AB,
You appear to presume that anything which turns up in reality must have emerged as a consequence of natural unguided forces - regardless of how complex, regardless of how impossible it would be to replicate, regardless of the fact that no one understands what it comprises or how it works.
“Presume” means “suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability” so as a general principle a naturalistic explanation for observed phenomena is a sensible premise to have, yes.
As for:
“regardless of how complex”
Yes. There’s nothing inherently problematic about complexity. (See below for fuller explanation.)
“regardless of how impossible it would be to replicate”
Theoretical physics comes up with all manner of explanations that are difficult or impossible for experimental physics to test. That doesn’t mean we should just junk the theories in favour of superstitions though.
“regardless of the fact that no one understands what it comprises or how it works.”
No, that should be something like “regardless of the fact that the explanations we have are partial and subject to amendment” but again, so what? Why junk the possible picture when you only have some parts of the jig-saw in favour of a picture (“god”) with no parts of the jig-saw at all?
Your problem is that you start from a premiss that there is nothing else but material elements acting according to the laws of physics, then you use your conscious freedom find reasons to shoe horn reality to fit in with this premiss…
No, I don’t “shoe horn” anything. What I actually do is to map my understanding of reality to the only verifiable method of investigation available to me. The irony here (which will be lost on you) is that “shoe horning” is precisely what you must do to bend the reality you observe to fit a theistic narrative for which there’s no evidence at all (eg prayers being “answered”).
- and in doing so you find that you have to deny the reality of your own gift of free thinking which you use to direct your own thoughts to come up with these reasons.
That’s not “the reality” at all for reasons that have been explained to you countless time without rebuttal; it’s just
your personal reality, and it collapses under its own absence of evidence and deep contradictions as soon as you examine it.
OK, you mentioned complexity earlier, which seems to be a particular hang up for you. If I explain to you again where you go wrong will you promise actually to address the explanation rather than just ignore it as you have before?
OK then…
…what you attempt here is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning – that is, you’re using your premise to justify your conclusion rather than rely on connecting logic to make your case – that is, your premise and your conclusion are the same. Before we get to your use of it, here’s a different example to get you started: “The Bible is the word of God because God says so in the Bible, therefore the Bible is the word of God…” etc.
Can you see why that fails as an argument?
OK, to your use of the same construction. You think that the complexity of the outcome “Alan Burns” occurring entirely naturally is so fantastically unlikely that it’s more likely that some intelligent guidance was necessary to make it that way, hence “God”. You also though assume that “Alan Burns” was the plan all along because God wanted it that way, so “God” is required for both your
ab initio premise
and for your conclusion – ie, your premise and your conclusion (“God”) are the same. And that’s circular reasoning.
Now re-set, and consider instead a universe that neither knew nor cared whether Alan Burns, three-headed aliens on Alpha Centauri or anything else appeared –
no matter how complex any of them might have be. The process involved would have been natural and unguided, and there was nothing specially chosen about whatever it produced. That’s you. And me. And bonobos.
If it helps at all, consider a three-headed alien on Alpha Centauri for example that could have occurred that's self-aware and reasoning too, but not particularly thoughtful. Now imagine too that this alien reasoned that it was so fantastically unlikely that it could have occurred naturally that there must have been a god of the three-headed aliens to guide events in that direction. What would you make of his reasoning?
Do you get it now?
