Does science prove the existence of god?

[Orthodox]

Scientific Evidence for God

Cosmological

The Cosmological argument argues that the universe must be the creation of a supernatural creator. I will briefly introduce a few laws and concepts that require the beginning of the universe before I venture into the science.

1. The Principle of Causality. The POC states that every effect must have a cause.
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. The SLT states that ‘In a closed, isolated system, the amount of useable energy is decreasing’.
3. The impossibility of an infinite series of events.

If nothing created the universe then the universe must have always existed (in one form or another anyway). If the universe is not the effect of something then it will have no cause, right? If the universe has no cause then it must be eternal, right? But, if the universe started at some point something must have started it, right? As they say, ‘out of nothing, nothing comes’. So, effectively, to disbelieve in God one must believe that there is a natural explanation for nature. One must believe that - at least in some form or another - the universe is eternal.

So, through the POC we know that all effects have a cause. And so, if the universe is eternal it must be causeless. The question is, is the universe causeless? In other words, is the universe eternal? This is where points B and C from above come into play. Points B and C prove that the idea of an eternal universe is rampant with flaws.

The SLT is also known as the Law of entropy. Entropy is the measure of disorder or unusable energy in a closed system. An example of entropy would be found in the burning of a log. Before the log is burnt it is a highly ordered collection of atoms (mostly carbon) which contain a measurable amount of energy (calculable through the famous E=mc2 equation). When the log is burnt it is transformed into heat, light, ash and smoke. The heat and light will dissipate never to be used again while the ashes and smoke will be in a disordered state that makes it hard for reuse (try burning ashes!). Likewise the universe, like a dying flashlight, is running out of useable energy. Therefore the universe must have started with a finite quantity of useable energy just as a flashlight’s batteries start of fully charged but not infinitely charged.

British Cosmologist Sir Arthur Eddington said of the SLT, "The Law that entropy increases – the Second Law of Thermodynamics – holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations – then so much for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation – well, these experiments do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. (Quoted in Paul Davies The Cosmic Blueprint).

The last point from above is point C – the impossibility of an infinite series. This point shows that the idea that this universe is infinite and eternal is fundamentally flawed. Why? Because it appears to be impossible to have anything eternal exist within a temporal dimension. In other words, the existence of time makes any notion of eternity within the bounds of this universe null and void. You might ask how I have arrived at this conclusion. Again, it’s simple; if the universe had existed for an infinite period of time then we would never have reached the present. This is a conclusion demonstrated by the following logical syllogism.

1. An infinite number of days will have no end.
2. However, today is the end of history (history being a collection of all days).
3. Therefore, there were not an infinite number of days before today (ie. time had a beginning).

So, what we know about the universe through the three points made above is this:

1. Anything that is not eternal must have a cause.
2. The universe is running out of useable energy (meaning it had a finite quantity in the past).
3. It is a fallacy to suppose that the universe could have existed forever due to the absurdity of an infinite series of events.

The universe cannot be eternal and must therefore have had a beginning and a cause.

 

[Orthodox]

Has science shown this to be true? Yes it has. The Big Bang is now the dominant cosmological theory about the origin of the universe. Many people know of the Big Bang but few know about it. What exactly is the Big Bang? The Physicists Victor Strenger summed it up adequately by say that the Big Bang is where "the universe exploded out of nothingness". In the Big Bang space, time and matter found its beginning. Before the Big Bang there wasn’t even an empty space for things to be in, there was truly nothing (Aristotles would say that before the Big Bang all there existed was what rocks dream about - nothing) . If you don’t believe me check it out. The Big Bang is now a well-established scientific fact. What is also a well-attested fact is the impossibility of any type of cyclic universe model. The idea of a Big Bang/Big Crunch is rampant with flaws (see Alan Gluth’s 1983 Nature article "The Impossibility of a bouncing universe"). In recent years the entire idea of a contracting-then-expanding universe has become even less feasible given the discovery of the Energy Density Effect. It appears that the universe has had one shot at vitality before it dies a heat death (a heat death is the state of something with very high entropy). What is the chance that the universe exploded out of ‘nothingness’ through a natural process? I can tell you it is very slim. As everything natural found its beginning in the Big Bang how can there be anything other than a supernatural explanation for the Big Bang? Perhaps you think that this is a big conclusion to jump to? Perhaps you cannot see the reason for a supernatural explanation?

Robert Jastrow, Astronomer and former head of the NASA Goddard Space Flight institute, said "Astronomers have now painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover….. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

Eddington stated, "The beginning seems to present in superable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."

 

[Orthodox]

Teleological

All right, so an objective analysis of the facts indicates that the universe is not eternal and is caused by something supernatural. What is this supernatural thing though? What or who started the universe? Was it some supernatural law, some principle, something or someone? This is a major question. A rational person understands that there is no use claiming that a God exists because the universe was started by something supernatural. That type of belief requires further evidence before it becomes valid. This evidence can come from the teleological argument.

The Teleological argument is the argument from a design to a designer. It seeks to show that some things are too complicated to be produced by chance and as such must be the intended products of a creator.

The logic of the teleological argument runs like this:

1. Every Design has a designer.
2. The universe has a highly complicated design.
3. Therefore, the universe had a designer.

It makes sense to start at the beginning so let’s start with an overview of what scientists call the Anthropic Principle.

The Anthropic Principle is what scientists have named the apparent trend in nature to support the onset of life. It has recently been discovered that there are over 120 ‘constants’ that each contributes to the existence of human beings. Each constant is highly specific as well as highly unlikely. What does this mean? It means that while every combination of numbers is equally as unlikely, all the constants display numbers and ratios that are all highly specified to support life. If just one constant had not supported life none would have arisen.

As Stephen Hawking said "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron…. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

Below are ten out of over 120 such anthropic constants. There are no natural laws that require the universe to be this way; the atheist will have to believe that it is a freak accident. The chances involved for just one of these constants to occur is astronomical. Take, for example, the smoothness of the universe. If the universe were more smooth then stars and galaxies (and subsequently life) would not have formed, if less smooth then only super massive black holes would have formed (no life there either). Roger Penrose, the famous mathematician who developed the Singularity Theorem with Stephen Hawking, calculated the chances of the smoothness of the universe being that needed to sustain life as 1 in 10 to the 123rd power. Just to give you a little insight into this number; it is a bigger number than the number of particles in the universe!

 

[Orthodox]

1. 1. The gravitational coupling constant. If slightly unbalanced, each star formed would be at least 1.4 times the size of the Sun. Such large stars are required to form heavier elements such as iron and beryllium (used in solar system formation) but, a large star burns too quickly and unevenly to sustain life. A star the size of our own is needed to make those conditions right.If the force were just a little weaker then stars would be too small and would never form the heavier elements essential for life and planetary systems.
   2. If the strong nuclear force coupling constant that binds particles in the nucleus together were slightly weaker then more than one proton would not hold together in the nucleus and hydrogen would be the only element in the universe.If stronger then Hydrogen would be too rare in the universe and also a number of very heavy elements would not be present in large enough quantities to support life.
   3. The weak nuclear force coupling constant and leptons. Leptons form the elementary particles like neutrinos, electrons and photons that have no place in strong nuclear reactions. A weak nuclear force interaction effect is beta decay radiation. ( neutron à proton + electron + neutrino)The amount of Helium produced in the first few minutes of the Big Bang is determined by the availability of Neutrons. If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger then there would be fewer neutrons, as they would decay more rapidly. Without adequate amounts of helium none of the heavy elements necessary for life would form in the nuclear reactions of stars. If the force were smaller there would be so great an abundance of heavy elements that life would not form either.
      
      Additionally, if the force were larger or smaller then neutrinos could not "blow" the heavy elements located at the core of a supernova out into the solar system. Once again, this would inhibit the development of life.
   4. The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms, if smaller electrons would not be held in orbit around the nuclei of atoms, if larger electrons could not be shared between other atoms. Either way, any type of molecule would be impossible. Try to imagine life without molecules.
   5. The ratio between the masses of an electron and proton is 1:1836. If slightly different molecules, again, would not form.
   6. If the expansion rate of the universe were slightly less by one part in a million million then the whole universe would have collapsed back onto itself just after the Big Bang. If larger by one part in a million stars would not have formed.
   7. If the centrifugal force did not perfectly balance the force of gravity then solar systems and galaxies would not form.
   8. If the resonance level of the Carbon 12 nucleus were slightly lower carbon would not form. Slightly higher level would instantly destroy it. Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and the other heavy elements required for life need this.
   9. If the entropy level of the universe were slightly larger or smaller then stars would not form.
   10. The mass of the universe (mass + energy, since E = mc2) determines the nuclear burning after the big bang. If slightly more massive, too much deuterium (hydrogen atoms containing both a proton and a neutron in the nucleus) would form after the big bang. Deuterium is the catalyst for the ignition of stars. Extra deuterium would cause stars to burn too rapidly to sustain life on any planet. If the mass of the universe were slightly smaller, helium would not be generated at all during the aftermath of the big bang. Without helium, stars cannot produce the heavy elements necessary for life. Here is the reason for why the universe is as big as it is. If it were any smaller (or larger), no life would be possible.
   
   
   
   Here are some quotes that many give you an understanding of the profundity of the scientific results achieved recently.
   
   Sir Fred Hoyle, the British astrophysicist, was forced to concede that "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this question almost beyond question."
   
   Arno Penzias, co-discoverer of the microwave background radiation echo (MBRE) and 1978 Nobel prize recipient said, "The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole."
   
   When asked whether the evidence was indicative of a creator Robert Wilson, the other discoverer of the MBRE and co-winner of the 1978 Nobel prize, said, "Certainly there was something which set it [the universe] all off. If you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis."
   
   Stephen Hawking said, "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang."
   
   Robert Jastrow said, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
   
   There are many more anthropic constants (just ask me if you want them). There is also the whole Intelligent Design argument about the origins of life. I’d be happy to elaborate on anything you think I have not covered adequately. It seems to me that atheism is quite unscientific.
   

 

[Orthodox]

Conclusion (For the time being anyway!)

Ok so,

1. The universe had a beginning caused by some supernatural thing.
2. This supernatural thing "fine tuned and adjusted" the universe to support life.
3. Human beings have a priori concepts and ideas that have no basis if there is no God (IE. morality and perfection).

This fits perfectly with Christianity. None of this fits with atheism. If we imagined that there was no need for a cause of the Big Bang then the chance that life would arise in the universe would be literally 1 in 10 ^100,000 at least. That is 10 followed by 100,000 zeros. How much chance are you going to give chance? I said at the beginning of this post that probability was the key to science. What is the probability that life arose by itself? Virtually none. What does the philosophical and scientific evidence point to? It points to a God who created the universe to hold human life. This human life was created with the potential to understand the universe and abstract ideas such as justice and perfection.

Orthodox

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The logic of the teleological argument runs like this:

1. Every Design has a designer.
2. The universe has a highly complicated design.
3. Therefore, the universe had a designer.

Far more clever than cogent. It's probably most fair to assume that the inherent dishonesty of this pretend syllogism was not of your doing, but you are fully responsible for thoughtlessly pawning off such silliness without thinking it through.

The problem, of course, lies in the difference between "Design" (plan) and "design" (pattern). What you claim as teleological logic is, at best, nothing but an instance of the circulus in demonstrando fallacy.

Either statement #2 is wholly irrelevant (i.e., 'design' ::= pattern), in which case the syllogism breaks down and there is no argument, or statement #2 assumes that which is intended to be proved (i.e., 'design' ::= plan).

So much for orthodoxy ...

 

[Orthodox]

Duet 32:8,

Nice to hear from you again.

Anyway, I think you're confused.

Obviously, I meant the word design as plan. However, ironically the reason a design has also become known as a pattern is because a pattern is obviously designed. Furthermore, in a way, the universe is a pattern; Have you got any idea of the beauty and clarity of higher end mathematics and physics? Your contention that this makes the second premise 'irrelevent' is just plain wrong - it only strengthens the syllogism.

I am seriously confused by your understanding of a logical syllogism. A logical syllogism has two premises and one conclusion. The whole purpose of the syllogism is to demonstrate that if you can't fault the premise you cannot fault the conclusion. The second premise (or 'statement' as you call it) must continue on from the first. The most famous example of a logical syllogism goes as follows:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Your objection that my syllogism is an example of circulus in demonstrando is meaningless. Do you know what circulus in demonstrando is? It is a circular argument that restates the premise in the conclusion rather than proves or disproves anything. For future reference an example would be,
1. Fish love water
2. Because Fish love water.

you said that

It's probably most fair to assume that the inherent dishonesty of this pretend syllogism was not of your doing, but you are fully responsible for thoughtlessly pawning off such silliness without thinking it through.

Thanks..kind of.... Still, I know if you actually look into what a syllogism is you will find that mine is a good example of one.

You should have thought this through.....

So much for orthodoxy ...

Really? Do you still think that you're right??

Orthodox

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Please read my 3rd paragraph again.

• Any assertion that: The universe has a highly complicated 'pattern' is irrelevant.
• Any assertion that: The universe has a highly complicated 'plan' is grammatically and logically flawed.
  It clearly assumes that which is to be proved.

If you consider this a valid syllogism, you simply do not understand elementary logic.

 

[Orthodox]

Deut,

Any assertion that: The universe has a highly complicated 'pattern' is irrelevant

Why? The entire point of the argument is that highly complicated and specified things are designed. A highly complicated and specified pattern would be a good example. Let's just imagine a relativley simple p[attern for a moment. If I sent you a message with every prime number from 1 - 101 on it would you think that it was an accident? Probably not, it is very unlikely that such a complicated and specified pattern could emerge through random chance.

The universe is much more complicated and specified than that simple pattern but for some reason you consider this an irrelevant point to a teleological arument - a TA is by definition an argument that highly complicated and specified things cannot arise out of chance. Honestly, your objection just highlights your misunderstanding of a syllogism.

<LI>Any assertion that: The universe has a highly complicated 'plan' is grammatically and logically flawed.
.

Sorry, you've misunderstood a logical syllogism again. If the premises are right then the conclusion is. This premise is not logically flawed.

I don't believe it but if the premise is grammatically flawed you are welcome to first prize in the grammer test. Not that it has any bearing on this thread.:sarcastic

It clearly assumes that which is to be proved

Ok, now you're getting somewhere. Yes, a premise does assume a truth. That's why it is a premise, it assumes a proposition in an argument. Check it out if you don't believe me.

If you consider this a valid syllogism, you simply do not understand elementary logic.

Do you know what 'valid' means in terms of logic????:biglaugh: Seriously check it out.

 

[Proverbial Flamethrower]

Ahhh hello all, I haven't been here for a while, yet over the past few days or so I've been keeping an eye on this thread. Oh dear Ewoks, what a thread it is!

That Orthodox guy, phew, you wouldn't want to be his arguementative enemy, yet someone still wishes so... dear Duet.32.8! Thine wounds are great! (by the way, I don't claim to be any good at olde' english).

I'm sorry Duet.32.8, but I just can't stand by and watch all this happening and not comment, just a little. Just before I go on, I'm vouching for Orthodox; just making that clear ladde's... Anyway, Mr. Duet, you claim to be right yet you aren't exactly following the correct procedure when trying to prove you are so. You haven't exactly been proving any of orthodoxs' philosophies wrong have you, or any of the scientific proof? Your little toes have been rolled up so much that you have to argue with him on grammatical grounds?

Eh?

If I said "God is troo" does that mean God isn't true? (Ah yes, I know you won't take that last thing as a hit against you, just a bit of fun). Anyway, your use of the word "cogent" is a bit of a stumper too. You said the Orthodoxs' arguement was:

Far more clever than cogent

Well, you see the thing is, is that Orthodoxs' arguement was either clever or not. Was it? Because how can it be clever but not cogent? Cogent means (according to the Oxford Dictionary) forcible, convincing. Doesn't clever account for this? (oh no, look what I've done, I think this thread will devolve into a grammatical battlefield).

Okay I'll finished this off: Orthodox = winning, Mr. Duet = loosing.

Hey Mr. Duet, is that a Thesaurus beside you computer? It's cover looks well worn.

 

[painted wolf]

once again I'm not shure that this argument realy has any bearing on wether or not you should or shouldn't believe in god. Abio doesn't say anything about a presance or lack of a Diety. Like all scientific theories it is neutral on the subject of theology. People read into it what they hope/fear is there.

wa:do

 

[Master Vigil]

I think it was a valid syllogism. AAA-1, isn't that one of the valid forms? But still, I think design is a bit ambiguous taken in the context that the syllogism is using it. I do not think that the design of lets say, a carpet, or a clock, can be compared at all to the design of the universe. I'm not sure if it is a circular argument, but it definitely falls into the fallacy of ambiguity. And yes, you are assuming that the universe is a highly complicated design. This could not be true, therefore your premise is based on an assumption. And if your premise is based on assumption, no matter the validity, the conclusion is still based on assumption. And only proves that the logic is valid, not true. Man I hope that made sense. Its 1:46 in the morning.

 

[linwood]

1. An infinite number of days will have no end.
2. However, today is the end of history (history being a collection of all days).
3. Therefore, there were not an infinite number of days before today (ie. time had a beginning).

#1.Correct
#2. Today is the end of nothing but mans concept of history, on a cosmological scale nothing has ended today.There will always be another tomorrow whether we are here or not.
#3. You first must prove that time is anything other than a manmade concept befoe you can come to this conclusion.

1. Anything that is not eternal must have a cause.
2. The universe is running out of useable energy (meaning it had a finite quantity in the past).
3. It is a fallacy to suppose that the universe could have existed forever due to the absurdity of an infinite series of events.

#1.Sounds good to me.
#2. Doesn`t sound too good to me.
#3 .Really not good, the universe in one form or another, with or without matter must have always existed because it could have been no other way.
#4.Why do I have to read this stuff at least once a week?

The universe cannot be eternal and must therefore have had a beginning and a cause.

Wrong AND Illogical .
If the universe is defined as "space and everything within it" then it isn`t possible that it never existed.
It has always existed if defined in this way.

How do you define the universe Orthadox?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you know what 'valid' means in terms of logic?

Actually, yes, I do. And, in fact, your syllogism becomes formally valid if, indeed, your 2nd premise intended 'design=plan'. I should have said (and meant to imply) that you draw a baseless (invalid) conclusion from your syllogism because you use as a premise that which is at issue. I stand corrected.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think it was a valid syllogism. ... And if your premise is based on assumption, no matter the validity, the conclusion is still based on assumption. And only proves that the logic is valid, not true.

Good post. Thanks.

 

[meogi]

I just wanna back you guys up and say that indeed, that statement is logically valid. What it isn't is a logically sound argument.

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Logically sound. It's valid and it's premises are not under question.

1. Every Design has a designer.
2. The universe has a highly complicated design.
3. Therefore, the universe had a designer.

Not logically sound. It's valid, but the premises/intermediate steps are under question.

 

[Orthodox]

Duet,

Ok, it seems many of your objections to my syllogism come from the assertion that premise two is an un-evidenced assumption I would disagree with you. However, I acknowledge that it would be an unfounded assumption if I hadn’t provided some evidence. Re-read the Cosmological and Teleological parts of my argument and then decides if premise two is an assumption. To prove it an assumption you will have to come up with some form of scientific evidence that casts doubt over the idea that it’s incredible complexity is designed.

It is all very well to fault my logic (which so far has emerged unscathed) but what about my science and philosophy? The purpose of a syllogism is to order the evidence for something and draw a conclusion from it. I say that the universe is too complex to not be designed. Prove me wrong. Show me that there is a reasonable chance that chance could have been responsible for the complex specification of the universe.

orthodox

 

[Orthodox]

Master Vigil,

I think design is a bit ambiguous taken in the context that the syllogism is using it.

When I said ‘the universe has a design’ I meant it in the sense of plan/blueprint, not simply a pattern. Is that less ambiguous now? Is that what you meant?

I do not think that the design of lets say, a carpet, or a clock, can be compared at all to the design of the universe.

Why not? Is that an assumption MV………..

I'm not sure if it is a circular argument, but it definitely falls into the fallacy of ambiguity

It is not a circular argument. Check it out with some reference site. Which particular fallacy of Ambiguity were you referring to? I checked them all out and none of them fits my argument. I think you made a mistake on this one.

And yes, you are assuming that the universe is a highly complicated design.

I only believe it on the basis of evidence (some of which I stated earlier on this thread). Why do you disbelieve it? Is that an assumption of yours?

This could not be true, therefore your premise is based on an assumption.

I had trouble figuring this one out. Did you mean,

This isn’t true; therefore your premise is based on an assumption.

Or,

This could possibly be untrue; therefore your premise is based on an assumption

Check out my evidence from earlier. If you find fault with it demonstrate your point scientifically or philosophically.

And if your premise is based on assumption, no matter the validity, the conclusion is still based on assumption

I totally agree. How does your argument shape up against your own standard above.

So far this is what I have heard from you.

1. Premises that are pure assumption cannot form a sound argument.
2. Orthodox’s premises are assumptions (meaning they are bereft of supporting evidence)
3. Therefore, Orthodox’s syllogism is not sound.

I am challenging your assumption that I am making an assumption in my premises!!!!!!!!!!!

Show me how.

Orthodox

 

[Orthodox]

Meogi,

Thankyou for verifying my arguments validity. I think you yourself have put forward an unsound argument (similar to that made by Master Vigil). You have effectively said,

1. Premises that are pure assumption cannot form a sound argument.
2. Orthodox’s premises are assumptions (meaning they are bereft of supporting evidence)
3. Therefore, Orthodox’s syllogism is not sound.

#1. Very true

#2. So far as I know an assumption. Where is the proof (scientific or philosophical) of this.

#3 your conclusion is valid but untrue.

You quoted my Socrates syllogism as an example of a valid and sound argument.

You said

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.



Logically sound. It's valid and it's premises are not under question

What exempts the premises of this argument from question? How do we arrive at the truth that ‘all men are mortal’. The answer, of course, is through inductive logic (as opposed to the deductive, syllogistic logic). Deductive logic argues from causes to effects, while inductive logic argues from effects to causes. How do we know that "all men are mortal"? Well we induce that because we have never heard of immortal men none have ever, or will ever, exist. A similar process is gone through to arrive at the truth that Socrates is a man.

My point is that we must use inductive logic to test the premises of any syllogism before we accept or reject it. Because inductive logic is an argument from effects back to causes in order to fault my premise you must show effects (scientific data) that could not be caused by(or at least could reasonably be believed independent from) my proposed cause, namely a designer.

Quite simply you have admitted the validity of my argument but denied that it is sound and now you must show why. You weren’t just assuming so were you?……..

Orthodox

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To prove it an assumption you will have to come up with some form of scientific evidence that casts doubt over the idea that itês incredible complexity is designed.

I have zero interest in assuming your burden of proof, nor in being baited into attempting to prove a negative. At the same time, you have shown no bases for equating complexity with design.

Let me ask you a question: Given some thing {T}, what diagnostic characteristing would verifiably classify {T} as not designed?