Best argument against god

[kx000]

Actually, there are plenty of arguments in both comps. Whether or not any of them are any good is another matter.

I want to hear the argument regardless of its merit. I'm not trying to drum up drama. I'm actually just looking for ideas for an ongoing project.

Can someone please explain why a Creator MUST be more complex than its Creation.

The creator is most likely simple, much to simple for us to understand.

 

[kx000]

This argument is pointless. Before we figure out how and why, why don't we try and understand who's pulling the strings of the world, and how things are only getting worse. It sure as shit isn't God.

 

[Rav]

I'll admit I have not read dawkins book, though I have been meaning too, but I still don't understand why a creator MUST be more complex than the creation.

In terms of the watchmaker analogy, more information than is contained in the watch itself is required in order to create it.

 

[Big Chiller]

The creator is most likely simple, much to simple for us to understand.

The creator is neither simple nor complicated because the creator doesn't fall into such a category that is why it is necessarily impossible to understand any detail about the creator. The creator simply has no physical description.

This argument is pointless. Before we figure out how and why, why don't we try and understand who's pulling the strings of the world, and how things are only getting worse. It sure as shit isn't God.

God is necessarily undetectable.

 

[SciWriter]

I don't know what you mean by a system of mind, sounds like an assertion. It just seems to me that you've lost your mind.

The Creator is supposed to have made the universe in a certain way. This takes thinking, for the planning, formation, and ongoing intervention; thus, a system of mind.

 

[SciWriter]

The creator is most likely simple, much to simple for us to understand.

The basis of All is what has to be simple, such as even nothing, and this is the complete opposite of complexity systems.

 

[Big Chiller]

This is just conjecture where you're assuming the Creator is temporal and requires efforts it is only the created who are in this predicament.

 

[SciWriter]

This is just conjecture where you're assuming the Creator is temporal and requires efforts it is only the created who are in this predicament.

It would even take time to invent time, and if there was the Word making a universe then there was still a before and after.

 

[SciWriter]

As astronomy took the place of astrology, and chemistry replaced alchemy, so does philosophy begin where religion ends, which is immediately, since it is just made up.

 

[Big Chiller]

It would even take time to invent time, and if there was the Word making a universe then there was still a before and after.

Then your problem is you're taking linguistic inconsistencies to be literal. :facepalm: I don't buy into any Word I'm not Christian.

 

[SciWriter]

Then your problem is you're taking linguistic inconsistencies to be literal. :facepalm: I don't buy into any Word I'm not Christian.

Doesn't matter. Any supposed first and fundamental being/entity creating all else is negated via self-contradiction, for beings/entities cannot be fundamental.

It's not a well thought out concept to have some ultimate Higher Intelligence be behind ours. I'll leave the why-not as homework.

 

[Big Chiller]

The counter-argument to that as I have already stated before a few posts back is the greatest entity is the one that is fundamentally and categorically different from any other entities in the universe.

 

[SciWriter]

The counter-argument to that as I have already stated before a few posts back is the greatest entity is the one that is fundamentally and categorically different from any other entities in the universe.

This Entity Being would still be a system.

 

[Big Chiller]

I don't understand what you mean by this "system" until you clearly define it.

 

[SciWriter]

I don't understand what you mean by this "system" until you clearly define it.

It's supposedly what did and does the planning, thinking, creation, and ongoing support, if any, of the universe.

 

[Big Chiller]

I've already countered this view therefore the entity is not a system.

 

[SciWriter]

I've already countered this view therefore the entity is not a system.

Then I guess it had no mind of intelligence to decide that there should only be two stable matter particles, the electron and the proton, oppositely charged, etc., of a certain mass, and more particulars (and their antiparticles) instead of something else.

 

[Big Chiller]

Definitely not a mind of intelligence like ours or like your system.

 

[SciWriter]

Definitely not a mind of intelligence like ours or like your system.

Intelligence comes later on, not first. Simplicity and complexity are even close and are even at opposite ends of the spectrum.


Actually, no thing (entity) at all could be first and fundamental, not even electrons and protons around forever, much less a God Being, for there would have been nothing prior to define it as such in its particulars.

And, no, God is not an exception, but is something that is yet to be proved, and so no one can use this ‘result’ as a fact in the first place.

 

[Big Chiller]

All you've done is ignore my counter-argument and repeat yourself.