Quote:
Originally Posted by Action Jackson
You were the one who suggested that god didn't need a creator. I was asking you why you thought that?
Why (in the view of creationists) can something as complex as the eye be deemed too complex to have happened through evolution and therefore must have a creator, yet a being like God, who must be the most complex entity in the universe(or wherever he/she/it resides) is not deemed to have had a creator?
How could someone as complex as God have happened by chance?
I just see the hypocrisy in applying one set of logic (if it's complex it must have been created) to explain the existence of God (without any physical evidence I might add), yet refuse to apply the same logic to God him/her/itself.
|
Trying to discuss the eternal nature of God is like two worms trying to discuss a rainbow. We simply don't have the means to perceive what we would need to perceive in order to have anything approaching a conclusive discussion on the subject.
In any case, comparing the complexity of God with the complexity of the eye is like comparing apples and oranges. God is posited to exist in an entirely different realm, outside of the created universe and unbound by any of its laws (he is held, in fact, to be the author of the laws). There is no reason to expect that such a being must necessarily conform to any of the laws of physics that we know to operate in our universe.
The eye, on the other hand, exists in a physical universe whose laws we claim to understand. The basic position of the 'Intelligent Design' hypothesis is irreducable complexity. That is, given what we know about the laws that govern the universe, and our observations of how things occur within the universe as they follow those laws, it is absurd to suggest that an eye could have arisen spontaneously.
This observation, of processes occuring within the universe and taking account of certain laws, has no necessary impact on a being who is held to exist, by his very definition, outside of the universe and unbound by its laws.