If God exists, why did he create life? (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Sunday, January 02, 2011, 14:59 (4863 days ago) @ George Jelliss

GEORGE: dhw maintains: "One of the most powerful arguments for a UI is that life is too complex to have fashioned itself by accident."-I know this is dhw's oft-stated thesis, but he knows that the earliest forms of life were much simpler than today, that "fashioned itself" is an unjustifiable attribution of will where none can exist, and that "accident" is the creationist's word for any process whatsoever, involving even the slightest element of chance. But we've discussed this before ad nauseam.-We have indeed, and yet you still haven't recognized the fact that "much simpler" does not mean simple. You and I both believe that the complexities of life as we now know it evolved from those "earliest forms", and for that to have happened, those earliest forms must have had the potential ability not only to replicate, but also to adapt to changing environments and to innovate. Without those three potentials, there would have been nothing for natural selection to work on, and there would have been no evolution. It's this initial mechanism which I'm referring to, and it's so complex that we're still grappling with its mysteries and we're still incapable of creating it ourselves. The faith of the atheist is that this initial mechanism of replication, adaptation and innovation could be formed ("fashion itself" does not involve an attribution of will, but use whatever expression you like) by accident, and relativizing simplicity/complexity or casting general creationist aspersions doesn't reduce the improbability of such an event. I'm not denigrating your faith, however; I'm simply explaining why I don't share it.-ROMANSH (reproducing the same quote): And for me this is an ultimate god of the gaps type of argument. Ooohh this is far too complex for me to understand, therefore a UI, a god or a whatever must be responsible. And for me, pasting examples and links of complex biochemicals as evidence and saying "too complex" does not cut it for me as a method of discussion.-All theories are attempts to fill gaps, and the equivalent atheist gap-filler is the creative genius of chance, as described above. Your ooohhing dismissal of the complexity argument and evidence seems to me to be a misunderstanding of a perfectly valid agnostic position, or possibly just a lack of awareness of the enormous leap of faith required to attribute the still inimitable mechanism for replication/adaptation/ innovation to sheer luck. Both you and George have omitted the second part of my statement, which was: "One of the most powerful arguments against a UI is that it must be even more complex than what it created, so how the heck did IT come into existence?" Therein lies my own agnostic dilemma in the context of the origin of life on earth: both theories (chance versus intelligence) demand a degree of faith which I cannot muster, and so I believe neither but remain open to both. It's a common mistake by those who have already decided that they know the answers to assume that anyone who doubts their authority must belong to the opposition! 
---