Isaac Newton died with firm conviction that there is God given complexity or world and universe. But he had lived hundreds years before we had the scientific fact that we see complexities as bias because of our Theory of mind. So what is the fight about Theory of mind and God, and respective camps of deists and scientists.
Theory of Mind is the ability to attribute mental states—such as beliefs, intentions, desires, and emotions—to oneself and others, and to understand that others have perspectives different from one’s own.
It enhances social cooperation, communication, and survival. Recognizing that others have thoughts and intentions allows individuals to predict behavior, anticipate needs, and navigate complex social dynamics. In early human societies, this ability improved group cohesion and facilitated teamwork, such as coordinating during hunts or sharing resources. It also provided a defensive advantage by enabling individuals to infer potential threats or deception from others’ actions. Over time, these adaptive benefits favored the development of increasingly sophisticated cognitive mechanisms, making Theory of Mind a crucial tool for survival and reproduction in highly social environments.
We see mountains, complex chemistry, weather – someone must have done it. So some people completely side with this fact – every physical law is just “random”, not a product of someone (a higher power).
However, deists counterargument that world is too complex, the physical laws are so complex that even our bias, this must be a product of a creator.
And I am stunned too, the natural laws are so complicated that even though I know it is because of some bias, there is some kind of empty spaces leaving the possibility of some deity.
Evolutionary psychology and mathematics
Humans have a natural tendency to detect agents, even in ambiguous or random stimuli. Evolutionary psychology explains this as an adaptive mechanism. Early humans who assumed agency—such as hearing rustling in the bushes and thinking it might be a predator—had a survival advantage. Missing a real threat could be fatal, but falsely assuming one posed little cost. This asymmetry led to the evolution of what is called a “hypersensitive agency detection device” (HADD). Mathematical models support this, showing that false positives are far less costly than false negatives in terms of survival outcomes.
Bayesian models illustrate how agent detection operates in uncertain environments. These models weigh prior probabilities and update them based on observed evidence. For example, if the prior probability of encountering a predator is low, but the cost of missing one is high, the system biases toward over-detection. This bias is mathematically optimal for survival in environments where potential threats are unpredictable. Studies using decision theory confirm this, showing that the payoff matrix heavily favors over-detection when the stakes are life or death.
Game theory also supports the evolutionary logic behind hypersensitive agent detection. In repeated interactions within a group, assuming agency helps foster cooperation and reduces conflict. Even if agency is falsely attributed—such as believing natural events are caused by spirits—this perception strengthens group cohesion through shared beliefs and rituals. These shared perceptions, supported by agent-detection mechanisms, create stable strategies within communities. Mathematical models of group selection show that populations with strong agent-detection biases often outcompete less biased groups, as cohesive groups are more likely to survive environmental challenges.
Yes, we have a bias to see agents, however, it is insufficient
Contemporary proponents of intelligent design argue that certain biological structures exhibit “irreducible complexity,” meaning they consist of interdependent parts that could not function if any component were removed. They assert that such complexity cannot be adequately explained by natural selection alone, suggesting the necessity of an intelligent designer.
Critics of evolutionary psychology contend that some hypotheses within the field are akin to “just-so stories,” offering adaptive explanations for human behaviors without sufficient empirical support. They argue that this speculative nature undermines the scientific rigor of such explanations.
Critics also argue that while this natural propensity to detect agency might explain why humans are inclined to perceive intentionality, it does not suffice to explain the actual existence of complex structures and order in the universe. From this perspective, the intricate organization observed in natural systems points beyond mere cognitive biases, suggesting the necessity of a deliberate designer or deity. Philosophical arguments, such as the teleological argument, assert that the purposeful design evident in the natural world indicates the existence of an intelligent creator. This viewpoint challenges the adequacy of evolutionary explanations, positing that certain complexities cannot be fully explained without invoking a divine being.
The concept of “specified complexity” has been introduced to argue that certain complex patterns in nature are both highly improbable and independently specified, indicating design. Proponents claim that such patterns are unlikely to arise through natural processes alone, pointing to an intelligent cause.
In summary, while evolutionary psychology offers insights into human cognition and behavior, critics argue that it falls short in explaining the origin of complex biological structures. They maintain that the intricate organization observed in nature necessitates the existence of an intelligent designer, as naturalistic explanations may not fully account for the purposeful arrangement evident in the natural world.
The teleological argument in its contemporary version
The teleological argument is a philosophical idea that suggests the complexity, order, and purpose in the universe point to the existence of a designer. Contemporary interpretations focus on fine-tuning, irreducible complexity, and specified complexity. The fine-tuning argument observes that the universe’s constants, such as gravity or the speed of light, are so precise that even a slight change would make life impossible. Proponents argue this precision is not random but intentional. For example, physicist Paul Davies claims that the universe’s structure reflects a deeper purpose.
Irreducible complexity, advanced by Michael Behe, focuses on biological systems. He argues that some systems, such as the bacterial flagellum, are too complex to have evolved incrementally. All parts must exist simultaneously for the system to function. Critics counter this by suggesting that evolutionary pathways, while not fully understood, may explain these systems. Specified complexity, introduced by William Dembski, emphasizes patterns in nature that are both improbable and purposeful. DNA is a key example, as it stores vast amounts of information. Critics argue that mutation and selection in evolution can account for this complexity.
Universe fined-tune for life
Robin Collins presents the anthropic design argument. He suggests that the universe appears fine-tuned for life. Multiverse theories claim that our universe is one of many, making its fine-tuning statistically probable. However, proponents of design argue that even a multiverse would require laws that are fine-tuned, which still implies a designer.
Critics of the teleological argument offer naturalistic explanations. Richard Dawkins argues that a designer is unnecessary. The multiverse hypothesis suggests that life-permitting universes like ours are inevitable in a statistical sense. Emergent complexity shows that intricate systems can arise naturally, as seen in fractals and weather patterns.
Philosophical challenges also question the argument. If complexity requires a designer, the designer’s complexity would also need explanation. This creates an infinite regression. Occam’s Razor suggests that adding a designer unnecessarily complicates explanations. The anthropic principle argues that we observe fine-tuning because we exist in a universe that supports life, not because it was designed.
Modern apologetics
Intelligent design has faced scientific challenges. Critics argue that it lacks testable hypotheses and relies on gaps in knowledge. Courts, such as in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case (2005), ruled that intelligent design is a form of religious creationism, not science.
Proponents of the teleological argument include Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and Robin Collins. Plantinga defends the argument in philosophical theology. Craig uses the fine-tuning argument to support the existence of God. Collins integrates insights from physics and cosmology to argue for a purposeful designer.
The teleological argument remains central to contemporary discussions. Proponents claim that the universe’s complexity and precision suggest intentional design. Critics argue that naturalistic and scientific explanations suffice, and philosophical objections weaken the argument’s foundations. Despite these challenges, it continues to play a significant role in modern apologetics and debates about science and religion.
Actual human agent as the evidence
However, deists argue that this explanation falls short. If the human mind consistently detects agency in nature, why should this perception be dismissed as illusory? They claim that this universal bias points to something deeper. The human tendency to see purpose, intention, and design in the natural world may not be a cognitive error. Instead, it might reflect an intrinsic truth about the universe.
From a deistic perspective, the existence of this bias could suggest a purposeful designer. They argue that the human mind was intentionally created with the capacity to detect agency because agency exists. The designer, in this view, implanted this trait to allow humans to recognize the presence and purpose of a higher intelligence. For deists, this cognitive bias is not a flaw but evidence of a universe imbued with intentionality and order.
Deists argue that dismissing the human tendency to detect agency as mere cognitive bias misses the mark. They contend that this deeply ingrained intuition reflects a fundamental truth about the universe. When humans perceive agency in the natural world—whether in the intricate design of ecosystems or the fine-tuning of physical laws—this perception is not a psychological error but a recognition of real intentionality.
Human mind and designer
From this perspective, the human mind’s intuition of a creator aligns with the actual existence of a designer. Deists claim that this intuition is not an accident of evolution but a purposeful trait instilled by the designer. It serves as a bridge between humanity and the divine, enabling humans to perceive the order, complexity, and purpose inherent in the universe. For deists, the consistent recognition of agency in nature is evidence of the designer’s presence and a testament to the rationality behind creation.
Theory of Mind enables humans to attribute thoughts, feelings, and intentions to others. This ability forms the foundation of empathy, allowing individuals to understand and share the emotions of others. It also underpins moral reasoning by helping humans recognize the impact of their actions on others. These traits, while beneficial for social cohesion and survival, are seen by deists as pointing beyond evolutionary utility.
Deists argue that morality transcends mere survival functions. They claim that moral principles, such as justice, compassion, and altruism, reflect a deeper moral order embedded in the universe. These values, they suggest, are not arbitrary or solely the product of human evolution. Instead, they view morality as evidence of a higher mind that established an objective moral framework.
This moral dimension, deists argue, reveals the designer’s rationality and purpose. By endowing humans with the capacity for empathy and moral understanding, the designer made it possible for individuals to align their actions with this moral order. For deists, the universality and depth of moral values affirm the existence of a purposeful and intelligent creator who imbued the world with ethical significance.
The creation of the universe: deists vs. scientists
Deists argue that the universe shows evidence of a rational creator. They point to its fine-tuning, order, and the existence of consciousness. The fine-tuning argument states that physical constants, like gravity, are precisely calibrated. A small change would make life impossible. Deists believe this precision points to intentional design.
The first cause argument builds on the universe’s beginning. The Big Bang marked the start of space, time, and matter. Deists argue that something outside the universe caused this event. They claim this cause must be eternal and rational. The orderliness of natural laws also supports their view. The universe follows consistent rules, making scientific discovery possible. Deists see this as evidence of a designer who established these laws.
Human consciousness and reason also play a role in deist arguments. Deists argue that self-awareness and abstract thought cannot arise solely from material processes. They believe these traits reflect a rational creator who gave humanity the capacity to understand the universe. For deists, these features of existence show purpose and intentionality.
Theory of mind and God: The beginning of universe by scientists
Scientists explain the universe’s origins through natural processes. The Big Bang Theory describes how the universe began 13.8 billion years ago. Some propose multiverse theories to explain fine-tuning. If countless universes exist, at least one would support life. This makes fine-tuning statistically inevitable. Other scientists suggest quantum fluctuations could explain the universe’s start. They argue natural laws might not need a designer.
Some scientists accept that ultimate questions remain unanswered. Why does anything exist at all? Why are the laws of physics the way they are? These questions leave room for philosophical or theological interpretations. Deists use this space to argue for a creator who designed the universe with purpose.
Deists do not believe in a creator who intervenes daily. Instead, they see a designer who set the universe in motion. This designer created perfect laws to govern everything. For deists, life, consciousness, and order all reflect the creator’s rationality and purpose. While science explores the universe’s mechanics, deists focus on its meaning and origins.
Multiverses
The scientific community holds diverse views on the existence of a multiverse. Some prominent physicists, such as Max Tegmark and Andrei Linde, support multiverse theories based on interpretations of cosmological and quantum phenomena. For instance, Linde’s work on eternal inflation suggests the possibility of multiple universes.
However, other scientists express skepticism due to the lack of empirical evidence and challenges in testability. Physicists like George Ellis argue that multiverse theories may not meet the criteria of scientific falsifiability, questioning their scientific validity.
Currently, there is no definitive statistical data quantifying the proportion of scientists who support or oppose multiverse theories. The debate remains active, with ongoing discussions about the scientific merits and philosophical implications of the multiverse concept.
Theoretical physics
The concept of the multiverse arises from theoretical physics. It is linked to ideas like cosmic inflation, String theory, and Quantum mechanics. These theories suggest that multiple or infinite universes might exist, each with different properties.
Cosmic inflation predicts “pocket universes.” These are regions of space where inflation ended at different times. Each pocket universe could have its own physical constants. This makes the multiverse a natural extension of inflation theory. String theory supports this by allowing many possible configurations of physical laws. These configurations create a “landscape” of universes with varied constants. The Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that every quantum event creates parallel universes. Each one represents a different outcome.
An infinite number of universes
Proponents argue the multiverse explains the fine-tuning of our universe. If infinite universes exist, some will have the right conditions for life. Our universe is one of them. This makes fine-tuning statistically probable without invoking a designer. For example, if there are string theory suggests there could be ten to the power of five hundred possible universes (as suggested by string theory), the odds of one with life-friendly constants become plausible.
Critics highlight major challenges. There is no direct evidence for other universes. Observing them may be impossible because they exist beyond our cosmic horizon. The multiverse is also hard to test or falsify. This leads some to question if it qualifies as science. George Ellis argues that it shifts explanations without resolving the core issues. Others point out that it replaces one unobservable idea (a creator) with another (infinite universes).
The probability of a multiverse depends on the validity of its underlying theories. Cosmic inflation is well-supported, making the multiverse mathematically plausible. However, its existence is far from certain. Without empirical evidence, it remains a speculative idea in physics. Scientists continue to explore its implications while debating its scientific value.
Fined-tuned and math-friendly
Critics of the argument that the universe is fine-tuned for mathematics and logic, indicating God, often point to the possibility of a vast multiverse. This critique suggests that our universe may not be uniquely “fine-tuned” but simply one of many. In a multiverse scenario, countless universes could exist, each with different physical constants, laws, and properties. Most of these universes would likely be inhospitable to life or incapable of supporting the development of complex structures, including mathematics.
The argument hinges on probabilities. If there are an immense number of universes—potentially infinite—then the existence of at least one universe with conditions suitable for life, consciousness, and abstract reasoning becomes statistically inevitable. Our universe could simply be the “lucky” one in which observers exist to contemplate its fine-tuning.
Critics also challenge the necessity of invoking a deity to explain this apparent fine-tuning. They argue that naturalistic explanations, such as inflationary cosmology or string theory’s multiverse, provide plausible alternatives. These frameworks suggest that the existence of mathematical structures in our universe might be a consequence of our unique physical laws rather than evidence of intentional design.
Additionally, some contend that the ability to “do mathematics” in the universe is not evidence of a purpose but a reflection of human cognitive abilities adapted to interpret and manipulate the environment. The universality of mathematical principles may emerge as a byproduct of the consistent behavior of physical laws, not as proof of divine intention.
Irreducible complexity
Irreducible complexity is a concept introduced by biochemist Michael Behe to argue against the adequacy of Darwinian evolution in explaining certain biological systems. It refers to systems that consist of multiple interdependent parts, where the removal of any one part would render the entire system nonfunctional. Behe contends that such systems could not have evolved incrementally through natural selection, as the intermediate stages would lack functionality and provide no evolutionary advantage.
One classic example often cited is the bacterial flagellum, a microscopic motor-like structure that propels bacteria. The flagellum consists of numerous parts, such as a rotor, stator, and filament, all of which must work together for it to function. According to proponents of irreducible complexity, the flagellum could not have evolved step by step because any incomplete version would be nonfunctional and therefore not selected for. Critics, however, argue that these systems may have evolved through co-option, where existing parts initially served different purposes before being repurposed into more complex systems.
Specified complexity
The concept of “specified complexity” was developed by William Dembski, a mathematician and proponent of Intelligent Design, to distinguish between patterns in nature that are the result of chance and those that imply design. Specified complexity refers to patterns that are both highly improbable and exhibit an independent, meaningful arrangement. For example, a sequence of random letters may be improbable but lacks specificity, whereas a Shakespearean sonnet is both improbable and meaningful.
Dembski applies this concept to biological systems, arguing that the genetic information encoded in DNA exhibits specified complexity. DNA contains instructions for building proteins, which are essential for life. The arrangement of nucleotide bases in DNA is highly improbable and serves a specific purpose, leading proponents of Intelligent Design to claim it is evidence of an intelligent cause. Critics, however, argue that natural processes like mutation and selection can produce complexity over time, and the concept of specified complexity lacks a clear method for distinguishing between natural and designed systems.
Both irreducible complexity and specified complexity are central to the Intelligent Design movement, aiming to challenge naturalistic explanations for the origin of life and complexity in biological systems. While these ideas remain controversial within the scientific community, they continue to fuel discussions at the intersection of science, philosophy, and theology.
God must be complex
The argument that God must be more complex than what He created is often presented as a critique of traditional theistic views of God, particularly in contemporary philosophy and science. This perspective challenges the notion of an infinitely intelligent and omnipotent being as the ultimate explanation for the universe’s complexity.
In science, complexity is often associated with systems that have many interdependent parts, like biological organisms or galaxies. By this logic, if the universe, with its intricate laws and fine-tuned constants, demands a designer, then the designer must be at least as complex, if not more so, to account for these creations. Critics argue that positing a more complex entity as the cause leads to a regress: if God is more complex, who or what created God? This reasoning challenges the explanatory power of invoking a deity, as it seems to raise a larger question than it resolves.
Philosophically, this issue is explored in contemporary debates on simplicity and parsimony, often linked to Occam’s Razor. Some philosophers argue that introducing a God more complex than the universe violates the principle of parsimony, which favors simpler explanations. Richard Dawkins, for example, in The God Delusion, claims that a designer capable of creating such a complex universe must be extraordinarily complex itself, making the hypothesis of God less plausible. He describes this as the “ultimate Boeing 747 gambit,” suggesting that invoking a complex God to explain complexity only compounds the problem.
Infinite regression
The infinite regression of God’s complexity challenges the idea that a complex universe requires a more complex creator. If the universe’s complexity needs a cause, then God, as an even more complex being, must also need one. This creates an endless chain of creators creating creators, offering no ultimate explanation. Critics argue this undermines the purpose of invoking God as an explanation for the universe.
Proponents of this critique highlight key issues. Invoking a complex God violates parsimony, as it introduces unnecessary complexity instead of explaining it. It shifts the question of why complexity exists to a higher level without answering it. Applying causality to everything except God is seen as special pleading, where God is exempt from the same rules.
Theists counter these arguments by asserting God’s metaphysical simplicity. Classical theists argue that God is not composed of parts or dependent on anything else. God is the uncaused cause, existing necessarily beyond time and space. However, critics challenge this by pointing out that attributes like omniscience and omnipotence imply immense complexity. They argue that positing a self-existent universe or natural processes offers a simpler explanation. The debate remains unresolved, reflecting deeper tensions between simplicity, causality, and the nature of existence.
Metaphysical God
The argument that God must be more complex than what He created is often presented as a critique of traditional theistic views, particularly in contemporary philosophy and science. Critics contend that if the universe, with its intricate laws and fine-tuned constants, demands a designer, then the designer must be at least as complex to account for these creations. This reasoning raises a deeper question: if God is more complex, who or what created God? Such an argument challenges the explanatory adequacy of invoking a deity, suggesting it merely shifts the problem rather than resolving it.
Defenders of traditional theism, however, counter that God’s complexity is not analogous to material complexity. Classical theists, drawing on thinkers like Aquinas, argue that God is metaphysically simple. This means that God is not composed of parts, does not operate within time or space, and is not subject to change. Instead, God is understood as the singular, unified source of all being, existence, and causality. For these theists, God’s simplicity transcends physical and biological complexity, making the question of “who created God” irrelevant. Since God is posited as the ultimate ground of all existence, He is not contingent and therefore requires no external cause.
God just like a power, but omniscient and so on?
This concept of metaphysical simplicity is central to traditional theistic arguments but remains a point of contention in contemporary thought. Critics argue that reconciling divine simplicity with attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, and intentionality is philosophically challenging. For example, if God is purely simple and unchanging, how can He possess complex knowledge, form intentions, or interact with the universe? Some suggest that these attributes imply a form of complexity incompatible with metaphysical simplicity. Others question whether such a concept of God is coherent or meaningful, as it seems detached from the anthropomorphic characteristics often attributed to God in religious practice.
Philosophical debates also explore whether metaphysical simplicity truly resolves the problem of regress. While traditional theists argue that God’s simplicity removes the need for a creator, critics claim that such simplicity does not account for the apparent intentionality and design in the universe. They argue that invoking a metaphysically simple God as an explanation may be no more parsimonious than positing the universe itself as the ultimate, self-existent reality.
In summary, while critics see the complexity of God as a challenge to theistic explanations, defenders of traditional theism maintain that God’s nature as metaphysically simple transcends the need for a creator. However, this view continues to provoke debate, especially when addressing how simplicity aligns with the traditional attributes of God. The discussion highlights deeper tensions between classical metaphysical concepts of God and contemporary demands for explanatory clarity and coherence.
God is infinite in time
The concept of God as infinite in time is rooted in the idea of timelessness or eternity, central to many philosophical and religious traditions. Philosophically, this view often emerges from arguments about causality and existence. If everything in the universe operates within time, having a beginning and an end, the cause of the universe must exist outside of these temporal constraints. An infinite God is considered necessary to avoid the problem of infinite regression—where every cause has a preceding cause. By existing beyond time, God becomes the uncaused cause, the eternal foundation for all things that exist. This notion aligns with the idea that God is not bound by the succession of moments, experiencing all of existence simultaneously rather than sequentially.
Transcending time and space
Religiously, many traditions describe God as eternal, transcending time and space. In Christianity, God’s timelessness is reflected in phrases like “I am who I am” (Exodus 3:14), suggesting existence without beginning or end. In Islamic theology, Allah is described as “Al-Baqi” (The Everlasting) and “Al-Awwal” (The First), emphasizing eternity. Hinduism speaks of Brahman as the ultimate reality that is changeless and eternal, beyond the cycles of time. These traditions view God’s infinity not as a temporal extension into the past or future but as a state of being that encompasses all time without being confined by it. Such an understanding portrays God as the eternal now, the source of time rather than a participant in its flow.
God cannot be infinite in time
Since God knows everything including the amount of Quarks and hair we have, he is supposed to be more complex than this universe. So who created God? Someone more complex than God! And so on. Evolution, however, can describe arising complexity by natural selection, which is anything but random. But wait! Some say God is infinite in time or exists beyond time.
The issue is that God cannot exist infinitely in time because he would have needed time to create himself. So he couldn’t have created time alone. The same goes for God being beyond time. Such a God wouldn’t be able to create the universe and so on.
God can be eternal but cannot be creator of anything (including time alone). (Arguments for atheism, Jan Bryxí 2023)
Simple question: why has God been waiting so long?
Monotheism, the belief in a single, all-powerful God, is a relatively recent development in the timeline of human existence and the cosmos. The universe, approximately 13.8 billion years old, has seen humanity emerge only in the last fleeting seconds of its immense calendar. For most of Earth’s 4.5 billion years, there was no human-like cognition, let alone organized belief systems. Early humans, living as hunter-gatherers, leaned toward animistic beliefs, attributing spirits to natural phenomena. Monotheism’s rise, within the last 10,000 years, coincided with the advent of agriculture and complex societies. It provided unifying ideologies, moral codes, and explanations for life’s mysteries—practical tools for managing larger, more complex civilizations.
When viewed against the scale of the universe, however, monotheism can appear absurd. Humans are like ants on a tiny ball, attempting to comprehend a cosmos far beyond their grasp. If the Earth were the size of a ping-pong ball, the Moon would be another ping-pong ball 11 meters away, while the nearest star would be over 40,000 kilometers distant.
The sheer immensity of space, with galaxies outnumbering the grains of sand on Earth, dwarfs our existence and beliefs. The concept of a God deeply invested in human affairs seems disproportionate. This is compounded by monotheism’s internal contradictions, such as the coexistence of an all-knowing, all-powerful God with human suffering. Practices like prayer become logically inconsistent if God already knows all needs and desires. In this vast, indifferent universe, monotheism is less a reflection of cosmic necessity and more a product of human cognition and our quest for meaning amidst the unknown.
Theory of mind and God: Conclusion
There is an undeniable gap in understanding the origins and intricacy of natural laws, as their complexity remains a profound mystery. However, attributing this complexity to a God raises an even more improbable scenario. A divine creator, capable of designing such finely-tuned laws and structures, would need to possess a level of complexity far surpassing that of the universe itself. This creates an explanatory problem, as introducing a more complex cause does not resolve the question but complicates it further.
Our evolved Theory of Mind provides a more grounded explanation for why humans instinctively perceive intentionality in the universe. This cognitive mechanism, which enables us to attribute agency and purpose to others, is deeply rooted in survival strategies. It leads us to detect patterns and assign meaning, even in cases where none exists. The tendency to see design in natural phenomena—mountains, weather, or the intricate structure of DNA—is not evidence of a creator but a reflection of this evolved bias.
From this perspective, the perception of agency in the universe is not a flaw but a useful adaptation that once enhanced human cooperation and survival. While it explains why humans are inclined to see purpose in natural laws, it does not validate the existence of a designer. Natural processes, governed by the very laws we study, are sufficient to account for the complexity we observe. Theory of Mind, as an evolutionary tool, helps us understand why the human mind reaches for intentionality, even when complexity can arise from natural mechanisms.
Leave a Reply