A critique of Dawkins' "Argument from Complexity." (page 4)

BurnTheShips

Well, we'd have to agree on the nature of God, dearest Simon. Assuming there is such a thing as God, is it a designer?

T'would be an interesting subject. I am not ready to stake a position on it, just yet. I'd need to think about it.

BTS

Mad Dawg

Bohm said:

You wrote that i was being nasty for saying you misrepresented evolution:

I didn’t say that you were nasty, I inferred that you were being hypocritical.

Oh wait there it was - evolution is about rocks evolving. please tell me how rocks evolve. Please. What is the rock-genomen? how does rocks multiply?

I didn’t say evolution was about rocks evolving. Where did the chemicals in the primordial soup come from if it wasn’t rocks? Oh! How dare I! I am not allowed tounge in cheek comments. That is only allowed for Evo’s!

and that sort of corrolate with complexity in my head.

And that is your bottom line. Not very convincing.

I used complexity in the same sense that Dawkins did, unless you can show otherwise. I also left the complexity of God open.

Simon said:

It's up to you to come up with an example where a designer is less complex that the design to prove me wrong.

Umm… no. If one makes a positive statement, it is their responsibility to support it. To sit there and say “I am right until you prove me wrong” is intellectually dishonest. Or do you wish to be in a position of proving there is no God? Perhaps you can prove there is no multiverse?

The best thing to do would be to change the statement from “always” to “as far as we know.” But that would cut the legs out from under Dawkins statement. And we can’t have that, can we?

besty

sorry Dawg - you've lost me. can you explain your position in one sentence.

you admit the Catholics misused scripture to support an anti-science stance.

you accept the anti-science, anti-Constitutional nature of ID - or you deny the fundamentals on which the USA is built.

besty

BTS

I am not ready to stake a position on it, just yet. I'd need to think about it.

Climate change and now designer God. Indecisive or can't face the man in the mirror? You owe it to yourself to man up to the facts, wherever they lead.

besty

dawg

So let’s see if I have this right: 1. A court in Kentucky decided evolution is true.

Read the link I posted about the Dover trial and let me know whether you still think your initial premise is valid.

PSacramento

First off, IF there is a God, we do NOT know his nature so to specualte about it as a fact is, well, misleading.

To say that God is too complex because the Universe is so complex amy be correct, but lets not make it seem that what we are saying is anything more than pure speculation and is just as valid as saying that God is the simplest of things because neither one can be proven to apply to a being OUTSIDE the relm of what WE know as "nature".

Mad Dawg

I reject the notion that ID is "anti-science". The fact that a court declared it uncontitutional to teach it in public schools is irrelevant.

I entirely agree with P Sacramento. As it is pure speculation, so is Dawkins statement.

bohm

Mad Dawg:

I didn’t say evolution was about rocks evolving. Where did the chemicals in the primordial soup come from if it wasn’t rocks? Oh! How dare I! I am not allowed tounge in cheek comments. That is only allowed for Evo’s!

but yes you did say rocks evolved:

Fundi Atheists - We really don't know how we evolved from rocks, but here are some fantastical stories! Buy my books!

But apparently its all a joke, so lets leave it there. if we are going to discuss humor, lets discuss relevant humor, like creationist science.

About complexity - you dont present any argument. You just say God could be very simple, and then you wont really substantiate that in any way. This is exactly the reason why i hate non-factual arguments.

I will accept God when there is some evidence for him. For 4000 years judaism and christianity has presented none.

Deputy Dog

BTS

it is about the "argument from complexity," which I think, is a weak argument.

I agree, as I said this has more to do with causality. If God is only a cause and not an effect, then there is no debate.

bohm

If God is only a cause and not an effect, then there is no debate.

But wait, if anything is underpants, and the underpantsgnomes made all underpants, then they made God!

A critique of Dawkins' "Argument from Complexity."

Share this