A correspondent says:
"Regarding your question to call the "First Cause" a "Natural Event". A Creator can not lack a quality that his creation has. If we are intelligent human beings then me must assume necessarily that our creator is at least as intelligent as we are. Therefore this "Natural Event" is an intelligent entity and not a mindless entity as the words "natural event" may suggest."
My reply is:
"A creator *can* lack a quality that his creation has. Can we compute long division a trillion times a second? Computers can. Do our eyes see infra-red? Cameras do. Can we detect the EM radiation from Jupiter passing through our bodies every second of the day? Radios can. And so on, and so forth. So, that's disposed of that premise.
The notion that intelligence requires intelligence to create it is clearly self-refuting, because if that were the case then intelligence could never exist. Your intelligent creator would require an even more intelligent creator, which in turn would require a more intelligent creator still, and so on ad infinitum.
Infinite regression is a common problem with religious arguments. You have to accept that your premise is false. Intelligence does not require intelligence as its origin. Complexity does not require greater complexity to create it. The ONLY answer which works is the incremental emergence of complexity from simplicity, of intelligence from non-intelligence, of organisation from chaos, and this is indeed exactly what we see in the universe. There are countless examples in nature of order arising spontaneously from chaos, of complexity arising spontaneously from simplicity. It's simply how the universe works. I will show you what I mean in detail, if you wish, but just think of how atoms come together in molecules, and molecules into larger molecules, and scraps of gas and dust into planets and stars, and so on."
Who is right?
2007-03-09
13:18:38
·
18 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous