Thread: Creationists, i'm confused.

Why do you think he has to be so complex?...

Originally Posted by Jeremysr

Why do you think he has to be so complex?...

Lol really?

Because he is supposed to be God, a perfect being beyond anything fathomable by mankind...I would assume something that is so beyond comprehension due to its complexity would have be considered complex.

I don't think he's beyond comprehension because he's so complex, but because he's outside the whole physical Universe and outside of time. We can't really imagine things outside of space and time.

So somethig not complex...was able to create rules and laws that are complex? The fact that he is said to be capable of doing an inumerable amount of things (like for example keep track of all human kinds every activity such that he is able to see their sins) which require a massive amount of complex thought does not mean that he is complex?

It would take a lot of complex thought for us to do that, but God is different and he "thinks" differently than us. I don't even know how you could "think" outside of time.

I'm afraid that just because he "thinks differently" doesn't mean he wouldn't have to be pretty complex to create the rules and laws that govern the universe. I'm sorry but your response is not a very good case. you are essentially saying, God is not complex, because he thinks different then people.
That I am afraid makes no sense, even if he doesn't think like a human, the laws themselves are complex, therefore the thought behind them has to be complex as well.

Either way this isn't exactly what i'm looking for, if it is required for God to exist, simply because there is a design, then God himself also has a design that he follows, which must have been designed. That is the logic i'm asking for someone to debate.

If in order for something to exist, it must have been created, then God must either not exist, or he must have been created.

Originally Posted by Sandform

I am confused...if the fact that the universe is so complex it must have had a designer is true, then what of the designer and its own complexity?

That is exactly the issue that influenced me stop believing in God.

Originally Posted by Jeremysr

It would take a lot of complex thought for us to do that, but God is different and he "thinks" differently than us. I don't even know how you could "think" outside of time.

A mind that can conceptualize the entire universe at once and create the complex system of scientific laws is of course a complex mind. It takes a complex mind to conceptualize the full spectrum of the specifics of anything complex, especially the universe. But even if not, wouldn't something so great that it could create a universe be something that would need a creator, according to the intelligent design argument? How could something with any level of complexity just be an accident, according to the argument?

I would like to raise the question why the universe is so infinitely big. Most Christians believe there are no other lifeforms out there.

There are as many stars as grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth. Why the excess?

I dont believe in god,

but i think you are all basing these assumptions on what you have experienced within the universe, which, in fairness is minutely small.

If say there was a god, who existed outside and inside the universe at once and is beyond time-I think that it by no means would have to conform to the rules of our universe ie. something must be complex to build something complex.

that only applies in our experience in our universe, If there is a god it is most likely so far above anything our minds can comprehend we are being very arrogant and ignorant thinking it has to conform to our rules.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I dont believe in god,

but i think you are all basing these assumptions on what you have experienced within the universe, which, in fairness is minutely small.

If say there was a god, who existed outside and inside the universe at once and is beyond time-I think that it by no means would have to conform to the rules of our universe ie. something must be complex to build something complex.

that only applies in our experience in our universe, If there is a god it is most likely so far above anything our minds can comprehend we are being very arrogant and ignorant thinking it has to conform to our rules.

".. you are ALL..."? Some of us are just taking Christian points and showing how they defeat themselves. We are not saying we agree that something complex must have a creator. We are showing the limitations of that argument.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I dont believe in god,

but i think you are all basing these assumptions on what you have experienced within the universe, which, in fairness is minutely small.

If say there was a god, who existed outside and inside the universe at once and is beyond time-I think that it by no means would have to conform to the rules of our universe ie. something must be complex to build something complex.

that only applies in our experience in our universe, If there is a god it is most likely so far above anything our minds can comprehend we are being very arrogant and ignorant thinking it has to conform to our rules.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

".. you are ALL..."? Some of us are just taking Christian points and showing how they defeat themselves. We are not saying we agree that something complex must have a creator. We are showing the limitations of that argument.

Exactly, Universal gets it, infact the whole point of this is that something advanced "can" occur without a creator.

My bad.

Infinite complexity can come from, by comparison, infinite simplicity.

Example: Mandelbrot set.

Not that I'm a raving creationist or anything.

Originally Posted by Xei

Infinite complexity can come from, by comparison, infinite simplicity.

Example: Mandelbrot set.

Not that I'm a raving creationist or anything.

I don't think any creationist believes God is infinitely simple. Jeremysr is the first one I have ever come across who claims that God is simple at all. The major point is that any level of complexity, or even any level of existence, is said by the intelligent design philosophy to have to have a creator. Ray Comfort uses a coke can as an example. Intelligent design basically says, "You can't get something from nothing." So that leads to the big question... Who created God?

The answer to that question is almost always, "He has always been. He is beyond our universe and time and doesn't need a creator." As soon as they use that argument, they have said that the intelligent design principle is not universal. It has at least one exception. The discussion always leads me to asking why something that is beyond the universe and time and is timeless and has no beginning has to be a god. Why can't it just be laws of science that are not conscious and do not have human style emotions and desires? The vast majority of creationists call off the conversation at that point or before it, but one person answered the question for me. That person was Jeremysr, and he said it has to be God because one time he prayed for some lemonade when he was mowing a yard and his mother brought him some.

Yeah, I completely I agree. I was just refuting the assertion that something complex can only come from something as or more complex, 'cos it aint so.

Infinite complexity can come from, by comparison, infinite simplicity.

Example: Mandelbrot set

This is wrong.

Firstly the equation can be said to be simple, however it not basic highschool mathematics. Secondly the picture of a mandelbrot set and the equation our the same thing, it not like the pictures comes from the equation as that would be like saying I come from myself. Their the same thing like a equation can describe a line and a line can describe a equation. The equation could be describe as simple however it not because it involves complex numbers and infinity, we can only see the mandelbrot set to a certain degree.

Now is complex number simple, or summing infinty. NO!

You could say it has beauty, however simplicity I think not. Also, being able to express a equation with a few symbols doesn't make it simple.

The very fact that the universe is so complex points to an intelligent Designer. But to say that it's logical that the Designer must have a designer, is a fallacy. God is the starting point, not just the next level up.

To put it another (and more widely known) way: Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning, so something caused the universe to come into existence. But God has no beginning, and thus no cause is necessary for His existence. That's why He calls Himself "I Am."

So, just because you contest that it's logical that a complex God must have a more complex creator before Him, doesn't make it so. It's flawed logic. It replaces the theistic definition of God with a simplified concept of your own design.

Originally Posted by SilverZero

The very fact that the universe is so complex points to an intelligent Designer. But to say that it's logical that the Designer must have a designer, is a fallacy. God is the starting point, not just the next level up.

To put it another (and more widely known) way: Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning, so something caused the universe to come into existence. But God has no beginning, and thus no cause is necessary for His existence. That's why He calls Himself "I Am."

So, just because you contest that it's logical that a complex God must have a more complex creator before Him, doesn't make it so. It's flawed logic. It replaces the theistic definition of God with a simplified concept of your own design.

Well the only response to that that I can make is the one that i've already heard. If God can be infinite why can't the universe be? Why does the universe need a "beggining" if God doesn't?

Any, we aren't saying that a God would need a creator, the "intelligent design" followers are. By their OWN logic, if something serves a purpose, or is complex, then SOMETHING must have created it. The arguement invalidates itself. I am not saying a God needs a creator, I'm saying if you use the intelligent design theory, then God needs a creator. Since I don't believe in God...I can't be saying God "needs" a creator. I can only say that by your own logic he does, if you would like to abandon your own logic be my guest (those who believe in intelligent design) that is not my problem.

Another question...What incentive does a christian have for bothering to try to convert an Atheist? Appearantly NO MATTER WHAT we are going to hell. Even if we accept God, and ask for forgiveness for our transgressions, we will still be cast into Hell...Btw, lol I guess Kirk Cameran is going to hell no matter what he does too...Hahaha.

That person was Jeremysr, and he said it has to be God because one time he prayed for some lemonade when he was mowing a yard and his mother brought him some.

That's hardly really my main reason for believing in God, but I guess it must have been the only thing I said that was actual evidence to you?

Originally Posted by SilverZero

The very fact that the universe is so complex points to an intelligent Designer. But to say that it's logical that the Designer must have a designer, is a fallacy. God is the starting point, not just the next level up.

To put it another (and more widely known) way: Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning, so something caused the universe to come into existence. But God has no beginning, and thus no cause is necessary for His existence. That's why He calls Himself "I Am."

So, just because you contest that it's logical that a complex God must have a more complex creator before Him, doesn't make it so. It's flawed logic. It replaces the theistic definition of God with a simplified concept of your own design.

You apparently didn't read what I said about that. See below for a summary.

Originally Posted by Jeremysr

That's hardly really my main reason for believing in God, but I guess it must have been the only thing I said that was actual evidence to you?

You are the only person I have ever in my life gotten this far in the argument. It always hits a deadend, as it just did with Silverzero. He stopped a step short of the point I reached in the discussion. So please do your absolute best this time.

To summarize: The intelligent design argument makes an exception with God, and I don't see why it can't make the same exception with a thoughtless scientific principle. This partiular universe reportedly does have a beginning, but that does not mean that existence itself does. I agree that something transcendent to the time and matter of our universe exists. What I am asking is why you conclude that it automatically must be a god. Why does it have to be something with consciousness that involves emotions, desires, and hangups? Why do you conclude that it could not possibly be a scientific principle or set of principles that do not involve a thinking and feeling mind? I don't get that. Please explain it to me.

But God has no beginning, and thus no cause is necessary for His existence.

This is where your whole argument falls to pieces. Looks like a fallacy of assertion to me.

The question you pose in your argument is, 'what needs no cause'. Your answer is God. You define God as being an entity which needs no cause. Hence your answer to the question, 'what needs no cause', is, 'an entity that needs no cause'.

Wow, I'd never have known.

But besides, why cannot a scientific event also have no cause, just as UM said? Why does a causeless event require conciousness? Please explain, because it makes absolutely no sense at all at the moment.

Creationists don't Want to accept that 'the laws of the universe' need as much a start or a creator as a god. Actually, a lot of people, including Einstein, used 'god' as a metaphor for 'laws of the universe'.

Yeah, true. Einstein saw that the universe is beautiful enough as it is without a conscious creator, which he saw as being completely pointless. It answers no questions at all, but rather begs the initial one.

Originally Posted by Xei

Yeah, true. Einstein saw that the universe is beautiful enough as it is without a conscious creator, which he saw as being completely pointless. It answers no questions at all, but rather begs the initial one.

Neat I didn't know that one =).