Atheists, What do you say about this argument?
An argument many believers put for God is this -
A pot cannot exist without a potter who created it.
How can such a complex and orderly universe exist without a Creator?
Can randomness (random evolution) create such perfection as we see sometimes?
A Request: PLEASE answer this question with kindness in a civil manner. No hate speech please.
- JASONLv 54 weeks agoFavourite answer
But no one ever explains who made their god. If you're using that argument you need to explain that one.
- antoniusLv 74 weeks ago
Believers continue to fall back on their old crutch; god is a spirit, but yet they make claims about that god which they could not know unless they could have seen or talked with him/her/it. Get over your foolish belief as what you believe was started by the earliest of man who knew nothing.
- sk8terboy1963Lv 44 weeks ago
That argument is like the whole of religion.... an assumed conclusion. You start off with an assumed conclusion and then try to pick apart those facts and bits of data that seem to best fit within it. If you really want answers, then you can't assume anything. You must go where the evidence leads you. Not the other way around. It is intellectually dishonest to assume a conclusion rather than investigate and find the conclusion.
- SBR32277Lv 74 weeks ago
I would point out that existence is far from perfect, where most of it is hostile towards life. We have natural disasters, plagues, disease, you can freeze to death over heat, etc.
While it is true that an intelligence can create complexity, most complexity naturally forms up to our natural resources. Also how complex is it truly with only a hundred and something atoms making up everything and most of them came from stardust.
There should be a realization that most of existence is naturally formed and it requires our intelligence to create something that nature cannot. While a car cannot exist without intelligence, rocks, dirt, water, life, etc can.
There is no construction of the universe, it is purely cause and effect with no choice/decision making involved. That is why we are on a collision course with our neighboring galaxy, no one is at the helm.
Then there is energy that cannot be created, thus no creators of any kind, where energy is that basic building block found in all existence. There is also a necessary order to complexity, where "all" complex existence can be traced back to simpler beginnings, thus the concept of God, like that of a square circle, is impossible.
Finally, you cannot have randomness unless there is an intelligence to change the outcome. Nature is purely cause and effect, there are no accidents there is no randomness, it is fully predictable unlike an intelligence that can change its mind.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- GitLv 54 weeks ago
Would you say god is far more complex then us?
Then by this logic, i.e. complex things needs a creator, then god being supremely complex, needs a creator too?
If god is complex but do not need a creator, then either that logic is flawed or god too has a creator.
- Huh?Lv 74 weeks ago
It is a lousy argument for god. First, the Universe is not all that orderly.
All that the existence of the universe demonstrates is the universe exists, it says nothing about a god. It could be that the experiential universe we know came about by completely natural processes. We don't know.
To argue that because we don't fully understand the early universe, specifically what happened from the start of the big bang and for the next 10^-43 seconds, but after that tiny fraction of a second we can explain the physics of the Universe.
The god of the gaps fallacy is to fill any gaps in our knowledge with god. Humans did not always understand optics so when bronze aged humans saw a rainbow they invented a myth about the rainbow being a sign from god. We know better today.
We don't understand what happened during planck time, which is the term scientists use to describe that first 10^-43 seconds after the known experiential universe began, but it is a fallacy to fill that gap with God.
Demonstrate that god exists AND that he is responsible for the universe but you can't justify that claim if your only evidence is we don't have any better explanation for the Universe.
I didn't even get into the special pleading argument because if the universe needed a creator why doesn't an infinitely more complex creature like god not need a creator?that is special pleading.
- PaulLv 74 weeks ago
Interestingly, this is the same thing that science tells us - that every natural entity that exists must have had an origin, and that every natural event that occurs must have had a pre-existing cause.
- marsel_duchampLv 74 weeks ago
Funny how my cells knew how to become the right organ in the right place without my parents having to move them around or direct their development.
What perfection? The designs are all just good enough, not perfect.
- 4 weeks ago
Over the past couple hundred years, the progress of our scientific understanding has shown that there are many natural processes that result in an increase in complexity and order. Certainly it is true that human artifacts cannot exist without a human creator, but all of the natural world, from the Big Bang to the current day, can have happened without any intelligent guidance.
Since complexity can arise from simpler origins by natural processes, there is no need for the "First Cause" to be the most ultra-complex thing of all, a god.
- Bulldog reduxLv 74 weeks ago
First of all, no living form is perfect. Organisms show different degrees of adaptation to the environment. And adaptations don't evolve randomly. Mutations are admittedly random, but natural selection is not. Our complex and orderly universe emerged, and is still emerging, from fundamental physical laws and constants. It may be comforting to think that a god created these laws and constants, but human comfort hardly seems like a basic organizing principle for the universe.
- Ted KLv 74 weeks ago
This is just another version of Reverend Paley's "watch implies a watchmaker" argument, dating back from the very early 19th Century. Paley used the analogy of finding a watch sitting on the ground, others have used 747s, etc etc etc., and the argument is that "how can something so complicated and precise have come about by any other means than deliberate, intelligent design?" Regardless of which example of human design is used, the analogy is based on a fatally flawed premise. You've used the example of a pot. Fine. Doesn't matter what example is used, the flaw is in assuming the equivalence between known human design and observed order in the natural world.
We already KNOW that humans literally exist, and we already KNOW that they often design and construct things, including pots, watches, computers, airliners, etc. You cannot make the same claim about a purported supernatural, "intelligent designer." In contrast to what we know about people, We DON'T KNOW that this designer literally exists. So, trying to use human-designed artifacts as an analogy for what we see when we look out at the world--trees, birds, clouds, the moon, our stars, galaxies. etc. is logically dead right out of the starting gate.
When you look at a tree--it is evidence ONLY for its own existence--it tells you nothing about how it came to exist. There is no evidence for a supernatural creator. Those who favor the intelligent design idea start with the assumption that a creator exists, and everything follows from that starting premise. This is the logical fallacy of "begging the question"--i.e. assuming the conclusion, then proceeding to argue in a circle right back to that starting assumption.
By the way, evoluton is NOT random. Natural selection is called SELECTION for a reason. There is nothing random about selection. But non-random is not the same as deliberate.