"Semper LibčrŽ" <nopolicestates????!?Hje77@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said :
> In other words you agree its proof of a creator... you just can't
> place the start of the singularity.
No, you misunderstand. *If* the complexity of the universe means that it
requires a creator, then it follows that the creator also requires a
creator. The creator of the creator will also require a creator. In
that case, there is no 'start': it's turtles all the way down. Because
there is no start to that chain, there is no ultimate creator - each
creator has a creator of its own, back into eternity. Thus, the chain
*itself* has always existed, and since the chain has no *ultimate*
creator - it is merely an endless line of creator creating creator - it
becomes an example of a structure which has either come into being
without a conscious act of creation, or which has always existed. If we
accept that that is possible, then we accept that complex structures can
come into being without conscious creation, or can have 'always existed'.
The same idea could then be legitimately applied to the cosmos as a
whole, thus negating the idea that the complexity of the universe
requires a creator.
If, on the other hand, we immediately accept the idea that a being as
complex as a creator can come into existence without having been created,
or can simply have always existed, then the same idea can be applied to
the cosmos as a whole. In that case, the complexity of the universe is
again no proof of a creator.
As a proof of God, the Watchmaker Argument is a paradox that resolves by
destroying itself. None of this rules out the *possibility* that the
cosmos was created - but it does render it irrational to try to prove it
based solely on its complexity.
|
