"X is really complex, God must exist"?

Question

(paraphrasing, of course)
"This universe/life is amazingly complex or complicated. It must have been designed. The designer was God."

What do you think of this argument? Is is valid? Why or why not?

Answer 1

It's completely invalid and lazy, because it is a roadblock in the way of thought... in the sense that that person, content with the explanation "God created it," will not likely explore the origins of things any further.

I think you could argue more feasibly what Stephen Hawking said on the matter of God: "if by God is meant the embodiment of the laws of the universe..." I would say that is the only way that the statement can possibly make sense: if you consider "God" to be all that exists, and all that has come into being...

but we know so little of our origins that to write it all off as having been created by a superhuman creator is ridiculous.

and to Kimmie, above: we didn't evolve from monkeys; we ARE apes and have evolved from other forms of apes. We are a member of the ape family. I'm sorry to have to be the one to break it to you.

Answer 2

Basically the answer is that no-one created God. If some-one had created God then they would be God instead! In Revelation 22: God says "I am the Al′pha and the O‧me′ga, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." The Alpha & the Omega are the first & last letters of the Greek alphabet there is nothing before them & nothing after them, therefore, there was nothing before God & nothing after Him. Eternity is a very hard concept for us to grasp as we can only judge things by the limits we perceive. Hope this line of reasoning helps. Did God have a beginning? Ps. 90:2: “Before the mountains themselves were born, or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God.” Is that reasonable? Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it. Consider examples: (1) Time. No one can point to a certain moment as the beginning of time. And it is a fact that, even though our lives end, time does not. We do not reject the idea of time because there are aspects of it that we do not fully comprehend. Rather, we regulate our lives by it. (2) Space. Astronomers find no beginning or end to space. The farther they probe into the universe, the more there is. They do not reject what the evidence shows; many refer to space as being infinite. The same principle applies to the existence of God. Other examples: (1) Astronomers tell us that the heat of the sun at its core is 27,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit (15,000,000° C.). Do we reject that idea because we cannot fully comprehend such intense heat? (2) They tell us that the size of our Milky Way is so great that a beam of light traveling at over 186,000 miles per second (300,000 km/sec) would require 100,000 years to cross it. Do our minds really comprehend such a distance? Yet we accept it because scientific evidence supports it. Which is more reasonable—that the universe is the product of a living, intelligent Creator? or that it must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction? Some persons adopt the latter viewpoint because to believe otherwise would mean that they would have to acknowledge the existence of a Creator whose qualities they cannot fully comprehend. But it is well known that scientists do not fully comprehend the functioning of the genes that are within living cells and that determine how these cells will grow. Nor do they fully understand the functioning of the human brain. Yet, who would deny that these exist? Should we really expect to understand everything about a Person who is so great that he could bring into existence the universe, with all its intricate design and stupendous size

Answer 3

God of the Gaps aka goddidit. Wherein anything that science doesn't have a ready answer for, "must be" explained by God as the only apparent other explanation. Now there are many many things that used to have the goddidit explanation, that now have proven natural, as opposed to supernatural explanations, so the gaps are getting smaller.

It is also a kind of Argument from Personal Incredulity. Or, "I'm a smart person with a high school/college degree, and i can't possibly think of an explanation for X other than god, so that must be the answer" Sorry, but we can't all be Einstein.
I'm a smart over educated person with several degrees too, but there's lots of things I don't understand. That doesn't prove Gods existence to me however.

Answer 4

This is not a valid argument. This kind of logic is referenced in Occam's Razor. I'll spare you the details but let's just say the simplest answer is not always the best one. When you come across something complex like the universe, you can't simply apply the "God did it" label and consider it solved. I'm not denying the existence of any supernatural beings but I don't agree with that logic at all.

Answer 5

I dont consider this as an argument that god exists. It looks more like some sort of definition of god : the designer of that what is so complex that it has to be designed.

from the givens : complex universes are designed , does not follow that the god is the designer, for that you need some more a\nd that can not be god since that is what whose existence you want to prove ... , anyway if you want to prove that god exists you will need a definition first

Answer 6

I think the amount of diversity, complexity and niche echo systems show the exact opposite. So NO I don't see it as a valid argument for the existence of a creator.

Answer 7

Not at all. Just because something is complex to you or me does not make a valid argument that it must have be designed.

Answer 8

No I do not agree, Just because some humans can't wrap their humanly little brains that a complex nature can exist with out the existence of some higher being, does not vaildate the excuse and being presumptious.

I can't understand how this happened so God must have done it, is such a primative meandering.

Answer 9

The existence of local complexity is only evidence that existence as a whole is greater than we can see, not evidence for any god.

Answer 10

It's my opinion that the Universe/life is so specifically coded for life that it would be arrogant to think we are the supreme. If we could calculate the odds of us being here and in our current capacity by chance, that would seem to me to be decidedly illogical. There has clearly been some form of "force" that advocates for the survival of life.