Here is how atheists like Dawkins construct their "reasoning" against legitimate probability arguments (fine tuning; origin of life, etc.).
- First they claim that any designer of any complex thing must be more "complex" than their creation.
- Then they claim that threfeore the odds of the more complex creator coming into existence must "be vastly more improbable" than than the odds against the complex thing (fine tuned universe; origin of life, etc.) arrising without a designer.
- Finally they conclude that (given such a vast improbability) therefore "God almost certainly does not exist".
Therre are several variations of this type of argument (which are not always as explicit). The arguments are full of fallacies:
- First they claim that any designer of any complex thing must be more "complex" than their creation. -This argument relies upon the equivocation of the definition of complexity. However, even if is assumed vaild the following reasoning chain is still invalid.
- Then they claim that therefore the odds of the more complex creator coming into existence must "be vastly more improbable" than than the odds against the complex thing arising without a designer. -The central problem with argument is that it is only valid against hypothetical designers that had to themself "come into existence"; "pop into existence" etc. It says nothing whatsoever ever against the probability of a God that has always existed. For atheists to attempt to use this as an argument against the existence of an eternal God is dishonest argumentation.
- Finally they conclude that (given such as vast improbability) therefore "God almost certianly does not exist". -Having assumed that any God must have an equivalent type of complexity, and having assumed that such a God could not be eternal, and must have come into existence they then proclaim God's non-existence by the same or greater mathematical odds used against fine tuning, origin of life, etc. Such reasoning equates improbability of coming into existence by chance with improbability of existence -even for beings not believd to have come about by chance!)
They never do present a real probability argument against an eternal God, (let alone against an eternal God not composed of "part" componets). Instead, they (Dawkins and his parrots) use the above reasoning and claim to have shown the improbability of the existence existence of any creator God.
If they do discuss the issue of possiblity of an eternal creator (or ones not composed of componet parts), they will generally dismiss such a creator God without any legitimate probability argumentation, and then shift to a discussion of "why can't they propose an eternal universe?". (which of course is not the subject directly under debate).
Anyway, the concept of an eternal fine tuned universe, or life without an origin, has been suggested and rejected by even most atheistic scientists for many reasons (such as thermodynamic evidence for a beginning to this universe). Instead (to try to escape the testable design inference), they invoke the multi-verse "explanation" -which is argued by many to be a retreat into untestability.
http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
2. Naturalism vs. Science
- Covers issues in the philosophy of science.
- Explains the difference between scientific and non-scientific theories, particularly the key role of testability.
- Documents that evolutionists themselves have thoroughly endorsed testability as the criterion of science in all the key creation/evolution court cases.
The book later argues that evolution is not science — using the evolutionist's own criterion of testability. Some evolutionary leaders are quoted essentially admitting that. The book argues that the new creation theory is testable science, and evolution is not. This role reversal is noteworthy since it engages the debate on the evolutionists' terms using their own criterion of science. It is also a departure from previous creationist positions.
- Debunks the evolutionists' attempts to define creation out of science:
- Identifies cases where evolutionists use a double standard — one standard for creation theory, and a lesser one for evolution.
- Shows that theories involving an intelligent designer are already accepted by evolutionists as testable science. Therefore, evolutionists cannot claim such theories are inherently unscientific.
- Debunks the evolutionist's assault on the argument from design. Shows that the argument from design can be thoroughly convincing. For example, we often show that someone's death was not accidental, that it was designed — and we show it so compellingly that we execute the 'designer'.
- Shows that some statements about the supernatural can be testable science. The key is that science must remain self-consistent, it cannot be allowed to contradict itself, and this sometimes forces us to accept some element of the supernatural. Gödel's Theorem (from the logic of mathematics) is discussed as a precedent setting example. This is a contribution to the wider philosophy of science as well as the origins debate.
- Shows the anthropic principle is not testable, and so not science by evolutionists' own criterion. It reveals an illusion involving a three-shell game ruse, much like is later revealed for natural selection.
