Regarding the assumption that everything that is complex needs a component
Question A:
Is it true that this assumption only applies to artificial things? A clock, a computer, a machine, all of these examples are human creations, and therefore experience shows us that they require an intelligent designer.
But what about babies, trees, animals, black holes, complex things that we don’t see from our experiences that require planning? If we claim that they also prove that there is a designer who created them, that’s already the desired assumption, isn’t it? The whole discussion is about whether there is a designer for humans, plants, etc.
Question B:
Is human entropy some kind of mathematical data that has a fixed value or is it a feeling? Is it a fixed numerical value? Is there some equation that represents it?
You have a fundamental error. The claim that a complex thing is not created by itself is based on logic and not on experience. Complex natural things are also not created by themselves. It is the laws of nature enacted by an intelligent being that create them. In other words: the question is whether laws are distilled from a legislator.
I don’t know of a calculation that leads to a numerical value. There are calculations on the genotype, but I don’t think on the phenotype.
Why is it logical to assume that natural things also did not come into being by themselves? How can I come to such a conclusion if the only things I have seen that have a designer are artificial?
Because the idea that a complex has a component does not stem from your experience. The topic is covered in detail on the site. Search the causality section (it's not exactly what you asked, but there are parallel principles there that you can convert)
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
