[_ Old Earth _] I'm yet to see a ID supporter explain this.

[Scott1]

I have not yet seen a SINGLE creationist adequately respond to the biggest problem of irreducible complexity:

1) If something has a certain degree of complexity, it must be intelligently designed
2) God is more complex than the thing that has that degree of complexity requiring ID
CONCLUSION: God must need to be intelligently designed himself by a more complex thing.

If God is not susceptible to this conclusion, then there is not a reason why less complex creatures themselves couldn't have been brought about by other means.


Heidi, your posts are not welcome here. Don't waste my time.

Now don't get me wrong... I'M NOT A CREATIONIST :P .... but I don't follow how accurate your "biggest problem" is...

... specifically #2: Why must God be more complex than the thing "created"?

Is this from a previous argument with an ID proponent, or did you add this because it helps move along your conclusion?

Thanks for helping me understand.
S

 

[Patashu]

The idea that intelligent things can only from intelligence (and its 'equivalent' complexity can only come from complexity) is an ID argument, yes.

 

[Scott1]

The idea that intelligent things can only from intelligence (and its 'equivalent' complexity can only come from complexity) is an ID argument, yes.

....thanks for taking the time to reply..... but.... # 2 specifically says "MORE" complex.... not that it is equivalent or less in complexity.

Is this part of the ID argument or no?

 

[Jayls5]

Premise #2 is far too simplistic and is based on a faulty concept of God.

You really need to elaborate here.

My guess: This is usually where people tell me some definition of God that tautologically makes him exempt from the argument made by the ID supporter. It commonly degrades into an argument that God is not physical, yet he can affect the physical world. This effectively allows you to deny and affirm anything you want about God and his influence on the natural world. However, the non physical God affecting physical objects results in the same logical absurdities that Descartes couldn't adequately respond to when Princess Elizabeth questioned his dualism hundreds of years ago. I doubt you want to go down that road. Maybe you had something else in mind?

my argument is analogous to the omnipotence paradox.

That's because it is.

I can adequately respond to this issue when you explain your position above.

The idea that intelligent things can only from intelligence (and its 'equivalent' complexity can only come from complexity) is an ID argument, yes.

....thanks for taking the time to reply..... but.... # 2 specifically says "MORE" complex.... not that it is equivalent or less in complexity.

Is this part of the ID argument or no?

#2 infers that the ID supporter essentially says God is more complex when he says, "This animal is too complex to be created by natural means."

Obviously, if ID supporters didn't have a problem with God being LESS complex than things he created... then it would follow that they wouldn't have a problem with evolution; it states that precisely: that simple things gave rise to more complex things through a series of natural events. The only difference would be that the ID supporter says, "I don't like the word evolution. Replace it with God." However, that would expose the obvious religious bias to which the criticism spawned from the start. (edit I was just running through it logically for you. The ID supporters themselves call it "irreducible complexity" which in itself means it couldn't have been spawned from simpler things. By their own argument, this would have to include God... unless they wanted to do the same thing as mentioned in the top of this post.

 

[Scott1]

#2 infers that the ID supporter essentially says God is more complex when he says, "This animal is too complex to be created by natural means."

Thanks for explaining.... again, I'm not an ID supporter and I generally view trying to discuss things like this the intellectual equivalent of shooting fish in barrell (with a bazooka!) but I'm generally interested in how they form their arguments..... fascinating to see how much the human mind can warp any subject if a person tries hard enough.

Obviously, if ID supporters didn't have a problem with God being LESS complex than things he created... then it would follow that they wouldn't have a problem with evolution;

I don't agree with the "obviously".... Gods physical complexity never seems to be a point of contention.... its usually the "you don't get it" or "God is supernatural and not bound by laws of nature" blah blah... maybe I've not met the "right" ID people.

I guess I just don't understand the argument... it seems a bit too "strawman" for me... but ID supporters never suprise me with the stuff they come up with.

Thanks again.

 

[Jayls5]

The idea that intelligent things can only from intelligence (and its 'equivalent' complexity can only come from complexity) is an ID argument, yes.

....thanks for taking the time to reply..... but.... # 2 specifically says "MORE" complex.... not that it is equivalent or less in complexity.

Is this part of the ID argument or no?

I'll take this a bit further. Obviously the ID crowd could have NEVER meant God is more simple than the creature he produced, given the terminology of "irreducible complexity" and their common arguments. I covered this in my last post.

That leaves just one possibility to address, the possibility that God is equally complex as the thing he produced. This would lead to all sorts of absurd conclusions. By this logic, this happens:

1) God is as complex as the things he produces
2) God produces earth worms, and thus is as complex as worms.
3) God produces elephants, and thus is as complex as elephants.
CONCLUSION: Worms are as complex as elephants. (Using the transitive property)

If this is not the case, then God is not as complex as one or the other. Thus, God must be more or less complex than the creature he creates. Since creationists say he is not less complex, we deduce they must mean more complex.

(edited for clarity)

 

[Scott1]

Since creationists say he is not less complex, we deduce they must mean more complex.

I see where you are going now... thanks again.

 

[Jayls5]

Ok, so now that we have definitively established that ID means that God is more complex than things he creates, I will cover the criticisms of my argument thus far.

1) Ad hominems
2) vague reference that it is analogous to an omnipotence paradox without explanation
3) Claims that my premise was inaccurate with no explanation


Still awaiting argumentation.

 

[Free]

You really need to elaborate here.

My guess: This is usually where people tell me some definition of God that tautologically makes him exempt from the argument made by the ID supporter. It commonly degrades into an argument that God is not physical, yet he can affect the physical world. This effectively allows you to deny and affirm anything you want about God and his influence on the natural world. However, the non physical God affecting physical objects results in the same logical absurdities that Descartes couldn't adequately respond to when Princess Elizabeth questioned his dualism hundreds of years ago. I doubt you want to go down that road. Maybe you had something else in mind?

God is not merely "more complex" but infinitely more complex--by definition, God is a necessary being, he is not created. According to your argument, if God is created by something more complex, then he really is not God but that more complex thing is. This could go on ad infinitum.

And of course I would agree that although God does not have a physical body he is still able to affect the physical world.

I can adequately respond to this issue when you explain your position above.

The problem with the "omnipotence paradox" is that it really isn't a paradox at all since it is based on a fallacious concept of omnipotence. Omnipotence does not mean that one can do absolutely anything. A logical impossibility is still a logical impossibility even when it comes to omnipotence.

 

[BobRyan]

I have not yet seen a SINGLE creationist adequately respond to the biggest problem of irreducible complexity:

1) If something has a certain degree of complexity, it must be intelligently designed
2) God is more complex than the thing that has that degree of complexity requiring ID
CONCLUSION: God must need to be intelligently designed himself by a more complex thing.

If God is not susceptible to this conclusion, then there is not a reason why less complex creatures themselves couldn't have been brought about by other means.


Heidi, your posts are not welcome here. Don't waste my time.

That is only a puzzle for atheists and agnostics.

Christians would never suppose that "IF God's origin can not be explained - then we should not insist on intelligence as the explanation for any car, computer or single-celled life form we find on this planet, after all might THEY TOO simply be things with innexplicable origins?".

The puzzle posed above only works if you start from the perspective of an atheist "looking for cover".

However - to give you some credit - your question is precisely why I.D does not allow it's scope to be taken to the level "there is a God" or "who is the designer" all it deals with is "natural or artifical" in terms of complexity and design. By natural of course we mean the standard "result of undirected natural random events".

"In the beginning GOD MADE" does not sound like

--"We know the origin of God therefore we can now see what He made".

It also does not sound like

-- "NOTHING appears to have BEEN MADE -- it all appears as though it is nothing more than undirected random events that just so happen to make this living planet".

RATHER we see the INVERSE of that in scripture for godless pagans in Romans 1 where God claims "THEY are without excuse... the INVISIBLE attributes of GOD are CLEARLY SEEN in the THINGS that have been MADE".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

God is not merely "more complex" but infinitely more complex--by definition, God is a necessary being, he is not created. According to your argument, if God is created by something more complex, then he really is not God but that more complex thing is. This could go on ad infinitum.

And of course I would agree that although God does not have a physical body he is still able to affect the physical world.

Oh, so you proved me right. God doesn't apply to the argument, but ALL other things do!

What does "infinitely complex" mean, precisely?

It lacks any definitive description other than, "Neener neener, you can't use God in your argument." - Just as I predicted.

Tautology. "God can be used however I want. You can't speak against him because I vaguely describe him in ways that let me say he doesn't apply to arguments that I use against you!"

Seriously, what a crock.

Nobody can describe the mechanism of how a nonphysical thing can affect the physical world. Descartes spent endless hours doing this and then was crushed by an amateur philosopher with a few simple questions. It's really tiring to hear the "you can't speak against my conclusion" defense.

If you want to use an argument, and you don't want your conclusion (God) to be subjected to your argument, then just say it from the start so we can call you out on what you're doing. Just like Descartes, Circular Reasoning. Welcome to the Cartesian circle.

I can adequately respond to this issue when you explain your position above.

The problem with the "omnipotence paradox" is that it really isn't a paradox at all since it is based on a fallacious concept of omnipotence. Omnipotence does not mean that one can do absolutely anything. A logical impossibility is still a logical impossibility even when it comes to omnipotence.

All powerful means you can do anything except for things that would let you do... well... anything. Fair enough.

I've heard philosophers say this, and they were ridiculed for this. For example, Leibniz said that God created the "best of all possible worlds." Logically, since God was all good but limited by logical absurdity, we live in the best world logically possible.

Voltaire has an amazing criticism to this. It was a story of someone who was tortured needlessly, and all sorts of bad things happened to him.... to which he exclaimed, "This is the best of all possible worlds!" When I trip over a rock and break my leg, logically, God couldn't have moved that rock 1/8th of an inch to prevent it. God couldn't have let the lightning strike hit 10 feet away and not collapse the church that killed hundreds of people. God couldn't have possibly designed us genetically to NOT have disorders.

I think the burden of proof is a bit more on you here. Why would ALL genetic disorders be better than a situation where at least some (or even ONE) would be designed not to happen. You'd have to rationalize away every single genetic problem away to be logically "more good" than the alternative of not having it. It's the same old "God has a plan" argument that has been spouted off since the end of time.

 

[Free]

Oh, so you proved me right. God doesn't apply to the argument, but ALL other things do!

Of course. :-? All other things are created, God is not, so the error is in your premises.

Seriously, what a crock.

No, the crock is that you have to change the very definition and nature of God in order for your argument to work.

Your argument is fallacious, that is why you can find no one to give you an answer that is agreeable to you.

Nobody can describe the mechanism of how a nonphysical thing can affect the physical world.

But everybody knows that that is irrelevant to proving that idea false. Just because no mechanism can be described doesn't mean that a nonphysical thing cannot affect the physical world. Again, fallacious.

Is gravity physical?

All powerful means you can do anything except for things that would let you do... well... anything. Fair enough.

Again, this is a problem with your logic. If you want to use logic, then use logic. If not, then abandon it all together; don't use it only when it is useful to you.

The omnipotence paradox is an error in logic; it's nonsense.

Voltaire has an amazing criticism to this.

And Voltaire also declared Christianity to be dead, or something to that affect. Yet one of his houses is/was used by the Bible Society of France.

I think the burden of proof is a bit more on you here. Why would ALL genetic disorders be better than a situation where at least some (or even ONE) would be designed not to happen. You'd have to rationalize away every single genetic problem away to be logically "more good" than the alternative of not having it. It's the same old "God has a plan" argument that has been spouted off since the end of time.

The problem with your argument and Voltaire's criticism is this: divorcing Creation from it's biblical context. You want to make an argument against God's Creation without taking into account what the Bible says about that Creation.

God created everything and said it was "good" and "very good". Then the Fall. This is what introduced death into God's good Creation; the perfect had now become imperfect and evil entered God's good Creation. It would be absolute silliness to argue that "every single genetic problem [is] logically "more good" than the alternative of not having it". Genetic problems and diseases are not good in any sense.

And perhaps the biggest of your problems is that you are making a moral argument but don't believe in God. Without God you have no moral law to argue from--no moral lawgiver means no moral law.

 

[Jayls5]

Oh, so you proved me right. God doesn't apply to the argument, but ALL other things do!

Of course. :-? All other things are created, God is not, so the error is in your premises.

So, here we go again, you say "you can't talk about my God" - because your God cannot be talked about. Nice job there.

Just add that to the argument, and then we can accurately say what you're doing: Circular Reasoning.

If your God can be talked about, tell me what can be known, discussed, and argued about. You are setting your God up to be exempt from criticism exactly as I expected.

Seriously, what a crock.

No, the crock is that you have to change the very definition and nature of God in order for your argument to work.

You are yet to define who/what God is along with his attributes. This is because people who want to support his existence love to leave him vague and untouchable by argumentation.

Your argument is fallacious, that is why you can find no one to give you an answer that is agreeable to you.

Argument Ad Populum. Try to avoid it if you are serious about debate. This is a blatant example of it.

Nobody can describe the mechanism of how a nonphysical thing can affect the physical world.

But everybody knows that that is irrelevant to proving that idea false. Just because no mechanism can be described doesn't mean that a nonphysical thing cannot affect the physical world. Again, fallacious.

It's not fallacious so much as a simple question. Can you tell me how it works and how it would support your argument? I'll happily say what things I can't explain and what doesn't support my argument. You just don't seem to want to do the same.

Is gravity physical?

From what we can tell, it is a measurable physical property of mass that can be calculated with extreme precision. What does this have to do with God? I'll answer it for you: NOTHING. This isn't even a weak analogy. It's a FALSE analogy. We can give a name for something we empirically encounter and measure, and that thing is called gravity. You give a name for "God" without any distinct definition, then you exempt it from any falsifiable criteria.

All powerful means you can do anything except for things that would let you do... well... anything. Fair enough.

Again, this is a problem with your logic. If you want to use logic, then use logic. If not, then abandon it all together; don't use it only when it is useful to you.

The omnipotence paradox is an error in logic; it's nonsense.

It's supposedly a paradox because people say "Well since God can do it anyway, it must still be true regardless of contradiction." The only way it can be possible is by giving God the ability to defy logic, which you already said he cannot do. So, it is not a paradox by your own reasoning. It is a contradiction that explicates that omnipotence doesn't really allow you to do whatever you want. This further leads to the problem of the "best of all possible worlds" which you will not address.

Voltaire has an amazing criticism
to this.

And Voltaire also declared Christianity to be dead, or something to that affect. Yet one of his houses is/was used by the Bible Society of France.

Boo hoo. Address what he talked about, and what I talked about. If you want to do a character attack, just pretend I said it all. Pretend I am the one making the case, and don't worry about how you feel about Voltaire because it has nothing to do with the topic.

I think the burden of proof is a bit more on you here. Why would ALL genetic disorders be better than a situation where at least some (or even ONE) would be designed not to happen. You'd have to rationalize away every single genetic problem away to be logically "more good" than the alternative of not having it. It's the same old "God has a plan" argument that has been spouted off since the end of time.

The problem with your argument and Voltaire's criticism is this: divorcing Creation from it's biblical context. You want to make an argument against God's Creation without taking into account what the Bible says about that Creation.

Well thanks for more vagueness there.

So your response is, "Bible!"

Not even argument, it's just "Bible!"

Well played sir. Nice and specific. It seems you try to address it poorly in the next section:

God created everything and said it was "good" and "very good". Then the Fall. This is what introduced death into God's good Creation; the perfect had now become imperfect and evil entered God's good Creation. It would be absolute silliness to argue that "every single genetic problem [is] logically "more good" than the alternative of not having it". Genetic problems and diseases are not good in any sense.

Yeah, it really begs the question WHY imperfection exists. Why would God, from the start, make a being so easily tricked by someone he knew was there trying to trick them (since he’s omniscient). You say that humans were perfect. By definition then, a perfect being would get tricked by a talking serpent into doing exactly what the ultimate authority said not to do. If not, then humanity was not perfect from the start… or a perfect being wouldn’t have been tricked! Logically, God’s perfection led to imperfection. Honestly, it sounds as though God is incompetent and vengeful about his own wrongdoing. He gives choice to a “perfect being†without the ability for a human to be skeptical about a talking serpent. He then punishes the first humans for this lack of traits that would have saved themselves from “the fall.†People were uneducated at the time and didn’t bother to question these things in an age where religion was a moral/political authority… precisely because they were a product of their situation. I wouldn’t question something so obviously contradictory either if it would result in me being a heretic, banished from society, or burned alive.

Why would God create a perfect being that was tricked? Why would God hold a PERFECT being accountable for being inquisitive about “forbidden fruit†that they were convinced to eat? If they were PERFECT, and eating the fruit was wrong, then THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ATE IT. IF THEY ATE IT, GOD MADE MAN IMPERFECT FROM THE START – BY LOGIC. More importantly, WHY would you believe this ridiculous mythological story given such a huge lack of evidence? (hunch: indoctrination as a child just like every other major religion in the world.)

And perhaps the biggest of your problems is that you are making a moral argument but don't believe in God. Without God you have no moral law to argue from--no moral lawgiver means no moral law.

Nice cop out. That's like me accusing you of making a moral argument without believing in Kant's deontology. You presuppose that your morals give you the ultimate authority to discuss morality. That's fairly presumptuous of you.

So once again, I’d like to point this out:

You claim my premise is wrong because I am wrong about God, yet you will not say what I am wrong about specifically. It’s all vague. You say “God is not created.†You say “God made everything.†You do not supply any reason to believe this besides (possibly) biblical accounts that rely on circular reasoning. You claim this is the reason why my argument doesn’t apply to God. “God is omnipotent†yet can’t defy logic. Bad things happen, and yet God has logically created the best of all worlds since he is “all good†yet has all of these things where anyone would respond, “that’s bad and has a fairly simple solution assuming I were omnipotent.†Change a gene so babies don’t die within a few years! There are countless things where it would be beneficial to mankind if they were not there. Mankind has single handedly increased the life expectancy of the average person by 2 fold with modern medicine. This increase in life expectancy allowed more knowledgeable people to come about in scientific fields that improved the standard of living. This is similar to when humans originally figured out agriculture and were able to create all sorts of wonderful inventions in their spare time.

You can take the credit of mankind fixing diseases through “God,†but you would also have to make God take the credit for the diseases that continue to persist. You can’t have your cake and eat it to. WHY do things like this exist? WHY would an all good God do this? WHY? “The Fall†is such a nonsensical answer, I can’t even begin to address it. It’s a non-answer. That’s like you asking me a serious question about if murder is wrong, then I say, “categorical imperative.†It doesn’t mean anything. I’m simply saying a phrase from a doctrine that is somewhat agreeable to lots of people. It does not support your argument. It’s just filler that pisses people off that seriously want to discuss something. It in itself would require such a huge defense by itself, you shouldn’t use it. You might notice I critiqued it above just to illustrate this fact.

You are being clearly disingenuous here. Just DEFINE God. Tell me why he wouldn’t apply to the argument without making it circular. If you don’t think you’ve made a circular argument about God, lay the argument out in simple format for me. Show me how ID would be supported, allow God, and not make it circular. I’d LOVE to see this.

 

[BobRyan]

Oh, so you proved me right. God doesn't apply to the argument, but ALL other things do!

What does "infinitely complex" mean, precisely?

Hint: The Christian does not "NEED to define God's origin before it can KNOW that a car has a designer".

Obviously.

I have not yet seen a SINGLE creationist adequately respond to the biggest problem of irreducible complexity:

1) If something has a certain degree of complexity, it must be intelligently designed
2) God is more complex than the thing that has that degree of complexity requiring ID
CONCLUSION: God must need to be intelligently designed himself by a more complex thing.

If God is not susceptible to this conclusion, then there is not a reason why less complex creatures themselves couldn't have been brought about by other means.

Bob said

That is only a puzzle for atheists and agnostics.

Christians would never suppose that "IF God's origin can not be explained - then we should not insist on intelligence as the explanation for any car, computer or single-celled life form we find on this planet, after all might THEY TOO simply be things with innexplicable origins?".

The puzzle posed above only works if you start from the perspective of an atheist "looking for cover".

However - to give you some credit - your question is precisely why I.D does not allow it's scope to be taken to the level "there is a God" or "who is the designer" all it deals with is "natural or artifical" in terms of complexity and design. By natural of course we mean the standard "result of undirected natural random events".

"In the beginning GOD MADE" does not sound like

--"We know the origin of God therefore we can now see what He made".

It also does not sound like

-- "NOTHING appears to have BEEN MADE -- it all appears as though it is nothing more than undirected random events that just so happen to make this living planet".

RATHER we see the INVERSE of that in scripture for godless pagans in Romans 1 where God claims "THEY are without excuse... the INVISIBLE attributes of GOD are CLEARLY SEEN in the THINGS that have been MADE".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Free]

So, here we go again, you say "you can't talk about my God" - because your God cannot be talked about. Nice job there.

That is not at all what I stated.

If your God can be talked about, tell me what can be known, discussed, and argued about. You are setting your God up to be exempt from criticism exactly as I expected.

No, that is not what I am doing. If you want to discuss the Christian God, then discuss the Christian God. You don't seem to like it much when others put up straw men of the ToE, so don't do it to Christian belief.

You are yet to define who/what God is along with his attributes. This is because people who want to support his existence love to leave him vague and untouchable by argumentation.

Maybe some do, but many don't. Why do you complain of me not defining God and yet presuppose things about him in your argument? If you want me to define him and his attributes, I can try. We can truly know God but we can't know him exhaustively.

Your argument is fallacious, that is why you can find no one to give you an answer that is agreeable to you.

Argument Ad Populum. Try to avoid it if you are serious about debate. This is a blatant example of it.

You are the one who claims "I have not yet seen a SINGLE creationist adequately respond to the biggest problem of irreducible complexity", as if your argument holds water. I was just answering like with like. I have not appealed to anything but your faulty logic. Your argument is unanswerable because it is an infinite regress--there is no possible answer.

It's not fallacious so much as a simple question. Can you tell me how it works and how it would support your argument? I'll happily say what things I can't explain and what doesn't support my argument. You just don't seem to want to do the same.

What in the world are you going on about man? You are the one who brought that all up thinking you had some kind of argument. I was merely pointing out your error. Of course I can't explain how it works, no one can; but, again, that does not mean that the supernatural can't affect the natural.

It's supposedly a paradox because people say "Well since God can do it anyway, it must still be true regardless of contradiction." The only way it can be possible is by giving God the ability to defy logic, which you already said he cannot do. So, it is not a paradox by your own reasoning. It is a contradiction that explicates that omnipotence doesn't really allow you to do whatever you want.

I agree. To define omnipotence in such a way that the law of non-contradiction doesn't apply is foolishness. As C. S. Lewis stated "Nonsense is still nonsense even when it is spoken of about God." (possibly paraphrased)

This further leads to the problem of the "best of all possible worlds" which you will not address.

It's not that I will not address it, I just haven't done so yet. I have addressed your argument that was the main point of this thread. And I really fail to see what the problems are.

Boo hoo. Address what he talked about, and what I talked about. If you want to do a character attack, just pretend I said it all. Pretend I am the one making the case, and don't worry about how you feel about Voltaire because it has nothing to do with the topic.

Well, Voltaire really has nothing to do with the topic either. However, there was no character attack. I was merely pointing out the irony between his life and his death.

"Voltaire has an amazing criticism to this. It was a story of someone who was tortured needlessly, and all sorts of bad things happened to him.... to which he exclaimed, "This is the best of all possible worlds!" When I trip over a rock and break my leg, logically, God couldn't have moved that rock 1/8th of an inch to prevent it. God couldn't have let the lightning strike hit 10 feet away and not collapse the church that killed hundreds of people. God couldn't have possibly designed us genetically to NOT have disorders."

I fail to see the amazingness of this argument. Why, even in the case of a "best possible world", ought God prevent evil, much less have to move a rock for someone not paying attention? This is a moral argument, which I will address again below.

Well thanks for more vagueness there.

So your response is, "Bible!"

Not even argument, it's just "Bible!"

Well played sir. Nice and specific.

I was specific and said more than just "Bible". Just as you must change the definition of God in order to make an argument, you also want to change the Christian understanding of Creation in order to make an argument against Creation. That was my point.

Yeah, it really begs the question WHY imperfection exists. Why would God, from the start, make a being so easily tricked by someone he knew was there trying to trick them (since he’s omniscient). You say that humans were perfect. By definition then, a perfect being would get tricked by a talking serpent into doing exactly what the ultimate authority said not to do. If not, then humanity was not perfect from the start… or a perfect being wouldn’t have been tricked! Logically, God’s perfection led to imperfection. Honestly, it sounds as though God is incompetent and vengeful about his own wrongdoing. He gives choice to a “perfect being†without the ability for a human to be skeptical about a talking serpent. He then punishes the first humans for this lack of traits that would have saved themselves from “the fall.†People were uneducated at the time and didn’t bother to question these things in an age where religion was a moral/political authority… precisely because they were a product of their situation. I wouldn’t question something so obviously contradictory either if it would result in me being a heretic, banished from society, or burned alive.

Why would God create a perfect being that was tricked? Why would God hold a PERFECT being accountable for being inquisitive about “forbidden fruit†that they were convinced to eat? If they were PERFECT, and eating the fruit was wrong, then THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ATE IT. IF THEY ATE IT, GOD MADE MAN IMPERFECT FROM THE START – BY LOGIC.

And here you have led quite perfectly (pun intended) into another major problem for your position.

I have seen the use of the argument in here recently that God would not have created the Universe to appear old when it was actually young because that would be deceptive. However, here you are arguing that God given freedom to choose, probably the most valuable thing given to us, shows imperfection. To state it another way, you think it is more logical for God to have created a world in which we could only choose to do good, but this makes any notion of freedom deception by God.

So now the burden of proof is on you to show how the idea of a perfect being precludes making a bad choice.

More importantly, WHY would you believe this ridiculous mythological story given such a huge lack of evidence? (hunch: indoctrination as a child just like every other major religion in the world.)

Were you raised an atheist or a Christian (or some other religion)? 8-)

Nice cop out. That's like me accusing you of making a moral argument without believing in Kant's deontology. You presuppose that your morals give you the ultimate authority to discuss morality. That's fairly presumptuous of you.

It is precisely because an objective reference for morality exists that I can discuss morality. If there is no objective reference, then morality no longer truly exists.

So once again, I’d like to point this out:

You claim my premise is wrong because I am wrong about God, yet you will not say what I am wrong about specifically. It’s all vague. You say “God is not created.†You say “God made everything.†You do not supply any reason to believe this besides (possibly) biblical accounts that rely on circular reasoning. You claim this is the reason why my argument doesn’t apply to God. “God is omnipotent†yet can’t defy logic. Bad things happen, and yet God has logically created the best of all worlds since he is “all good†yet has all of these things where anyone would respond, “that’s bad and has a fairly simple solution assuming I were omnipotent.†Change a gene so babies don’t die within a few years! There are countless things where it would be beneficial to mankind if they were not there. Mankind has single handedly increased the life expectancy of the average person by 2 fold with modern medicine. This increase in life expectancy allowed more knowledgeable people to come about in scientific fields that improved the standard of living. This is similar to when humans originally figured out agriculture and were able to create all sorts of wonderful inventions in their spare time.

You can take the credit of mankind fixing diseases through “God,†but you would also have to make God take the credit for the diseases that continue to persist. You can’t have your cake and eat it to. WHY do things like this exist? WHY would an all good God do this? WHY? “The Fall†is such a nonsensical answer, I can’t even begin to address it. It’s a non-answer. That’s like you asking me a serious question about if murder is wrong, then I say, “categorical imperative.†It doesn’t mean anything. I’m simply saying a phrase from a doctrine that is somewhat agreeable to lots of people. It does not support your argument. It’s just filler that pisses people off that seriously want to discuss something. It in itself would require such a huge defense by itself, you shouldn’t use it. You might notice I critiqued it above just to illustrate this fact.

And what is the atheistic evolutionist's answer to the problem of evil: "just wait a little longer" as though more time + more matter + more chance = solution? The huge problem for you is that good and evil do not objectively exist so your argument can't even get off the ground. You accuse me of a non-answer when you have a non-argument.

You want to argue against the Christian God but you do not let the Christian argue from Christian belief.

You are being clearly disingenuous here. Just DEFINE God. Tell me why he wouldn’t apply to the argument without making it circular. If you don’t think you’ve made a circular argument about God, lay the argument out in simple format for me. Show me how ID would be supported, allow God, and not make it circular. I’d LOVE to see this.

Simply because we exist rather than nothing. Do you agree that that which exists began at a point in time?

 

[Jayls5]

So... after all that.... you still didn't define God like i asked. You go ahead and do that for me now.

I'll be responding to the rest of that thing you call an argument in a short while.

 

[BobRyan]

In my previous response to this I "assumed" that the discussion was between Christians who accept vs reject atheist darwinism.

Reading the post below it occurs to me that this is not the case.

I have not yet seen a SINGLE creationist adequately respond to the biggest problem of irreducible complexity:

1) If something has a certain degree of complexity, it must be intelligently designed
2) God is more complex than the thing that has that degree of complexity requiring ID
CONCLUSION: God must need to be intelligently designed himself by a more complex thing.

If God is not susceptible to this conclusion, then there is not a reason why less complex creatures themselves couldn't have been brought about by other means.


Heidi, your posts are not welcome here. Don't waste my time.

So given that change of context for the question - a slightly different response on my part is needed.

First a few facts.

1. The ENTIRE REASON for the I.D. Evolutionist argument instead of the atheist darwinian argument is that I.D has no "origin myth" to religiously defend. It can do things like discuss the SCIENCE of the Krebs cycle WITHOUT launching into mythology about abiogenesis or wild imaginings about how "one thing came from another -- stories easy enough to tell but they are NOT science"

http://www.johnkyrk.com/krebs.html

2. Having the ability to "stick with science" apart from "story telling" is viewed as a weakness in I.D if you look closely at the OP. Clearly there is some unclear thinking going into that question in that case.

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

So, here we go again, you say "you can't talk about my God" - because your God cannot be talked about. Nice job there.

That is not at all what I stated.

Oh I'm quite aware. I was implying that you had no intention of explaining God in any meaningful and non-vague way that would let me apply him to any argument. You would just say vague things about him and deny any premise I create about God that happens to lead to a conclusion that is disagreeable to you. All the while, you avoid assigning any real attributes to God. By the way... you're doing a smashing job of this so far.

If your God can be talked about, tell me what can be known, discussed, and argued about. You are setting your God up to be exempt from criticism exactly as I expected.

No, that is not what I am doing. If you want to discuss the Christian God, then discuss the Christian God. You don't seem to like it much when others put up straw men of the ToE, so don't do it to Christian belief.

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to make a straw man about a Christian God. These are attributes of God that I have been told about by Christians before. Like I asked, tell me about this Christian God I am so wrong about. Instead of just telling me what I am wrong about, let's hear a real description of God and his attributes.

You are yet to define who/what God is along with his attributes. This is because people who want to support his existence love to leave him vague and untouchable by argumentation.

Maybe some do, but many don't. Why do you complain of me not defining God and yet presuppose things about him in your argument? If you want me to define him and his attributes, I can try. We can truly know God but we can't know him exhaustively.

It appears you're heading in the direction of those select few you speak of who don't. I "presuppose" things that have been told to me by Christians. You can go ahead and tell me these Christians are wrong about God, and then I will happily discuss an argument about your conception of God and how it will be incompatible with ID.

You are the one who claims "I have not yet seen a SINGLE creationist adequately respond to the biggest problem of irreducible complexity", as if your argument holds water. I was just answering like with like. I have not appealed to anything but your faulty logic. Your argument is unanswerable because it is an infinite regress--there is no possible answer.

'No creationist adequately responding' wasn't part of my argument. I was just saying that I haven't seen it. That's not an argument. It's merely my experience that I was trying to get someone to remedy.

Correct on the next section though! You're starting to see my point. It's not faulty logic on my part though. It's faulty logic on the ID side, which I am exposing. The necessary conclusion of the ID argument is an infinite regress of more complex creators, each with an even greater philosophical problem of where it came from. That, or you'd have to admit that a naturalistic explanation for complexity is a valid potential conclusion from the argument. Since no ID supporter would allow infinite regress (since they want it to stop at God), they must realize that their premise is faulty. Things of a certain degree of complexity are thus NOT required to have more complex creators, and this would allow complexity to develop naturally. The only way to keep God as a potential conclusion while denying the ability for naturalistic evolution to occur would be to add more premises into the original argument that would basically tautologically establish God. This is circular reasoning though, and isn't valid.

Now I've basically suggested that you're on your way to doing this, and that's why I asked you to make your point about the attributes of (your) God so I could address them. I'm yet to see them, despite numerous requests.

It's not fallacious so much as a simple question. Can you tell me how it works and how it would support your argument? I'll happily say what things I can't explain and what doesn't support my argument. You just don't seem to want to do the same.

What in the world are you going on about man? You are the one who brought that all up thinking you had some kind of argument. I was merely pointing out your error. Of course I can't explain how it works, no one can; but, again, that does not mean that the supernatural can't affect the natural.

In all seriousness, step back for a second and reread the part in bold.

Assume you are on my side. Better yet, let's say I told you this:

I can't explain how abiogenesis works, no one can; but, again, that does not mean that it didn't happen... it did.

Do you see what a weak answer that is? It's practically a non answer you gave me. It has nothing substantiative at all supporting it. You are doing precisely what I said you would: Circular reasoning. You assert God, say he has the ability to do mythical things, then you deny the possibility of ANYONE explaining it. I mean, seriously, this might work when you indoctrinate your children into your religion, but those who uphold to some sort of standards of reason and logic are going to laugh this off immediately.

It's supposedly a paradox because people say "Well since God can do it anyway, it must still be true regardless of contradiction." The only way it can be possible is by giving God the ability to defy logic, which you already said he cannot do. So, it is not a paradox by your own reasoning. It is a contradiction that explicates that omnipotence doesn't really allow you to do whatever you want.

I agree. To define omnipotence in such a way that the law of non-contradiction doesn't apply is foolishness. As C. S. Lewis stated "Nonsense is still nonsense even when it is spoken of about God." (possibly paraphrased)

Fair enough.

This further leads to the problem of the "best of all possible worlds" which you will not address.

It's not that I will not address it, I just haven't done so yet. I have addressed your argument that was the main point of this thread. And I really fail to see what the problems are.

Boo hoo. Address what he talked about, and what I talked about. If you want to do a character attack, just pretend I said it all. Pretend I am the one making the case, and don't worry about how you feel about Voltaire because it has nothing to do with the topic.

Well, Voltaire really has nothing to do with the topic either. However, there was no character attack. I was merely pointing out the irony between his life and his death.

I fail to see the amazingness of this argument. Why, even in the case of a "best possible world", ought God prevent evil, much less have to move a rock for someone not paying attention? This is a moral argument, which I will address again below.

Voltaire had plenty to do with the topic if you were to accept a moral argument about God. He was ridiculing the idea that God, since limited by logic as you say, would have created THIS world as the best of all possible worlds as an ALL GOOD God. The moment you find ONE thing that could have been done better... the moment you find the one instance that is disagreeable from a moral standpoint that was easily (and inconsequentially) avoided, it shows that God is either NOT All Good, or He's incompetent. Voltaire's purpose was to illustrate the absurdity of the only possible excuse for the argument, that we as 'finite beings' couldn't understand the greatest good from our perspective. Lightning strikes a church and kills hundreds, a meteorite hits an innocent man walking down the street, a boulder rolls down a hill and kills a family driving down the road, a tornado kills a baby, a tsunami kills tens of thousands of innocent people, and WE are to accept the claim that we lack the grand perspective of God and what is best for us.

I was specific and said more than just "Bible". Just as you must change the definition of God in order to make an argument, you also want to change the Christian understanding of Creation in order to make an argument against Creation. That was my point.

I didn't change anything. I took attributes of God given to me by Christians. It's just not your God, and that's fine. Like I said, I'll happily debate a God with the attributes you tell me he has. I said I had a hunch that it would be circular if you were trying to assert God's existence from any ID argument. I won't know for sure until you follow through with his descriptionl

And here you have led quite perfectly (pun intended) into another major problem for your position.

I have seen the use of the argument in here recently that God would not have created the Universe to appear old when it was actually young because that would be deceptive. However, here you are arguing that God given freedom to choose, probably the most valuable thing given to us, shows imperfection. To state it another way, you think it is more logical for God to have created a world in which we could only choose to do good, but this makes any notion of freedom deception by God.

I really don't see it as a major problem with my position when you give it more thought.

If perfection entails choice, then we cannot make a single wrong decision as a perfect being. Worst case, we would have the choice to do wrong, but we would just never make that choice.

Unless you're using some totally off the wall definition of "perfection" I really don't see how you can get around something perfect doing something wrong. If it's possible for something perfect to do wrong, tell me how they were perfect from the start. I'd really have to hear your definition of perfection to possibly begin to rationalize this one.

So now the burden of proof is on you to show how the idea of a perfect being precludes making a bad choice.

What?? I don't see how this follows in the last bit.

I was the one asking YOU this. How is that possible? You're the one claiming he was perfect and made a mistake, not me!

More importantly, WHY would you believe this ridiculous mythological story given such a huge lack of evidence? (hunch: indoctrination as a child just like every other major religion in the world.)

Were you raised an atheist or a Christian (or some other religion)? 8-)

I was raised without an indoctrinated religion. My mother spoke cryptically of being spiritual, and she took me to different churches on occasion for me to get an idea of what they were like. I did Sunday school at a few different churches. My father is a Zen Buddhist. Neither parent spoke to me as though their religion was indesputably correct, and they encouraged me to find out for myself what to believe.

Nice cop out. That's like me accusing you of making a moral argument without believing in Kant's deontology. You presuppose that your morals give you the ultimate authority to discuss morality. That's fairly presumptuous of you.

It is precisely because an objective reference for morality exists that I can discuss morality. If there is no objective reference, then morality no longer truly exists.

Seriously, shame on you.

You violate so many different ethical principles with that one statement it's staggering. You violate notions of discourse ethics as described by Habermas. You violate the second formulation of the categorical imperative dictated by Immanuel Kant. You also arguably violate utilitarian ethics with that mentality.

Don't flatter yourself. You have a subjective interpretation of a (supposedly) objective source of morality. You don't have much more than that. Lots of moral doctrines exist, each with similar ends. You claim yours is better just like everyone else and their moral doctrine. Your pretentious attitude about your morals speaks wonders about your religion and its pristine history.

You can take the credit of mankind fixing diseases through “God,†but you would also have to make God take the credit for the diseases that continue to persist. You can’t have your cake and eat it to. WHY do things like this exist? WHY would an all good God do this? WHY? “The Fall†is such a nonsensical answer, I can’t even begin to address it. It’s a non-answer. That’s like you asking me a serious question about if murder is wrong, then I say, “categorical imperative.†It doesn’t mean anything. I’m simply saying a phrase from a doctrine that is somewhat agreeable to lots of people. It does not support your argument. It’s just filler that pisses people off that seriously want to discuss something. It in itself would require such a huge defense by itself, you shouldn’t use it. You might notice I critiqued it above just to illustrate this fact.

And what is the atheistic evolutionist's answer to the problem of evil: "just wait a little longer" as though more time + more matter + more chance = solution? The huge problem for you is that good and evil do not objectively exist so your argument can't even get off the ground. You accuse me of a non-answer when you have a non-argument.

My argument doesn't hinge on my belief in objective morality; it hinges on yours. I assure you, the law of noncontradiction applies to your stance regardless of my personal moral beliefs. This is a standard argumentative tactic that you should be aware of. You can attack the other person's position by assuming it is true.

You want to argue against the Christian God but you do not let the Christian argue from Christian belief.

Like I said, it's just not your Christian God... because you already said nobody can know anything about your God. Except... you say any of my premises about your God are false when it results in something you appear not to like. Not surprising.

You are being clearly disingenuous here. Just DEFINE God. Tell me why he wouldn’t apply to the argument without making it circular. If you don’t think you’ve made a circular argument about God, lay the argument out in simple format for me. Show me how ID would be supported, allow God, and not make it circular. I’d LOVE to see this.

Simply because we exist rather than nothing. Do you agree that that which exists began at a point in time?

I don't think I could have been clearer on this statement. You're just evading with enormous philosophical questions. By the way, ask that exact question in a thread you start yourself, and I'll be happy to address it.

 

[proponent]

Oh, so you proved me right. God doesn't apply to the argument, but ALL other things do!

Of course. :-? All other things are created, God is not, so the error is in your premises.

But your argument for humans having been created is their complexity. How does this not lead to the question of why is god not obviously created if he is complex the way humans are. Your answer to the question originally posed in the thread is "How can you know God is not created if god is complex" (Paraphrased) and your answer is God is not created. The logic is almost circular, except that it goes nowhere at all.

 

[BobRyan]

God is not "nature to be explained" --- "by definition".

If the atheist darwinist want's to claim "yes but nature IS my god so I should not have to explain it any more than others have to explain THEIR infinite eternal God" they are making a religious statement and can in that respect claim some kind of comparison. In fact it is very frank of them to admit to the true religionist nature of their positions.

However it is far more intuitive that if you ARE going to admit to an infinite eternal god to worship -- far better that this be one who CLAIMS to be God rather than "rocks".

Bob