"you keep creating straw men arguments."
Look up the definition of a "straw man" argument, please. Thank you.
"I'm not claiming anything about a God being complex or no"
I never said you did; you, however, are pulling a tactic I've seen again and again: asking where the "complex" laws of the universe came from to give the answer that "God done did it". I'm merely anticipating your coming argument and getting it out of the way so we won't have to waste any further time on that.
"If you're up to date on the latest evolution thinking"
Wow, that one came out from left field. Since when are we talking about evolution?
"I'm trying to follow such thinking"
No, you were talking about the cosmological constant, gravity, electromagnetism, and all the other laws of the universe. Biological evolution had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.
"I'm asking questions about evolution"
There's a pretty HUGE dichotomy between the theory of evolution and the physical laws of the universe - I really hope you realize that. No, you were not talking about evolution.
"you answer by attacking a God you don't believe exists"
Please explain how I can "attack" something I don't believe exists in the first place. No, seriously, explain it to me, it sounds fascinating.
"Hmm, sounds like, a fanatic."
Not really; I consider myself a moderate if anything. I'm not persecuting you, I'm not insulting you because of your faith, I'm not discriminating or hiring ninja assassins to murder you in your sleep. I'm trying to have a discussion with you, and if you think that's fanatical behavior, you've obviously never been to the DEBATE FAITH room on Stickam.
If god exists, then god is even more complex then the laws. Thus, the questions you have just asked would have to be applied to god as well, making god existing no more likely than the laws existing, by your logic.
Humans created the concept of complex. If conscious minds were not capable of fathoming complexity, then it would be a non-issue. The laws of the universe are not complex, nor are they simple. They are only either based on how we choose to describe them, how they appear to us. It is a subjective opinion we form, therefore it cannot be used as proof of god's existence.
Depends on what your standards of "complex" are, and if they are, then god would be even more complex, thus requiring a creator, itself. If your argument is complexity cannot come about without consciousness, then what about your precious "god"? Where did it come from?
The issue I take with the whole "god is a viable explanation for the origins of the universe" argument is that there's absolutely no basis for that statement. Why even bring it up? There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate any type of involvement from some "higher power" that's beyond our existence and understanding.
All the arguments for the existence of god, such as the universe is too complicated to exist without a creator (to this I argue that a universe coming into existence through natural forces and gradually producing complex lifeforms is a lot more plausible than a complex being already existing and manually creating a universe through incomprehensible mechanisms); the universe is magnificent/beautiful/wonderful/etc.; or "I feel the baby Jesus in my heart", are all based on subjective opinions. We have evidence for the big bang, yet don't know what came before it. Theists are of the OPINION that the universe is too "perfect" for us (a futile argument in and of itself) to exist without a conscious creator. This is an assumption, born out of personal bias, with absolutely no hard, empirical evidence to back it up with. Therefore, the possibility of a god shouldn't even be on the table for discussion.
Let's think about this: would scientists really spend their time not looking for the natural causes of the big bang, but rather searching for some scrap of evidence to hint at the existence of a theoretical being that allegedly exists beyond this universe's existence even though no empirical evidence has turned up to even consider it as a scientific possibility? It's a wild goose chase because there's no incentive to chase the idea in the first place; only personal, biased beliefs.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the subject, and I do not try to debase someone else's faith if it gives them comfort (provided they aren't annoying or harming other people because of it), however don't try to bring the idea of a conscious creator being into the scientific realm for debate, because there's nothing to go on. No reason to disprove it if there's nothing indicating it was even partially "proved" in the first place. The god idea isn't even a theory. It's an idea, a belief.
