Perhaps one of the best arguments based off empirical evidence, the more we learn about this planet and the universe, the more momentum this argument is actually getting. Having finished a year of doing biology (I have that as a minor) all I can really do is be struck in awe. From the complex process of how biolumenences work to the endocrine system; it really is incredible. My faith in a God has definitely strengthened with more understanding in science and I am only a first year, I wonder what next year will be like.
Anyway to get to the argument the more complex something is, the higher the chance it has of been created by an intelligent being. The universe is extremely complicated (there is still so much to discover) and I believe this shows that an intelligent being was behind it all. This is an assumption that I can only back up with posterior and current a priori knowledge, perhaps it was all created through natural processes? However, I believe one should look at the evidence as a court does; witnesses are brought forward, both sides make their case and the judge or jury make a decision at that point in time. Sometimes we do not look at the evidence which is here today and we assume that in the future all our beliefs will be supported by empirical evidence. We need to look at the evidence today and currently the design argument does have some serious weight to it.
Does evolution shoot holes in this theory? I do not believe so. There are a lot of things we do not know about evolution, for example if a being did guide the process. I am not using the God of the gaps fallacy, but there are some big holes in a completely natural evolution; for example the Cambrian explosion. I am not saying God did cause the Cambrian explosion, I can only go by current evidence and my stand is neutral; perhaps it was God, perhaps it was natural process, either belief is based on faith and interpretation of empirical evidence. The Cambrian explosion is similar to the age old question; how did life start on this planet? We do not have enough evidence to give in an answer. Since there are gaps in complete understanding of the mechanisms of evolution we cannot say that it refutes the design argument.
At the start of this year I was considering on dropping the whole ‘God thing’ and just live the rest of my days as a skeptic; biology has reinforced my strength in a creator God, perhaps He did not get down on His hands and knees and form the human race, but that does not mean God did not play a part and was the creator of everything.
...the more complex something is, the higher the chance it has of been created by an intelligent being.
Then who designed and created god??? Is god not complex at all, so there's no need to think that it was created?
Why does God need to have a creator? God is outside of time. Also if God did have a creator then who created God's creator? It just comes on going and we go no where, that is why God is the uncaused cause.
Why do we need to have a creator?
God is outside of time.
Really? It looks like you've come to a conclusion and now you're just trying to build arguments to fit your conclusion, not the other way around, like it usually works.
The design argument creates an infinite series of designers. That's just absurd. So, that leaves us with no creator, doesn't it?
God is outside of time.
How do you know this. Do you have any proof to support this claim?
Why does God need to have a creator? Good point. For that matter, why does the universe?
Everything needs a creator, unless I say it doesn't. Nice logic.
It is special pleading. I didn't expect any better from someone who sounds like a Dembski disciple, and I'm not disappointed.
No. Anything that had a beginning had a cause, since God didnt have a beginning He didnt need to have a cause.
What evidence do you have that god didn't have a beginning? And why does everything that had a beginning have to have a cause? Your making claims, but I don't see any reasoning supporting them.
More special pleading.
Answer this: Is there anything AT ALL that you, or anyone you know, has observed that does NOT begin as an effect of causality?