I Have A Problem With An Atheist Argument

[David Sklansky]

Its the argument that says that using God to explain some things postualtes something even more complicated that has to be explained. Or the similar argument that if we use God to explain how the universe was created we bump into the question of who created God?

Although I am not an expert on the subject, I think that the possibility of a universe outside ours, with five or more dimensions can refute these points. Religious people refutethe second comment with the words that God is "outside time". I think that is conceivably true. But it is also true, I'm pretty sure that you don't need to be God to be outside time. In other words it is not logically impossible for something to always exist. Time could fall back on itself in five dimensions just like the equater does in three. (I suppose that could be possible in a three dimensional univerde as well, but in our case the evidence suggests a beginning did happen.) If so many different entities could be outside time.

But such a fifth dimensional entity could be pretty simplistic, not Godlike, not omnipotent, but still be capable of creating and miraculously (to us) interfering inside a three or four dimensional universe. Just like the spherein flatland couldremove a kidney without breaking the skin.

In a nutshell to reject the idea of an intelligent designer as a simple explanation for at least some things because the designer couldn't be simple is I think fallacious.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
In a nutshell to reject the idea of an intelligent designer as a simple explanation for at least some things because the designer couldn't be simple is I think fallacious.

[/ QUOTE ] I believe the arguemnt is that the designer must be simple. The arguement that the creator is a highly complex being named God, is what is at issue. God if he exists is very simple, or is composed of many much simpler things. Not to many atheists should have a problem with a creator being an increadibly simple being, a first causish creator would have to be simple.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
But it is also true, I'm pretty sure that you don't need to be God to be outside time.

[/ QUOTE ]
I happen to know that this is true. One can construct "toy models" of primitive quantum mechanical universes which have an internal time evolution identical to the Schrodinger equation, but which would (if constructed) sit in the laboratory without evolving in our human-percieved time. You the lab scientist would have complete access to not only the "space" part of the toy universe, but also to all times as well.

[ QUOTE ]
In other words it is not logically impossible for something to always exist. Time could fall back on itself in five dimensions just like the equater does in three. (I suppose that could be possible in a three dimensional univerde as well, but in our case the evidence suggests a beginning did happen.) If so many different entities could be outside time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Time doesn't need to fall back on itself for the universe to "always exist" in a sense. When general relativity is accounted for, time is no longer an external parameter in which states evolve one into another. A state describing the entire history of the univers is simply given, and time is an emergent phenomenon internal to that state.

[ QUOTE ]
But such a fifth dimensional entity could be pretty simplistic, not Godlike, not omnipotent, but still be capable of creating and miraculously (to us) interfering inside a three or four dimensional universe. Just like the spherein flatland couldremove a kidney without breaking the skin.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, this was the content of a recent thread that you may have missed.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...e=8#Post9211263 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=9211263&an=0&page=8# Post9211263)

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a nutshell to reject the idea of an intelligent designer as a simple explanation for at least some things because the designer couldn't be simple is I think fallacious.

[/ QUOTE ] I believe the arguemnt is that the designer must be simple. The arguement that the creator is a highly complex being named God, is what is at issue. God if he exists is very simple, or is composed of many much simpler things. Not to many atheists should have a problem with a creator being an increadibly simple being, a first causish creator would have to be simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the God of the bible? How can an omnipotent, omnisentient being who presides over the entire universe be simple?

[Lestat]

Does evolution only apply to living organisms?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a nutshell to reject the idea of an intelligent designer as a simple explanation for at least some things because the designer couldn't be simple is I think fallacious.

[/ QUOTE ] I believe the arguemnt is that the designer must be simple. The arguement that the creator is a highly complex being named God, is what is at issue. God if he exists is very simple, or is composed of many much simpler things. Not to many atheists should have a problem with a creator being an increadibly simple being, a first causish creator would have to be simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the God of the bible? How can an omnipotent, omnisentient being who presides over the entire universe be simple?

[/ QUOTE ] Sorry, that was the point, the God of the Bible, can't be posited to explain the creation of life and the universe as a first cause agent, becuase he isn't simple. He is the most complex being imaginable, and can't be used as a first cause. Only simple explainations will suffice. I think that is what davids main point was, I merely took issue with the mischaracterisation of this atheist argument.

You can also logically posit a very copmlex, non-first cuase type creator. You just can't combine the 2.

[furyshade]

we don't need to postulate that time can turn back on itself, the Big Bang theory is entirely based on the idea that at some point a singularity moved contrary to time, the problem is what do you define as "God", can we call a catalytic force which began the universe God? does God have to be active? this is where things get tricky, when we have to define God. if some one-dimensional reaction occured to force a singularity to move contrary to time, can this reaction be called God?

[GoodCallYouWin]

[ QUOTE ]
Does evolution only apply to living organisms?

[/ QUOTE ]


Obviously not.

[Lestat]

I used a bad question. My point is that whether any such creator is outside time or not, or outside our dimension or not, it must have evolved from something less complicated. I like the many dimensions theory, but things (whether it be the universe or living organisms), don't evolve backwards from complicated to simple. So whatever started/created the universe, must've evolved from something less complicated than the universe itself. If it's a sentient creator, you MUST ask how any such creator evolved.

[gdsdiscgolfer]

Has anyone read Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut? The section about how Tralfmadorians experience time is very relevant to this discussion.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I used a bad question. My point is that whether any such creator is outside time or not, or outside our dimension or not, it must have evolved from something less complicated. I like the many dimensions theory, but things (whether it be the universe or living organisms), don't evolve backwards from complicated to simple. So whatever started/created the universe, must've evolved from something less complicated than the universe itself. If it's a sentient creator, you MUST ask how any such creator evolved.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the beginning, if there was just God, wouldn't He in a sense be a singularity? I'm not sure, but a singularity seems infinitely simple.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
I used a bad question. My point is that whether any such creator is outside time or not, or outside our dimension or not, it must have evolved from something less complicated. I like the many dimensions theory, but things (whether it be the universe or living organisms), don't evolve backwards from complicated to simple. So whatever started/created the universe, must've evolved from something less complicated than the universe itself. If it's a sentient creator, you MUST ask how any such creator evolved.

[/ QUOTE ]

That point of view seems to involve a lot of assumptions about the nature of God, not the least of which is that God must be subject to His own personal "thermodynamic arrow of time" (which you appear to accept may be independent from our own).

Evolution in the biological sense is not the only connection between simplicity and complexity. So while you MUST ask "how the creator evolved," you should not be too terribly surprised if the correct answer is "N/A."

I am not dismissing this approach as a possibility, of course, but I am by no means convinced that it is the only possible one, as it appears you are suggesting.

[madnak]

This argument is actually a refutation (at least in theory, I know some go a little nuts with it).

A common theist argument is

1 - Everything has a cause.
2 - The universe is a thing.
3 - From 1 and 2, the universe must have a cause.
4 - That cause must be God.

Even without the fact that the fourth statement is straight out of nowhereville and that there is llttle reason to accept the first statement, an extension of statement 3 can be made:

5 - A cause is a thing.
6 - From 1, 5, and 3, the cause of the universe must have a cause.
7 - From 1, 5, and 6, the cause of the cause of the universe must have a cause.
8 - From 1, 5, and 7, the cause of the cause of the cause of the universe must have a cause.

And so on. Taking 4 into account, we have the relevant atheist argument in its purest form:

9 - God is a thing.
10 - From 1, 4, and 9, God must have a cause.

Which is just a more specific version of 6, 7, and 8. By extension, however, God cannot be absolute. Because that is one of the beliefs of the theists typically making this argument, this highlights a contradiction in their beliefs.

It's not a matter of denying that there's a possibility of intelligent design - of course there is such a possibility. It's a matter of pointing out the inconsistencies in the theist positions.

[Skidoo]

What is a thing?

[madnak]

You're making the argument - I'm just refuting it. Thus, the definition of "thing" is your responsibility. If you can construct something that is not arbitrary, includes the universe, and doesn't include God, then congratulations.

But that's not something I have ever seen accomplished before. You can make your argument valid by using a criterion that is completely arbitrary - but the argument has no force if there's absolutely no reason to accept the premises (personally I don't accept them even as stated, but some do). Of course, if you use a premise that unbelievers are likely to accept, then you'll have extreme difficulty fitting the Christian God into that context.

The argument is rarely made rigorously because it's either irrelevant or fallacious.

[Skidoo]

What argument? That was my first post in this thread. I'm asking what you mean by a term you are using.

[madnak]

"You" is collective. If you personally acknowledge that the argument is invalid, that's nice but the snarky post seems inconsistent.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
"You" is collective. If you personally acknowledge that the argument is invalid, that's nice but the sharkey post seems inconsistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"You" is collective. If you personally acknowledge that the argument is invalid, that's nice but the sharkey post seems inconsistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Duke]

@david

I'm not sure why you see a problem with 2 people defining the universe in different ways.

Even the simplest anything residing in extra spacetime dimensions would be quite complicated considering that nobody here could ever point to or properly model it.

The argument isn't all that great, but the point it ends up making is still sound: If the answer truly answers nothing for us (in terms of explaining anything at all), and isn't verifiable, well, it ends up being irrelevant to our quest for understanding.

As an argument against the existence of god, it's terrible, but as a useful way to point out why god is useless, it does its job.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I used a bad question. My point is that whether any such creator is outside time or not, or outside our dimension or not, it must have evolved from something less complicated. I like the many dimensions theory, but things (whether it be the universe or living organisms), don't evolve backwards from complicated to simple. So whatever started/created the universe, must've evolved from something less complicated than the universe itself. If it's a sentient creator, you MUST ask how any such creator evolved.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the beginning, if there was just God, wouldn't He in a sense be a singularity? I'm not sure, but a singularity seems infinitely simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember I'm talking about a sentient, intelligent being.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I used a bad question. My point is that whether any such creator is outside time or not, or outside our dimension or not, it must have evolved from something less complicated. I like the many dimensions theory, but things (whether it be the universe or living organisms), don't evolve backwards from complicated to simple. So whatever started/created the universe, must've evolved from something less complicated than the universe itself. If it's a sentient creator, you MUST ask how any such creator evolved.

[/ QUOTE ]

That point of view seems to involve a lot of assumptions about the nature of God, not the least of which is that God must be subject to His own personal "thermodynamic arrow of time" (which you appear to accept may be independent from our own).

Evolution in the biological sense is not the only connection between simplicity and complexity. So while you MUST ask "how the creator evolved," you should not be too terribly surprised if the correct answer is "N/A."

I am not dismissing this approach as a possibility, of course, but I am by no means convinced that it is the only possible one, as it appears you are suggesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you're saying makes sense, but it funnels down to anything outside our dimensional ability to comprehend is possible. And if that is true, then God is no better argument than anything else. My point is that while there may be many possibilities, it is only logical to contemplate those answers which are derived from human intelligence (or our capacity to understand), even though the actual answer may lie elsewhere. So why have a problem with this particular atheistic argument?

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
Its the argument that says that using God to explain some things postualtes something even more complicated that has to be explained. Or the similar argument that if we use God to explain how the universe was created we bump into the question of who created God?

Although I am not an expert on the subject, I think that the possibility of a universe outside ours, with five or more dimensions can refute these points. Religious people refutethe second comment with the words that God is "outside time". I think that is conceivably true. But it is also true, I'm pretty sure that you don't need to be God to be outside time. In other words it is not logically impossible for something to always exist. Time could fall back on itself in five dimensions just like the equater does in three. (I suppose that could be possible in a three dimensional univerde as well, but in our case the evidence suggests a beginning did happen.) If so many different entities could be outside time.

But such a fifth dimensional entity could be pretty simplistic, not Godlike, not omnipotent, but still be capable of creating and miraculously (to us) interfering inside a three or four dimensional universe. Just like the spherein flatland couldremove a kidney without breaking the skin.

In a nutshell to reject the idea of an intelligent designer as a simple explanation for at least some things because the designer couldn't be simple is I think fallacious.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument seems to be a bait-and-switch. Do you see why?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I used a bad question. My point is that whether any such creator is outside time or not, or outside our dimension or not, it must have evolved from something less complicated. I like the many dimensions theory, but things (whether it be the universe or living organisms), don't evolve backwards from complicated to simple. So whatever started/created the universe, must've evolved from something less complicated than the universe itself. If it's a sentient creator, you MUST ask how any such creator evolved.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the beginning, if there was just God, wouldn't He in a sense be a singularity? I'm not sure, but a singularity seems infinitely simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember I'm talking about a sentient, intelligent being.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
<font color="brown"> C. SIMPLICITY OF GOD

God is a simple being or substance excluding every kind of composition, physical or metaphysical. Physical or real composition is either substantial or accidental -- substantial, if the being in question consists of two or more substantial principles, forming parts of a composite whole, as man for example, consists of body and soul; accidental, if the being in question, although simple in its substance (as is the human soul), is capable of possessing accidental perfections (like the actual thoughts and volition of man's soul) not necessarily identical with its substance. Now it is clear that an infinite being cannot be substantially composite, for this would mean that infinity is made up of the union or addition of finite parts -- a plain contradiction in terms. Nor can accidental composition be attributed to the infinite since even this would imply a capacity for increased perfection, which the very notion of the infinite excludes. There is not, therefore, and cannot be any physical or real composition in God.

Neither can there be that kind of composition which is known as metaphysical, and which results from "the union of diverse concepts referring to the same real thing in such a way that none of them by itself signifies either explicitly or even implicitly the whole reality signified by their combination." Thus every actual contingent being is a metaphysical compound of essence and existence, and man in particular, according to the definition, is a compound of animal and rational. Essence as such in relation to a contingent being merely implies its conceivableness or possibility, and abstracts from actual existence; existence as such must be added before we can speak of the being as actual. But this distinction, with the composition it implies, cannot be applied to the self-existent or infinite being in whom essence and existence are completely identified. We say of a contingent being that it has a certain nature or essence, but of the self-existent we say that it is its own nature or essence. There is no composition therefore of essence and existence -- or of potentiality and actuality -- in God, nor can the composition of genus and specific difference, implied for example in the definition of man as a rational animal, be attributed to Him. God cannot be classified or defined, as contingent beings are classified and defined; for there is no aspect of being in which He is perfectly similar to the finite, and consequently no genus in which He can be included. From this it follows that we cannot know God adequately in the way in which He knows Himself, but not, as the Agnostic contends, that our inadequate knowledge is not true as far as it goes. In speaking of a being who transcends the limitations of formal logical definition our propositions are an expression of real truth, provided that what we state is in itself intelligible and not self-contradictory; and there is nothing unintelligible or contradictory in what Theists predicate of God. It is true that no single predicate is adequate or exhaustive as a description of His infinite perfection, and that we need to employ a multitude of predicates, as if at first sight infinity could be reached by multiplication. But at the same time we recognize that this is not so -- being repugnant to the Divine simplicity; and that while truth, goodness, wisdom, holiness and other attributes, as we conceive and define them express perfections that are formally distinct, yet as applied to God they are all ultimately identical in meaning and describe the same ultimate reality -- the one infinitely perfect and simple being.

</font>

[Metric]

I'm not so sure that looking beyond biological evolution automatically excludes it from the realm of human thought... I suppose I'm simply advocating a really big picture view on these sorts of things -- I doubt we really disagree so much.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of denying that there's a possibility of intelligent design - of course there is such a possibility. It's a matter of pointing out the inconsistencies in the theist positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find that discussions regarding intelligent design are often plagued by persons who 'want' there to be intelligent design somewhere in the chain. I think that kind of bias is bad. Everything from people wanting there to be some kind of awesome alien race (yeah its goofy, but I think many people are attracted to that idea), a god or some sort of entity which designed something once.

I think it results somewhat in the human's minds way of detecting patterns which isn't necessarily there. Pattern recognition is a vital survival tool and most likely a product of evolution (I know I always return to this, but evolutionary psychology is fun stuff).

This kind of cognition towards seeing 'meaning' or a 'system' even if there might be none which can create a dangerous natural bias towards intelligent design theories.

I kind of dislike the 'we can't disprove it so you may be right' thing all together. I mean, I see the point in it, but untill one knows otherwise, when two theories yield the same answers, the best theory is always the simplest one (simple in a valid academic context ofcourse).

[vhawk01]

I am becoming jaded and cynical, I think.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
The possibility of a universe outside ours, with five or more dimensions can refute these points.

[/ QUOTE ]Still, this would be an explanation that would fit right in the theory of the world as scientists, agnostics and atheists have it, rather than how the religious folks have it - such as Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. The agnostics are not arguing that a creator that's simpler than what we can envision cannot exist; but that, in such a case, He sijply cannot conform to the acolytes' specifications.

Secular, intelligent persons present various potential explanations about our cosmos, all valid to a certain degree, each perhaps with varying probabilities of being the correct one --if indeed it's one explanation and not many...--. You just offered one such, David.

On the other hand, religious persons are stuck with a single, very rigid explanation, whereby everything must be correct -- or nothing isn't (viz. Exodus; Resurrection; etc). In the Monty Hall contest of a 1,000 doors they would get goat after goat after goat.

Mickey Brausch

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I kind of dislike the 'we can't disprove it so you may be right' thing all together. I mean, I see the point in it, but untill one knows otherwise, when two theories yield the same answers, the best theory is always the simplest one (simple in a valid academic context ofcourse).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that is the most practical theory, but I don't think it's necessarily the most correct. Also, we aren't talking about theories here, or even hypotheses - we're talking about beliefs. I think it's important to acknowledge that we have no way of knowing - the techniques of empirical discipline are largely ways to deal with that fact.

[AndysDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?

[/ QUOTE ] Carl Sagan, <u>Cosmos</u>

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I kind of dislike the 'we can't disprove it so you may be right' thing all together. I mean, I see the point in it, but untill one knows otherwise, when two theories yield the same answers, the best theory is always the simplest one (simple in a valid academic context ofcourse).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that is the most practical theory, but I don't think it's necessarily the most correct. Also, we aren't talking about theories here, or even hypotheses - we're talking about beliefs. I think it's important to acknowledge that we have no way of knowing - the techniques of empirical discipline are largely ways to deal with that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, Occam's Razor isn't the best way to discount theories, as quantum mechanics and general relativity would be axed in favor of some sort of approximation that could mend them together nicely.

And though I think that they will be mended at some point, and that the "real" answer will be a lot simpler than what we have now, to do it at this point in time with our current knowledge would be foolhardy.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I kind of dislike the 'we can't disprove it so you may be right' thing all together. I mean, I see the point in it, but untill one knows otherwise, when two theories yield the same answers, the best theory is always the simplest one (simple in a valid academic context ofcourse).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that is the most practical theory, but I don't think it's necessarily the most correct. Also, we aren't talking about theories here, or even hypotheses - we're talking about beliefs. I think it's important to acknowledge that we have no way of knowing - the techniques of empirical discipline are largely ways to deal with that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Belief seems to be the operative word and I feel the important question is how that belief came about:
A) Do people believe God exists because of the Bible?
B) Does the Bible exist because people believe in God?

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The possibility of a universe outside ours, with five or more dimensions can refute these points.

[/ QUOTE ]Still, this would be an explanation that would fit right in the theory of the world as scientists, agnostics and atheists have it, rather than how the religious folks have it - such as Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. The agnostics are not arguing that a creator that's simpler than what we can envision cannot exist; but that, in such a case, He sijply cannot conform to the acolytes' specifications.

Secular, intelligent persons present various potential explanations about our cosmos, all valid to a certain degree, each perhaps with varying probabilities of being the correct one --if indeed it's one explanation and not many...--. You just offered one such, David.

On the other hand, religious persons are stuck with a single, very rigid explanation, whereby everything must be correct -- or nothing isn't (viz. Exodus; Resurrection; etc). In the Monty Hall contest of a 1,000 doors they would get goat after goat after goat.

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes of course.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?

[/ QUOTE ] Carl Sagan, <u>Cosmos</u>

[/ QUOTE ]

Because supposedly it hasn't. Anyway it is in fact the above quote which I believe is flawed.

[Borodog]

David,

It doesn't really matter if the God or intelligent designer or whatever you want to call it you postulate is complex or simple, 4th dimensional or 8th. It still cannot be observed, does not appear necessary to explain that which is explicable, and does not explain that which is currently inexplicable. Hence it is an unnecessary complication to invoke such a hypothesis.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

It doesn't really matter if the God or intelligent designer or whatever you want to call it you postulate is complex or simple, 4th dimensional or 8th. It still cannot be observed, does not appear necessary to explain that which is explicable, and does not explain that which is currently inexplicable. Hence it is an unnecessary complication to invoke such a hypothesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah this is what I was getting at with:

[ QUOTE ]
Even the simplest anything residing in extra spacetime dimensions would be quite complicated considering that nobody here could ever point to or properly model it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I kind of dislike the 'we can't disprove it so you may be right' thing all together. I mean, I see the point in it, but untill one knows otherwise, when two theories yield the same answers, the best theory is always the simplest one (simple in a valid academic context ofcourse).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that is the most practical theory, but I don't think it's necessarily the most correct. Also, we aren't talking about theories here, or even hypotheses - we're talking about beliefs. I think it's important to acknowledge that we have no way of knowing - the techniques of empirical discipline are largely ways to deal with that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Belief seems to be the operative word and I feel the important question is how that belief came about:
A) Do people believe God exists because of the Bible?
B) Does the Bible exist because people believe in God?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think both of these are correct, obviously. The majority of Christian people today believe in God because of the Bible. The misgivings they have about unknowns could probably be presently explained to enough detail to satisfy them and prevent them from making up Gods. There are obviously unanswered questions, but they aren't dramatic and looming enough to cause the invention of Gods, at least not as they are now.

But this isn't true of the people who created the Bible. Knowledge was so much more restricted that the unanswered questions made up a much more significant part of their lives, enough so that creating Gods was a much more practical solution, if not outright necessary.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]

It doesn't really matter if the God or intelligent designer or whatever you want to call it you postulate is complex or simple, 4th dimensional or 8th. It still cannot be observed, does not appear necessary to explain that which is explicable, and does not explain that which is currently inexplicable. Hence it is an unnecessary complication to invoke such a hypothesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here, I think, is what invoking God does, that is somewhat attractive:

Many would like, if possible, to believe in a reality that is somehow logically self-contained and self-compelling. The universe, taken by itself, is certainly not this -- in fact, gaining knowledge about physical law does not seem to fundamentally help the situation at all from this perspective. However, if one really likes the concept of a logically self-contained, self-compelling reality, one can still believe in it, provided that we're somehow lacking complete access to the "full" reality. This is exactly what invoking God does (God representing the "true" self-compelling reality that we are somehow insulated from), in a way that we know is possible in principle to replicate. For example, we ourselves can be "gods" over computer-generated universes which are insulated from the laws governing our own reality.

No, it's not a theory that is testable at will (though God could presumably do something that is observable), but it does allow an avenue to believe in a reality that is more satisfying than "arbitrary" physical existence and physical law. Of course it could also just be completely wrong, but I think the concept does have some niceness about it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

No, it's not a theory that is testable at will (though God could presumably do something that is observable), but it does allow an avenue to believe in a reality that is more satisfying than "arbitrary" physical existence and physical law. Of course it could also just be completely wrong, but I think the concept does have some niceness about it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your post is a pretty good summary of the transcendental argument for God (TAG). And if it is wrong it doesn't matter because then nothing would.

[laurentia]

[ QUOTE ]
Its the argument that says that using God to explain some things postualtes something even more complicated that has to be explained.

But such a fifth dimensional entity could be pretty simplistic, not Godlike, not omnipotent, but still be capable of creating and miraculously (to us) interfering inside a three or four dimensional universe. Just like the spherein flatland couldremove a kidney without breaking the skin.



[/ QUOTE ]

You can't simply introduce a five dimensional entity without first introducing five dimensions, so as all previous setups yours also complicate matters when bringing in a god.

[Metric]

It feels so cheap when you give it a label like that.