The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[Angrboda]

I'm dishonest?  I said two hydrogen atoms constituting complexity, treating hydrogen atoms as atomic as they were at one time and still are today to many.  Upon your pointing out the technical flaw, I rephrased it as two elementary particles, no matter how you care to define them, and that is what you have been replying to for several posts.  For you to pretend that I hadn't clarified my point and was still defending hydrogen as an elementary particle just makes you a dishonest twat.  You have been focusing on the question of elementary particlehood as if that were the point and as if you didn't know it wasn't the point because of my explicitly pointing it out.  Now, for you to accuse me of dishonesty after you've repeatedly tried to pretend I hadn't is the utmost in bullshit and lies.

Answer the point or concede the point.  This "hydrogen being an elementary particle is essential to your point" is a bunch of crap.  I've already said otherwise.

Okay. Fair enough. It's progress of a kind that you acknowledged hydrogen is not simple. Now you say : two isolated elementary particles are not an indication of complexity. Well, this is not the observable state of affairs, no one ever saw isolated elementary particles floating in some vacuum somewhere in the universe. We have 118 chemical elements, each with their own properties and their subatomic particles. All matter we know exists is a combination of these, which in turn contain simpler components -not the simplest-. Now, do you think all that is not indicative of -at least- a highly skillful designer, whereas, at the same time, you acknowledge that relatively simple mental operations leading to a watch do point to an intelligent agent....?

There need not be an example of such a universe, as that is not the point of the example. It's called a reductio ad absurdum proof, whereby, starting with the given premises and definitions, one derives a result that is simultaneously absurd and fully consistent with those assumptions. If that can be done then something is not kosher with the given premises, auxiliary assumptions, and definitions. That your definition of complex results in labeling such a toy universe both complex and begging for the explanation of design shows that something is rotten in Denmark.