Well I see Blzebub has been on “vacation” for a time so it may not be fair to respond to him, but I wanted to address the OP directly.
The premise is that for something to be designed it would need to be designed by a more complex being and that that being would need to be designed by a more complex being and so on in a never ending succession and thus proving that God could not exist.
This premise is based on the assumption that nothing can exist that cannot be observed with our senses. This is referred to as materialism and whether that assumption is true or not, it limits possible explanations. As an example, my daughter will be looking for her shoes and she will come to me and tell me she can’t find them and that she “looked everywhere!” I say “You haven’t looked everywhere … you haven’t looked where they are at.” Her assumption was that since she couldn’t find them, they must not exist - that they had dissapeared. But she just wasn’t looking in the right place.
Perhaps this is the case with God.? Perhaps he exists outside of time and space and we are just not looking in the right place. You see, science can only deal with the physical, material world, so if you are looking for science to prove or disprove the existence of God, you may be looking in the wrong place.
Lack of evidence for something does not prove that something doesn’t exist. How many times have you all heard that the TOE is false because of the lack of transitional fossils? The response is always … we just haven’t looked in the right place yet, but we are confident that they will be found, and many have.
The OP also assumes that if something did exist outside of our material world it would operate in the same way that the material world does. But why does that need to be so? Would the non-material world be bound by the same physical laws that we are ie. needing to have a beginning and an end? Not necessarily, how could we possibly know if we can't measure it by our physical standards?
So, bottom line is that I don’t believe science can address the issue of whether God exists or not. It is not equipped to do so. Science deals with the study of the material world - anything that may exist outside of our material world needs to be studied by other methods. So, we study the physical world with science and we study God with philosophy and theology. The two ideas are mutually exclusive but not necessarily contradictory.
You're right, I should have enclosed study with quotation marks as well. I thought it was fairly clear that I was not saying we study God in the same way we study plants or atoms or any other part of the natural world.
one speculation is as good as another
I would not say that. It is a matter of opinion what "as good as" or "better" actually is.
which is why creationism and ID have no validity
Actually the problem is not that they "speculate" about God, but that they try to use science to prove their speculation which is not something science is intended to do, since as I proposed, God is outside of and not detectable by physical means.
I don't see where the argument is based on that assumption.
Would it not assume that God is under the same physical laws that we in the material world are? Why would something that is not made up of matter need to be created or designed by a more "complex" being? Complexity is a physical attribute. These are characteristics that we observe in the material world, but how can we assume that the "non-material" world works the same way or has the same rules. And btw, I realize that you are not making these assertions, I am just explaining why I felt the premise of the OP was based on materialism.
OK. But the point is that creationist think that they have a quasi-scientific argument which does address this issue. They hold it to be true that complex things need yet more complex causes.
I certainly can't speak for all creationists and IDers, this is just my personal take on this issue. I don't think that just because, say a living cell, needs to be designed (and for the purpose of this thread I am not arguing that it does), it would not necessarily imply that the designer need to be designed. So would something actually be "supernatural" if it required a designer? The assumption is that this "supernatural" being is merely a physical being that is more "complex" than anything we are currently aware of, and if that is the case, then yes there would be a problem with needing a meta-meta-god and so on ad infinitum. I am simply suggesting that this would not be the case if God exsists outside of our material world.
You are free to speculate about all the nonsense you wish. But I didn't know we were talking about leprechaun scientists or unicorn scientists ect ... Someone could believe in any of the above as they wish, but what does that have to do with scientific inquiry? If you believe in leprechauns would that affect how you do science? Only if you were trying to prove they existed by using science.
I am not arguing for or against creationism, only that God wouldn't necessarily need to be created by a "more complex" being. I am not even arguing for the existance of God, since it is something we could go round and round about and never reach a concensus. I am merely addressing the OP which says that if a supernatural being created the universe then he would need an even more "complex" being to create him.
But this particular creationist argument implies that he would need to be created by a more complex being. That's the problem with it. The OP isn't an argument against God nor an argument for a meta-God. It's just pointing out that one particular argument for God is incoherent.
Aaahhh... I think I understand what you are getting at here. Even with the possibility of God being immaterial the problem of seeing something as so "complex" that it requires a designer remains abiguous and is not applied consistantly. Ok. Let's go the other way with it (which is probably more absurd). "This automobile is so complex that I know it has a designer!" but ... is this pencil so simple that it does not need a designer? After all it is only a piece of wood with a piece of graphite through the middle of it. I am taking Organic Chemistry right now, and that is definately complex ... must need a designer! So ... anything organic needs a designer. What about inorganic? Crystal formations are actually quite complicated arrangements of molecules ... designed. Is there anything in nature that is so "simple" that a designer is not required? Hardly. So everything needs to be designed and when when something is an answer for everything ... it is really an answer to nothing.
So I see where you are coming from. This doesn't eliminate the possibility of a designer, but invoking complexity or "looks designed" is hardly criteria for appealing to a designer.
This argument fails - A) Life is too complex to have arisen without aid. B) Complexity implies there is a designer.
I agree, however for a different reason.
A "Designer" would have to be complex.
This is where I disagree. A "designer" would not nesessarily have to be "complex" in the material, physical sense that we perceive as complex. Therefore, it would not automatically follow that the designer would need to be created. BTW, I know that is pure speculation, but the whole premise of the thread is speculation. The proof of the existance of a designer does not need to be established in order to suggest my point.
But I still agree that the arguement fails because the idea of "complexity requires design" is not applied consistantly (which is what I thought Dr. A's point was). But I actually applied the inconsistancy in the opposite direction asking the question, what would be simple enough that it would not require design. And by the criteria of "complexity requires design", I could not come up with anything. So when one "complex" thing requires design and another "complex" thing doesn't (?) its pretty much a pointless argument.
So we are in agreement that:
quote:This argument fails - A) Life is too complex to have arisen without aid. B) Complexity implies there is a designer.