Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 4:41 AM
42 online now:
caffeine, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 39 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,573 Year: 3,610/19,786 Month: 605/1,087 Week: 195/212 Day: 10/27 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   How complex is God?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 59 (409615)
07-10-2007 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
06-03-2007 10:15 AM


"How complex is God?" is essentially the same question as "What happened before the Big Bang?", dontcha think?

Or, at least, I'm failing to see the difference.

They're both nonsense question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 06-03-2007 10:15 AM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by sidelined, posted 07-10-2007 11:50 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 59 (409616)
07-10-2007 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by mike the wiz
07-10-2007 11:10 AM



It is a case of Special pleading as you cleverly spotted

Do you think that saying that the singularity is not subject to time, as in there's nothing before the Big Bang, is special pleading as well?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2007 11:10 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2007 2:48 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4637
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 33 of 59 (409622)
07-10-2007 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by New Cat's Eye
07-10-2007 2:19 PM


Do you think that saying that the singularity is not subject to time, as in there's nothing before the Big Bang, is special pleading as well?

Not really because that is also applied to a black hole.

When I refer to fellow-Christians, I mean YECs that I know personally. They will apply science to many things, but when it comes to the bible, all objectivity is diminished.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-10-2007 2:19 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


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 responded

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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 59 (409792)
07-11-2007 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by sidelined
07-10-2007 11:50 PM


The Intelligent Design hypothesis uses the statement that since things are so complex that this is evidence of a creator.

Why should the creator be subjected to the same axioms as the created? They're, like, totally different, man :rolleyes:

:D

We could say that the complexity of god is undetectable or infinite, even, like the slope of a verticle line. As we increase the angle of a line we increase the slope, but when we get to 90 degrees, we don't have a slope anymore. As we increase the complexity, we increase the need for a designer, but when get to god, we don't have a designer anymore.

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.

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), eventually we get to the singularity (god). In the present of the singularity, there is no past (no time before it), and at the complexity of god, there is no designer (nothing more complex). So, even though the present implies a past, we can get to a point where that is no longer applied (the singularity). In the same way, complexity implying design can get to the point where it is no longer applied (god).

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.

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'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by sidelined, posted 07-10-2007 11:50 PM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by PeterMc, posted 07-11-2007 10:46 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 40 by sidelined, posted 07-12-2007 7:12 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
PeterMc
Junior Member (Idle past 4168 days)
Posts: 25
From: New Zealand
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 36 of 59 (409882)
07-11-2007 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by New Cat's Eye
07-11-2007 10:22 AM



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), eventually we get to the singularity (god). In the present of the singularity, there is no past (no time before it), and at the complexity of god, there is no designer (nothing more complex). So, even though the present implies a past, we can get to a point where that is no longer applied (the singularity). In the same way, complexity implying design can get to the point where it is no longer applied (god).

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'.

Things tend to break down at this point don't they. The problem is, there is still this constant in ID "complexity implies a designer" and the question will still be "begged".
But if nothing can be asumed at all about the designer including complexity then there really is no theory of design that is applicable to any recognisable entity.


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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2007 10:29 AM PeterMc has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 59 (409931)
07-12-2007 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by PeterMc
07-11-2007 10:46 PM


The problem is, there is still this constant in ID "complexity implies a designer" and the question will still be "begged".

As well, there is still the constant in BB "expansion implies a singularity" and the question - whats before the singularity - will still be "begged".

Still though, BB isn't just thrown out and in the same way, ID shouldn't be thrown out for this reason alone (which I realize you haven't advocated...yet).

But if nothing can be asumed at all about the designer including complexity then there really is no theory of design that is applicable to any recognisable entity.

Hrm... that's a little ambiguous. I wish you would've put italics somewhere in there to stress the point. And I'm not sure exactly what your refering to with "recognisable entity". But I'll give it a shot anyways :o

By the way, its recogniZable...

But if nothing can be asumed at all about the designer including complexity then there really is no theory of design that is applicable to any recognisable entity.

But in the same way, it is applicable to every recognizable entity. That doesn't do much to answer questions that follow though, does it?

But if nothing can be asumed at all about the designer including complexity then there really is no theory of design that is applicable to any recognisable entity.

I don't think the theory requires the entity to be 'recognized'. In fact, don't they purposefully NOT recognize the designer? If so, why does it matter that it be recognized?

But if nothing can be asumed at all about the designer including complexity then there really is no theory of design that is applicable to any recognisable entity.

Again, kinda the same point. Why must we put our finger on the entity? The theory just says that there must be some entity, and then stops there. It says nothing of the entity other than it must be intellegent.

But if nothing can be asumed at all about the designer including complexity then there really is no theory of design that is applicable to any recognisable entity.

I really don't think that nothing at all is assumed. For one, it is assumed that the designer is intellegent. But also, there are some other minor things we can assume about it in the same way that some of the properties of the singularity are assumed even thought we can never really "get there".

But yeah, I don't really know what your point was exactly. What did you mean by being applicable to any recognizable entity?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by PeterMc, posted 07-11-2007 10:46 PM PeterMc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by PeterMc, posted 07-12-2007 6:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
PeterMc
Junior Member (Idle past 4168 days)
Posts: 25
From: New Zealand
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 38 of 59 (410002)
07-12-2007 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by New Cat's Eye
07-12-2007 10:29 AM


As well, there is still the constant in BB "expansion implies a singularity" and the question - whats before the singularity - will still be "begged".

True, but is this the same as the designer entity of ID? I am just wondering because the ideas of "specified complexity" and "design" are very specified concepts themselves, how can ID insist that these characteristics can be known but the entity they are attributed to be unknown?

Still though, BB isn't just thrown out and in the same way, ID shouldn't be thrown out for this reason alone (which I realize you haven't advocated...yet).

Even if I have thrown it (ID) out privately that does not affect my discussing the subject as objectively as possible.

Hrm... that's a little ambiguous. I wish you would've put italics somewhere in there to stress the point. And I'm not sure exactly what your refering to with "recognisable entity". But I'll give it a shot anyways

Yes, I know. Didn't mean it to have any great significance. I was just saying I find some incongruity in claiming characteristics for a designer that according to ID theory must remain unknown - and as you have pointed out, the argument has parallels with BB and I have no quarrel with that. Didn't mean my phrase to be taken too seriously tho!


But in the same way, it is applicable to every recognizable entity. That doesn't do much to answer questions that follow though, does it?

Not sure what you are saying.


I don't think the theory requires the entity to be 'recognized'. In fact, don't they purposefully NOT recognize the designer? If so, why does it matter that it be recognized?

Again, kinda the same point. Why must we put our finger on the entity? The theory just says that there must be some entity, and then stops there. It says nothing of the entity other than it must be intellegent.

I find this aspect of ID the hardest to swallow because it is clearly the most disengenious part of the theory. Everyone knows they are talking about the biblical God. I heard William Demski speak in a baptist church for crying out loud!


I really don't think that nothing at all is assumed. For one, it is assumed that the designer is intellegent. But also, there are some other minor things we can assume about it in the same way that some of the properties of the singularity are assumed even thought we can never really "get there".

Not just minor things major things. I don't want to start any other subject but - design of viruses, parasites etc?


But yeah, I don't really know what your point was exactly. What did you mean by being applicable to any recognizable entity?

Again, don't get hung up on the phrase. But don't you find the dicotomy between ID's insistence on not knowing the designer and creationisms insistence on knowing the designer very well is just slightly absurd?

Edited by PeterMc, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-12-2007 10:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by PeterMc, posted 07-12-2007 6:59 PM PeterMc has not yet responded

  
PeterMc
Junior Member (Idle past 4168 days)
Posts: 25
From: New Zealand
Joined: 06-21-2007


Message 39 of 59 (410007)
07-12-2007 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by PeterMc
07-12-2007 6:00 PM


How complex is God?
But if I may be indulged with a few comments on the subject....

Is complexity the defining characteristic of God? Complex creation, complex creator.
The found watch. We know the watch is complex. = complex designer.
If we use what we know about design, there must have been a long period of development to get to that model of watch. prototypes, experiments, poor designs. Many different designers working on it. Better models to come. Perhaps....simpler designs! Less complex.
The quartz watch can be far simpler than a swiss movement...
Is complexity a desirable trait? Is it inevitable? Chaos is more complex than order.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by PeterMc, posted 07-12-2007 6:00 PM PeterMc has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


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 responded

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

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 41 of 59 (411168)
07-19-2007 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ICANT
06-04-2007 12:32 AM


Re: Re-How complex is God
I am sure you have seen this from YECers trying to justify their long days. But all Peter is saying is that God is not limited to time as we are.

I think you mean Day Agers use it to justify long days.

IE. Each of the seven days in Genesis was a long age.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 06-04-2007 12:32 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 42 of 59 (411171)
07-19-2007 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by ICANT
06-05-2007 9:10 PM


ID promotes polytheism
ICANT writes:

I am perfect in the sight of God. All my sins are covered by the blood of Jesus.

I am not perfect in the eyes of Jesus that is the one I have to work on every day.

Are you trying to tell us that God and Jesus - who are supposedly two parts of a trinity, and in other accounts one and the same - are disagreeing about your perfection? If that is true, then Jesus must be wrong, because God is supposedly "all knowledge", and presumably that covers knowledge about your perfection too. You see, ICANT, all this holy periphrastic mumbo-jumbo does, is get you in a logical knot only atheism can untangle.

To stay on topic, here's something I heard the other day in a lecture on Science vs. Religion.

The premise of Intelligent Design is that from the irreducible complexity of human design we can infer a human designer, and likewise, by analogy, from supposedly irreducible complexity in nature we can infer an intelligent designer there as well.

From human design history we know that more complexity implies more designers. We know that only a team of human designers is capable of designing something as complex as a computer, no single human can design a computer on his own. By analogy then, something as complex as the whole of living nature, if we allow the possibility of intelligent design, is more indicative of a team of designers than of a single designer. Since the ID-proponents' hidden agenda is to promote the Christian doctrine, as the Wedge document has shown, they shoot themselves in the foot with Intelligent Design, because, if anything, it promotes pagan polytheism more than their beloved Christian monotheism.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ICANT, posted 06-05-2007 9:10 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 59 (412335)
07-24-2007 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by sidelined
07-12-2007 7:12 PM


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.

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.

It doesn't seem to be a problem with the BB, because it is a scientific theory. But when it happens with a not-so-scientific theory, then people seem to think that it is sufficient reason to throw the theory out.

It just seems like a double standard to me.

I've been away for a while and kinda lost track of our discussion. Sorry for the short reply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by sidelined, posted 07-12-2007 7:12 PM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by sidelined, posted 08-04-2007 10:20 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


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 yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1125 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 45 of 59 (414706)
08-05-2007 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
06-03-2007 10:15 AM


How complex is God?

In the Old Testament the Biblical Deity, whatever He actually is, reveals Himself as a Person. The New Testament says that Jesus of Nazareth is an incarnation of that Old Testament Deity in the flesh. Jesus said if you have seen Him then you have seen the Father. Jesus is not THE Old Testament Deity in the flesh, but the Son of that Old Testament Deity in the flesh. Jesus is: all God and all man at all times and in all expressions all of the time.

God, in whatever form, is complex.

In the Old Testament, God also reveals Himself through many different names. Each name and its meaning represents a part of His intrinsic nature. Some scholars mistake the names of God to represent a separate manuscript and the scribes who wrote it. The names of God represent what He wants to be in behalf of mankind (in exchange for faith and trust) and have nothing to do with authorship. Again, these names indicate complexity.

The Bible itself is seen to be riddled with factual errors. In reality this is gross misunderstanding caused by the inability to understand the context and complexity of the Scriptures and the Mind who inspired them. The purpose of theologians is to explain the Bible and untangle the complexity.

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

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 06-03-2007 10:15 AM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by iceage, posted 08-05-2007 8:34 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 49 by kongstad, posted 08-07-2007 11:04 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 53 by sidelined, posted 08-11-2007 10:59 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019