I’m afraid you misunderstood my point.
Consider: The theist claims that the specified complexity of the universe requires an explanation, this explanation is God.
-The dawkinite responds “no, because this then demands the question ‘what caused God?’”
The problem with this is that it would lead to an infinite regress of explanations and nothing would ever be explained.
Actually, I understood what you said well. You are saying that god can be excused from having the same problem that the thing that he is proposed to explain has by saying that there cannot be an infinite regress. So like I said, unless a third option is found, it seems that there is either an infinite regress or something (not necessarily a god) that terminates this chain of causality. You cannot just confirm one by asserting that the other is cannot happen.
The problem with this is that it would lead to an infinite regress of explanations and nothing would ever be explained. Consider:
-Archeologists at a dig find things that look like arrowheads and pottery shards, they conclude that these are the remains of some ancient culture that designed them.
- Now imagine a colleague who says, "no, you may not conclude that, because then you must ask “who designed the designer?” So we could never come to any conclusion because we would always be asking “well, what designed that?”
First, we can infer design by intelligent beings of arrowheads because we have witnessed arrowheads being made, and all that we have witnessed being made were made by intelligent beings. Thus, an archeologists is justified in concluding that the arrowheads he finds are made by intelligent beings.
Second, design in that case is not being used to propose the existence of a being that is responsible for the existence of everything. Whether or not something (not someone, which assumes that a person did it) designed the being who made the arrowhead is irrelevant to the fact that the arrowhead was created by that being. However, if a “god” is defined as a being that is responsible for the existence of everything on the basis that everything appears to be designed, it matters a lot.
TruthSeeker60;7797594:
danserr;7789369:
Truthseeker may be confusing the “mind” with the “brain.”
When I use the word “mind”, I am referring to a self-aware entity. So far, I haven’t seen any evidence that there is anything more than a brain (and sensory organs) for an entity to be self-aware.
Ok, I think this supports my point then, that when I say “mind”, you just mean “brain.”
Reread what I wrote. I gave a definition of the word “mind” that doesn’t necessarily mean “brain.”
Your interpretation of what I said is like if I said, “I don’t define an penguin as a bird that cannot fly, but so far I haven’t seen any penguin that can fly, and won’t believe there are penguin that can fly until I have evidence,” and you say, “your are confusing birds that cannot fly with penguins.” Likewise, I said that by “mind” I am referring to something that’s self aware, and that I haven’t seen any evidence that there is a self-aware entity other than a brain.
TruthSeeker60;7797594:
danserr;7789369:
A brain, of course, is a physical thing and so very complex, but minds are remarkably simple entities
If that is so, it needs to be demonstrated rather than just asserted.
No, I am afraid this time, the burden is on you to show that such a thing is impossible.
I’m not going to let you get away with reversing the burden of proof! Any time a person makes a claim, the burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim. In this case, you made the claim that “minds are remarkably simple entities”. This needs to be demonstrated, not just asserted.
Consider:
- Theist argues that the complexity of the universe demands a designer, God.
- Skeptic says “who designed God.”
- Theist says "God, as an embodied mind, is very simple, not complex, hence needs no explanation. As long as 3. is possibly true, then “who designed God” does not work as an objection
- At this point, the skeptic may try to claim that “God must necessarily have many parts.”
I’m not claiming that a “god must necessarily have many parts”, but rather that if god is simple, it needs to be demonstrated, not just asserted.
As long as it is even possible that he doesn’t, then God could be simple, and so the claim “what caused God” would not apply.
It needs to be demonstrated to be true, not just a mere hypothetical possibility, that a god is simple in order for “what caused god” to not apply. Otherwise, you’re making assumptions.
- “mind” and “brain” are two different things, this is a large part of your confusion.
I didn’t define “mind” as being the same thing as a brain. If you want to continue on this, please
tell me how you define the word “mind” so that we can be on the same page. I already gave you what I meant by that word.
- The skeptic must show that a mind necessarily has many parts. (You can’t escape this by claiming the burden of proof is really on me because I am making the assertion. On the contrary, you are the one asserting that a mind has many parts, and since this must necessarily be the case for your objection to hold, you have a remarkably strong burden of proof to bear).
No! The burden of proof is on you because you are making the assertion that there is a mind without parts, while I’m
not making the assertion that there cannot be a mind without parts, but rather saying that if there is a mind without parts, it needs to be demonstrated, not just asserted.
