Has Science done away with a need for God?

[Esquilax]

My apologies Equilax, I missed one day and trying to keep up so I'm sure I missed some responses.  Can you explain how you perceive my argument as circular?

Regarding complexity and design, the circular problem is this: how do you know the universe is designed? Because it's complex. How do you know complex things are designed? Because complexity denotes design. So the universe is designed because it's complex, and complexity denotes design, and the universe is complex, therefore it's designed, because complexity is an exclusive sign of design... And around we go.

The problem is that you're merely asserting that complexity equals design, which is also entirely untrue in two different ways, one being that we know of complex things that weren't designed. Following your argument so far, you seem to be asserting that even if we have a natural explanation for a complex thing, it's still designed by god ultimately (your argument regarding Henry Ford and combustion engines) but that is little more than a baseless assertion, a presupposition made without evidence so that your claim will always be right, even when it's evidently wrong.

The second thing is that you're ignoring the concept of emergent complexity, that is, complexity that comes about over time. If I leave a random number generator on for a while, I'll end up with an extremely complex number, that came to be simply by single digits accumulating over time. With regards to the universe, it didn't start out as complex as it is now: in fact, it started out as a single point of spacetime, and the early universe was devoid of planets, stars, even the chemical elements that compose things today. All of that stuff arose over time, as products of interactions between simple, uniform physical laws and equally simple initial compounds. You say the universe is complex, therefore it's designed, and in doing so you ignore that demonstrably, it was not so complex in its beginnings.

One final thought, regarding complexity: it's not a hallmark of design. Simplicity is. Designers want to remove moving parts, reduce the number of components in their designs, both to reduce the cost of construction and the risk of breakages and malfunctions. Modern computers have far less parts than their predecessors for precisely that reason. Just look at modern technological interfaces: simplicity is the name of the game. Touchscreens over keyboards, simple pictographs over long command strings, all the while the computers and phones that house these programs get slimmer, smaller, more compact. Simplicity is accessible. Simplicity and refinement is a hallmark of design, not complexity. Nobody designs the next generation of a given technology by making it larger and more unwieldy.