God's and Unicorns

[steamer]

Many Christians argue that the universe is simply too complex not to have been made by god. It seems to me that the complexity of the god they imagine is an argument against the god's actual existence. The universe neither contains infinite power (magical or otherwise) nor is it nearly infinitely complex as being omniscient implies. The universe is a simpler thing than a god.

Whether god exists or not, it is not known that god exists. Unicorns are also not known to exist. Both gods and unicorns have been described and can be imagined. We call such things imaginary.

Suppose though that you had to assign some probability to their existence. It is either a meaningless thing to do as we have no evidence, or it is reasonable to do based on some criteria.

If the reason to believe in a god is the existence and complexity of the universe, then theists have already accepted a criteria that relative complexity is a valid criteria for assigning probability.

If relative complexity is a valid criteria for assigning probability of existence, then which is more likely to exist, a god or a unicorn?

Since unicorns are nearly infinitely less complex than god, their likelyhood of existence seems nearly infinitely more likely.

[WWJD4aKlondikeBar]

So...I now believe in unicorns? I'm so confused!

[naturalist.atheist]

Since unicorns are nearly infinitely less complex than god, their likelyhood of existence seems nearly infinitely more likely.

That is the problem with argument from analogy.

You arrange objects by a property and then because that particular property is now related you then jump to the conclusion that other properties must also be related.

The universe is complex.
Watches are complex.



[Then take an associated property.]

[B]Watches are made.

[Then jump to the conclusion of shared properties.]

So universes are made.

[Which then of course begs the question of who made the universe.]


And of course there is no reason to think that if two objects have a similar property then other properties must be similar also.

[Valdemar]

If relative complexity is a valid criteria for assigning probability of existence, then which is more likely to exist, a god or a unicorn?

A unicorn. And a number of lesser gods not nearly as powerful as the God of the Bible: Thor, Odin, Zeus, Hera....

[steamer]

That is the problem with argument from analogy.

You arrange objects by a property and then because that particular property is now related you then jump to the conclusion that other properties must also be related.

The universe is complex.
Watches are complex.



[Then take an associated property.]

[B]Watches are made.

[Then jump to the conclusion of shared properties.]

So universes are made.

[Which then of course begs the question of who made the universe.]


And of course there is no reason to think that if two objects have a similar property then other properties must be similar also.

The watch, however complex, is not more complex than the watchmaker. If one stakes his belief in god upon the unlikelyhood of the the complex universe existing then one assumes an even more complex thing to create it. How much less likely is it that a god and a universe exists than just that a universe exists. A nearly infinitely complex thing (god) would be less likely than the simpler thing alone (the universe).

In the case of watches, we know a watchmaker exists so we don't have to infer an even more complicated watchmaker into existence. When we do infer one into existence (god), if complexity really is a factor in the likelyhood of a thing existing, then we have just made things even less likely, not more likely.

Either way, it still makes no sense to me.

[naturalist.atheist]

The watch, however complex, is not more complex than the watchmaker. If one stakes his belief in god upon the unlikelyhood of the the complex universe existing then one assumes an even more complex thing to create it. How much less likely is it that a god and a universe exists than just that a universe exists. A nearly infinitely complex thing (god) would be less likely than the simpler thing alone (the universe).

But implicit in the argument is that the universe was created. Where did it come from? A universe maker? It is still argument by analogy.

In the case of watches, we know a watchmaker exists so we don't have to infer an even more complicated watchmaker into existence. When we do infer one into existence (god), if complexity really is a factor in the likelyhood of a thing existing, then we have just made things even less likely, not more likely.

But we know that watches have watchmakers. But we don't know that universes have universe makers. We can go to watch factories and see them made. They are aquired in the same way as other things that are made. They break like other things that are made. They look like other things that are made. There is a history of watches and the making of watches. We know there was a time when there were no watches. There is all sorts of additional information about watches that we know that we do not know about the universe.

However argument by analogy implies that if we can match up one property of the universe with something that we do know about that *poof* we will now know about these other properties of the universe simply because we know about the properties of watches.

For things that share many properties in common argument by analogy works better. But other than complexity there is not much in common between the two things, or anything that has ever been made by man or ever conceived that could be made by man. Not really much at all.

Either way, it still makes no sense to me.

It shouldn't. It is an terrible analogy.

[Wasted Sapience]

Many Christians argue that the universe is simply too complex not to have been made by god.

"Complexity" does not exist in the universe. Complexity exists only in the human mind as a means of trying to make sense a many, many simple things working together. :wave:

[windsofchange]

Since unicorns are nearly infinitely less complex than god, their likelyhood of existence seems nearly infinitely more likely.

Well, yeah. If you define a unicorn as "a horse with a horn in the center of its head", then it's actually quite likely (in theory) that such an animal could evolve naturally, or be bred.

Perhaps you meant magical unicorns?

[naturalist.atheist]

Well, yeah. If you define a unicorn as "a horse with a horn in the center of its head", then it's actually quite likely (in theory) that such an animal could evolve naturally, or be bred.

Perhaps you meant magical unicorns?

Or maybe funny looking rhinoceroses?

[windsofchange]

Or maybe funny looking rhinoceroses?

I've never seen a serious one. :cool: