There are actually some flaws with this argument, but not ones that can help theism. The problem arises when we consider that without really defining “God,” we can’t really say that he is more complex than his design. He could be much simpler, like the primitive Earth relative to today’s biosphere.

However, this argument does wonders to refute the “design” argument for a creator–any creator without much evidence is very unlikely to exist unless it is much simpler than the universe, which is exactly the opposite of what theists want you to believe here. That is, once you concede that the origin of the universe is simpler than the universe itself, there clearly is no need to call this simplicity “god” and not simply “the proto-universe” or some similar term.

Note also that this argument is very effective for arguing against the very narrow notion of god Dawkins disputes in this book. He makes it explicitly clear that he is only arguing–in this particular book–against a god that is in many ways similar to the Abrahamic god. I can’t remember what specifications he gave, but I believe it was omnipotent, personal, and the creator of the universe, perhaps among other things. Such a god is indeed refuted nicely by this argument.

Finally, all this ultimately misses the real reason we should not believe in god–THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. Merely putting a label on an unknown (e.g. the origin of the universe) is not itself problematic, but placing a label like “god” that carries such baggage is. When people say the universe’s origin is unknown, I of course agree with them, but when they say, “it is unknown, therefore my very narrow and specific notion of a creator must have created it exactly according to my favorite creation myth,” I go crazy. How can you ever support this? Even weaker properties that many people consider sensible don’t really have any justification. Why must the creator be omnipotent? He certainly seems bound by a very specific set of laws. Why must he be eternal? If such a thing is possible, why not just believe the universe itself is eternal? Why must he be worshiped? As likely as not, he may not be conscious at all to receive your praise, or he may even hate it. The list goes on.

A much more reasonable statement is that we don’t currently know how the universe began, if it even did begin (it certainly seems it did), but investigating this in any way other than the scientific method, which is the only method that has ever given consistent and useful results, is pointless. And if it turns out that the answer is indeed unknowable, STOP CLAIMING THAT YOU KNOW IT.

LOL!

Damn. I’ll have to scratch context off my list. There it goes to join painting, highways, animal rights, speech-making, beer halls, sex, eating, breathing…

HITLER!!!!

You aren’t interested in backing up your silliness? How original. When challenged, run away. You do understand that even people who agree with you will see you running away and may make assumptions as to why…

I’m pretty sure he does.

The problem here is you’re taking one line from the Qur’an to justify your (incorrect) reading of its position on the Bible, without looking for context or other lines which modify the seeming intent of Sura 29. It would be exactly like someone taking the end of Psalm 137 and assuming that, clearly, the Bible exhorts as pleasant the notion of dashing one’s enemies babies against rocks, because it says so in one line.

Context and exegesis matters.

I am well aware of what reductio ad absurdium is. This is a red herring to my point and you are simply dodging my questions. Also, if anyone has demonstrated a lack of willingness to learn, it has been you. But you’re too pompous to realize that

Much of which is stolen from PLATO (a non-Christian). Further, Indian religion has all of those things and had it thousands of years before christians did.

Still doesn’t make any religion “The One True Religion” , though…

lol

You still have yet to establish why your standard of what constitutes ‘knowledge’ is superior. And all you’ve offered for validation of your premises is that “He Revealed Himself.” Through what? The Bible? How do we know that is true? You have once again failed to answer my question of how we can determine the reliability of your so-called ‘knowledge’.

Remember, your position must be applied to all religions. You claim your particular version of your particular god is right because you are assuming it and you stated that clearly. In order for that to not be a hypocritical position you must allow a follower of any religion to claim that their religion is true because they are assuming it. The amount of self delusion necessary to believe that is amusingly horrific.