Problems w/ Atheism

[SonofMonica]

You realize the fallacy in your argument, right?

You point out that life is too awesome and too amazing to not have had help to become what it is, and suggest as an explanation something that’s even more awesome and amazing, but didn’t have any help to become what it is.

You point out the high degree of complexity in the universe, and invoke an infinitely complex God to explain it.

Your argument is not consistent. If the universe is too awesome, amazing or complex to have arose without help, then the same is true of God. Moreso, even.

You do realize that not everyone accepts Dawkin’s “complex designer problem” as a real problem, right?

How do you define “infinite complexity?” What makes something complex? More information? As Vox Dei pointed out,

any programmer knows (that) mass quantities of information can easily be produced from much smaller quantities of information. A fractal is perhaps the most obvious example of huge quantities of new information being produced from a very small amount of initial information. For example, thirty-two lines of C++ code suffice to produce a well-known fractal known as the Sierpinski Triangle.

---

Despite their informational simplicity, fractals are not only considered to be complex, but infinitely complex. Nor do they require human intelligence or computers to produce them, as approximate fractals can be found in clouds, snowflakes, lightning, mountains, and other natural examples. This demonstration of complexity from simplicity could be termed the Fractal Intelligence response to the theoretical problem of the Complex Designer posed by Dawkins.

 

[gearhead]

You do realize that not everyone accepts Dawkin’s “complex designer problem” as a real problem, right?

Perhaps when it comes to complexity. But would you say that God is not “awesome”?

How do you define “infinite complexity?” What makes something complex? More information? As Vox Dei pointed out,

Well, if we accept the idea that simple systems can increase in complexity, then the “problem” of the original problem disappears: the universe is very complex, but this doesn’t imply special intervention by any sort of deity, since as Vox Dei pointed out, simple systems can become highly complex systems all on their own… however “complexity” is defined. Though if you want a definition, I’d ask Dokimas, since he framed the original terms of the problem.

 

[cantheist]

There are so many things wrong here. First of all, the world, as Noah knew it, was not as large as we know it today. So when the author of the this scripture wrote this, the “world”, was probably a very small region of the world. So there were not as many animals in this region as there were in the entire world as we know it today. This makes it very possible to fit every animal in the ark. Second, you are putting restrictions on what God can do. If you believed in God you would believe in miracles, making it very possible for God to do anything. Third, Catholics do not read the Bible in a literalist interpretation. We take it literally, in the sense of what the author was trying to portray. I don’t think the authors main goal was to describe how so many animals could fit into specified dimensions.

Yes they did not know how many animals there were how big the earth was or how tall the mountains were or they would not have made up this story and presented it as fact.

When I was a kid I believed that Santa could fit all the worlds toys in his bag. Do you think the ark is like Santa big red bag?

PS Can you pray for my friend Shorty he was in a car accident and now he cannot walk please pray to god that he may walk again “it very possible for God to do anything”. The doctors said that he will never regrow his leags but god can do miracles.

 

[SonofMonica]

Perhaps when it comes to complexity. But would you say that God is not “awesome”?

I’m not trying to be patronizing, but I truly have no idea what you mean by that statement. My understanding of the Christian perspective is that the idea of God is not complex at all. He is the essence of love, truth, etc. etc. Those are sort of big ideas, but not necessarily complex by every definition. So it all depends on what you define as complexity.

Well, if we accept the idea that simple systems can increase in complexity, then the “problem” of the original problem disappears: the universe is very complex, but this doesn’t imply special intervention by any sort of deity, since as Vox Dei pointed out, simple systems can become highly complex systems all on their own… however “complexity” is defined. Though if you want a definition, I’d ask Dokimas, since he framed the original terms of the problem.

Well, Dokimas parroted the terms of a fictional problem that he most likely read in The God Delusion. Dawkins never defines complexity, either, although he sort of alludes that he means a large amount of information (in his Boeing 787 example), giving rise to the rebuttal using computer programs and fractals.

But you’re making a leap from the non-existence of a problem with there being a designer to the idea that there need not be any designer at all. Day never said simple systems can become highly complex all on their own. He said they could become so without a human or computer to produce them, as evidenced by their existence in nature. That’s different than saying they needed no designer, unless you define existence in nature as not having been designed, which assumes that which must be proven.

But I’m not trying to lead you down the road of thinking that I’m saying that, because God doesn’t have to be infinitely more complex than creation, that he must necessarily exist. It’s just that the short-sided “God is improbable based upon comparative complexity” argument is stupid, and I wish that someone as accomplished as Dawkins in the field of evolutionary theory hadn’t considered the argument unrebuttable and staked his reputation upon it. Although it’s more sad that people pick up on it and parrot it without actually doing the science.

 

[SonofMonica]

Yes they did not know how many animals there were how big the earth was or how tall the mountains were or they would not have made up this story and presented it as fact.

When I was a kid I believed that Santa could fit all the worlds toys in his bag. Do you think the ark is like Santa big red bag?

PS Can you pray for my friend Shorty he was in a car accident and now he cannot walk please pray to god that he may walk again “it very possible for God to do anything”. The doctors said that he will never regrow his leags but god can do miracles.

This is an arrogant and ethno-centric point of view, utilizing the assumption that folks without the benefit of globalization and modern technology are simpletons who “can’t understand” things. Part of science is being open to being wrong. Do you think that, because Pluto is no longer considered a planet, that everyone up until a few years was simply making Pluto up?

If I said I broke my leg and everyone I know came to visit me in the hospital one afternoon, would you start critiquing that by saying “Well you must have some sort of magic hospital room to hold that many people!!!” Would you assume that NO ONE visited me in the hospital, since EVERYONE couldn’t possibly fit? The whole story was just a lie? No, you’d probably assume that I used a little bit of hyperbole in my language and did not literally mean everyone I know. That is, unless you assumed that you are infinitely smarter than me and I am too dumb to realize that everyone I know couldn’t possibly fit in a hospital room.

 

[AntiTheist]

Eyewitness accounts, personal experiences, miraculous events, lives and experiences of saints and other holy people, these are all myths and illusions or hearsay to you.

Of course those things aren’t evidence – just like the personal experiences and lives of people of other faiths, which you reject as well.

You don’t think that the personal experience of a Hindu proves that his gods are real, do you? I don’t doubt that Hindus sincerely have experiences, but I don’t believe for a moment that the Hindu gods exist and cause those experiences.

The funny thing about actual evidence is that it compels belief. You don’t need to want to believe it’s true; it’s undeniable.

And by evidence, I certainly do not just mean perceiving things with our senses. The evidence for the existence of atoms and black holes is pretty damn compelling, and we most definitely cannot perceive those things with our senses.

Can you ever complete this sentence, I would believe IF… (God does what ???)

Well, for example, I would believe in a god if he or she or it suddenly and convincingly made an announcement of its presence audible to everyone on earth – to each person in the language he or she best comprehends – and provided a short window in which each person could ask questions and obtain answers about the external world that could subsequently confirmed.

Note that it’s the fact that it happens to everybody that makes it evidence. It’s the fact that it provides information that could later be confirmed that makes it evidence.

If that ever happened – and I understand it to be well within the supposed capabilities of the super-being you worship – it would be impossible to be an atheist. Everyone would be compelled to believe in a god.

However, people would certainly still have free will and the free choice to decide whether or not to worship this god. Depending on which god is the true god – and what his explanations are – I may or may not choose to worship him.

An interesting question might be: if there is a god, why would he not announce himself in such a way? If I were an all-powerful being who wanted my creations to worship me, the first thing I would do is to explicitly tell them that I exist. It seems dumb not to do that.

Dokimas:

If materialistic evolution is true and there is no God, then there is no moral grounds for such rules unless you want to call it, ‘might makes right.’

I agree that there are no moral grounds for the rules of society because there is no morality.

There’s only what people value and what people do. We happen to live in a society where people value order and stability. So we’ve developed rules. It’s pretty straightforward.

Are the stars moving at the speed of light?​

Is the universe expanding at the speed of light?​

If the universe is expanding, is it the stars that are moving that causes the expansion?

Well, before I give you a science lesson (you think the stars cause the universe to expand?), can I ask what point you’re trying to prove? You’re not making a lot of sense.

 

[cantheist]

Most atheist are not true “atheist.” What I mean is that they do believe in something more than what they can see. But why they classify them self as atheist is because they do not accept all of the other fairy tails traditions donations and mainly the black and wight view of religions. To think a loving god would create a vengeful torcher chamber to keep most of his creations is for all eternity is not logical. Killing Jesus (or god) to gain his father’s (or god’s) forgiveness is not logical. The miracles are not logical if they are why did they stop 2,000 years ago? and do you really think god cares if some one masturbates I think he would have better things to do than looking at board people playing with there #!^%. If god thinks playing solitary is bad than I got a lot of explaining to do.

 

[SonofMonica]

Most atheist are not true “atheist.” What I mean is that they do believe in something more than what they can see. But why they classify them self as atheist is because they do not accept all of the other fairy tails traditions donations and mainly the black and wight view of religions. To think a loving god would create a vengeful torcher chamber to keep most of his creations is for all eternity is not logical. Killing Jesus (or god) to gain his father’s (or god’s) forgiveness is not logical. The miracles are not logical if they are why did they stop 2,000 years ago? and do you really think god cares if some one masturbates I think he would have better things to do than looking at board people playing with there #!^%. If god thinks playing solitary is bad than I got a lot of explaining to do.

Neither the consequences of a belief to you personally, nor the difficulty or apprehension you would have in believing it, has bearing on whether it is logical. Nor does the fact that an event is reported to have happened in the past logically demand that it occur today.

 

[gearhead]

I’m not trying to be patronizing, but I truly have no idea what you mean by that statement. My understanding of the Christian perspective is that the idea of God is not complex at all. He is the essence of love, truth, etc. etc. Those are sort of big ideas, but not necessarily complex by every definition. So it all depends on what you define as complexity.

Dokimas claimed that life was so “awesome” that it necessitated a creator. AFAIK, every Christian I’ve ever met has considered God to be the most awesome thing in existence.

Well, Dokimas parroted the terms of a fictional problem that he most likely read in The God Delusion. Dawkins never defines complexity, either, although he sort of alludes that he means a large amount of information (in his Boeing 787 example), giving rise to the rebuttal using computer programs and fractals.

But to be fair to Dawkins, he’s responding to Fred Hoyle’s “747 in a junkyard” argument, which doesn’t define complexity either.

But you’re making a leap from the non-existence of a problem with there being a designer to the idea that there need not be any designer at all. Day never said simple systems can become highly complex all on their own. He said they could become so without a human or computer to produce them, as evidenced by their existence in nature. That’s different than saying they needed no designer, unless you define existence in nature as not having been designed, which assumes that which must be proven.

I’m really not sure what position you’re arguing now. AFAICT, whatever position you take on the issue of complexity, it still speaks as equally to God as it does to life, the universe, or everything.

The original argument was that some level of complexity implies design. As we agreed, highly complex things can arise from relatively simple things. Whatever threshhold we pick for design complexity, we can probably find a way that it resulted from a simple thing below that threshhold, contradicting the original premise.

OTOH, it seems to me that you’re now arguing that all things, even very simple things, require a creator. Well, if that’s the case, then invoking a “non-complex” God (however “complexity” is defined) doesn’t exclude God from needing a creator himself.

But I’m not trying to lead you down the road of thinking that I’m saying that, because God doesn’t have to be infinitely more complex than creation, that he must necessarily exist. It’s just that the short-sided “God is improbable based upon comparative complexity” argument is stupid, and I wish that someone as accomplished as Dawkins in the field of evolutionary theory hadn’t considered the argument unrebuttable and staked his reputation upon it. Although it’s more sad that people pick up on it and parrot it without actually doing the science.

I think you have to remember an implicit assumption in the original argument: when a person claims that life/the universe/whatever is so complex that it requires a creator, it implies the following:

• simple things wouldn’t necessarily imply a creator.
• complex things do imply a creator.
• (putting those together) complex things can’t arise from simple things without a creator (or maybe an “intervenor”, but same difference if they’re both God).

If you allow for a path from “simple” to “complex” (however you define them), then the original argument that Dawkins was responding to falls apart. His assumption of a complex God is based on the initial premises of the argument that he is responding to.

When you suggest a “non-complex” God, you’re effectively saying that complex things can arise from simple things. Once you allow for this, you can no longer assert (as you have to in the original argument) that some level of complexity can only be the result of an outside influence.

 

[SonofMonica]

Dokimas claimed that life was so “awesome” that it necessitated a creator. AFAIK, every Christian I’ve ever met has considered God to be the most awesome thing in existence.

I’m sorry, I just don’t know how to quantify awesome, or whether you’re trying to make an argument with it. I don’t have a response right now. I’m not saying I don’t believe you that Dokimas said that; I’m just not certain how to deal with the statement. I’ll hope that you’ll appreciate that honesty, instead of expecting me to make potentially faulty assumptions about the meaning of the statement and go off on some diatribe about it.

But to be fair to Dawkins, he’s responding to Fred Hoyle’s “747 in a junkyard” argument, which doesn’t define complexity either.

That’s my point. The complexity “problem” as applied to designer vs. design has never been defined in a way that makes an comparison of probabilities meaningful.

I’m really not sure what position you’re arguing now. AFAICT, whatever position you take on the issue of complexity, it still speaks as equally to God as it does to life, the universe, or everything.

Well, I’m not presenting an argument for or against design. I’m merely attacking the sophomoric argument presented by Dawkins and parroted here.

However, I’m also not sure what you mean by complexity speaking equally to God and the universe. It does matter how you define complexity, because as shown, if you define complexity by the amount of information, the argument that God must be infinitely complex and therefore more improbable than his creation doesn’t hold water.

The original argument was that some level of complexity implies design. As we agreed, highly complex things can arise from relatively simple things. Whatever threshhold we pick for design complexity, we can probably find a way that it resulted from a simple thing below that threshhold, contradicting the original premise.

Yes, I do agree that highly complex things can arise from relatively simple things, if we define complexity by the amount of information contained in the object, and we have some sort of definable way of measuring the information equally in both. It has not been demonstrated that the complexity (or lack thereof) of God can be measured in terms of information, so using the argument against the existence of God is not useful.

OTOH, it seems to me that you’re now arguing that all things, even very simple things, require a creator. Well, if that’s the case, then invoking a “non-complex” God (however “complexity” is defined) doesn’t exclude God from needing a creator himself.

No, I wasn’t arguing that. In fact I specifically said that I didn’t mean to lead you down that road. Again, only attacking the comparative complexity “problem” which is sometimes expressed in terms of skyhook and crane. It’s quite boorish.

But since you asked, I am perfectly willing to admit the possibility that if God is capable of always existing, then so is the universe–potentially. So I see it as possible that the universe would not require a creator to simply exist. The problem is, the universe, with its laws, etc. has not always existed. There was an event that caused it to be. Events like the Big Bang, events like the introduction of phyla, do require a cause. God does not need a cause, if he has always been–there was no event giving rise to him. I would argue that the event of the emergence of the universe from non-existence does require such a cause. There was a before and an after.

So, I don’t say that all things, regardless of complexity, require a creator. That would mean that God would require a creator, or an exception that swallows the rule. I prefer to say that all events require causes. It would be a lot easier for atheists if the universe always existed…

When you suggest a “non-complex” God, you’re effectively saying that complex things can arise from simple things. Once you allow for this, you can no longer assert (as you have to in the original argument) that some level of complexity can only be the result of an outside influence.

Here’s where you’re doing some false equivalence. The whole point behind the need for an ascertainable definition of complexity is that “complexity” has not been defined in a way that makes it possible to compare the “complexity” or “simplicity” of God to that of any created thing. There are ways of defining the “complexity” or “simplicity” of God that do not involve there being more or less information. And then there are ways of defining the “complexity” or “simplicity” of God that do involve there being more or less information, and it is the usage of the latter argument as a proof of the impossibility of the existence of God that I have attacked, nothing more.

 

[Dokimas]

You realize the fallacy in your argument, right?

You point out that life is too awesome and too amazing to not have had help to become what it is, and suggest as an explanation something that’s even more awesome and amazing, but didn’t have any help to become what it is.

You point out the high degree of complexity in the universe, and invoke an infinitely complex God to explain it.

Your argument is not consistent. If the universe is too awesome, amazing or complex to have arose without help, then the same is true of God. Moreso, even.

That is true on the surface. It’s not hard to realize that something is eternal. It makes far more sense that God is eternal vs matter and energy.

 

[gearhead]

SonOfMonica:

Hmm. Maybe I can sum all this up like this: arguments for God based on complexity like the “747 in a junkyard” fail because the terms used are only vaguely defined, and it’s therefore impossible to derive meaningful conclusions from their meanings. Any rebuttal to these arguments (or any rebuttal to the rebuttals) suffer from this problem as well because they all must rely on the terms of the original argument.

Does that work for you?

 

[Dokimas]

Antitheist: Well, before I give you a science lesson (you think the stars cause the universe to expand?), can I ask what point you’re trying to prove? You’re not making a lot of sense.

I’m simply asking for information. Not exaustive, just to the point.​

Those questions don’t make sense??? Please just give me a science lesson. Thank you.

 

[gearhead]

That is true on the surface. It’s not hard to realize that something is eternal. It makes far more sense that God is eternal vs matter and energy.

If time is a property of the universe, then what does the word “eternal” even mean?

 

[SonofMonica]

SonOfMonica:

Hmm. Maybe I can sum all this up like this: arguments for God based on complexity like the “747 in a junkyard” fail because the terms used are only vaguely defined, and it’s therefore impossible to derive meaningful conclusions from their meanings. Any rebuttal to these arguments (or any rebuttal to the rebuttals) suffer from this problem as well because they all must rely on the terms of the original argument.

Does that work for you?

Well, I disagree that it is all theists using the argument for the existence of God. Dawkins and his ilk actively promote the idea that complexity can be used against the existence of God, independently of whether someone has used complexity as an argument for the existence of God. I don’t agree that the Dawkins view is merely a rebuttal. It is presented in his book as the argument to end all arguments, and argues against the existence of God positively. If this were not so, I would agree with you.

 

[SonofMonica]

If time is a property of the universe, then what does the word “eternal” even mean?

Are you implying that the concept of infinite duration has no validity? This is a simple mathematical concept. Or are you really getting at something else?

 

[cantheist]

Neither the consequences of a belief to you personally, nor the difficulty or apprehension you would have in believing it, has bearing on whether it is logical. Nor does the fact that an event is reported to have happened in the past logically demand that it occur today.

Yes but it is not logical that the any miracles ever happened. But if god did miracles in the past why did he quit?

PS Please pray that god heals my friend Shorty the amputee he needs his legs back so he can dance to the lord god.

 

[gearhead]

Well, I disagree that it is all theists using the argument for the existence of God.

I never said that all theists used the argument. I know that many (most?) don’t.

Dawkins and his ilk actively promote the idea that complexity can be used against the existence of God, independently of whether someone has used complexity as an argument for the existence of God. I don’t agree that the Dawkins view is merely a rebuttal. It is presented in his book as the argument to end all arguments, and argues against the existence of God positively. If this were not so, I would agree with you.

Unfortunately, I haven’t read the God Delusion (one of these days I probably will, but I prefer to read books from positions that are opposed to mine), so I don’t know exactly how he presents the argument in it. I’ve seen a number of his debates, though, where he brings out the argument as a retort to his opponent’s claims about complexity implying God.

 

[SonofMonica]

Yes but it is not logical that the any miracles ever happened. But if god did miracles in the past why did he quit?

PS Please pray that god heals my friend Shorty the amputee he needs his legs back so he can dance to the lord god.

Do you have a friend that can help you phrase and/or re-type what it is that you’re trying to ask? I’m not ruling out the idea that I lack the sophistication to comprehend what you are getting at, but in that case, it would be most helpful to the discussion if someone would translate the question(s) posed.

P.S. Mockery may make you feel superior to others, but I assure you, your lack of the ability to form cohesive thought or sentence structure makes up for it in the eyes of those around you. So, in other words, knock it off. Thanks.

 

[Dokimas]

If time is a property of the universe, then what does the word “eternal” even mean?

outside time; not subject to it