That the current universe can rest its existence upon an uncaused cause refutes the basic scientific principle that every event has a cause. — Hanover

I don't know that this is a "basic scientific principle" (indeed, it seems to have been more of a philosophical claim than anything else; I'm here thinking of Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason, and similar theses). My understanding of quantum mechanics (which admittedly is about as deep as a puddle) is that there are genuinely stochastic, indeterminate events in nature, i.e. uncaused causes.

So it is not that every complex entity has a complex designer, but rather every complex entity has a prior simplicity. — darthbarracuda

Yet that's just not empirically true. My computer, a complex entity, was created by many thousands of people, each extremely more complex than the computer. Paley's argument is embraced because it seems to comport with experience. One would not conclude that a piece of driftwood found on the beach had a designer, but one would conclude that a watch would.

Your comment above is really just a restatement of the scientific/evolutionary position that the theist challenges. I would think a more sophisticated theistic position would accept the evolutionary argument you present, but would then ask the meta question of who or what put in place this extremely sophisticated evolutionary system that turns simple substances into complex organisms.

Contrary to this, the fact that every event must have a cause necessitates the existence of an uncaused Prime Mover of pure actuality. The trouble with asking "who created God" is that it applies an intra-wordly phenomenon to something that is, by definition, outside of this phenomenon. And the hypothesis that there is something "outside" of this cause and effect chain put forward out of metaphysical necessity. Indeed, infinite regresses and spontaneous creation acts do not seem to make sense, so it is conceptually necessary to postulate the existence of something that is not affected by the normal cause and effect we see every day.

Additionally, God is typically not seen as "complex", but rather necessarily "simple". The Neo-Platonists and their neighbors taught that complexity cannot explain complexity. Simplicity is what does all the explanatory work, for all complex structures can be reduced to their components.

So it is not that every complex entity has a complex designer, but rather every complex entity has a prior simplicity. — darthbarracuda

Been expecting the "God is simple" retort.

Dawkins is challenging the claim that complexity entails a designer.

IF the complexity of the universe entails a designer, as the theist asserts, then the designer's understanding, intentions, and abilities to actually implement his design surely are more complex than the level of complexity apprehended by the theist who asserts that such complexity entails a designer.

My understanding of quantum mechanics (which admittedly is about as deep as a puddle) is that there are genuinely stochastic, indeterminate events in nature, i.e. uncaused causes. — Arkady

The apparent randomness of certain quantum events gets a lot of play in philosophical circles. While I can accept that these events are entirely unpredictable from our standpoint, I cannot comprehend how they could be truly random, to the extent that term is defined as events arising from nothing. It seems quite impossible to me that one could expect different results assuming 100% reproduction of the pre-existent events.

I agree it's counter-intuitive, but there's no reason to expect our evolved intuitions to be a perfect (or even very reliable) guide to how nature operates at the most fundamental levels. And, again, I'm no expert, but my understanding of the current consensus among physicists is that there are genuinely random (i.e. indeterminate) events in nature, and that so-called "hidden variable" theories in QM have not gained widespread acceptance.

IF the complexity of the universe entails a designer,as the theist asserts, then the designer's understanding, intentions, and abilities to actually implement his design surely are more complex than the level of complexity apprehended by the theist who asserts that such complexity entails a designer. — Brainglitch

I think the theist can persuasively argue that a complex system entails a complex designer, but I don't see how it follows that a designer cannot create a system more complex than himself. That is, I don't see why it's theoretically impossible that one day scientists could create a superhuman, superior in every conceivable way to current humans.

Every path you follow is not the Truth.

So if you go with Atheism or Catholicism or Intellectualism or any other movement is plain wrong and will never lead you to truth.

Truth is a pathless way, because the journey goes inwardly - ( standing still ), not outwardly - ( where you can follow a direction )

Yet that's just not empirically true. My computer, a complex entity, was created by many thousands of people, each extremely more complex than the computer. — Hanover

True, but these complex people were not derived from even more complex entities. They exist thanks to a very long process of evolution, which started with simple biochemicals.

Creativity, following Whitehead, is an intrinsic aspect of reality. New and improved things follow naturally from a simple starting block.

One would not conclude that a piece of driftwood found on the beach had a designer, but one would conclude that a watch would. — Hanover

The difference is in agency. Clearly we see the watch seemed to be made by an agent. But the piece of driftwood was not, it arose due to natural processes.

Yet were these natural processes, in some sense, "designed"? Or if they evolved from a simpler state, what was this simpler state? Hence why classical theists sometimes called God the One.

IF the complexity of the universe entails a designer,as the theist asserts, then the designer's understanding, intentions, and abilities to actually implement his design surely are more complex than the level of complexity apprehended by the theist who asserts that such complexity entails a designer. — Brainglitch

But this is misunderstanding the argument. The argument is that God is simple, out of necessity. Complexity does not explain complexity. Indeed, if there was a person who designed the universe as it is, then it would also need an explanation. But this doesn't lead to atheism immediately; it merely pushes the explanation back more. It's a caricature to see the classical theistic God as akin to a mega-human with a personality, likes and dislikes, etc. God is theorized out of necessity, a byproduct of the PSR and a certain view of causality.

Reject the PSR and you're left with an irrational universe. We can bite this bullet, for sure. But if we don't bite this bullet, then God becomes a plausible explanation for why things exist. There is reason all the big rationalists in the past have been theists. God helps explain why things are intelligible and reasonable.

No, that would make it merely conventionally inconsistent.

It's a caricature to see the classical theistic God as akin to a mega-human with a personality, likes and dislikes, etc. — darthbarracuda

How so? At least in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Bible very clearly speaks of God having likes, dislikes, emotions, etc, and engaging with humans (e.g. Moses) in a personal manner.
Indeed, if the Christian story is to be believed, Jesus was God incarnate, and Jesus clearly had emotions, preferences, etc.

And claiming that certain institutions or actions are contrary to God's will (generally with regard to things which religious conservatives dislike, such as same sex marriage) is a depressingly common feature of political discourse in the U.S.

If this is a "caricature," then it is religionists who should be blamed for promulgating these notions.

How so? At least in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Bible very clearly speaks of God having likes, dislikes, emotions, etc, and engaging with humans (e.g. Moses) in a personal manner.
Indeed, if the Christian story is to be believed, Jesus was God incarnate, and Jesus clearly had emotions, preferences, etc. — Arkady

Right, but the Prime Mover hypothesis was postulated before these religions took off. Aristotle wasn't a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, for example.

So indeed the "intelligent designer" advocates are philosophically shallow. And I would go on to say that Christianity in general has adopted a metaphysics to justify its rather silly beliefs.

At least in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Bible very clearly speaks of God having likes, dislikes, emotions, etc, and engaging with humans (e.g. Moses) in a personal manner. — Arkady

Not so much in the New Testament, which is the only non-Jewish collection of writings that make up the Christian Bible.

Not so much in the New Testament, which is the only non-Jewish collection of writings that make up the Christian Bible. — Heister Eggcart

You mean the part of the Bible where God assumes human form? That only serves to underscore my point, I should say.

Right, but the Prime Mover hypothesis was postulated before these religions took off. Aristotle wasn't a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, for example. — darthbarracuda

I understand, but you said "classical theistic God," not "the God of the philosophers" or something. Regardless, focusing only on the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is mostly definitely not a caricature to assert that Jews and Christians predicate certain personality characteristics of their God as judged from their holy scriptures (Christians in particular, insofar as Christians qua Christians are committed to the incarnation).

If that's the narrative you would like to think, sure. But the New Testament is starkly different from the Old, which had God specifically talking and acting as though a personal entity.

It's not "the narrative I would like to think": it's what the texts say. Again, God is not only a personal entity in the NT, God is a person!

I understand, but you said "classical theistic God," not "the God of the philosophers" or something. — Arkady

That's what the God of the philosophers is.

Regardless, focusing only on the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is mostly definitely not a caricature to assert that Jews and Christians predicate certain personality characteristics of their God as judged from their holy scriptures (Christians in particular, insofar as Christians qua Christians are committed to the incarnation). — Arkady

Hence why I think it is shallow to try to combine this concept with the philosophical conception of God.

You're still reading it as though the God of the Old Testament must be the same as the one written of in the New. If you read the Bible and think both Gods sound the same, you're nuts!

The very notion of a "theistic" God is one which interacts with its creation and takes some interest in human welfare or actions, as opposed to a deistic entity (which may be purely a "clockmaker"-style entity). The God of the Judeo-Christian tradition (a God in which the vast majority of the U.S. populaces professes to believe in some form) most definitely does have personality characteristics. Whether you find conflating the religious and the philosophical to be "shallow" or not, it's what people believe: saying otherwise isn't caricaturing said belief.

And contrariwise, the complex design such as that of the universe entails prior causes (as opposed to designers) leading to its existence. So either this leads to an infinite regress, or complexity does NOT entail a cause at all. That the current universe can rest its existence upon an uncaused cause refutes the basic scientific principle that every event has a cause. What else is God than an uncaused cause? — Hanover

If your explanation for the existence of the universe allows for the possibility and intelligibility of an "uncaused cause," then the universe itself can be an uncaused cause, and adding something else, such as God is not required.

I don't think they "sound" the same, but Christians believe they are (no mainstream variety of Christianity with which I'm familiar asserts that the God of the OT and the NT are literally different Gods).

Regardless, none of this matters: my point is the that the God of the NT (i.e. Jesus) definitely does have personality characteristics, including emotions and preferences, contra Darthbarracuda's insinuation otherwise (by calling descriptions of such beliefs a caricature).

The new atheist critiques work well against the common conception of God as some kind of intervening sky father, touted around by evangelicals across the world. But they shouldn't be compared to the arguments used to argue for the classical conception.

That's where the conflict lies. You have religious people trying to justify their beliefs by appealing to theistic arguments that argue for a different conception of God than they believe in, and then you have atheists trying to argue against all conceptions of God by appealing to only one particular, and rather shallow, conception of God. The whole thing is mixed up and contradictory.

Bingo. Occam's Razor. (Though theists could perhaps argue that one or more features of the universe other than its mere existence require the intervention of God, e.g. the development of the human moral sense or the coming into being of the first organism.)

The new atheist critiques work well against the common conception of God as some kind of intervening sky father, touted around by evangelicals across the world. — darthbarracuda

Why shouldn't the New Atheists grapple with beliefs "touted around the world"? Because you find such beliefs to be shallow or puerile? Even if they are, that would seem to only make it that much more imperative that they be critiqued, wouldn't you say?

Why shouldn't the New Atheists grapple with beliefs "touted around the world"? Because you find such beliefs to be shallow or puerile? Even if they are, that would seem to only make it that much more imperative that they be critiqued, wouldn't you say? — Arkady

Oh, sure, they can, I don't have a problem with them attacking organized religion. It's when they start claiming that their arguments address all conceptions of God that I have issues with them. That's when they become dogmatic themselves.

I don't think they "sound" the same, but Christians believe they are (no mainstream variety of Christianity with which I'm familiar asserts that the God of the OT and the NT are literally different Gods). — Arkady

Well, considering that we're discussing New Atheists, the only targets they go for are from the Old Testament, which by itself, is Jewish, and not Christian. I think it was the first failure of the Christian tradition to keep the original Jewish texts, which outside of a few books, are worthless. *edit* And have next to no allegorical connection to the New Testament.

o, that would make it merely conventionally inconsistent. — John

If there is equal justification for the existence of the monotheistic deity, and Zeus, and Lord Krishna, ... etc., and the existence of the monotheistic deity is accepted based on such justification, then it is inconsistent to reject Zeus etc. (because there's just as much justification for them as for the monotheistic deity), but it is also inconsistent to accept Zeus etc., because if there exists the one and only deity, then the deity Zeus can't exist.

Well, considering that we're discussing New Atheists, the only targets they go for are from the Old Testament, which by itself, is Jewish, and not Christian. — Heister Eggcart

This is not true. They criticize myriad aspects of the NT, as well (assuming that by the "New Atheists" we mutually understand that we're referring to Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, and company).

But, again, this is irrelevant: I was responding to the claim that it was a caricature of religious belief to describe God as having personality characteristics. This feature obtains whether one is considering the OT or the NT (albeit, as you say, they seem to have different characteristics in those two sections).

Oh, sure, they can, I don't have a problem with them attacking organized religion. It's when they start claiming that their arguments address all conceptions of God that I have issues with them. That's when they become dogmatic themselves. — darthbarracuda

Different people have criticized different aspects of religious beliefs, some involving a more "hands-on" theistic conception of God, and others involving a deistic, "clockmaker" God. Lawrence Krauss's A Universe from Nothing, for instance, is more directed towards the latter type of "prime mover" God (so is my understanding of his thesis: I haven't read the book), and people like Hitchens and (Sam) Harris seem to grapple more with the perceived absurdity of more theistic-oriented beliefs. Dawkins has levied criticisms of both types of belief, as well (for whatever it's worth, Alvin Plantinga has asserted that God is a person, and he's no stranger to philosophical arguments for the existence of God).

Alvin Plantinga is a theistic personalist, not a classical theist.

In any case these books by those pop-science superstars are not very well accepted in the philosophical community at large. Krauss's "nothing" is actually "something", despite his pretentious douchebaggery. Hitchens and Harris attack straw-men. None of them seem capable, or willing, to understand religious belief, or theist belief for that matter. It's just a publicity stunt.