To Penumbra

[Hawkeye112200]

-Watchmaker analogies rely on the assumption that something complex must have been created by something, but then don't apply that same assumption to the proposed creator, which itself is described as a complex thing. And any defense that this assumption need not apply to the creator can be phrased to apply to the universe.

I nabbed this from a recent thread. Would you mind discussing this in more detail?

Specifically, why must Creator in this scenario be complex, or describable in any context we come up with?

Specifically, is it not conceivable that said Creator is everything and nothing all at the same time, therefor can not be created, because it doesn't exist at the same time that it does exist? Like those little sub-particles that are our building blocks, that sometimes appear randomly and then disappear just as quickly?

I think my problem with the above quote, is that there is an underlining assumption that Creator has to be composed of something created. Understand?

 

[Hawkeye112200]

For the record, I do not intend to exclude others from participating in conversation or debate.

 

[Penumbra]

I nabbed this from a recent thread. Would you mind discussing this in more detail?

Specifically, why must Creator in this scenario be complex, or describable in any context we come up with?

Specifically, is it not conceivable that said Creator is everything and nothing all at the same time, therefor can not be created, because it doesn't exist at the same time that it does exist? Like those little sub-particles that are our building blocks, that sometimes appear randomly and then disappear just as quickly?

I think my problem with the above quote, is that there is an underlining assumption that Creator has to be composed of something created. Understand?

Many forms of theism propose something akin to the concept of "divine simplicity" when describing a god. That is, they often propose that it is without parts, indivisible, etc.

But what constitutes complexity is a subjective concept. In context of this question, it was asked if an ordered universe implies the existence of an ordered creator, which is basically the watchmaker question.

The problem is that whatever argument exists stating that the universe requires a creator due to perceived complexity or design, applies just as strongly to the proposed creator as well. To assert that something large and seemingly complex like a universe, requires a designer of some sort, but that this designer, a cosmic personality or consciousness or will powerful enough to create said universe, has no such constraint, is without justification.

I'd propose that the problem lies not with any assumption that a creator must be complex, but rather with the assumption that the universe is complex. Any argument regarding aseity of a creator that I have observed is also applicable to a universe. If you're asserting that a creator can have some sort of simplicity, and then reference as an example the very universe itself, then I'd readily assert that any property that you're assigning to a creator in this way can just as readily be assigned to the universe. This damages the argument, as the watchmaker argument implies some arbitrary fundamental difference between the watch and the watchmaker.

Arguments such as the watchmaker analogy tend to make several assumptions, such as that a god is distinct from the universe rather than identical to the universe or inclusive of the universe, as would be the case in various forms of pantheism, panentheism, mysticism, advaita, and so forth. Or that a god arbitrarily is transcendent of causation (has the property of aseity), but that some aspect of the universe could not be said to have the same property.

In other words, forms of this argument rely on rather arbitrarily assigning one set of properties to the creator, and another set of properties to the universe, and then asserting that one is dependent on the other, without basis.

 

[839311]

Specifically, is it not conceivable that said Creator is everything and nothing all at the same time, therefor can not be created, because it doesn't exist at the same time that it does exist?

No, its not conceivable. Its an incoherent idea. Something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. It is completely illogical.

Like those little sub-particles that are our building blocks, that sometimes appear randomly and then disappear just as quickly?

Don't be fooled by wild assumptions by physicists who really have no idea what they are talking about. The fact that something seems to appear randomly doesn't mean that it is a random event. We know much less about the workings of the quantum world than some physicists like to think. Logic trumps magic anyday. The idea that sub-particles pop in and out of existence is magical non-sense. Such things aren't possible.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

Many forms of theism propose something akin to the concept of "divine simplicity" when describing a god. That is, they often propose that it is without parts, indivisible, etc.

Agreed

But what constitutes complexity is a subjective concept. In context of this question, it was asked if an ordered universe implies the existence of an ordered creator, which is basically the watchmaker question.

Agreed as well.

The problem is that whatever argument exists stating that the universe requires a creator due to perceived complexity or design, applies just as strongly to the proposed creator as well. To assert that something large and seemingly complex like a universe, requires a designer of some sort, but that this designer, a cosmic personality or consciousness or will powerful enough to create said universe, has no such constraint, is without justification.

This logic makes perfect, sound and solid sense in a physical universe such as we have. Yet, when we venture to discuss concepts of supernatural and the like, we have to adjust the allowable equation a bit.
To suggest it is without justification, by saying Creator doesn't need a creator, is to project the logic of our physical universe onto Creator.
What I am saying, is if we are going to give the slightest latitude to allow for a Creator for discussions sake, we then must allow for the unknown variable (let's call this X) that is outside the known universe.
Even though we can't and never will be able to solve X, we have to allow for it, if we are allowing Creator into the discussion.

I'd propose that the problem lies not with any assumption that a creator must be complex, but rather with the assumption that the universe is complex. Any argument regarding aseity of a creator that I have observed is also applicable to a universe. If you're asserting that a creator can have some sort of simplicity, and then reference as an example the very universe itself, then I'd readily assert that any property that you're assigning to a creator in this way can just as readily be assigned to the universe. This damages the argument, as the watchmaker argument implies some arbitrary fundamental difference between the watch and the watchmaker.

At this point I haven't really made any assertions, just trying to lay the ground work with you, by which we can have an equal conversation about the topic. So, before worrying about applying properties to Creator and universe, let's establish what the goal is here.
For me the goal will be to show that there is an argument that allows for a complex universe, with a Creator, that doesn't demand the Creator has to be created as well.

Arguments such as the watchmaker analogy tend to make several assumptions, such as that a god is distinct from the universe rather than identical to the universe or inclusive of the universe, as would be the case in various forms of pantheism, panentheism, mysticism, advaita, and so forth. Or that a god arbitrarily is transcendent of causation (has the property of aseity), but that some aspect of the universe could not be said to have the same property.

I don't personally claim any of those ideas. I am simply inquiring about, why a Creator has to be something that is created.
I suppose then you are simply retorting, why then does a universe need to be created? Is that right?

In other words, forms of this argument rely on rather arbitrarily assigning one set of properties to the creator, and another set of properties to the universe, and then asserting that one is dependent on the other, without basis.

Not really. Why make the assumption that properties we do and can apply to our known universe can be perfectly applied to a Creator, that while Creator might also be interwoven somehow in our universe may also be beyond a known universe, which again forces us to enter X into our reasoning.
It seems disingenuous to force the porperties of our known universe onto a Creator possibly beyond our know universe.

 

[Penumbra]

This logic makes perfect, sound and solid sense in a physical universe such as we have. Yet, when we venture to discuss concepts of supernatural and the like, we have to adjust the allowable equation a bit.
To suggest it is without justification, by saying Creator doesn't need a creator, is to project the logic of our physical universe onto Creator.
What I am saying, is if we are going to give the slightest latitude to allow for a Creator for discussions sake, we then must allow for the unknown variable (let's call this X) that is outside the known universe.
Even though we can't and never will be able to solve X, we have to allow for it, if we are allowing Creator into the discussion.

No disagreement here, but I think where we're not lining up is with regards to how the argument is used and critiqued, as I'll explain below. The context of the argument has not properly been taken into account when brought into a separate thread.

At this point I haven't really made any assertions, just trying to lay the ground work with you, by which we can have an equal conversation about the topic. So, before worrying about applying properties to Creator and universe, let's establish what the goal is here.
For me the goal will be to show that there is an argument that allows for a complex universe, with a Creator, that doesn't demand the Creator has to be created as well.

Ah, but that's the problem.

I didn't assert in that thread, at any point, that a creator cannot exist or that it must have or not have any specific properties. The watchmaker argument is not used by non-theists to discredit theism, it's used by theists to argue in favor of theism or against atheism.

The argument basically goes as follows: If a watch is found, it's logical that it must have had a creator. This is an analogy to the universe- if the universe is found to operate as an ordered system, it's logical that it must have had a creator. In that particular thread, it was phrased not as an assertion, but as a question. Does order imply an orderer?

And my answer was no, it does not imply that, because any of the same problems could be said to apply both to the ordered thing and the proposed orderer.

The defense against the argument doesn't rely on making any assumptions. The provider of the argument makes assumptions- that an orderer can somehow order itself (has the property of aseity, or self-causation), but that the ordered system cannot, and requires an orderer. This is put forth generally without basis. So the defense is not to assert that a creator has or does not have any given properties, or to assert that the universe has or does not have any given properties, but rather, it's to point out that the provider of the argument has not provided any justification for why a creator can have aseity and the system cannot have aseity.

I don't personally claim any of those ideas. I am simply inquiring about, why a Creator has to be something that is created.
I suppose then you are simply retorting, why then does a universe need to be created? Is that right?

Yes.

But the defense against the argument does not inherently assert that a creator needs to be created. It merely points out that, arbitrarily implying that the system needs to be created, but that the creator doesn't need to be created, isn't actually an argument, because there was no basis provided for why one needs to be created and not the other.

Not really. Why make the assumption that properties we do and can apply to our known universe can be perfectly applied to a Creator, that while Creator might also be interwoven somehow in our universe may also be beyond a known universe, which again forces us to enter X into our reasoning.
It seems disingenuous to force the porperties of our known universe onto a Creator possibly beyond our know universe.

That's not the assumption being made. This is what happens when an argument is taken out of context.

No properties need to be assumed or forced by the defendant onto any creator against the watchmaker argument. The defendant merely points out that the proposer of the argument has already done so- that he has assigned properties to the creator that, as he claims, cannot be had by the universe.

 

[Vultar]

An interesting back and forth... thank you both for that...