Richard Dawkins writes:
A designer god cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any god capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right. God presents an infinite regress from which he cannot help us escape.
Let's think about this:
1/ If we use an holistic interpretation then when Dawkins writes "designer god" it can also mean "Maximally Great Being".
2/ It follows then then one attribute of a Maximally Great Being would be Maximally Great Complexity.
3/ Maximally Great Complexity can be interpreted as Infinite Complexity.
The interesting characteristic of all complexity computer simulations is that as complexity grows in the simulation all variables converge to a stable value, i.e. they do not deviate.
Now, what is interesting here is to consider the Fine Tuning Argument, i.e. there are no analytical relationships that allow us to know one fundamental physical constant uniquely in terms of the others.
The absence of analytical relationships suggests statistical relationships: i.e., that the constants are a random sample of the independent numbers from some master probability law.
If this is the case then Richard Dawkins comment on the "designer god" explains why the constants we see in the universe are what they are.
For if the "designer god" is indeed infinitely complex as Dawkins says then if we use computer complexity models as a bench mark then it suggest that the constants created at the moment of the Big Bang were in fact a deterministic result of the infinite complexity of the designer god... for at its limit infinite complexity means a stable universe being created, i.e. the master probability law of the physical constants are a direct result of the infinite complexity of the "designer god".
Well I will start out by saying as I always do is that Dawkins is an idiot. By the very writing of his theory he debunks it. The writer of the theory, by all logic should be much more complex than what is written. So there goes that theory.
Just like by the very action taken to write this post, logically, it would take a more complex individual to write it than the post itself is complex.
Dawkins was trying to hammer in everything into evolutionary theory, which postulates, at the moment, a bubble -up from simple to complex. That's what happens when you become one dimensional, you become a hammer and everything looks like a nail.
