(1) If God exists, then God has these two properties: (i) He

!) God exist
2) God does not interact
3) God does not follow logical consistencies
4) God may or may not be imperceptible depending on person to person.
5) God exist

You'd have to first tell us what exactly you mean by complexity. It's a deeply imprecise word.
It also isn't at all clear to me that premise (2) could be given any support. It seems quite clear that human beings most certainly could create things of greater complexity than ourselves; obvious examples would be conceivable kinds of AI. Less obviously there's nothing preventing us from creating a gigantic, interconnected, non-repeating arrangements of matchsticks. Depending on your what we take complexity to mean, conceivable structures of that type could be seen as more complicated than their creators, therefore violating premise (2).

>>298303

Complexity is generally used to characterize something with many parts where those parts interact with each other in multiple ways. The study of these complex linkages at various scales is the main goal of complex systems theory.

>omena in the universe is at least as complex as such phenomena.

why?

also, saying something is "very improbable" is not an argument

>>298467

It has been ever since Occam's razor.

Essentially 'God' is an additional assumption that isn't needed for the creation of mankind or the Universe.

>>298450

It's not clear at all that God would have parts, or even what "parts" would constitute for a non-spatiotemporal being.

>>298619

Could you possibly explain how a super-powerful being could be simplistic, without resorting to something you have no evidence exists or is even possible, like 'spirit' or simple but ultra-powerful beings capabale of complicated thoughts that are made from 'spirit'

>>298572
>It has been ever since Occam's razor.
That is literally the opposite of it. Scientific theories seek to explain complex phenomena with the simplest and fewest rules possible.

>>298668

Why is having parts required for power? What would God having parts even mean? I can't see any clear motivation for either point.

I don't really understand why it matters. Do you really need an afterlife carrot in front of your face to not be a cunt?

If God is just, being virtuous is more than enough to qualify for heaven regardless of faith. If God isn't just then it's not really worthy of worshipping.

The afterlife is likely something beyond comprehension. Worry about it when you get there. In the meantime don't be an asshole and everything should be fine.

>>298262 (OP)
>(2) Anything that provides an intelligent-design explanation for the natural, complex phenomena in the universe is at least as complex as such phenomena.
What? Why?

>Complexity is generally used to characterize something with many parts
Can you point to a single religion that teaches that God is a compilation of parts?

>Could you possibly explain how a super-powerful being could be simplistic
Could you possibly explain how to construct god?

>>298572
You do not understand how Occam's razor works

>>298572
>It has been ever since Occam's razor
Yeah, because Occam's razor is totally an argument to dismiss a low probability answer as false, or in other words to render equal the fact that if something is 10% probable, then it must be 0% probable.

Go read a book or something, Occam's razor is only a way to prioritize hypothesis in order to test them and to reach the true one faster, in average. Occam's razor doesn't tell you anything about the truthfulness or not of a hypothesis. That's a logical failure, plain and simple.

>>298262

>(1) If God exists, then God has these two properties: (i) He provides an intelligent-design explanation for all natural, complex phenomena in the universe and (ii) He has no explanation external to Himself.

"Intelligent design" isn't the only explanation that God can be for creation. In fact many theists reject that any sort of "intelligent design" theory works at all. None of the great theologians had that sort of explanation as their primary one.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2011/03/thomism-versus-design-argument.html


>(2) Anything that provides an intelligent-design explanation for the natural, complex phenomena in the universe is at least as complex as such phenomena.

You need to argue for this premise. I could design something with far more parts than I have ( computer programmers could do this through coding for example).


>>298668

There is no logical contradiction between "simple" and "powerful" as terms - saying that God can't be like this because we don't see anything in nature like it isn't very useful insofar as part of God's definition is that he transcends nature anyways.

Also, this argument isn't even deductively valid, even save the false and dubious premises.