thank you for asking oliver...quote<<..if..God/more complex than the universe..and..one held..the universe had a Designer..by extrapoloation..God being more complex..would need a Designer>>>..i replied..the cause..need not be more complicated than the result...

think of a jumbo jet...seemingly..far more complicated than a human..[you theorise/imply...as...humans happend/..by chance...yet accord...the aircraft was by design]

<<Alternatively,..if God didn't need a Designer,why would the universe,..>>...ok thats a sepperate question from the addendum/inferance..<<which is less complicated than God>>...lets presume..the chance event..was/is god/...ie cause..[not the universe/result/fruit/creation].

as little miracles..are easier than bigger ones..lets say..that you are god...you..dont know why..but..you need simply say..'be '..and things just happen...

clearly there is a higher cause..than you/god...doing it..but like god[is to you]..its unseen to you...this..higher cause/..than god...is as unseen[to god]..as god is to you..presently...

so god[you]begins testing..the limits of this be..[and it is]..thing

in time..you realise you need to test your hypothesis..[and create[say be...and it is...and you make an equal..[to you]..man...that in time will help resolve/test/prove..or disprove the..[god's]your..hypothesis

see how we confuse..a holy trinity/wholy spirit etc..in concieving our root cause...science clearly isnt serving to get a true answer...because they think they are god...

but god needs..the true science fact...revealing ever more complicated realisations..seeking that cause of causes...that are likely to be less..going back..each time..a new minimul cause theory...inspired by your question

we now know..[via the secret sciences..of/the vibratory-harmonics]...do..the creation...yet the faithfull/fools..are still sold the frauds of evolution theory..[faux sciencese].....are kept in ignorance..of their greatness..[called as co-creators]...by science god heads..peddeling their[evolving]..delusions..upon their athiest[godless]fate-full..faithfull...nedding their god/free/theory

<<not specifically..directed towards/..the questions/issues raised.>>..im calling on words..to describe the mind imagry...the unseen cause of these words...doing the/my best to reply..what you ask...but you should ask god yourself...with your word skills you could explain it better

<<I couldn't..recognize the comments..as replies.>>..i can only try to do the best reply..as im able...im here to rebut..the deceptions of science...not form new godhead/theories


<<1.If God is more complex/than the universe>>>..he isnt

<<,who designed God,given God's complexity?>>.god isnt complex...children..'get god'...who designed god?...the wholy spirit

<<(more complex)god..requires no Intelligent Design?>>>the simplest explanation serves the most...first you/..define god...then i will..try to explain ..who/what designed the logus/living/logic..good/god....hint..god is beyond time..[in the beginning..as in the end...lol

OUG

You seem to think your personal incredulity accounts for something...........it doesn't. It is infantile impatience with science that drives your hostility for science. The christian trinity is an illogical and illegitimate contrivance that depends for its credibility upon the suspension of rationality and logic, reason and common sense. Yet you, with an immaculate faith in just one aspect of the trinity, have concluded that much of science is wrong. Reaching such a conclusion is a grotesque mis-use of your own intellect[?]

Given for just a moment that human pride is not arousing of deistic dudgeon, it can be logically concluded that our intellectual pursuits remain unfettered and that there is a Universe replete with information just aching to be categorised into human knowledge. Are you certain beyond doubt that science will never answer all your questions? Even though you may not be present at the answering?
Have you a well considered and reasoned response to the multiplicity of evidences that support the theory of evolution? A devastating wind of reason that blows away the putative house of straw?

Continuing with human achievement, let us examine the intellectual pursuit of your designer/creator.
Were science to stumble upon such a phenomenon, could we recognise it for what it is? Would there be a consensus between the theist and the atheist [just for the sake of the argument] that we have here, not a supernatural phenomenon, but a manifestation of matter/energy not encountered before and of which
science is so curious that measuring, analysing and testing are immediate reactions? The human intellect has reduced a supernatural designer/creator to a natural one.
Are designer/creator-believers eager for this revelation?

From your posts one gets the impression you think your bald, unevidenced assertions are in fact evidence themselves by divine right. It is delusional for you to think so and you do yourself a disservice by making snide remarks about atheists. It would require only half a brain to be better than you at returning the compliment. But no atheists are so deprived as to be in such a parlous position as the theist.

OUG,

Thanks. Let me ty to summarise. You hold that the Holy Spirit created a God, who is less complex than the universe:

Thus,

Your posit would suggest that universe acquired its complexity only after the Creation. Herein, God and the early universe are both less complex than the muture universe. God is not a watchmaker with an understanding of the entire watch, instead God is like a human pilot whom takes the plane off the ground, whilst the greater complexity of the plane's machinery afterwards operates under auto-pilot.

Given your scenarios:

1. Would not Creator be a better term than God?
2. Would not Physics has more relevance today than God? Or, at least be, more indigenous to complexities of the mature universe?

Also,

1. Who created the Holy Spirit?
2. Is the Holy Spirit (aside from the godhead) more complex than the universe?

Steven:

<< Neither of us can offer any TESTABLE scientific theories that can explain the Goldilocks universe.

The emphasis is on the word TESTABLE.

If I am wrong, if you know of testable hypotheses that can explain the Goldilocks enigma let's see it. >>

To the best of my knowledge there is no testable hypothesis to explain the Goldilocks Enigma - apart from the "puddle analogy". We simply do not know enough.

At present scientists believe that the probability of life as we know is miniscule, but subject to change as we learn more.

Why do I get the impression that you appear to be building an argument in favour of this universe being created expressly for the evolution of this planet? I may be misreading you, but I see no point in arguing for testable theories on the Goldilocks Enigma at our present state of knowledge.

Two simple facts:

We are here.
So is a variety of life that survive in conditions, on this planet, that are impossible for the bulk of terran life.

Therefore options are open that life is possible elsewhere under very different conditions than those to be found commonly on earth. It may be rare, or we may be the rarities. No one knows. And that doesn't perturb me in the slightest.

PS

Love the idea of a world created for fleas.

Interestingly, my first sci-fi story written when I was 13 about a scientist and his apprentice (my protagonist) working on ways to transmit matter, without going into the entire story, my apprentice wound up trapped between dimensions where he could be heard by the scientist but not seen - I know this idea has appeared since but when I wrote it, the idea was all mine. So when I began to learn about quantum physics, string theory etc my mind just said:

"YES"

Extropian1<<Are you certain/science will never answer all your questions?>>>..my only question is present YOUR proof...i presume to know my own truth...wishing only to rebut..the lies of science having their proof...when all they really got is..believers trusting them via faith

<<Have you a well considered and reasoned response..to the multiplicity of evidences..that support the theory of evolution?>>plenty present them..and watch them be rebutted..present proof of new genus...first life..replicate...dont speculate

<<let us examine..such a..[god]..phenomenon,..could we recognise it for what it is?>>..we have and are..and people fail to see the truth before their eyes..they are free to believe as they chose

<<..a consensus..between the theist and the atheist...a manifestation of matter/energy?[=god]..>>god is more than mere energy..[its a..good/living loving/omnipotant/omnipresent/omnisovereign..energy sustaining life to live]...love/light/life/reason/love

<<human intellect.reduced a supernatural..[supra-natural]..designer/creator to a natural one.>>..mistaken it/god/cause for a judgmental/affect/afectation of the only one...science claimed the nature/natural..of god...labled it science/method/...postulations...but science frauds..underpin their claims/not science faulsifyables


<<Are designer/creator-believers/..eager for this revelation?>>we can only do..as we see our fathers/father/god do...seeking to know and love his creation

<<no atheists..are so deprived..as to be..in such a parlous position as the theist.>>>..i..lol...tar them all with the same brush..i return opinion/insult..with more fact/love/accountability..than the opinions posted


Oliver<<Your posit/that universe..acquired its complexity..only after the Creation.>>...yes..[god created eden...basicly a garden...we turned the graden into cities...made computers/roads/industry/domseticated dogs/cat/fish.livestock...via selective breeding..[concious CO_creation/..via discovery/need/intent and intente..]

<<..God..and the early universe..are both less complex than the muture universe>>....unsure if your saying mature/nature...but yes god..not as complex..as his creation/the uni-verse

<<Would not Creator/..be a better term/..than God?>>is lord god?...[i prefer..cause of causes]..or creator/holy spirit..but..whats in a name

<<Would not Physics HAVE..more relevance today..than God?>>know where we come from..physics is laws of affect...not cause...can we ever know..a famouse painter..by calling his painting/sculpture?

<<Who created the Holy Spirit?>>..my developing theory...we its neurons

<<Is the Holy Spirit>>..aside from the godhead)..more complex than the universe?>>..to keep it simple..we are two/..thus two minds/saying the same thing..[cannot be more..acurate/simple]..than many..as..one one mind..saying one thing..truthfully/factually/authoritivly/definitivly

One Under God, are you saying that God and the Holy Spirit are one?
Ok then, who created them? No one will ever know.

You are supposedly getting all this information through Jesus, who apparently spoke to several men 2000 years ago and told them all this?

These men then wrote it down in a book called a bible, and Christians followed this book ever since then, right?
Who was everyone following before this time?

If they didn't have the good book to follow, then how on earth did they get on? Must have been a terribly sin-filled world.