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

[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.