Argument for God from Complexity

[john_doran]

complexity doesn’t indicate design

yes. it does.

 

[freesoulhope]

Perhaps I’m missing something here, but coming across ten leaves in a row doesn’t strike me as a particularly stunning find.

 

[Mersenne]

yes. i do.

Well reasoned arguement.

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

 

[Mersenne]

yes. it does.

And how did you go about coming to the conclusion that compexity indicates design?

 

[VociMike]

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

Well there is that Big Bang stuff, which would seem to be the very essence of coming into being.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

why does intelligence entail complexity? i mean, brains are certainly complex, but why does intelligence entail anything like a brain? remember, you can’t assume materialism without begging the question.

I don’t know if you were in Toronto during the time Ex Terra rolled into town with its Dinosaur Tent. But there was a neurosurgeon there who said that dinosaurs were not necessarily stupid at all because small brains did not necessarily negate intelligence.

I mean think of the size of our brains. How much of that brain matter do we use? How much is redundant, back up? And one has to ask back up for what? Does anyone know of any circumstance where that back up has been used? Seriously. I’m curious. What good is that backup brain?

What good is complexity? Or phrased in philosopherese: what does complexity do?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

god didn’t come into being. the universe did.

that’s why the universe needs a cause and god doesn’t.

Um… depending on how you define these terms, the distinction you make may not hold up under scrutiny.

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

But there was a neurosurgeon there who said that dinosaurs were not necessarily stupid at all because small brains did not necessarily negate intelligence.

Yeah. I just love me some dinosaur poetry. And they made great movies, too. Them dinosaurs was mighty intelligent. Yessirree.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Is reality reducible to matter? Is “To be” to be material? I ask *that *to be demonstrated.

I won’t demonstrate either way … yet. But let’s distinguish between ‘being’ and ‘a being’ especially as Heidegger (below) does:

Simon Weil:

This must be understood in the light of two trends in Simone Weil’s thinking. The first is that of Christian humility. The second trend is an anti-ontological mode of thought proper to the Buddhist tradition. There was in Simone Weil a kind of aesthetic nostalgia towards what Paul Valery called “the purity of non-being”. This is in my eyes the regrettable expression of an aspect of oriental philosophy: it is also to be found in modern philosophy, for instance in Sartre. Dr Jacques Cabaud

Heidegger:

“Being is essentially different from a being, from beings”. The “ontological difference,” the distinction between being (das Sein) and beings (das Seiende), is fundamental for Heidegger. The forgetfulness of being which, according to him, occurs in the course of western philosophy amounts to the oblivion of this distinction. Martin Heidegger

This distinction is also made in Aquina’s response to Damascene #98 and #99.

And in Barfield:

The participation of primitive man (what we might call “original” participation) was not theoretical at all, nor was it derived from theoretical thought. It was given in immediate experience. That is, the conceptual links by which the participated phenomena were constituted were given to man already “embedded” in what he perceived… Perceiving and thinking had not yet split apart, as they have for us.

Weil again:

The atheist is at least right in this regard: because we take our own nothingness to be the truth of our being, because we have confused emptiness with substance thereby, and because we attempt to understand God with reference to our own absence of substance, (taking that absence as substantial), the God of such an understanding is bogus. Similarly, God, who is All-Real, appears to us as Nothing because we do not understand what Reality really is. In short, we have it all backwards.

I observe therefore I am.

And see what’s been posted already in Philosophy: Prove you exist

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Yeah. I just love me some dinosaur poetry. And they made great movies, too. Them dinosaurs was mighty intelligent. Yessirree.

Um… this is meaningful how exactly? Are you saying that for instance T-rex was a big brawny dummy? In which case, I am not understanding why you didn’t choose an approach to making your point which might have come across as logical instead of reductio ad absurdem? Can you explain please?

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Ignoring the very ad-hoc-ness of that, you’re basically proving my point. In other words, God is absolutely not necessary. This certainly doesn’t disprove him, but it destroys the major argument for his existence.

Existence does not prove that there exists some personal being outside of time.

Both Aristotle and Aquinas would disagree with this assertion. Can you support your claim without changing the subject to whether God is merely a synonym for what we can observe in the physical universe?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Ani_Ibi]

DanteAlighieri:

Both Aristotle and Aquinas would disagree with this assertion.

Please demonstrate the import of this.

DanteAlighieri:

Can you support your claim without changing the subject to whether God is merely a synonym for what we can observe in the physical universe?

Why is it necessary to do so? What’s wrong with God being what we can observe in the physical universe? Do the Jesuits not say: God in all things? How do you justify the use of the term ‘merely’?

 

[Mersenne]

Well there is that Big Bang stuff, which would seem to be the very essence of coming into being.

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.

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.

 

[cpayne]

Why is it necessary to do so? What’s wrong with God being what we can observe in the physical universe? Do the Jesuits not say: God in all things? How do you justify the use of the term ‘merely’?

Hi, agent provocateur. I’m pretty sure what the Jesuits mean by this is that God is “in” all things causally, not that God is physically present “in” all things (or anywhere, for that matter). What we “merely” observe in the physical universe leaves out the non-physical, does it not?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Hi, agent provocateur. I’m pretty sure what the Jesuits mean by this is that God is “in” all things causally, not that God is physically present “in” all things (or anywhere, for that matter). What we “merely” observe in the physical universe leaves out the non-physical, does it not?

Yes.

By the same token, we can see the mind of the Maker in what he has made. Is this not also what the Jesuits meant?

 

[Nullasalus]

Please demonstrate the import of this.

I’m sure Dante will offer an answer, but wasn’t what followed that observation part of the explanation? Aristotle and Aquinas propose a start of the causal chain, and propose deity/God as being that start (the unmoved mover.) Saying ‘aha, the Big Bang was the start of this universe - no need for God!’ avoids the question of what started the Big Bang. Could the start be something other than God? The argument can be made. But that’s not the argument we saw here.

Just as an aside, I could accept a God that created a multitude of universes.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mersenne:

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.

OK.

Mersenne:

But, besides that, that only speaks of the known universe.

Have we not always spoken of the known universe, wondering what we can know tomorrow of the unknown universe?

Mersenne:

You assume, as ridiculous as it may be, in you argument, that there may be “something else” out there.

You know, ‘ridiculous’ tell us little of any use.

Of course there must be more out there. There are many things which are yet to be explained. And therefore their explanations lie in what we do not yet know. Hence: out there.

Mersenne:

Assuming that, then you don’t know, big bang aside, that the entirety of the universe started at the big bang.

Thinking that we ‘know’ is one thing. Acquiring what is useful by means of observation and reason is another. The latter is not something which is brought up by waving a magic wand but by assessing, respecting, and standing on the shoulders of thinkers who have gone before us.

Mersenne:

It may go on forever.

This means what exactly as compared to the big bang?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Nullasalus:

I’m sure Dante will offer an answer, but wasn’t what followed that observation part of the explanation? Aristotle and Aquinas propose a start of the causal chain, and propose deity/God as being that start (the unmoved mover.) Saying ‘aha, the Big Bang was the start of this universe - no need for God!’ avoids the question of what started the Big Bang.

Fair enough.

Nullasalus:

Could the start be something other than God?

No. By definition it would have to be God.

Nullasalus:

Just as an aside, I could accept a God that created a multitude of universes.

:extrahappy:

 

[IanBoyd57]

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?

We evolved as animals to survive on this planet. It’s not necessary to be able to understand our origins. Everything seems to have a cause on this planet, so we evolved with that intuition built in, but ultimately, given that we exist, something has always been here, and that defies our natural reason. God, obviously, doesn’t avoid this question, even if he has always existed because the question remains; why has he always existed?

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.

It can be frightening to explore the intellectual limits of our understanding of the universe. It is humbling, inspiring, awesome, but frightening. The more I learn about the universe, the smaller I feel. I think, perhaps, that’s where a lot of this comes from. I don’t like feeling small. I dislike the notion of insignificance. I don’t believe, however, that my life is meaningless; I mean, just because there is no God or afterlife does not mean that my life, here and now has no meaning. 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.

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

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Please demonstrate the import of this.

IanBoyd57 was stating that God is “absolutely not necessary” to the existence of existence, and that this un-necessity “destroys the major argument for his existence”.

My point is that Aristotle and Aquinas both reasoned the necessity of an unmoved primary cause for all things that exist – the former without the benefit of revealed truth – and thus, the major argument for the existence of God is not destroyed.

Why is it necessary to do so? What’s wrong with God being what we can observe in the physical universe? Do the Jesuits not say: God in all things? How do you justify the use of the term ‘merely’?

I think you misunderstood my intent. IanBoyd57 said that if God is simple, he is “just another word for the ‘laws’ which govern the universe”. This, to me, says that God is nothing more than the means in which the universe operates.

I was suggesting that, if he wishes to assert that existence itself is not proof that God exists (as can be inferred from Aristotle and Aquinas), IanBoyd must support this claim.

Peace,
Dante