\diane bartels wrote:The concept of God is so complex such a concept cannot possibly exist. Maybe I am not understanding the argument well enough? It is hard for me, because God seems the simplest idea in the world to me.
The traditional conception of "god" is a being who not only intentionally created everything that exists, has existed, or will exist, but actively takes note of all of it, simultaneously across all temporal spectra. For that to be possible, such an entity would by definition be more complex than the creation attributed to it, hence Dawkins notion of expanding shells of complexity extending to the impossible.
Now, if you go the other way (more toward Spinoza) and conceive of a god that is simply the extant fact of creation, then it need only be as complex as existence, since they are one and the same.
If you go back to a more physics-based idea of god as the first principle (prime mover, etc) then it need only be as complex as an atom, since all it had to be was tip everything out of balance just enough for the Big Bang to commence. But that god is not "here" in the way most believers wish it to be and is therefore not a very cheery idea.
The frustration people like Dawkins (and me) often have with believers is when you get right down to it, for them, god is whatever you need it to be depending on what you're talking about. Some combination of Superman, Caspar the Friendly Ghost, and Judge Dredd. Which, as a psychological tool, makes perfect sense, but when you point that out you often get a very negative reaction.
Hence, regardless of which model you choose, the idea of "god" is extremely complex. Simple only obtains when you give up any need for the idea and eschew dependence on it.