How complex is God?

"How complex is God?" is essentially the same question as "What happened before the Big Bang?", dontcha think?Or, at least, I'm failing to see the difference.They're both nonsense question.

Do you think that saying that the singularity is not subject to time, as in there's nothing before the Big Bang, is special pleading as well?

Why should the creator be subjected to the same axioms as the created? They're, like, totally different, man We could say that the complexity of god is undetectable or infinite, even, like the slope of a verticle line. As we increase the angle of a line we increase the slope, but when we get to 90 degrees, we don't have a slope anymore. As we increase the complexity, we increase the need for a designer, but when get to god, we don't have a designer anymore.If god is not a part of, or is outside of, the creation, then it doesn't have the same "properties" as the creation, like the property that complexity implyies design.Compare saying that complexity implies design to the present implying a past. If we keep going back in time (going up a complexity continuum towards god), eventually we get to the singularity (god). In the present of the singularity, there is no past (no time before it), and at the complexity of god, there is no designer (nothing more complex). So, even though the present implies a past, we can get to a point where that is no longer applied (the singularity). In the same way, complexity implying design can get to the point where it is no longer applied (god). I understand the argument, and I do think that the ID premise is self-refuting. However, if the designer is God, then we're at the point where we no longer apply 'complexity implies design'.

As well, there is still the constant in BB "expansion implies a singularity" and the question - whats before the singularity - will still be "begged".Still though, BB isn't just thrown out and in the same way, ID shouldn't be thrown out for this reason alone (which I realize you haven't advocated...yet). Hrm... that's a little ambiguous. I wish you would've put italics somewhere in there to stress the point. And I'm not sure exactly what your refering to with "recognisable entity". But I'll give it a shot anyways By the way, its recogniZable... But in the same way, it is applicable to every recognizable entity. That doesn't do much to answer questions that follow though, does it? I don't think the theory requires the entity to be 'recognized'. In fact, don't they purposefully NOT recognize the designer? If so, why does it matter that it be recognized? Again, kinda the same point. Why must we put our finger on the entity? The theory just says that there must be some entity, and then stops there. It says nothing of the entity other than it must be intellegent. I really don't think that nothing at all is assumed. For one, it is assumed that the designer is intellegent. But also, there are some other minor things we can assume about it in the same way that some of the properties of the singularity are assumed even thought we can never really "get there".But yeah, I don't really know what your point was exactly. What did you mean by being applicable to any recognizable entity?

My point was, and I could be wrong, that there are similarities to this and the Big Bang Theory and the question of what is before the Big Bang.It doesn't seem to be a problem with the BB, because it is a scientific theory. But when it happens with a not-so-scientific theory, then people seem to think that it is sufficient reason to throw the theory out.It just seems like a double standard to me.I've been away for a while and kinda lost track of our discussion. Sorry for the short reply.