4

Fair question. But your construction of the IC argument doesn't quite capture its essence. IC doesn't say "We don't know how it would work with only 9, therefore God." Rather, it says, "This complex system is fundamentally non-functional without multiple interdependent parts, therefore all these parts had to emerge simultaneously, therefore the mechanism of ...


3

No I don't really have references for this I will just answer it by logic alone. The atheist is making quite a few assumptions to make the leap from suffering to no Intelligent Designer (or indeed God). e.g. The Designer's morals are the same as his, and by extension the Designer's desire is to have no unnecessary suffering (from a mortal point of view). ...


2

This is a good question and deserves a better, more complete, answer than I attempt here. This is just a stab at one particular answer. What do we actually "know" about anything, and how do we "know" it? In the discipline of mathematics we can know things and prove them. In spelling English words we can know how to spell them and prove it to eacn ...


2

"Isn't this a God of the gaps argument?" I'm going to answer this in a way that reveals the soft underbelly of the counter argument, along with showing that ultimately - it's not about what we know, it's about what we believe. If you were examining a system and decomposing that system you get down to component parts that if you take them apart, that ...


1

That is an interesting comparison. Irreducibly complex assumes you know the components it takes to make up a functional machine, biological or otherwise. It’s not necessary to know it’s function but it is necessary to know it’s a component. You cannot account for something you don’t know exists. Not knowing how it works doesn’t seem to be a problem, it’s ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible