|
|
Everyone has heard this argument at one point or another, but has the theist ever stopped and thought about what he is saying? By using this argument, the theist implies that since all complexity requires a creator.. we too must have had a creator. There are two large problems with the theist who uses this argument; 1) the theist is contradicting himself, and 2) the argument is based upon faulty logic.
The theist contradicts himself by saying that this complex universe requires a creator, yet his exponentially more complex creator has always been here. The argument "complexity must have a creator" is very easily applied to the theist as well. If our universe must have had a creator because of its complexity, then a god would also need a creator, ad infinitum. To avoid this infinite circle, theists will say that their god has always been here in some form or another. This argument too, does not hold up. If a god could have always been here in one form or another, why couldn't the universe? This also applies to the "complexity requires a designer" argument.
The argument is based upon faulty logic in that we see nothing at all created in our world today. Lets take the classical theist example of a house. We don't 'create' the wood, the windows, or anything else within the house. When we build the house, we simply change existing atoms and molecules into a different form.
Does this mean that the universe didn't have a creator? Of course not, it simply means that this argument proves nothing at all and is contradictory. Theists must realize this, and think up some more compelling arguments.
Raj Bains
raj1037@yahoo.com
Site creator