Argument for God from Complexity

[Nullasalus]

I don’t have the answers.

The truth is, we don’t know why we’re here.

That is as honest as we can be.

Ultimately, I would rather understand the world as it is, than persist in delusion, however comforting.

The only problem I have with all of this is that ‘we aren’t certain’ seems to be getting mixed with ‘we know it isn’t that’. The universe is extraordinarily grand and complicated, and its definite origin/nature eludes us and may continue to - but thinking that it may be something intended and ultimately purposeful is delusion? I disagree, unless all philosophical inquiry is branded as delusion.

As for me, I don’t feel smaller despite being a fan of cosmological and general science news. If anything I feel happy - exploring the infinite (An aspect of a purposeful and real God, to me) is a task worthy of eternal life. The two go hand in hand.

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

I am at a loss to see how one can go beyond existence to posit anything, to say nothing of a divine entity. We simply cannot know anything beyond our universe.

Any attempts to declare the existence, the necessity, or the simplicity of a divine being amount to mere human imaginings. Any statements to the effect that “God is simple or necessary” must first assume such a being exists. To offer such arguments as “proof” is to beg the question.

Existence itself is the “first cause” beyond which we cannot see.

Imagine whatever you like with regard to the existence of a hypothetical father-figure, but we have some perfectly reasonable explanations (though certainly not ALL the answers) for how our world and our life came to exist; these explanations do not require the existence of a hypothetical divine entity. So even if a god does exist, he is rendered superfluous by virtue of his unwillingness to show himself.

In the words of Woody Allen (as quoted by Dawkins): “If it turns out that there is a God, I don’t think that he’s evil. But the worst you can say about him is that basically he’s an underachiever.”

 

[VociMike]

The big bang was more of a large expansion over time, and as time slows down the closer you get to the “beginning”, in a sense, there really was no beginning.

I’ve never seen any cosmologist talk about this slowing down of time, nor claim that there really was no beginning.

But, besides that, that only speaks of the known universe. You assume, as ridiculous as it may be, in you argument, that there may be “something else” out there. Assuming that, then you don’t know, big bang aside, that the entirety of the universe started at the big bang. It may go on forever.

“It may” is not much of an argument. Do you have any evidence that it goes on forever? The minute we start talking about the material world we have to abide by the rules for knowing about the material world. This is one of the great differences between statements about God and statements about the material world.

And, as soon as you claim infinite universes (which is what “it may” reduces to) then a being with all of God’s attributes becomes possible. Infinity makes all kinds of impossible things possible, even necessary.

 

[Nullasalus]

I am at a loss to see how one can go beyond existence to posit anything, to say nothing of a divine entity. We simply cannot know anything beyond our universe.

Go tell the physicists this. Be sure to say it with your hands on your hips, looking very annoyed.

Any attempts to declare the existence, the necessity, or the simplicity of a divine being amount to mere human imaginings. Any statements to the effect that “God is simple or necessary” must first assume such a being exists. To offer such arguments as “proof” is to beg the question.

Mere human imaginings? That’s where all (if you rule out divine inspiration, I suppose) human knowledge begins, you know - starting with ideas and fleshing them out. It doesn’t make them right, but “mere”? If anything isn’t “mere”, then human imaginings cannot themselves be.

Of course, philosophy is philosophy, with its limitations. To posit God is not to prove God exists. On the other hand, saying that…

Existence itself is the “first cause” beyond which we cannot see.

…does not make it true either. “Why do things exist? Because they do. Stop asking stupid questions.”

Imagine whatever you like with regard to the existence of a hypothetical father-figure, but we have some perfectly reasonable explanations (though certainly not ALL the answers) for how our world and our life came to exist; these explanations do not require the existence of a hypothetical divine entity. So even if a god does exist, he is rendered superfluous by virtue of his unwillingness to show himself.

Actually, the question being kicked around here is the source of all those questions for which we have some (not all) of the answers. So in a way, those explanations do require the existence of a hypothetical divine deity - at least, to those positing such. Quoting or paraphrasing Carl Sagan (an atheist, yes): “To make an apple pie from scratch, you have to go back to the big bang.” So much for explanations that do not require the divine. So much, indeed, for “superfluous”.

In the words of Woody Allen (as quoted by Dawkins): “If it turns out that there is a God, I don’t think that he’s evil. But the worst you can say about him is that basically he’s an underachiever.”

Speaking as a flawed creature, I rather think God’s allowing of my kind to not only exist but improve in every way speaks quite heavily to His benevolence. Griping about the imperfection in the universe is a common atheist line - a true God could have done better! - while ignoring that improvement is built into the system. Kind of like remarking how poorly designed a butterfly larva is, because it doesn’t have wings.

 

[cpayne]

“I really like the quote that the universe may be queerer than we can suppose.”

Indeed. It may contain non-corporeal intelligences.

“Perhaps the universe has always existed.”

Both Aristotle’s and Aquinas’s arguments for God’s existence proceed on the assumption that the universe has always existed. How familiar are you, really, with their arguments–besides reading folks who disagree with them?

“I don’t have the answers.”

This may be true.

“The truth is, we don’t know why we’re here.”

This is probably not true.

“That is as honest as we can be.”

This is the skeptic’s way of patting himself on the back.

“It would be pathetic to believe that life is hopeless if there is nothing after it, and I pity anyone who really thinks that way.”

Trying to maintain one’s hopefulness without anything to hope for–well, I honestly do pity anyone who really thinks that way (having been a person like that myself).

“Ultimately, I would rather understand the world as it is, than persist in delusion, however comforting.”

As long as understanding the world as it is ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT ALLOW FOR God.

In some ways, unbelief can be quite comforting.

 

[Contarini]

The universe is complicated to the point where many people believe there must be some designer who created it.

I don’t think that is the best way of putting the argument from design, and I think the argument from design is inferior to Aquinas’s Five Ways (none of which exactly match the AFD).

But certainly, God is extremely complicated, much more so then this universe by unimaginable factors, given that he is infinite and perfect.

No. God is not complicated at all. He is utterly simple. The universe is complicated because it is less perfect than God. Complication is the way finite creatures imitate the divine perfection.

If you can’t believe that this universe, whose complexity arises from a few fundamental forces (which we are now attempting to simplify further) and the complexity of life arises from a very well known mechanism (evolution), then how can you believe that an infinitely more complex entity with no known mechanism to bring it into existence must simply exist?

Well, speaking for myself, I don’t have a problem with evolution as the *means *God used. But more to the point, if God were complex your argument would work. That is why St. Thomas posited that God is absolutely simple–only an absolutely simple Essence can possibly be the First Cause of everything.

Like most atheist arguments, this one takes aim at a deeply flawed version of theism. I don’t believe in your ultra-complicated designer either. If that’s the God you disbelieve in, you’ll get no argument from me.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You have the advantage of having no tangible evidence in existence that supports God whatsoever, so you’re right that I cannot, for example, point to God’s brain to show that he is complex, because he has no brain. Regardless, God is intelligent, hence the argument from “intelligent design.” If God is not intelligent, I’m not sure why you’re worshipping him.

Are you defining intelligence as complexity? Again, it must necessarily take that form in creatures, but not in God.

Edwin

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

My mistake. I meant to edit that to replace “posit” with “declare”, so that it would read:

“I am at a loss to see how one can go beyond existence to declare anything, to say nothing of a divine entity. We simply cannot know anything beyond our universe.”

Of course we can make guesses as to what is beyond existence, but those conjectures have validity only to the extent that they agree with observed data. To my knowledge, there is nothing to suggest a higher entity, a “perfectly simple, necessary being” existing beyond the bounds of this universe.

Nullasalus:

Mere human imaginings? That’s where all (if you rule out divine inspiration, I suppose) human knowledge begins, you know - starting with ideas and fleshing them out.

All human knowledge? Hardly. If I imagine a 500lb blue troll sitting on my head, is that knowledge? Human knowledge begins with existence and is increased by means of our senses. Imagination is no more a source of knowledge than emotions.

Nullasalus:

Quoting or paraphrasing Carl Sagan (an atheist, yes): “To make an apple pie from scratch, you have to go back to the big bang.” So much for explanations that do not require the divine.

Ummm. You lost me there. How does a reference to the big bang require the divine?

Nullasalus:

Griping about the imperfection in the universe is a common atheist line - a true God could have done better!

I think you miss my point. I am, in fact, quite satisfied with the universe. It’s the God idea which I find imperfect.

 

[Nullasalus]

My mistake. I meant to edit that to replace “posit” with “declare”, so that it would read:

“I am at a loss to see how one can go beyond existence to declare anything, to say nothing of a divine entity. We simply cannot know anything beyond our universe.”

Of course we can make guesses as to what is beyond existence, but those conjectures have validity only to the extent that they agree with observed data. To my knowledge, there is nothing to suggest a higher entity, a “perfectly simple, necessary being” existing beyond the bounds of this universe.

You should read Anthony Flew’s interview with… Lee Strobel, I think. Where he talks about the sort of evidence one can see in the world for God once you’re seriously willing to entertain it as a possibility. The problem here is that you may be looking for observed data that can’t be interpreted any other way, which is more a challenge - interpretation tends to be a philosophical practice.

So, I’d say that the data is there, you’d just interpret it differently based on a philosophical preference.

All human knowledge? Hardly. If I imagine a 500lb blue troll sitting on my head, is that knowledge? Human knowledge begins with existence and is increased by means of our senses. Imagination is no more a source of knowledge than emotions.

What a sad, utterly wrong view of imagination. Imagination inspires, provokes, and sometimes answers. Haven’t you ever heard of the argument from a lack of imagination?

Ummm. You lost me there. How does a reference to the big bang require the divine?

It doesn’t necessarily (others here may disagree.) I’m saying that the topic we’re discussing is the origin of everything and the intention behind such. If there is God behind the universe, it’s incorrect to say “baking a pie does not require God” - see Carl Sagan. So these things haven’t been “proven to be entirely naturalistic/there is no need for God or explanation of origin”, unless you’re bracketing your claim. Just as you don’t need a human to describe how a book is made, so long as you bracket your description of the process from the time the start of the printing process to the end.

I think you miss my point. I am, in fact, quite satisfied with the universe. It’s the God idea which I find imperfect.

So, if God created the universe he’s an underachiever. But you’re entirely satisfied with the universe.

Well, so long as it makes sense to you, eh?

 

[cor]

You don’t know that the universe came into being.

Thomas Aquinas would agree with your thought here, more or less. He states that one cannot know through reason alone that the world had a beginning. He says that’s only known through special divine revelation (i.e. by faith).

Even if something did not come into being, one still needs an explanation for its existence. If as alluded to above, God had decided to create a universe without a beginning, that universe would still need a cause for its existence. This is true at least if you hold to the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

 

[cor]

I really like the quote that the universe may be queerer than we can suppose.

Perhaps the universe has always existed. Perhaps, as suggested by string theory, the universe started by two enormous transcendental planes colliding outside of our dimensional existence. Perhaps there is something else that we have not considered. Perhaps there is something that we cannot consider.

I mean, just who do we think we are?

From the perspective of reason I agree with all your thoughts and sentiments here.

God, obviously, doesn’t avoid this question, even if he has always existed because the question remains; why has he always existed?

God is Perfection Itself. One intuition I have about the nature of Perfection Itself is that it by nature always exists and furthermore that it necessarily exists. This doesn’t address the question of whether there actually exists something that corresponds to my concept of a being(s) that is Perfection Itself.

The universe is complicated to the point where many people believe there must be some designer who created it. But certainly, God is extremely complicated, much more so then this universe by unimaginable factors, given that he is infinite and perfect.

You haven’t given a reason to think that infinititude or perfection implies complicatedness. I think what you may be trying to argue is that God must be extremely intelligent (to have engineered this complicated universe) and that therefore he must be extremely complicated himself. But you would be missing a premise there – namely that intelligence entails complicatedness. It’s not clear that it does. For material things it seems from our experience and knowledge of the species on this earth that there is a correlation for material beings between complicatedness and intelligence. But God is posited to be a non-material thing and so one would have to have a reason to suppose that what perhaps seems true of material things is also true of non-material things.

That God is “simple” is Catholic dogma and is considered to be a truth of philosophy (as opposed to special revelation being necessary to know it). But simplicity from what I understand is merely defined as not being composed of components in the way that a body is composed of different body parts for example:

newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IC
(good read)

I don’t think complexity necessarily contradicts simplicity. In my view God is both simple and complex. Remember the word “simple” has a technical meaning in Catholic philosophy (per the link above), not the meaning in popular usage.

And this is not part of Catholic tradition AFAIK, but I personally would embrace the assumption (I have my reasons for it) that God is extraordinarily, nay infinitely complex (I prefer that word over “complicated”) while still being simple in the sense of not being composed of components.

If you can’t believe that this universe, whose complexity arises from a few fundamental forces (which we are now attempting to simplify further) and the complexity of life arises from a very well known mechanism (evolution), then how can you believe that an infinitely more complex entity with no known mechanism to bring it into existence must simply exist?

You seem to be assuming that for things to exist there must be some mechanism to bring it into existence. You need to have reasons (could be empirical evidence and/or philosophical reasons) for that assumption. I would say that God’s existence neither arises out of something nor does it not arise out of something. It’s something in between. The fact that I cannot give a metaphysical account of how God exists doesn’t necessarily mean that I don’t have good reasons to believe that God exists – see the distinction?

I would invite you to read Plantinga’s ontological argument. It is immune (logically at least) from Kant’s criticism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Plantinga.27s_modal_form_and_contemporary_discussion

 

[Mersenne]

Thomas Aquinas would agree with your thought here, more or less. He states that one cannot know through reason alone that the world had a beginning. He says that’s only known through special divine revelation (i.e. by faith).

Even if something did not come into being, one still needs an explanation for its existence. If as alluded to above, God had decided to create a universe without a beginning, that universe would still need a cause for its existence. This is true at least if you hold to the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

If you hold to the Principle of Sufficient Reason then god can’t exist, as god is an uncaused entity. Saying that god follows special rules is just a special pleading fallacy.

 

[Mersenne]

“It may” is not much of an argument.

It certainly is when your argument rests on “it definately does”.

The minute we start talking about the material world we have to abide by the rules for knowing about the material world. This is one of the great differences between statements about God and statements about the material world.

All things are, by definition, part of the material world. Material is anything something is comprised of. If it exists, then it’s comprised of material things. If it isn’t, then it doesn’t exist.

 

[cor]

If you hold to the Principle of Sufficient Reason then god can’t exist, as god is an uncaused entity. Saying that god follows special rules is just a special pleading fallacy.

God doesn’t violate the Principle of Sufficient Reason because it is held that there are two kinds of beings:

1. Beings that have their explanation outside of themselves.
2. Beings that have their explanation within themselves.

God is said to be of the latter kind. So God’s “cause” is within himself in some way.

From here, you could if you were to try to argue against God’s existence, provide reasons or argumentation why the latter (2) kind of being cannot exist. And, if I were to argue for God’s existence, I could try to provide reasons why they can exist.

There’s no logical contradiction in beings of type (2) so that gives us reason to believe that they could exist.

So again God is not “uncaused” but rather has his cause contained within himself, constituted within himself in some way.

Furthermore:

If one holds to the Trinity (or something similar), one might say that God is a circle of causes. The Father causing the Son and the Spirit and the Son causing the Spirit and the Father and the Spirit causing the Father and the Son.

Likewise, if one holds that there are a plurarity of supreme Gods, one could also hold to a circle of causes (in like or similar manner as above).

If one holds to an infinite plurarity of supreme Gods, one need not hold to a circle of causes and may choose instead to hold to an infinite regression of causes.

When taking these above three views, the cause of each divine person (or each separate God) is outside of himself and so one doesn’t have to posit a special kind of causation (besides the circular nature of it or in one case the infinite regression)

 

[john_doran]

Well reasoned arguement.

In case you missed it, the onus is on you to prove this point, it’s certainly not a fact.

well, so was “you don’t know the universe came into being”; i was just returning the favor.

our best cosmological theories involve an initial singularity at which time began.

also, there cannot have been an actually infinite number of moments of time before now.

that’s how i know the universe has a beginning.

 

[john_doran]

If you hold to the Principle of Sufficient Reason then god can’t exist, as god is an uncaused entity. Saying that god follows special rules is just a special pleading fallacy.

not true: god is his own sufficient reason, as are all necessary beings.

and that’s not special pleading - it’s logic.

EDIT: sorry - didn’t see that cor had already replied to this post…

 

[cpayne]

All things are, by definition, part of the material world. Material is anything something is comprised of. If it exists, then it’s comprised of material things. If it isn’t, then it doesn’t exist.

Whoa–this is a massive case of begging the question.

How about the truth contained in true statements? I will agree that the statements themselves are made up of physical actions, chemical reactions, electrons firing, etc. Is the truth contained within the statement also physical in nature? If it is not, according to your definition, it doesn’t exist.

How about the following:

1. Everything that is the result of a purely physical process is neither true nor false. It simply is. (Examples: digestion, cloud formation, trees growing, etc. Digestion is not “true”; it just is.)
2. Our thoughts, however, can be true or false.
3. Conclusion–Our thoughts are not the result of a purely physical process.

So I disagree with your definition. Not all things that exist are corporeal, part of the physical world. How much space do true propositions take up? How much space does truth take up? (Or God?)

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SteakNPotatoes:

I am at a loss to see how one can go beyond existence to posit anything, to say nothing of a divine entity. We simply cannot know anything beyond our universe.

Are you suggesting that it is impossible to reason about what is beyond our universe?

SteakNPotatoes:

Any attempts to declare the existence, the necessity, or the simplicity of a divine being amount to mere human imaginings.

Human imaginings are not proof in themselves. But they are part of the thought processes which produce hypotheses. Those hypotheses may or may not be provable. I don’t see why you deride human imaginings as ‘mere.’

SteakNPotatoes:

Any statements to the effect that “God is simple or necessary” must first assume such a being exists. To offer such arguments as “proof” is to beg the question.

OK.

SteakNPotatoes:

Existence itself is the “first cause” beyond which we cannot see.

OK.

SteakNPotatoes:

Imagine whatever you like with regard to the existence of a hypothetical father-figure, but we have some perfectly reasonable explanations (though certainly not ALL the answers) for how our world and our life came to exist;

Yes, we have reasonable cosmological explanations.

SteakNPotatoes:

these explanations do not require the existence of a hypothetical divine entity.

They are equivalent.

SteakNPotatoes:

So even if a god does exist, he is rendered superfluous by virtue of his unwillingness to show himself.

Non sequitur.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

VociMike:

I’ve never seen any cosmologist talk about this slowing down of time, nor claim that there really was no beginning.

Time slows down as a function of proximity to black holes. Hawkings has posited no boundary conditions for the universe which means that “beginning” as it applies the the universe is undefined.

“It may” is not much of an argument.

Not meant to be an argument from what I can see.

VociMike:

Do you have any evidence that it goes on forever?

It is a start point for examining the question. I dont think it was meant to be the end point for examining the question. And hence no evidence is required.

VociMike:

The minute we start talking about the material world we have to abide by the rules for knowing about the material world.

OK.

VociMike:

This is one of the great differences between statements about God and statements about the material world.

Statements about God and statements about the world do not necessarily have to be unreconcilably different.

VociMike:

And, as soon as you claim infinite universes (which is what “it may” reduces to) then a being with all of God’s attributes becomes possible.

Infinite regression is not necessarily the same as the notion that something else is “out there.” There may be only one level of something else being “out there” not infinite levels.

VociMike:

Infinity makes all kinds of impossible things possible, even necessary.

Could you give us an example please? Thank you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

cpayne:

Indeed. It may contain non-corporeal intelligences.

Yikes! How! :bounce: