I need a good counter argument to the "Universe must be designed because it's too complicated" argument

Question

I just thought of something that's puzzling me. I came to the conclusion that the definition of logic is assuming something is going to happen because most of the time, if not all the time in the past it has happened before. (e.g I dropped the ball a million times before, and it allways fell, so I "logically" assume the ball will fall the next time I drop it)

Now, when a Christian says to me, when you find a watch on the beach, you automatically assume that the watch was designed by an intelligent designer, or if you see mount rushmore you assume it was designed to be that way, because the odds of it being that way by chance are rediculously low! I agree with this, and I agree that it's very logical to assume that because in the past, all things like that (complicated things, have allways had an intelligent designer). But then, the Christian says "now look at the universe, it's the most complicated thing that there is, and look at life, much more complicated then any man made gadget, so then using my own defenition of logic you should have to conclude that the universe was intelligently designed.

I don't agree that the universe has to be intelligently designed because of the anthropic principle, and or the strong anthropic principle, but using my defenition of "logic" how can you avoid having to assume that it is?

Answer 1

It's too complicated to be design by one god.

That is why many many gods exist.

Answer 2

Well, I doubt you're going to convience them of the big bang or evolution so why not ask: The universe is pretty complicated, and if God created it he must be pretty complicated himself. So then, who created God?  

They'll say no one created God, he's always been around, he's the first cause, etc.

You'll say, sure... well if the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?

They'll repeat the same thing, God has no beginning, yada yada... really, there's no point in arguing further because they're not using logic, they're using faith.

But to get it straight in your own mind, read up on the big bang and evolution theories and make sure you have some facts memorized for when you find yourself in an argument. Also make sure you can give a proper explanation as to what a theory is since that always seems to pop up first, "they're *just* theories"-- most frustrating thing ever... not that they'll even pay much mind to your explanation. Honestly, it's probably a waste of time arguing with creationists.  

Answer 3

Your conclusion that "the definition of logic is assuming something is going to happen because most of the time it has happened before" is called INDUCTIVE logic.

Deductive logic is

All men are males.

I am a man.

Therefore, I am a male.

There are several counter arguments depending on how you want to go at it. The simplest is to say that what we already know: that the elements on the periodic table react to each other in predicable ways--even if all those ways are not yet known, that these "ways" are called the laws of nature, and that even the Big Bang had to follow the laws, so, therefore, even the Big Bang was not chaotic but very, very predictable--as in this chart. http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/big...

I have seen charts that describe the events that happened in that first second, and the breakdown is incredibly detailed, though it is supposition. However, supposition is the nature of deductive logic.

Another argument is the Naturalistic argument:

" Naturalism, challenging the cogency of the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments, holds that the universe requires no supernatural cause and government, but is self-existent, self-explanatory, self-operating, and self-directing, that the world-process is not teleological and anthropocentric, but purposeless, deterministic (except for possible tychistic events), and only incidentally productive of man; that human life, physical, mental, moral and spiritual, is an ordinary natural event attributable in all respects to the ordinary operations of nature; and that man's ethical values, compulsions, activities, and restraints can be justified on natural grounds, without recourse to supernatural sanctions, and his highest good pursued and attained under natural conditions, without expectation of a supernatural destiny."

http://www.ditext.com/runes/n.html

A simpler way to say this, with demonstrable (if not provable) logic, is:

"Existence is a self-sufficient primary. It is not a product of a supernatural dimension, or of anything else. There is nothing antecedent to existence, nothing apart from it—and no alternative to it. Existence exists—and only existence exists. Its existence and its nature are irreducible and unalterable."

Leonard Peikoff “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy,” from

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology; by Ayn Rand

This is a case of deductive logic boiled down to only the conclusions, like "E=MCsquared" is only the conlcusion.

None of the 3 arguments contradicts the other, in fact they complement each other.

Now you know 2 definitions of logic, and you can possibly avoid the anthropic principle.

Answer 4

If it was designed, why is there so much suffering by innocents?  Why do babies die of horrible diseases, starvation, fires, car crashes, etc?  What have they done wrong that they must suffer so?  Why was it designed this way?

Answer 5

Complexity does not imply design. Take a snowflake for example, they are incredibly ordered but happen via natural processes.

Answer 6

You are asking the right question.   What is the Logos?

Both Atheists & Christians think an eternal unchanging Logic runs the Universe & created man.

The Atheists call it Physics or Natural Selection.  The Christians call it God.

Atheists are certain the Logos lacks intelligence.

Christians slap a beard & gender on it and presume it makes all manner of choices & judgments.

So here's the irony.   The Atheistic presumption that the Logos lacks intelligence, when it clearly compels energy-space-time to create intelligence, is a matter of faith.  

But the Christian assumption that the Logos has intelligence, when the complexity of the universe boils down to a handful of laws is also a matter of faith.

The "Universe must be designed because it's too complicated" argument is invalid because it presumes the existence of a designer that is even more complex than the inexplicably complex Universe.   Positing God's existence simply pushes the question of existence back a notch to "Where did God come from?"  

Ultimately we must ask if saying "The vast complexity of God always was."  is any more satisfying or probable than saying "The complexity of the Universe always was."

Ultimately Logic must fail here, because Logic is a reflection of the Logos.   The 'rules' of the Universe can decern past and future configurations of the Universe, but they can't tell you where the rules themselves came from.

The "watch on the beach" argument carries the same flaw as the "complex Universe".   It explains the complexity of life, with the greater complexity of God.

But again Atheist faith creates a mirrored error if it presumes the watch=designer flaw implies the non-existence of God.

Darwinian Theory doesn't say intelligent designers don't exist.  It says IF they don't exist they will be created by the Logos.



Does this make sense?   Darwinian Theory says a bacterium can evolve into a man WITHOUT anything besides the laws of nature.  But we know d**n well the first thing man does when his intelligence begins to understands nature.   - You got it, he starts to play god.

Hope this helps.

Answer 7

The book "Darwin's Watch" answers your question.

Answer 8

Here is the problem with the argument as support of the existence of god.

A. You can not assume any other qualities about the creator except that he is intelligent, this also includes existence as the argument does not demonstrate that the agent of intellect still exists only that the agent existed and created the universe.  Also the universe was not always "complicated" but as it expanded and cooled the forces of nature diverged and this results in the complex interactions of physical forms.

B. The argument in no way advocates a particular religion or even a need for one as the intelligent agent may have been used up in the creation of the universe and I have encountered no sound and valid argument that deals with this issue. In effect most religious people pressent this argument as though it resolves the issue of gods existence but ignore that it is only compelling for the existence at one time but not a diffinitive resolution as to whether or not god still exists and further it requires a leap of fallacy to say that the intelligent agent is in fact the god discribed in the bible for I have not encountered a single shred of evidence or reasonable argument to support this notion.