Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How complex is God?
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 1 of 59 (403482)
06-03-2007 10:15 AM


I wish to inquire of creationists here the above question in order to ascertain if the hypothesis put forth by intelligent design is applicable to the intelligence of God or not. Since it is pointed out to me that creationists tend to assign different rules to God then perhaps we could also hear why the rules happen to conveniently arise when the hypothesis of intelligent design is applied to their God?
We can also point out that creationist argue that complexity can never merely appear without cause so why should God?
Intelligent design would be best for this topic.
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 06-03-2007 10:22 AM sidelined has replied
 Message 5 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2007 5:22 PM sidelined has replied
 Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2007 11:10 AM sidelined has not replied
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-10-2007 2:16 PM sidelined has replied
 Message 45 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-05-2007 7:36 PM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 3 of 59 (403488)
06-03-2007 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
06-03-2007 10:22 AM


Re: Invisable complexity
Is the new Op any better?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 06-03-2007 10:22 AM AdminPhat has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 7 of 59 (403550)
06-03-2007 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by ICANT
06-03-2007 5:22 PM


Re: Re-How complex is God
ICANT
Since God is all knowledge it would be impossible for finite man to ascertain how complex God is
Then it would be safe to say that God is more complex than his creation?
If so, then why can we not apply the intelligent design theorem { complexity indicates intelligent design} to god and ask the same question. What created the complexity that is God?
But with a finite human mind it is hard to grasp eternity, or something that is eternal with no beginning or no end.
I do not think that concept of eternity as grasped by humans is the problem but,rather, the difficulty posed by stating that God had no beginning.
If God had no beginning then how can he have progressed through time to reach any future event as this would indicate that time had passed for God which indicates that some moment in the past must be referenced and that,in turn, means that his existence cannot have extended infinitely into the past.

" Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!!What a ride!"
-----------------------------------------
What delightful hosts they are-Love and Laughter!
Lingeringly I turn away at this late hour,yet glad
They have not withheld from me their high hospitality.
So at the door I pause to press their hands once more
And say,"So fine a time!Thank you both...and goodbye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2007 5:22 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 06-04-2007 12:32 AM sidelined has not replied
 Message 23 by Phat, posted 06-24-2007 6:23 AM sidelined has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 19 of 59 (407021)
06-23-2007 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by shiloh
06-23-2007 12:13 PM


Re: Re-How complex is God
shiloh
This is all semantic wrangling - this really is not going to go anywhere, there is nothing illlogical about an Uncaused Cause.
Uncaused cause{analogous to the meeting of an immovable object with an irresistible force} is a contradiction in terms and therefore is illogical shiloh. The term uncaused is only applicable in the absence of a cause and ,therefore, cannot be used in conjunction with the term caused.
Exactly what is God composed of in your view shiloh, and by what means do you ascertain this?
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by shiloh, posted 06-23-2007 12:13 PM shiloh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by shiloh, posted 06-24-2007 3:22 AM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 25 of 59 (407117)
06-24-2007 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by shiloh
06-24-2007 3:22 AM


Re: Re-How complex is God
shiloh
A cause is always ontologically prior to its effect, and one can not be prior to himself. God is not an effect and therefore does not need a cause.
If God is not an effect then it stands to reason that he has no existence as well "ontologically" since this is not possible in the real world. I have heard the old arguement about God being completely outside of and beyond the world {transcendent} and yet is somehow capable of producing action upon the world which would by it very nature contradict the proposal of transcendence.
Either God is transcendent and thereby incapable of producing an event within the world or he is immanent {existing and acting within} and subject to the laws of this world including cause and effect. You cannot have it both ways without further explaining the apparent contradiction.
Theist don't believe that everthing has to have a cause - believing that everthing has a cause does not help the atheist either. Infinite regression against the "science" of Big Bang theory.
Perhaps you have a misconception of the Big Bang and cosmology however the start to a universe with the properties we have is not at all implying that the universe did not exist prior to the big bang. All it is stating is that the properties that the universe contains today are traceable through time to an event in the past whereby we can find evidence consistent with a universe that started in a an immensely hot,dense state.Infinite regression of the universe today does not occur since before the Big Bang the properties themselves do not exist though some form of universe does.
A Uncaused Being does not need a cause, He exist by His very nature.
God has not revealed the total extent of that nature so I cant answer what is God composed of - I dont think He is a composite of seperate things. We know from revelation that He is Eternal and Creator. Beyond revelation there is no way to ascertain the totality of Gods natue.
This is highly vague and also unsubstantiated since revelation refers to what exactly?
God is a Uncaused Being who causes things to be actualized, but He Himself is not actualized and hence not an effect - therefore the term Uncaused Cause (although admitadly not a good choice of words for semanticaly picky people).
If he is not actualized then ,again,how can he again be said to exist shiloh? Also the matter is not one of semantics but of clear thinking as opposed to vague hand waving and tossing around of contradictory terms in the hope that they will be unquestioned.
Since they are the premises to the arguement you wish to present they are vital to the validity of your hypothesis and it would do you good to be more precise and explanatory of these.
Now if you have a problem with the term as being impossible. I would simly ask "How do you know that?
It is quite simple really. You have two terms. Uncaused and caused. Each term is the direct contradiction of the other. As I said earlier it is the same as the idea of the question what happens when an immovable object encounters an irresistible force? Since the existence of one is only possible by the absence of the other the question {or in your case the property} is meaningless.
Either somthing comes from noting or somthing always was.
That depends on how you define the terms something and nothing. It is also dependent on how you view the property of time.
You may assert that all contigent parts of the universe are equal to the whole and therfore the whole is also contingent. This is the fallacy of composition.
I do not understand this sentence as it stands, could you rephrase it without the word contingent?
But once you admit that ther is an eternal uncaused somthing which is more than all the finite parts and upon which they are dependent then you have acknowledged what the theist argued all along - God.
Excuuuu-uuuse me!, but this sounds suspiciously close to " If you agree with the arguements I have offered and quit questioning the hypothesis then you will be in agreement with others who have accepted this and then I will not have to defend my premises any more".
After all, ignorance is bliss right?

"Good displays of data help to reveal knowledge relevant to understanding mechanism, process and dynamics, cause and effect." We see the unthinkable and think the unseeable. "Visual representations of evidence should be governed by principles of reasoning about quantitative evidence. Clear and precise seeing becomes as one with clear and precise thinking."
Edward R. Tufte

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by shiloh, posted 06-24-2007 3:22 AM shiloh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Grizz, posted 06-24-2007 1:08 PM sidelined has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 34 of 59 (409730)
07-10-2007 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by New Cat's Eye
07-10-2007 2:16 PM


Catholic Scientist
"How complex is God?" is essentially the same question as "What happened before the Big Bang?", dontcha think?
I am sorry CS, I did not make it clear. The Intelligent Design hypothesis uses the statement that since things are so complex that this is evidence of a creator. My question deals with the application of the question {How complex is God?} to God itself. If God is more complex than the universe He creates then it stands to reason that by the logic of the ID hypothesis that God is also created by something even more complex.
If God is not more complex than the universe which He created then in a sense the universe is greater than God and I am not sure if this squares with the idea of God.
Clear as mud now?

"Good displays of data help to reveal knowledge relevant to understanding mechanism, process and dynamics, cause and effect." We see the unthinkable and think the unseeable. "Visual representations of evidence should be governed by principles of reasoning about quantitative evidence. Clear and precise seeing becomes as one with clear and precise thinking."
Edward R. Tufte

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-10-2007 2:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2007 10:22 AM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 40 of 59 (410011)
07-12-2007 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by New Cat's Eye
07-11-2007 10:22 AM


Catholic Scientist
Why should the creator be subjected to the same axioms as the created? They're, like, totally different, man
Complexity is complexity C.S. whether it belongs to God or creation and and,as such, the hypothesis should apply if it is any value as an arguement. All you have done is special plead God. If complexity does indeed signify ID then it must apply wherever complexity arises else it fails as a hypothesis. It is telling that whenever a model is offered up that ,upon inspection, is found wanting then creationists use this ploy to avoid the damage they themselves have inflicted upon their worldview.
This is not science since science points out the weaknesses of its hypotheses and uses those weaknesses to further knowledge by testing those weaknesses to gain insight into the validity of the hypothesis.
If god is not a part of, or is outside of, the creation, then it doesn't have the same "properties" as the creation, like the property that complexity implyies design.
It would also not have any properties such as intelligence either but I suppose , in that case , then we should say the opposite and allow it for that function of the world.
After all, there is no sense it being reasonable with our arguement is there?
Compare saying that complexity implies design to the present implying a past. If we keep going back in time (going up a complexity continuum towards god),
Please clarify how this analogy works by explaining what you mean by "going up a complexity continuum towards God" would you?
I understand the argument, and I do think that the ID premise is self-refuting. However, if the designer is God, then we're at the point where we no longer apply 'complexity implies design'
So you say but you have not made a convincing arguement for why God gets a free ride nor offered a reasonable explanation as to how you determine the "properties of God " except where it suits your inability to deal with paradoxes.
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

"Good displays of data help to reveal knowledge relevant to understanding mechanism, process and dynamics, cause and effect." We see the unthinkable and think the unseeable. "Visual representations of evidence should be governed by principles of reasoning about quantitative evidence. Clear and precise seeing becomes as one with clear and precise thinking."
Edward R. Tufte

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2007 10:22 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2007 12:28 PM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 44 of 59 (414577)
08-04-2007 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2007 12:28 PM


Catholic Scientist
My point was, and I could be wrong, that there are similarities to this and the Big Bang Theory and the question of what is before the Big Bang.
However the Big Bang does not specify what occurred before it. The big bang theory is based on the evidence of observations such as the cosmic microwave background,Doppler shift,expansion of the universe etc. yet there is a limit imposed on the point{at best the Planck time} to which we can say what occurs with any confidence.
Id ,in contrast, specifies that complexity is synonymous with design therefore that intelligence must also be of a complexity necessitating the application of the ID hypothesis which leads to the ad infinitum irrationality.
Since the hypothesis fails it is futility to continue to use it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2007 12:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 53 of 59 (415644)
08-11-2007 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Cold Foreign Object
08-05-2007 7:36 PM


Cold Foreign Object
God, in whatever form, is complex.
Then if we apply the principle of intelligent design to God we find that the question arises, what created the complexity referred to as God?{and so on and so on and so on...}
Therefore we have either to accept an infinite regression of gods being created by earlier gods or the intelligent design hypothesis is bankrupt as a consequence of this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-05-2007 7:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-11-2007 3:26 PM sidelined has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 58 of 59 (416426)
08-15-2007 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Cold Foreign Object
08-11-2007 3:26 PM


Cold Foreign Object
But the source of information concerning the Biblical Deity (the Bible) says He is eternal;
But the bible is only the opinion of the individual authors of the books and as such is at least debatable if not suspect in its authority as to the nature of God.
My reasoning is a natural progression of the intelligent design theory that states that complexity indicates design. Since God is complex he is subject to this same consideration else the theory is useless.

"The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss."
Thomas Carlyle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-11-2007 3:26 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024