A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?

[Ferrocyanide]

The problem with this argument is that god is a design and requires a designer and the theist can’t offer an explanation for how this design (god’s body) came into existence nor how the environment where he exists in came into existence without a designer, nor how the laws of physics of his environment came into existence.

It's a fundamental tenet of all monotheism that God is not a design and does not require a designer. How the undesigned God gives rise to the laws of physics is explained in a number of similar ways, mostly on Neoplatonic principles. 

If you have an argument as to why this is false, you'd have to address the long series of arguments as to why monotheist theologians believe it. 

And for those fans of the Burden of Proof out there, Ferro has asserted that "god is a design and requires a designer," so if the Burden of Proof law is in force, he has the burden here.

It's very simple.
It is the design argument:
It takes the form of "This human body or that lifeform is complex, therefore it is designed."
Well, god would need to have a brain in order to think, which itself is a complex design.


An argument about what? This is basic logic.

Is monotheism claiming that the god-alien is a mindless entity and it is simpler than us?
Because that is what naturalists are claiming: That life started with basic chemistry and that a soup of molecule are simpler than us (and mindless).

[Jehanne]

Some complex things are, of course, designed, by Us. Comparing artificial versus natural selection, I do not know how anyone could confound the latter with the former, except to appeal to a disinterested, lazy God who, for whatever reason, decided to obliterate most of his creation from time in this slow progression to become a member of H. Sapiens, so that he could orchestrate his own execution to satisfy his own moral principles that after eons and eons of death and destruction some need for him to propitiate himself.

Ordinarily, I would recommend cognitive behavior therapy for such an individual.

[Belacqua]

Is monotheism claiming that the god-alien is a mindless entity and it is simpler than us?
Because that is what naturalists are claiming: That life started with basic chemistry and that a soup of molecule are simpler than us (and mindless).

Classical theism has been claiming that God is absolutely simple, with no parts. It is not only simpler than us, it is the simplest thing there can be.

This has been a basic tenet of theology for millennia.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/

[Jehanne]

Is monotheism claiming that the god-alien is a mindless entity and it is simpler than us?
Because that is what naturalists are claiming: That life started with basic chemistry and that a soup of molecule are simpler than us (and mindless).

Classical theism has been claiming that God is absolutely simple, with no parts. It is not only simpler than us, it is the simplest thing there can be.

This has been a basic tenet of theology for millennia.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/

The ultimate simplicity would be non-existence.

[Ferrocyanide]

Is monotheism claiming that the god-alien is a mindless entity and it is simpler than us?
Because that is what naturalists are claiming: That life started with basic chemistry and that a soup of molecule are simpler than us (and mindless).

Classical theism has been claiming that God is absolutely simple, with no parts. It is not only simpler than us, it is the simplest thing there can be.

This has been a basic tenet of theology for millennia.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/

Simple things would be particles, such as photons, electrons, quarks, protons. These are the components from which the stuff in this universe is made of and they are observable.
Complexity is not a well defined term, but I am going to use it here.
Something like a hydrogen is more complex, since it uses simpler components: for example, one proton and one electron.
A hydrogen molecule is more complex.
Solid hydrogen, crystalline form, with a few hundred molecules of H2 is more complex.
A star is a more complex system.

In the case of cold objects, about 500 C and under, you have the surface of a planet such as Earth, where you have various compounds, various crystals.

The only thing that has no parts is nothingness.
Everything we observe in our environment has parts.
The problem with Plato is that he comes from ancient times and has not had the benefit of a modern science education and thus, does not have a good frame of reference.
The brain was a complete unknown to him. He is not aware of circuit design, CPU design, software, TV, VCR, clocks.

So, what lead these people to claim that a god is absolutely simple?

[Belacqua]

Classical theism has been claiming that God is absolutely simple, with no parts. It is not only simpler than us, it is the simplest thing there can be.

This has been a basic tenet of theology for millennia.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/

Simple things would be particles, such as photons, electrons, quarks, protons.

You seem to be assuming that God is a material object. What gives you this idea?

[Fake Messiah]

Simple things would be particles, such as photons, electrons, quarks, protons.

You seem to be assuming that God is a material object. What gives you this idea?

Yeah, Ferrocyanide, since God obviously doesn't exist he can not be material.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage

[Deesse23]

This has been a basic tenet of theology for millennia.

Wow, millenia!? How impressive!  
And it still couldnt demonstrate the truth of its claim?

[Jehanne]

You seem to be assuming that God is a material object. What gives you this idea?

Yeah, Ferrocyanide, since God obviously doesn't exist he can not be material.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage

Are photons non-material since they have zero mass?

[Deesse23]

Yeah, Ferrocyanide, since God obviously doesn't exist he can not be material.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage

Are photons non-material since they have zero mass?

You are unfortunately wrong.