The need for an argument for the complexity of the world to support the rationality argument for belief in God.
In the debate over whether belief in God is rational, why do you need an argument based on the complexity of the world and not the simpler argument that physical existence itself indicates a Creator?
In other words, why not say that the mere fact that I see matter indicates that there is a creator for that matter, or from the opposite direction, argue that rationally, in a world without a creator, there is no possibility of any material existence?
It bothers me that the low entropy argument can only be made after the development and refinement of science and mathematics.
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
These are two arguments and both are used: the cosmological one is discussed in the second conversation in my first book, and the physico-theological one is discussed in the third. The argument from complexity did not require concepts of entropy. It could always be raised and has been raised. The concept of entropy only sharpens and explains it better. And besides, what's wrong with a new argument that creates new scientific information?
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
השאר תגובה
Please login or Register to submit your answer