sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
If bare assertions is all that's needed, then let's make the same assertion about God: God is too complicated to have arisen without natural processes and the universe has always been so it doesn't require a creator. And?Ok, I see. I would say this is a difficult argument to get across to the general public, based on the difference in how I interpreted it compared to how you have interpreted it.
I disagree with Dawkins that there is an implicit regression problem at all.
A theist can simply argue that the universe is too complicated to have arisen without divine intervention and then say god has always been so doesn't require a creator.
So, if not everything requires a complex creator, we cannot automatically assume that the universe required a creator. And if some things require a creator, then their deity may have had a creator.As I can figure it in a purely logical sense, a complex thing does not require a more complex thing. That does NOT imply that NO complex thing requires a more complex thing.
I think it's the fact that theists assign properties ad hoc to their deity without a way to verify. In other words, as I said before, they're bare assertions and anyone can make them. So, if whoever makes the most special pleading wins, then we're in for a long debate.Therefore, I do not see a logical inconsistency between man/nature requiring a god and god not requiring a god.
All things considered, I still think Dawkin's choice of this line of argument is poor.
Upvote
0