Incorrect. God can create with simplicity, but he dont for logical reasons.
An unsupported assertion and not even in line with the view that God created everything from the simple to the complex. That is not even a question of debate here. The debate is centered around the claim that God can be observed, determined and revealed in the natural world through the methods and techniques of science. A claim that is most assuredly not true.
Next, simplicity also dont need a designer, but complexity DOES.
You can say it, but you have not demonstrated the existence of a designer for anything or the properties and abilities of that designer. Designers can design the simple or the complex.
Allegory: if you splash paint on a canvas, it will make simple lines BY ITSELF. Those lines dont require the painter to make.
If someone splashes paint, by definition of your "allegory", they are the painter.
However, if the canvas makes mountains, a cabin, trees, deer and bunnies, THEN it requires the painter.
If the canvas is making the images, then a painter would not be required.
Why is it unscientific to use inference, logic and philosophy in science? Is that logical, or should the RULES change? Well, it appears with the evolutionists, the rules dont apply to them.
It is not unscientific, it is just that you are not using them, while making claims as science. That is unscientific. It appears that the rules do not apply to you and to other creationists.
See what i mean? When i use inference and logic and philosophy then im doing it wrong, but when evolutionists use it, they are right. So the rules dont apply to them. Thats not consistent and is not fair.
You're inferences are usually assertions without support and when they are inferences, they are not logical. You are consistent in that.
what im saying, yes. God cannot create from nothing, chance, because its akin to saying a painter can make a picture of mountains, trees, cabin, lake, deer and bunnies on a canvas WITHOUT PAINT and without a brush. Its not logical.
I have seen painters paint without a brush and using a pallet knife.
Invoking "nothing+chance+time" or "infinite regression" IS the example of invoking magic.
It is an example of straw man argument. That is certain.
Logically, no, God cannot create a universe that LOOKS eternal.
There is no logic involved in claiming what a god can or cannot do. They can do whatever the claimant imagines they can. They can do things that are contraindicated by vast bodies of evidence. Logic is not a requirement and you have held up your end in following that requirement.
not just saying so. The evidence of design is there. Inference that its actually there is not unsound. Using philosophy and logic about the designer is tight as well.
The evidence for design may be there as you say, but you have done nothing to substantiate that claim, explain what the evidence is and how it is evidence. Explaining your philosophy and following the logic you use has done nothing to further your assertions. They remain unsupported.
My evidence for the 2 alternatives being false are on the grounds that we do see design. Even famous atheists admit things look designed. Micheal shermer says they are designed but from unintelligent forces. Bottom up, rather then top down. Also, the other 2 alternatives are wrong on logical reasons. Plus, experience of the world. We never see something come from nothing, ever.
Looking designed is not "are designed". One does not logically follow the other. I have not seen all things and I do not claim that something came from nothing. Even if someone is claiming that, it does not mean a designer. The designer is not the default simply because we do not know. That is a "God of the gaps" argument and does not hold water.
You cant go by a double standard. The rules apply to you too. How can "nothing+chance+time" or "infinite regression" be a part of science? How are those things testable?
They are not and they are not part of science. They are 1), a straw man argument made by creationists and 2), the logical question that arises regarding claims about God made by creationists.
You have used a lot of logical fallacies and made assertions you have not supported.
Can God create a rock so big he cannot lift it? If God is as i defined, and its logical that he is that way. Eternal and infinite. Then how, logically, could God create a rock so big he cannot lift it?
I do not know. It is not a question I am interested in and it is not science.
And as such, it does stand on its own. But, since theres only 2 other alternatives, comparing them side by side with God, it also makes the God hypotheses stand even stronger.
There is nothing that supports a hypothesis about God. There is nothing to test. How can nothing be strong or stronger? There is no logic in what you are saying. You are mixing belief with science and claiming that one is revealed by the other when science cannot tell us anything about a believed being. Thus, there is no logic in what you say.
Its impossible for God to create from nothing on 2 grounds.
1: its a logical contradiction. If God IS CREATING out of nothing, then nothing is not creating the something. Why? Because GOD (which is something) is creating it.
The Bible appears to contradict you.
2: we never see nothing creating something from our experience.
True, but that does not mean that God could not do it.
Also, its impossible for God to utilize chance to create because its akin to a painter utilizing chance to create the picture on the canvas.[/QUOTE]You do not understand chance or random events or what that means. Many creations have resulted from a random or unexpected event. Penicillin is the result of a chance event.
Chance cannot design. It does not create order, it creates chaos.
Many new things have arisen from chance events.
God needs to create time so theres no infinite regression.
Maybe I am unclear on what you think infinite regression is. Perhaps you can explain your definition of it.
