Quote from: Moloch on February 10, 2016, 07:08:24 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 10, 2016, 07:03:05 PM

Quote from: Moloch on February 10, 2016, 06:54:55 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 10, 2016, 06:40:04 PM

Because there is no evidence in any of the complexity in the universe, that it comes from something less complex, we know that complexity must come from something at least as complex.

This is a horrible argument...

If nothing can come from something less complex, means that God must have created the universe... who created God?!? You just said you need something more complex to create complexity... You can't use this to justify God's existence without using it to exclude the possibility of God...

This is known as the Infinite Regress fallacy

We don't know enough about God to suggest that He needed creating - I'm talking from a scientific viewpoint. However, the standard suggestion would be that He doesn't need creating. Here's how it works.

If you build a garage, you might be inside the garage part of the time that you are building it. Yet, you are never part of the garage (except if you accidentally nail your hand to a stud with the nail gun). Neither is God part of the universe He created.

Even if God is within the universe, He is never part of it. Why should He have to follow the laws of the universe? If He followed universe laws, he might become part of the universe a little. But such wouldn't necessitate that He exist completely according the laws of the universe.

While from a scientific standpoint, we might speculate that God might need a cause or reator, we have a long way to go to see if He does or not.

Are you a robot? Are you Marco Rubiobot 3000?

Nevermind... silly question... a robot would understand logic...

Robots only seem to understand the things that are programmed into them. Why are you trying to imitate a robot all the time?