Q&A: Regarding the assumption that every complex thing needs a composer
Regarding the assumption that every complex thing needs a composer
Question
Question A:
Is it true that this assumption applies only to artificial things? A watch, a computer, a machine—all of these examples are human creations, and therefore our experience shows us that they require an intelligent designer.
But what about babies, trees, animals, black holes—complex things that, in our experience, we do not see as requiring planning? If we claim that they too prove that there is a designer who created them, isn’t that begging the question? The whole discussion is about whether there is a designer for human beings, plants, etc.
Question B:
Is the entropy of human beings some mathematical quantity that has a fixed value, or is it just an impression? Is it a fixed numerical value? Is there some equation that presents it?
Answer
You have a basic mistake. The claim that a complex thing does not arise on its own is grounded in logic, not in experience. Natural complex things also do not arise on their own. The laws of nature, which were legislated by an intelligent entity, are what create them. In other words: the question is whether laws require a lawgiver.
I’m not familiar with a calculation that leads to a numerical value. There are calculations regarding the genotype, but I don’t think so regarding the phenotype.
Discussion on Answer
Because the notion that what is complex has a composer does not come from your experience. This topic has been ground to dust on the site. Search the responsa on causality (it’s not exactly what you asked, but there are parallel principles there that you can adapt).
Why is it logical to assume that natural things also did not come into being on their own? How can I reach such a conclusion if the only things I’ve seen that have a designer are artificial ones?