[yequalsx]

Thank you for your response. I do not deny that god could possibly exist. I don't currently believe that god does exist but I recognize that it is possible. I do deny the logic given in the post I responded to. If someone believes that god exists and said god is vastly more complex and intelligent than we are then they can not logically argue that god exists because we are sufficiently complicated and therefore must have been created whilst believing that god is not created.

i think that all reasonable people believe something has to have existed that wasn't created. It is a bad argument to say we have to have been created because of our complexity.

It appears you choose or have been led to conclude that god exists and it the uncreated thing. I have been led to conclude that matter/energy is the uncreated thing. I do not wish to persuade someone that god doesn't exist. I wish to persuade someone from making a very bad logical argument.

[ricksharp]

Ah, yeah I see what you mean.

If one argues that the level of observed complexity cannot come from randomness alone and therefore must have been created by an external actor, then how does the external actor have sufficient complexity to create the complex universe.

So going back to my notation of (U - things made) and (E - things not made).

If (E) made (U) then where did (E) get enough complexity?

The only conclusion is the complexity in (E) is eternal also.

In plain words, that would imply that if God exists, then He would be eternally complex of complexity >= universal complexity.

Thank you for pointing that out, that's cool to think about.

[yequalsx]

You believe that god exists or has existed. You believe god is complex. You believe that god did not have a creator and did not come from something. Therefore you believe it is possible for complicated things to exist without being created. We are in agreement on this. Namely, complexity does not imply creation.

In the same my statement, "god's existence begs the question, who made him?" is not valid to you your question who made matter is not valid to me. The question implies creation and both of us believes that something wasn't created. We just differ on what thing is.

[ricksharp]

Yes, I agree.

Both systems are logically consistent so there would need to be other reasons to choose one or the other.

If there is an (E) the only possible way we would have of knowing - would be if (E) communicated somehow and provided evidence.

Even if one considered complexity as evidence it would not be sufficient or specific about (E).

In my case, the evidence that leads me to conclude that (E) does exist has little to do with the complexity of life.

Anyway, thanks for your time and thoughts. I especially appreciate your insight about the requirement of eternal complexity in my point of view. That will give me something to think about for quite a while to ponder it's implications.