,’ just the same as your intelligent designer.
So it seems like there really isn’t any need for the designer to begin with, since the designer was always just sort of sitting outside time alongside this eternal plan which has also always existed. Either way, the conclusion must be the same: the universe was not designed.
That doesn’t help. If the creator doesn’t need a cause, then neither does the universe. Just because you find a creator more pleasing doesn’t mean it’s plausible.
The universe didn’t spontaneously appear from nothing, but exists eternally. That’s a simpler hypothesis than the one with creator and universe, and thus preferred.
Incidentally, why do you think eternal existence is any less troubling a concept, logically, than spontaneous emergence?
And you really should quit parroting that ‘nobody knows how atoms work’-canard; atoms are well enough explained with just the strong and electromagnetic forces, and those are reasonably well understood. And there’s absolutely no indication that they’re somehow impossible to understand totally.
Hold on.
I was responding to Qadgop’s claim:
The facts as understood so far include the observation of the atom’s complexity.
So, given that awe-inspiring structure, complexity and functionality doesn’t count for evidence of an intelligent designer all by itself, I want to know if there is any level of structure, design and functionality that would. Singing and dancing atoms? Would that do it? Or would the likes of Qadgop accept NO amount of complexity/functionality as evidence?
You have yet to show any reason why a magic fairy makes more sense than natural processes when natural processes have already been demonstrated to be a perfectly plausible explanation.
Obviously you’re not familiar with it since Occam’s Razor is not a theory, but merely an operating principle for scientific method. I didn’t say that rhe Razor says natural explanations be eliminated first, but that it requires it. What it actually says is that “entities should no be muliplied beyond their necessity.” This is sometimes paraphrased as the simplest explanation being the one that’s probably true, but more accurately it means that you don’t postulate unnecessary and more complex alternative hypotheses when you already have a full and plausible explanation. There is no reason to hypothesize that a goblin ate your sandwich when your dog has crumbs on his mouth.
Given the current evidence, that’s correct.
Not fair to who?
Really?
Demonstrably?
Please demonstrate the process.
Then your OP makes no sense, there is no point in discussing it, and I’m not certain why we are having this discussion. Either you are supposing that it is easier, ie more sensible to assume a creator because of irreducible complexity or you are not.
Why are you so stuck on the adjective “magnificent” in regards to the atom BTW?
The fact that you find something to be impressive, or beautiful does not mean that it cannot be the result of natural processes that do not need a creator. Your argument makes no sense if you are amenable to finding the scientific underpinnings of its behaviour. We KNOW why things have regular structure, and we have some pretty good ideas about how they came to exist, so your example is poorly illustrative of your conclusion.
Then so does the multiverse.
Every option you’ve listed there fits neatly in to either:
- Something has existed forever, or:
- The universe (or the First Cause that would become the universe) came from a very real and very literal “nothing”.