In The God Delusion Dawkins argues that God is complex, he does this my making an analogy in assuming that God is a biological organism. The upshot of that is that complex things are less likely to come about by random chance than simple things The problem is of course God doesn't "come about" and if he did it wouldn't be by random chance. Since God is eternal he doesn't' "come about." There are several reasons why this kind of thinknig is wrong.
(1) God is the foundation of all that is. Before God's creates there is nothing but God.
What does one compare God to if God is all there is? Do you all remember the idea that we can't speak of "before the big bang" because there's no time there and if no time you can't use words like "before?"
this is the same kind of thing. With nothing to compare to you can't say if it's simple are complex. It's just there.
(2) Can't use analogy to biology: We have no scientific knowledge of things beyond the physical.
Skeptics who echo Dawkin's idiocy try to speak as though God works like a big biological organism with a physical brain. Some try to justify that analogy by instituting that information works this way for us, so therefore, it just work this way all the time. one person on this board says "information is complex, it would be complex even if it's not physical it's still information."
That is an assumption not in evidence. They are trying to assert that the unknown has to work like the known because that's what we know. These same people also want us to confine our thinking to scientific thinking only. there is no scientific evidence for the great unknown I don't see why we should assert that all reality functions like the bits we know about.
(3) The idea that you can't go from simple to complex is contradicted by several physical aspects of reality.
a. planetary formation: move from singularity, to solar systems and galaxies.
b. evolution: single cell orgnaisms, even more simple things than that, to man.
Unfied feild: gravity is all we need to get everything going.
there are other examples too.
(4) The analogy they draw is to man. If we drew one bewteen God and the laws of physic simple to complex would be easy to understand.
(5) God is eternal, the probability arguments assume something coming to be rather than an eternal existent.
Dawkin's whole point point complexity is to say complex things are less probable. That assumes an amalgam of smaller parts that combine to make a larger amalgam. It has no application to something that is eternal and doesn't' come to be.
There is no probability to be calculated when something does come to be but always is. The probability of its' coming to be is 0. The probability of it's ceasing is 0. The probability of it's not being is 0. The probability that it is is 100%, obviously, something that has always been is!
(6) Dawkins assumes God is analogous to a man, so the arguments don't apply to being itself.
HRG recites the mantra "we have shown that there can't be an eternal entity" his logic is circular because his "showing it" is partly based upon this and other arguments disproved by the eternal nature, and it's also based upon assuming God is a big man rather than being itself.
