Yes, some causes are really more complex than what they are causing, but I don’t think, that this is what Dawkins means.

He claimed, that the complexity of the universe is not a proof for god.
The claim “something is complex, so it must be created” leads to “the creator is also something complex.”

But of course: Dawkins didn’t explain it very well.
After Marian Stemp Dawkins, the complexity and flexibility of a behaviour is evidence for consciousness (but not a proof). The complexity of a product is not an evidence for it.
But the similarity of an object to a human artefact in material, structure, age and place is evidence for human design.

If I had seen such cubes on the Mars, I certainly would think of an alien civilisation, but when there is a problem with the hypotheses “aliens have been on the Mars,” then we have a dilemma. And I wouldn’t claim, that the aliens were supernatural!

The comment posted by Steven Edwards is exactly what needed to be said. Thank you Steven that is what I believe the Lord has laid on my heart as well.

1 Corinthians 1:20-31 (New King James Version):

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom;
23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.
27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;
28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are,
29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.
30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification and redemption
31 that, as it is written, He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.

God Bless

I’m not sure that all this postulating about science, creation vs evolution helps anyone in their search for real meaning.

What is amazingly complex has been made simple, so that, even those who cannot do quantum mathematics, can enter the kingdom of God.  In the same way that we can all appreciate a beautiful sunset without knowing the science behind it. 

Those that have been given ‘clever’ minds ought to note well that one can easily miss out on the joy of finding faith just because the answer appears to be too simple.  At the same time, it is both: intriguing and challenging to set out on that road of discovery.

To know whether there is a God or not, one needs to set out with a humble attitude otherwise you’ll be distracted by your own agenda and you won’t be able to discern the truth.  Start reading your bible, study the New Testament scriptures and pray, asking for God to reveal himself to you.

I hope you find this helpful. Not deluded but delighted!

Professor Dawkins said that you cannot postulate something more complex than what you are trying to explain.  Amazingly, Dr. Lennox attempts to refute Dawkins’ assertion by providing a completely irrelevant and absurd analogy about two scratches (representing simplicity) on a cave wall which can be explained if we postulate the existence of a human being (which is complex).  HELLO ???  We don’t need to postulate the existence of human being because we all know that human beings exist!!  Hence, Lennox’s analogy is irrelevant.  To make Lennox’s analogy relevant, we could say:  “Here are two scratches on a cave wall.  Let’s explain these two simple scratches by postulating the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, which nobody has ever seen, heard, felt, or detected scientifically.” This analogy is relevant to the issue being debated.

Oh, but Einstein’s theories are simpler. They unite space and time, acceleration and gravity, stillness and inertial motion. In a nutshell, they are “299,792,458 m/s is the speed of masslessness.” They are certainly more difficult than Newton’s, but not more complex, and they explain much, much more.

A chinese archeologist gets to use “human intelligence” for free because she has overwhelming evidence that it does in fact exist. On the other hand, a bunch of perfect titanium cubes arranged by primes is something astronomically unlikely; it warrants the consideration of intelligent life.

Dawkins’ point is that he finds that theism is like encountering two scratches on Mars and concluding that intelligent alien life exists. He is saying that in the process of explaining complexity, and complexity itself and not something specific like the complexity of life, or of the cosmos, it is futile to begin the explanation assuming complexity. However, this argument can be turned on atheism: explain the existence of natural law. The atheist can do no other than shrug or declare it eternal, neither of which are explanations in the same manner that positing an infinitely complex God is no explanation of complexity. Dawkins’ point is that if complexity, in particular that of life, can be explained by nothing more than an agreeable planet, a primordial replicator, and the evolutionary process, do not undo your explanation by re-positing what you were originally trying to explain.