Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If complexity requires design, where did the Deity come from?
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 3 of 111 (545988)
02-07-2010 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by DC85
02-05-2010 8:56 PM


A simple answer to a complex question.
The contention that if X is the progenitor of Y, then X must be more complex than Y is simply not true. There are many examples that disprove this contention, but one that is easily checked out on many web sites is the Mandelbrot set. This set is generated by the vary simple iterative sequence: Z(n)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DC85, posted 02-05-2010 8:56 PM DC85 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 02-07-2010 12:50 PM AnswersInGenitals has replied
 Message 5 by DC85, posted 02-07-2010 2:31 PM AnswersInGenitals has replied
 Message 8 by Phage0070, posted 02-10-2010 3:54 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 6 of 111 (546042)
02-07-2010 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Straggler
02-07-2010 12:50 PM


Re: A simple answer to a complex question.
Have you mathematically proved the existence of God?
Of course not. I've only referenced a mathematical proof that an infinite series, all of whose elements are finite, will converge to a finite limit. it is some creationists who erroneously contend that if there is an infinite regression of creators or creation events, than they must have started an infinitely long time ago so that there must be something that has existed for an infinitely long time, which something they call god and then insist it is the god of the bible (or whatever detailed nonsense they believe in).
"...can be taken to be..." in no way implies that doing so is logically valid.
Or were you being sarcastic. I have a problem with sarcasm, particularly when it is sharper or more subtle than my own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 02-07-2010 12:50 PM Straggler has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 7 of 111 (546044)
02-07-2010 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by DC85
02-07-2010 2:31 PM


Re: A simple answer to a complex question.
Please note that I use the word 'can', not 'must'. I am arguing against the creationist position. Nor do I imply that such an interpretation has any logical validity. I am certainly not coming at this debate from the position that god exists. From your OP:
I would like to debate this old line of reasoning.
If you really want to effectively participate in your own debate you will have to read the responses more carefully. I appreciate that coming form Richmond, Virginia, USA that English is probably not your first language so do read the posts more carefully.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by DC85, posted 02-07-2010 2:31 PM DC85 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by DC85, posted 02-14-2010 10:41 AM AnswersInGenitals 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