How can Christians say this?

Speaking of old chestnuts, Edwin's argument (from the 1800's) about the print shop explosion is a common form of the "Argument from Complexity". the watch is another favourite. It proves nothing.

the watch is another favourite...."The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins will give you the full answer but it is a weak argument on several levels, the weakest part being...what clever chap put God together?

DNA is really quite simple. Just 4 amino acids GATC in various combinations. The more simple the life-form, the less DNA required to encode the data.

this simple equation z(n+1) = z(n)*z(n) + z produces infinity in a finite space. And it certainly looks extremely complex....Chaos scientists found that not only does the universe produce complexity from simplicity, but that it does it all the time!

If God did create it, why make it look as if maybe he had no involvement at all? To test us?

It can, however, be said that time did not exist before the Big Bang, and that it is therefore impossible to speak of anything happening before the Big Bang. Therefore, it is not entirely correct to say that something ever came from nothing, because there was no time when there was nothing.

Quantummechanics works with events in nature that are, or at least seem to be, completely random. Particle/anti-particle pairs can come into existence and annihilate again without any apparent cause. Many quantum-processes seem to happen without cause. Saying that everything must have a cause is a very bold thing to do, and would require some major scientific theories. Until and unless these theories are presented, I call the first axiom a falsehood.

Hume showed that humans cannot perceive 'cause' and 'effect', but construct these notions from past experiences. It is impossible to prove that A was the cause of B. We can only see that B happened after A, anything else is just something we think up. This casts doubt upon the notion of 'cause'.

I admit I did not know the Conklin argument was that old! However, I think the Argument from Complexity, as you describe it, although it doesn't prove anything, is evidence that intelligence was likely behind the generation of the Universe.

The point is this: if you find a watch in the woods, you assume it was make by an intelligent watchmaker.

Well, I'm no geneticist and I really can't argue with you on this one, except to say it contradicts everything I've ever heard about how complex life--even the simplest life--is. I don't think even secular biologists would deny that. DNA itself--maybe not so much. But DNA doesn't just spring out of thin air. I refer you to my post to Etruscia, regrading the Catch-22 regarding protein and nucleic acid.

Well, once you throw math at me, I'm down for the count! I can't do long division without a calculator. Nor do I know what "chaos science" is.

Even using advanced science and seeing how the processes of the Universe run according to these incredibly complex laws, doesn't refute, or even weaken, that assumption. For some, the complexity and enormity of the Universe even strengthens their belief in the divine.

I've heard this idea before--that there was no time before the Big Bang. Well, we don't know that. The Big Bang theory comes out of the fact that space is expanding. Therefore, it is logical (although not provable) to assume it was, at one point, a singularity that, for some unknown reason, began expanding. But how does this theory say anything about time, one way or the other? I've sometimes thought, philosophically, that there would have to be time before the Big Bang. Otherwise, how could the Big Bang have begun? Presumably, if there was ever a "time" when there was no Time, then Time had to be created someway. And presumably, that creation would take an increment of Time! Time seems so necessary to everything that occurs that I myself would not even wager to claim the God stands outside of Time. However, I might venture to claim that God and Time are one. Or that Time is part of His nature. Anyway...

Quote:

Quantummechanics works with events in nature that are, or at least seem to be, completely random. Particle/anti-particle pairs can come into existence and annihilate again without any apparent cause. Many quantum-processes seem to happen without cause. Saying that everything must have a cause is a very bold thing to do, and would require some major scientific theories. Until and unless these theories are presented, I call the first axiom a falsehood.

Well, it "seems" that they happen completely randomly. But isn't it common sense that everything arises from a cause--within Time anyway. I know that also sounds like a cop-out, but then again, look at Newtonian physics. As a matter of fact, look at all modern science. Doesn't scientific method base itself on the ability to use empirical observation to discover how the world works. If the world, at least in part, operates randomly, doesn't this cast doubt on the validity of science as a whole? If effects happen without any cause--just totally randomly--why bother even asking "how"?

Hume showed that humans cannot perceive 'cause' and 'effect', but construct these notions from past experiences. It is impossible to prove that A was the cause of B. We can only see that B happened after A, anything else is just something we think up. This casts doubt upon the notion of 'cause'.

Well, Hume was an nominalist. He believed that all beliefs should (and were) based purely on empirical and observational techniques. But if you talk to a realist, like Leibniz or Spinoza they would tell you that nothing can be known, for sure, through empiricism; only human reason can tell you anything solid. In my opinion, Reason, not just observation, tells us that every effect has a cause to generate it. Obviously, now we're back into epistomology. I've always thought, philosophically, that beside "I think therefore I am", we can at least be virtually certain of certain purely logical concepts. Such as "a = a" and so on. Also, I think we can include the logical notion that everything has to have a cause. Of course, we could say that the cause of these quantum particles is simply empty space at rest--it somehow causes them. But this again begs the question: "how"? To my statement "events has to have a cause" you might again reply "What caused God?". Once again, all I can say is I don't know--but it seems more logical that He exists than that He doesn't

I hope those were decent arguments. I have difficulity arguing hard science. With questions like this, I'm much more comfortable arguing philosophy. But, like I said, I accept that there is not--and can be--no proof. I also accept mainstream scientific theories such as the Big Bang, natural selection, etc. The question lies in whether it more likely that such events and natural laws arose through intelligent purpose or through chance. The order and complexity of the Universe as a whole, coupled with the vast number of things that still seem inexplicable, such as our sentience, such as Time, Infinity, human emotions and reason, and even certain evidence of supernatural occurances (I don't want you to think I'm some superstitious tinfoil-hat-wearer on that one--obviously one should look at such claims critically and skeptically with that sort of thing--but nonetheless there is a body of documented evidence of occurances with know apparent scientific explanation--draw from that what you will) convince me that it is MORE LIKELY that their is intelligent design behind the workings of the Universe.

Which came 1st the Chicken or the Egg?

Non-christian "Really? That's not proven and we don't know much about the pre big bang universe, but accepting for a moment that that your premise is correct and the universe did in fact begin that doesn't require a God. The laws of physics could have created it."

Thirdly, watches show marks of being made (marks from milling, stamping, etc.). The Universe does not show those marks. This is another huge difference between the Universe and a watch.

Fourthly, we can visit any number of watchmakers we want. We can see watches being made. We can read how watches are made. We can ask the local watchmaker to make a specially designed watch for us. If I showed you an egg and told you that I knew a man who made custom eggs, you would rightly doubt my word, for you've never seen an eggmaker. Thus the conclusion that a certain object was designed and made is based on the knowledge that such an object can be made, more than on the complexity of the object itself.

There are still more arguments against the Argument from Design. For God is surely more detailed, sophisticated and purposeful than anything in the universe? Then God must have been designed and created, by a being I will call GodGod. And GodGod must have been designed by GodGodGod, ad infinitum. If on the other hand we say that God does not need a designer, than surely we can say that the Universe, which is less complex, needs no designer. And again the Argument falls.

And in fact everything science finds seems to indicate that there is no design to the universe. Evolution shows us that life does not need to have a designer. Astrophysic models tell us how stars, galaxies etc can be formed from more or less homogenous clouds of matter. The Big Bang theory tells us how these clouds could have come into existence without any design at all. Everything we find seems to shout at us 'There is no designer! It's all just the laws of nature!' We do not need God to explain our Universe.

Until and unless all these problems are adressed, the Argument from Design is worthless. It is not proof of the existence of God.

duce wrote:

Which came 1st the Chicken or the Egg?

Chicken