Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 10:00 AM
31 online now:
1.61803, caffeine, Coragyps, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin), Tangle (7 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,897 Year: 8,933/19,786 Month: 1,355/2,119 Week: 115/576 Day: 16/99 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   How complex is God?
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4078 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 46 of 59 (414713)
08-05-2007 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Cold Foreign Object
08-05-2007 7:36 PM


ID: Complexity and Intelligent Agents
Ray writes:

In the Old Testament the Biblical Deity, whatever He actually is, reveals Himself as a Person.

Or the Old Testament writers mistakenly envisioned God as a person.

This is the much more likely prospect. The innate proclivity of humans to anthropomorphize God is very well established. Most early Gods where mighty men elevated to Godhood. The Biblical deity was not any different than most of these early Gods.

Ray writes:

God, in whatever form, is complex .... Modern science has voluminously established that irreducible complexity is a fact. The same, of course, corresponds perfectly to the Biblical Deity and His power.

Just a side note: Science has not established the principle of irreducible complexity. How can you make such claims with a straight face.

Irreducible complexity is a fanciful term that is just another form of the God of the Gaps arguement. Most of what has been offered up as irreducibly complex has been found to be attainable in small steps from existing components that have been co-opted for other uses.

However that is not the topic of this thread.

The question is what made this complex God complex? As stated one of the underlying principles of ID is that complexity is always caused by an underlying intelligent agent. If God is complex what intelligence created this Godly complexity?


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-06-2007 3:02 PM iceage has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1211 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 47 of 59 (414825)
08-06-2007 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by iceage
08-05-2007 8:34 PM


Re: ID: Complexity and Intelligent Agents
Or the Old Testament writers mistakenly envisioned God as a person.

I can play your game too:

"Darwin mistakenly thought the facts meant that evolution had occurred."

This is the much more likely prospect. The innate proclivity of humans to anthropomorphize God is very well established. Most early Gods where mighty men elevated to Godhood. The Biblical deity was not any different than most of these early Gods.

Ordinary Atheist philosophy.

"The desire to substantiate the Atheist worldview caused them to assume the only other option: transmutation (species created them self or a personified Nature whom they spoke for)."

Just a side note: Science has not established the principle of irreducible complexity. How can you make such claims with a straight face.

Evolutionists must deny the long established facts of IC or their theory is falsified. This makes your comment a necessity while explaining the same.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by iceage, posted 08-05-2007 8:34 PM iceage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by iceage, posted 08-07-2007 2:22 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4078 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 48 of 59 (414934)
08-07-2007 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Cold Foreign Object
08-06-2007 3:02 PM


Re: ID: Complexity and Intelligent Agents
Ray writes:

I can play your game too:

"Darwin mistakenly thought the facts meant that evolution had occurred."

I am not really playing a game. The best explanation for the depiction of God as a person in the OT is the prevailing and frequently demonstrated tendency of humans to anthropomorphize the divine. Xenophanes realized this as early as 5th century BC and ridiculed the anthropomorphic gods of Greece.

The God of the OT is similar and is really just an elevated warlord - exactly what you would expect of a tribe of the place and period enmeshed in constant warfare.

Further the most likely explanation of multiple names and characteristics of God in the bible is best explained by different writers of different cultures and not some complex and contradictory revelation of God.

You turn-about quote doesn't even work. Darwin collected facts and then synthesis the concept of Natural Selection based on reasoning. He did not set out to find facts that bolster a preconceived theory.

Iceage writes:

This is the much more likely prospect. The innate proclivity of humans to anthropomorphize God is very well established. Most early Gods where mighty men elevated to Godhood. The Biblical deity was not any different than most of these early Gods.

Ray writes:

Ordinary Atheist philosophy.

Nope just reasoning based on evidence.

Iceage writes:

Just a side note: Science has not established the principle of irreducible complexity. How can you make such claims with a straight face.

Ray writes:

Evolutionists must deny the long established facts of IC or their theory is falsified. This makes your comment a necessity while explaining the same.

You avoid the point and respond with some tangential assumed rubbish.

Your original claim was that "Modern science has voluminously established that irreducible complexity is a fact" That is *not* fact - authoritative sounding statements like that may playout in a Sunday school class but not here.

And you ignored the whole point of this thread....

Iceage writes:

The question is what made this complex God complex? As stated one of the underlying principles of ID is that complexity is always caused by an underlying intelligent agent. If God is complex what intelligence created this Godly complexity?

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-06-2007 3:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-07-2007 3:04 PM iceage has responded

  
kongstad
Member (Idle past 1033 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 49 of 59 (414968)
08-07-2007 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Cold Foreign Object
08-05-2007 7:36 PM


IC
Cold Foreign Object writes:

Modern science has voluminously established that irreducible complexity is a fact.

Yes, in fact IC (not under that name) was predicted in the first half of the 20th century as a consequence of evolution.

It is clear that we will see IC in evolved lifeforms.

My guess is, that you think that IC means ET is wrong and ID is true? If so then you are wrong. IC is just a definition, a thing is IC if you cannot remove a part without removing the function.

ID claims that this means that IC in organism could not evolve, but this is just wrong. IC is predicted by ET, so yes you are right that IC is established.

/Soren


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-05-2007 7:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1211 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 50 of 59 (414991)
08-07-2007 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by iceage
08-07-2007 2:22 AM


Re: ID: Complexity and Intelligent Agents
The best explanation for the depiction of God as a person in the OT is the prevailing and frequently demonstrated tendency of humans to anthropomorphize the divine. Xenophanes realized this as early as 5th century BC and ridiculed the anthropomorphic gods of Greece.

"Explanation" presupposes that the textual evidence does not mean what it says (God reveals Himself as a person). Who would make this counterfactual supposition (and why)?

When we remember that Iceage is an Atheist, that is, a person who has every reason to misrepresent the Bible, then his "explanation" or supposition then "makes sense."

Further the most likely explanation of multiple names and characteristics of God in the bible is best explained by different writers of different cultures and not some complex and contradictory revelation of God.

Why would anyone assume contrary to the evidence? Why does the comment presuppose that the many names of God need explaining other than their definition revealing characteristics of God's nature?

Again, when we remember that persons who engage in these subjective and antonymic assumptions are Atheists and Darwinists, their attempts to corrupt the face value meaning of the Bible via these assumptions and suppositions, that is, the enemy of the Atheist creation myth known as the Theory of Evolution, reveals their ulterior motive.

Nope just reasoning based on evidence.

Atheist opinions of the Bible are obviously predetermined, obviously unreasonable, and misrepresented to be based on evidence when they are based on assumptions contrary to the evidence as I have shown.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by iceage, posted 08-07-2007 2:22 AM iceage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by iceage, posted 08-09-2007 3:10 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3359 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 51 of 59 (415192)
08-08-2007 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by shiloh
06-24-2007 3:22 AM


Re: Re-How complex is God
Shiloh,

Maybe the conditions that allowed the universe to exist are eternal & not god.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by shiloh, posted 06-24-2007 3:22 AM shiloh has not yet responded

    
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4078 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 52 of 59 (415273)
08-09-2007 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Cold Foreign Object
08-07-2007 3:04 PM


Re: ID: Complexity and Intelligent Agents
Perhaps one of the most absurd and feeble attempts at a defense I have seen in quite some time.

iceage writes:

The best explanation for the depiction of God as a person in the OT is the prevailing and frequently demonstrated tendency of humans to anthropomorphize the divine. Xenophanes realized this as early as 5th century BC and ridiculed the anthropomorphic gods of Greece.

Ray writes:

"Explanation" presupposes that the textual evidence does not mean what it says (God reveals Himself as a person). Who would make this counterfactual supposition (and why)?

When we remember that Iceage is an Atheist, that is, a person who has every reason to misrepresent the Bible, then his "explanation" or supposition then "makes sense."

The Koran denies the divinity of Jesus. Do you have an "explanation" for this? Why would we not immediately believe the textual evidence? It claims to be Godly inspired. Why should we not immediately fall face down and acknowledge its textual validity?

Thanks for the presumption Ray, but I am not a Atheist.

Do you believe the Bible should be placed above any analysis and questioning?

Ray writes:

Again, when we remember that persons who engage in these subjective and antonymic assumptions are Atheists and Darwinists, their attempts to corrupt the face value meaning of the Bible via these assumptions and suppositions, that is, the enemy of the Atheist creation myth known as the Theory of Evolution, reveals their ulterior motive.

What a hoot. Ray you are the one with the ulterior motive. You are making an emotional quixotic stand against all reason, data, logic, good judgment and common sense. Your last refuge when cornered is to hurl the ole "Atheists and Darwinists" label, which you believe fixes all leaks in your reasoning and logic.

Ray writes:

Atheist opinions of the Bible are obviously predetermined, obviously unreasonable, and misrepresented to be based on evidence when they are based on assumptions contrary to the evidence as I have shown.

Dude, reality is calling. You have *not* shown any evidence!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-07-2007 3:04 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-11-2007 3:58 PM iceage has responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


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 responded

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

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3149 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 54 of 59 (415645)
08-11-2007 11:03 AM


how complex is god?
If god is the creator of all things, then that is how complex god is, as god cannot reproduce other than self. If all things are god, then all things must be one thing and so god is very simple. Either enormous or miniscule, or maybe god in progress.
  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1211 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 55 of 59 (415686)
08-11-2007 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by sidelined
08-11-2007 10:59 AM


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.

But the source of information concerning the Biblical Deity (the Bible) says He is eternal; therefore, your "who created God" reasoning is subjective and ad hoc.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by sidelined, posted 08-11-2007 10:59 AM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by sidelined, posted 08-15-2007 6:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1211 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 56 of 59 (415694)
08-11-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by iceage
08-09-2007 3:10 AM


Re: ID: Complexity and Intelligent Agents
The Koran denies the divinity of Jesus. Do you have an "explanation" for this? Why would we not immediately believe the textual evidence? It claims to be Godly inspired. Why should we not immediately fall face down and acknowledge its textual validity?

Yes, I have an explanation. If true, that is if the Koran denies the divinity of Jesus then my explanation is that it means what it says: the Koran denies the divinity of Jesus.

Why should we not immediately fall face down and acknowledge its textual validity?

But validity is not and was not the issue (nice try at bait and switch). The issue WAS your assumptions contrary to what Text says. My on-going point is: either what it says is true or false AND NOT the third option that you attempt: it really means something else. If it meant something else then why didn't it say "that something else"?

The Koran is simply wrong. The evidence says so. I am sure Muslims disagree but that is not the point. The point is that persons like you say A means Z based on subjective bias and preconceptions.

A is either true or false.

Thanks for the presumption Ray, but I am not a Atheist.

Then why do you use traditional Atheist arguments?

Do you believe the Bible should be placed above any analysis and questioning?

Of course not. I believe the Bible stands or falls based on what it says. OTOH, your kind says what it says does not mean what it says = corruption. It means what it says and what it says is either true or false. Same for the Koran.

What a hoot. Ray you are the one with the ulterior motive. You are making an emotional quixotic stand against all reason, data, logic, good judgment and common sense.

Comment presupposes that what you say is reasonable and logical and common sense (very predictable). I have shown that it is not reasonable or logical or common sense, but Atheist corruption of the Bible.

Your last refuge when cornered is to hurl the ole "Atheists and Darwinists" label, which you believe fixes all leaks in your reasoning and logic.

This comment demands that Atheist "reasoning" and "logic" and "common sense" be not pointed out. Why would anyone object to Atheist handling of their enemy (the Bible) not be exposed?

This is why Atheists own collars and crosses, like Ken Miller and John Shelby Spong and dress like sheep (= Jar).

Give me honest Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Crashfrog or Brian Johnston of Scotland. I'll take these persons any day. They say the Bible is wrong and do not attempt to corrupt what it says.

Ray

Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by iceage, posted 08-09-2007 3:10 AM iceage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by iceage, posted 08-11-2007 6:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4078 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 57 of 59 (415728)
08-11-2007 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Cold Foreign Object
08-11-2007 3:58 PM


Re: ID: Complexity and Intelligent Agents
Ray writes:

But validity is not and was not the issue (nice try at bait and switch). The issue WAS your assumptions contrary to what Text says.

The validity is always the issue.

The text does not say that God reveals himself as a person. The text talks about God as a person (specifically a male warlord that even enjoys wine and grows angry and changes his mind). You are assuming that God reveals himself as a person.

I will stress again that envisioning God as human was *very* common at that period and in the surrounding region. This is not a "counterfactual supposition" but supported by evidence. What is a supposition is that the creator of the universe great and small would carry on like a human.

iceage writes:

Do you believe the Bible should be placed above any analysis and questioning?

Ray writes:

Of course not. I believe the Bible stands or falls based on what it says.

But you do. You got your undies in a knot because I would suggest that the most likely reason that the OT represents God as a human is because that was the norm for the time and period and not immediately believe the "textual evidence".

Ray writes:

OTOH, your kind says what it says does not mean what it says = corruption. It means what it says and what it says is either true or false. Same for the Koran.

"Your kind".... "atheist philosophy"... "remember that Iceage is an Atheist"

It is sort of a EVC goodwin's law that when your defenses disintegrates to the hurling of labels - you lose. As soon as you do, we know you have hit the bottom and you nothing else to offer.

Ray writes:

I have shown that it is not reasonable or logical or common sense, but Atheist corruption of the Bible.

Where? Please demonstrate where? Where have you presented any evidence that it is logic or common sense to assume that God reveals himself as a person or that the use of several different names points to the complexity of God?

The only thing you mentioned is "textual evidence".

Ray writes:

Give me honest Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Crashfrog or Brian Johnston of Scotland. I'll take these persons any day. They say the Bible is wrong and do not attempt to corrupt what it says.

Not believing in that the bible is factual or the word of God does not equate to atheism. Keep that mind.

I am not corrupting anything!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-11-2007 3:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


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 yet responded

  
waqasf 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 59 of 59 (462917)
04-10-2008 12:30 PM


Spam deleted.

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


  
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019