Q&A: Needing the Argument from the Complexity of the World in Order to Support the Argument for the Rationality of Belief in God
Needing the Argument from the Complexity of the World in Order to Support the Argument for the Rationality of Belief in God
Question
In the discussion about whether belief in God is rational, why do you resort to the argument from the complexity of the world rather than the simpler argument that the very existence of the physical world testifies to a Creator?
In other words, why not say that the mere fact that I see matter indicates that there is a creator of that matter, or from the opposite direction argue that, rationally speaking, in a world without a creator there is no possibility of any physical existence at all?
What bothers me is that the argument from low entropy can only be raised after the development and refinement of science and mathematics.
Answer
These are two arguments, and both are used: the cosmological argument is discussed in the second conversation in my book The First Existent, and the physico-theological argument is discussed in the third. The argument from complexity does not require the concepts of entropy. It could always have been made, and in fact it was. The concept of entropy only sharpens it and explains it better. And besides, what's wrong with a new argument that arose from new scientific knowledge?