Hi ByromCheck out this link...it's an article by Alvin Plantinga and part of it deals with Dawkins' increased complexity, decreased probability argument!Cheers
If Dawkins' argument for increased complexity decreased probability is true then why are we humans here....and so plentifull!!??
So if Dawkins can't apply that to God how can he make that assumption, that God cannot exist because of no prior model, if the very God there is no prior model for he rejects from the first instance? Isn't that a circular?
I am a theist, and have recently shifted from rejecting to accepting, as very plausible, Darwinian evolution as accountable for the biological diversity we see. But I still reject materialism as the progenitor of human experience/consciousness and moral law. For what my opinion's worth!
Byrom wrote: Beats me. Most of the answers I'm getting in the Dawkins forum are pathetic, essentially preaching the gospel of Darwin without even acknowledging that I've already accepted it and am questioning its extrapolation into origins of the universe. there are some smug dullards out there lol.
The alternative model, Cranes, are better because they postulate gradual increases of complexity from simple, more statistically probable, origins. for example, evolution by natural selection takes something very simple and allows it to slowly grow into the complexity we observe today. This is apparently better than a skyhook, because it is grounded in growth from simplicity, rather than design from complexity.