I'd like to address this because this is generally the first argument most theists use in debate. It is a self-contradicting fallacy.

The argument: The universe, life, and all therein is incredibly complex, so it must have a designer.

The rebuttal: If the universe and life is so complex that it must have a designer, then surely the designer must be at least as complex as his design. So by using the same logic, the designer must have a designer, and his designer another one, ad infinitum.

Some then say that the designer however, is the ''uncaused cause'' that must have initiated existence. But to say that a complex being must have a designer and an infinitely more complex one does not, that is the height of irrationality, and you're no longer engaging in a debate. Cause really, what's the point if you can switch rationality on and off, but expect the other to hold true to fair tactics?

If there is a cause, then that must logically be an uncaused cause.

For instance, if there is a creator of time, its creator necessarily and logically must exist outside of time... for if the creator of time existed in a temporal reality, then time would already exist as it was being created. and that is impossibly illogical.

And yet, sticking to the subject of time, it seems that physicists believe there was a point in time when the universe came into existence, and prior to that there was no universe (and therefore no time). So assuming this is correct, then logically there was a point before time. What was there before time? That's a brain-bending question, to be sure, as time is unquestionably a property of our universe.

Now I am certain that you'll dismiss such a line of thinking, probably with a response something along the lines of "time simply is, in the same way that gravity or any other universal property simply is, and is without need of a creator".

I am not intellectually gifted enough to go down the gyrations of that argument on either side. Yet isn't it interesting that the first words of the Bible are "In the beginning...", and that God's name is "I AM"?

Just as you point out a litany of arguments regarding complexity as evidence of a creator and dismiss them entirely out of hand, there are also a litany of arguments that discuss the scientific merits of Genesis 1 and 2. Yet God makes no proclamations about who He is in those chapters. But what we know from those chapters and of what God calls himself fits with the requirements of an uncaused cause to be a logically cogent answer to some complex physics discussions. That's pretty remarkable to me for a document that was written thousands of years ago.

Regardless, I will concede that for there to be a creator of the universe, that creator must necessarily exist outside of the physical laws that govern the universe. Anything else would be irrational and illogical.

So if there is a creator - a cause - and that cause necessarily exists outside of the laws of universe, then why do you so readily apply the laws of the universe to that creator/cause. that it should also have a creator/cause?

That is an illogical position.

It is irrational to think that something came from nothing as well.

I agree that The Appeal to Complexity as evidence for a creator is a fallacy. However, this isn't why:

quote:

---

If the universe and life is so complex that it must have a designer, then surely the designer must be at least as complex as his design. So by using the same logic, the designer must have a designer, and his designer another one, ad infinitum.

---

Massive fail. I know you really, really need to find a way to defeat the problem of first cause, but this ain't it.

quote:

---

So by using the same logic, the designer must have a designer, and his designer another one, ad infinitum.

---

Wow, seriously? It literally boggles my mind that people think this is a solid argument.

scubalon.... why do you assume there is a ''cause?''

time is a complicated issue. to be honest, i haven't quite figured out precisely what time is myself, perhaps i never will. is it a thing that exists independently, is it simply a tool we use to measure decay? so really, time may or may not have existed before, and it may or may not exist now. but that is not my point.

my problem however is, you say that ration and logic dictate there must have been an uncaused cause. and my argument to the contrary must follow these rules of engagement. then, you defy all logic and rationale to suggest some other reality from whence omnipotent, omniscient being just simply exist with no explanation, no beginning and seemingly no end. and this cannot be called into question, because _________(insert reason here). this, is my quarrel with such an argument.

see, the problem with arguing from the standpoint of assuming a different reality is the fact that there is no alternate reality, at least not one that you, i, nor anyone else is aware of. so the appeal to alternate reality is quite literally, making stuff up. then it ceases to be an academic debate and starts to become about faith.

seamaster... is god not something?

nixter... please, enlighten us by all means.

watty... what boggles the mind is that you keep saying that argument is invalid, yet have not for some reason or other shown us why it is not.

I have, on another thread. Basically, you can't explain away the need for that uncaused cause that you tried to just dismiss in your OP.

Much like you haven't explained the need for a first cause to begin with.

Ha... much easier to just keep believing that there just is no cause at all, and that completely out of the blue, for no reason, we just exploded into existence out of nothing, right? Because that makes a lot of sense...

Notice every time you're asked that you reply with a non-sequitur?

If it's so obvious that a first cause is required it should be easy to provide evidence for such. But you can't as it ISNT obvious - a great deal of debate exists among physicists and mathematicians over this matter. Given how quantum physics has turned causality on its head it boggles MY mind that you still hang on to the concept. (And that's without touching the special pleading you necessarily invoke)

Oh gosh... like I said, if it helps you sleep at night to just go to those extreme lengths to believe that no cause was needed, despite the fact that everything else ever did need one, then go for it. But that doesn't make you right.

lol extreme lengths like logic? or extreme lengths like science?

Regardless, I don't get how you mock OTHERS for not buying into the argument when you have provided no evidence just of the PREMISE.

You have neither science nor logic on your side. I find it surprising that you claim you do.

Then let's see your logical proof of the premise of the cosmological argument watty.

Why haven't you posted one given how incredibly obvious you feel it is?

Like I've said before, there are some arguments out there that are decent, solid arguments in regards to God vs. no God. This one that you're taking up is not one of them.

For my evidence that creation needs a creator, I present: everything that has ever been created. Your turn.

And FYI, I'm going to be away from the computer for a few hours now, so I won't be able to respond right away. Got to watch our boy McGee!

Senorchipotle, I never said that there had to be a cause. I said that if one assumes a cause, then one must also assume that cause must exist outside of the physical laws of the universe, which is therefore logically compatible with the God of the Bible.

Do you see the distinction?

The OP makes the case that if there is a creator then logically that creator must have a creator. My point was to demonstrate the logical fallacy of that argument, because that argument depends on the creator being bound by the same physical laws as the creator's creation. But such a situation is not only a weak logical argument, but is irrational given what I outlined in my post. And again, it is remarkable to me that what the Bible says about God and what God says about Himself in the bible is in rational agreement with logic, if one assumes a creator. In other words, the argument presented in the OP isn't just flawed, it is profoundly wrong.

Now, to your point... The question here is whether or not there is a first cause. If there is, then that implies a creator in a very strong way. It is not a scientific proof of a creator, nor is it proof that the creator is the God of the Bible, but it is a very strong logical indicator. And to my point, if there is a first cause, and therefore a creator, then that creator must necessarily exist outside of the constraints of it's creation.

And if there is not a first cause, then clearly that is a strong logical indictment against the existence of a god. But then you're left defending the logical position of nothing -> something.

There once wasn't, then there was.

I'm glad I don't have to defend that logically. And i wont speak for anyone else, but i dont personally have adequate faith to believe that could be true. YMMV. It is, after all, a proposition of faith to believe there is not a first cause, just as it is to believe a first cause exists.

Which is more likely?

watty, it's entirely possible that the universe has always existed. i.e., the universe is infinitely old.

So, I'd like to see why you think it's absolutely logically necessary that the universe have a creator, considering the rules of logic are actually an emergent property of the universe.

quote:

---

For my evidence that creation needs a creator, I present: everything that has ever been created. Your turn.

---

Aside from your language being circular you have evidence that EVERYTHING was created? How did you manage to attain this knowledge of everything? (And why are you ignoring quantum physics? It may be "extreme" but in order to disprove the claim that ALL things were created only one counterexample is necessary.)

Present THAT evidence then since you will not prove your premise.


All you have is rhetoric watty. And yet you continually mock those who don't agree with your argument.

quote:

---

But then you're left defending the logical position of nothing -> something.

---

If this is true for atheists it is also true for theists.

[This message has been edited by NoACDamnit (edited 1/2/2011 3:09p).]

watty... you CANNOT sit here and say everything needs a creator, and then claim there is a god who created everything. do you not realize you're defeating yourself with this argument? if your god is a thing, which it/he allegedly is, then this thing, by YOUR own logic, NECESSARILY needs a creator. until you drop this premise, your arguments are INvalid. period.

skubulon... agreed for the most part. personally, my position is one of ignorance, which i feel is most honest. i respect anybody who says ''i believe this, but ultimately i do not know.'' both christians and nonbelievers alike. i don't know, but there is no reason for me to believe that there was a creator. after all, what exactly constitutes a ''creation?'' this cannot be definitively answered, so i see no reason to pretend otherwise. even though some, for whatever reason, will simply not admit their folly.

[This message has been edited by senorchipotle (edited 1/2/2011 4:20p).]

quote:

---

Some then say that the designer however, is the ''uncaused cause'' that must have initiated existence. But to say that a complex being must have a designer and an infinitely more complex one does not, that is the height of irrationality

---

Yes, some people do say things like that. Like Aristotle, for example. Rarely is he accused of irrationality.

quote:

---

watty, it's entirely possible that the universe has always existed. i.e., the universe is infinitely old.

---

however, this seems inconsistent with our expanding universe and the big bang. Was the entire universe a singular point for infinity years until one day it finally blew up? I find the oscillating universe theory unconvincing.-i.e. big bang, big crunch, big bang, big crunch ad infinitum.

Everything that ever begins to exist must have a cause. Since the created order is not infinitely old, it follows that something exists other than the created order. God never began to exist.

quote:

---

Everything that ever begins to exist must have a cause

---

Why?

quote:

---

Was the entire universe a singular point for infinity years until one day it finally blew up?

---

Applying the concept of "time" to anything "before" the big bang is nonsensical as time begins at the moment of the Big Bang. PITA for us to conceptualize as we experience time in a very linear, regulated manner when it doesn't actually operate anything like that.

quote:

---

Applying the concept of "time" to anything "before" the big bang is nonsensical as time begins at the moment of the Big Bang. PITA for us to conceptualize as we experience time in a very linear, regulated manner when it doesn't actually operate anything like that.

---

This seems to be precisely the same argument the christians are applying to the assertion that God does not need a creator. There was no time and hence no causality.

But it was my understanding that the big bang takes us to the initial expansion of space time. Not the initial creation of time and matter itself. When the big bang happened space was smaller, but all the energy that ever was or is already existed- or am I confused?

quote:

---

This seems to be precisely the same argument the christians are applying to the assertion that God does not need a creator. There was no time and hence no causality.

---

Largely it is the same.

quote:

---

But it was my understanding that the big bang takes us to the initial expansion of space time. Not the initial creation of time and matter itself. When the big bang happened space was smaller, but all the energy that ever was or is already existed- or am I confused?

---

Time was created during the big bang. There is no "before" in any traditional sense of the word. The analogy most often used is the north pole - when you are at the north pole can you continue walking further north?

quote:

---

But to say that a complex being must have a designer and an infinitely more complex one does not, that is the height of irrationality, and you're no longer engaging in a debate.

---

1) Complex being A was designed by being B.
2) Designer B is infinitely complex.
3) But, ______ is a self-contradiction
4) So, it would be irrational to hold 1 and 2 as being true.

You need to fill in part 3, Mr Logic.

Cyprian, you've totally ignored that complex being B creating complex being A is a CONCLUSION based on the premise that complex beings require a creator.

Complex and infinitely complex seem to be very different conceptions, so they would have different entailment relations. So,by my lights, you can hold both the premises and conclusion without self-contradiction.

quote:

---

Yes, some people do say things like that. Like Aristotle, for example. Rarely is he accused of irrationality.

---

i wasn't aware of aristotle's intellectual infallibility.


Cyprian... call me daft, but i'm not following your logical sequence.