Originally posted by SwissGambit
As I said in another thread, the typical theist answer to the 'accident' dilemma is to posit a god(s) that is even more complex than the universe, then fail to explain how that god(s) came to be.
Have you by chance been reading
The God Delusion lately? 🙂
Alvin Plantinga's article, "The Dawkins Confusion," confronts this problem head on, and quite successfully:
"According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn't only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is "a single and simple spiritual being." ) So first, according to classical theology, God is simple, not complex. More remarkable, perhaps, is that according to Dawkins' own definition of complexity, God is not complex. According to his definition (set out in The Blind Watchmaker), something is complex if it has parts that are "arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone." But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts. A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) God doesn't have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html