Intelligent Design - it's too complex to happen by accident?

Question

One of the arguments for an intelligent designer is that our planet and all its wonders are too complex to have been created without direction. However, the first intelligent designer him/herself is quite complex and could not have been designed by anything or anyone (what with nothing existing before him/her). Doesn't this show something very complex COULD have come into existence without the aid of an intelligent designer?

Comments?

This concept does not necessarily mean an intelligent designer can't exist or doesn't or didn't have a hand in things. It merely refutes the claim that complexity can only be attained by design in that the very designer is an example of undesigned complexity.

Sifu Shaun - While I think it is complete bollocks, that is the most intelligent answer I have gotten to this question.

Answer 1

"Too complex to happen by accident."


Translation:

"Too complex for me to grasp, so I'm going to believe that it's so much simpler."

Evolution is trigonometry, while creationism is arithmetic.

Answer 2

Interesting. What is not, becomes what is. As above, so below. A thought is the seed, the seed grows; then flowers; then withers; then is no more. Yet the one thought or seed has produced more seeds in it's demise, which continue. So then, what is of the physical realm must originate from the metaphysical realm; all things do; I would think; and upon completion of their "time" for lack of a better expression; return to the metaphysical realm once again. This would certainly give plausibility to God, in the singular; for all else is of a duality or replication from some source of this procession. Then it is also plausible that the inherent complexity originated with a quite simple beginning; design not being the relevant concern of the originator. So then, God must be truly in the details; or the essence of God if You like. LOL, what may be simple can always be made more complex!!

Answer 3

Have u seen those pictures that show the continents on earth...then zoom out to show the earth & the moon...then the earth & it's immediate neighbouring planets...then the earth against jupiter....then both against the sun....then all 3 against other bigger stars and so on and so forth.

My point is that if u look at human life from that perspective, we're less than nothing. But at the same time, we're so complex....we go through so much in one lifetime. Do you think it's all for nothing? Do you think we're just accidents? I don't.

We give ourselves too much credit in understanding our universe. Truth is we barely know a thing. We're so full of ourselves, we can't imagine anything beyond our comprehension....but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Answer 4

I'll be blunt: Creationism is bad science, and even worse religion. Yes, we humans are dust motes on the Cosmic scale, but it is amazing how much we can do with how little we have. Therefore, I think that even nature, without Divine aid, can still work wonders. The job of science is to explain, physically, how things work and how they came to be the way they are, and this is to be done based strictly on the physical, making no reference to anything "supernatural" or spiritual. However, we ask another question as we go through life: why? What is the meaning of it all? Science can't touch that, and this is why religion (or, if you prefer, spirituality) is still relevant. I think that God's real job is not being our Creator, but rather being the One who helps us to find that purpose and meaning in life which we crave, to help us become the best version of ourselves.

Answer 5

Ah yes, irreducible complexity is quite the argument isn't it? I love how they will use "science" to argue that we couldn't have come from nothing, but when you ask how God came from nothing you will hear that he is not bound by the law of science. My favorite though is their arguments about bogus statistics showing the odds of earth coming about by accident. "This statistician says the odds are about the same as a monkey throwing poop at a wall for an hour and leaving the Mona Lisa painted on it!!"

Answer 6

I think it's false to imply that natural selection is just things happening by "accident" in the first place, natural selection incorporates randomness, but there's more to it, you need to have the "selection", which is the best fit organisms surviving to produce offspring.

And I also don't think there is anything about evolution that contradicts the existence of a god/gods, how do we know that a god did not create the physical laws that make evolution possible?

Answer 7

Its the old chicken or the egg dilemma. We try to put logic to things we do not understand and because we have no commen frame of reference in our world, our reality we try to define the undefinable. Have faith that the universe will unfold as it should.

Answer 8

There are different kinds of complexity. Actually, God is the ultimate in simplicity. God simply is what he is. There are no sub-component parts. Even things like God's righteousness and God's love and God's wisdom are just the same as God himself.

So expanding from that thought, God is the ultimate simplicity, so the ultimate simplicity came first, then the universe and all its complexity after that.

Answer 9

I was just thinking about this today. That yeah, man has figured out how everything works, but so what? Everything is too organized and perfect to have just, come about somehow. God is def. the creator, and He is VERY intelligent.

Answer 10

It is interesting how religious people try to use "complexity" to prove the existence of a creator without realizing that the argument only works to establish polytheism, and not monotheism...

Assuming the complexity argument, one is left with an infinite regression of "Gods"...