How do you plan to measure complexity?

[rossum]

Premise: an effect cannot have a property not present in one or more of its causes actually or potentially.

This is a false premise. Neither hydrogen nor oxygen have the property “liquid at 20°C”. At that temperature both are gases. Water, H2O, does have the property “liquid at 20°C”.

Complex property --a property, attribute or faculty observed in the descendant that does not exist in its progenitors.

This is an incorrect definition, that is an emergent property. A property that is present in the effect but not present in any of the causes.

If the property observed is complex (=‘emergent’) then a “creator” or third party, if you like, was involved in causing the existence of the descendant.

Again this is incorrect logic. A single car is not a traffic jam. A car and a car and a car and a car … and a car is a traffic jam. Nothing more than too many cars is needed to cause a traffic jam. There is no need for any further external “creator”.

Going back to chemistry, salt has the property “essential for life”. Neither sodium nor chlorine have this property; both are poisonous and are inimical to life. However, combined to make salt, NaCl, they have a new emergent property, “essential for life”. Are you saying that simple chemistry is God? I do not think so. You need to have a look at your logic to see where the fault lies.

rossum

 

[o_mlly]

emergent property - a novel property that unpredictably comes from a combination of two simpler constituents.

The term “emergent property” seems to be the scientific CYA for, “We don’t have any explanation as to how that happened.” As science bows out, philosophy must bow in.

 

[Dan123]

Agreed, but the alternative seems to be, some kind of space dust had no beginning, or did it not come from anything. Anything that has no beginning seems to go against natural law.

Observed natural law says matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed only changed.

 

[Dan123]

At least ‘One God’ the creator of all that is seen and unseen, exists fully and totally, or there is no god. What other choices are there?

The simplest example would be two creators. Perhaps one created the seen and one the unseen? There could be a pantheon of Gods as many cultures have worshiped over the millennia. There could be a being responsible for the universe but that we wouldn’t ever attribute the word God to because it doesn’t fit any criteria other than universe-creating.

 

[rossum]

The term “emergent property” seems to be the scientific CYA for, “We don’t have any explanation as to how that happened.”

Transposing that into a different key we get:

The term “god” seems to be theological CYA for “We don’t have any explanation as to how that happened.”

As I said, your argument is faulty and you will not cure its faults with posts like that. Simple chemistry shows that your argument does not hold water. You need to work on a better argument.

rossum

 

[Gorgias]

I see… that is another word, the meaning of which eludes you. Arthur C. Clark said: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic ”. And there is nothing derogatory about it.

The question isn’t whether it’s derogatory, it’s whether the assertion is that a human is attempting to control forces normally beyond his control. Clark’s pithy quote is making that precise claim: technology can appear to be ‘magic’. However, God’s actions are not ‘magic’, and calling them that is merely an attempt to denigrate God.

I do ? Please tell me how to do it. Because I have no idea. Maybe I will learn something new. How do I disprove the proposition / explanation that “rain is caused by an invisible elf, residing in Mr. Smith’s basement”? I am all ears.

Wow. Really? Seriously?

OK: simply demonstrate, from a scientific perspective, what actually causes rain. I didn’t realize that this was beyond your capacities.

No matter how hard I try I cannot use my volition to accept the proposition that God is evil, or that Trump is an honest man.

That’s a different proposition than the assertion you’re making. That’s the proposition “I cannot go against my will to accept something that I know is untrue.” On the other hand, you do use your will to accept propositions that you have come to understand as true – and that’s a volitional act.

 

[AndrewAxland]

However, God’s actions are not ‘magic’, and calling them that is merely an attempt to denigrate God.

I would qualify that somewhat, by adding that there are a lot of Christians, including Catholics, who do treat God precisely as some sort of magical being. And that’s true for all other religions I know about, too.

One could even argue that the concept of religion partially arose as an outlet for magical thinking.

 

[Gorgias]

I would qualify that somewhat, by adding that there are a lot of Christians, including Catholics, who do treat God precisely as some sort of magical being.

So, we’re going to proceed based on the misunderstanding of some people? That seems counter-productive…

One could even argue that the concept of religion partially arose as an outlet for magical thinking.

One could, but that would be an error. The claims of the secular scholars of the history of religion are that religious beliefs arose as a response to forces of nature. The explanation wasn’t “humans do magic things”, it was “supernatural beings do supernatural things.” That’s not the definition of ‘magic’, it’s the definition of supernatural powers.

 

[o_mlly]

The term “emergent property” seems to be the scientific CYA for, “We don’t have any explanation as to how that happened.”

Please read what you post before posting. The theologian (a priori) claims to know the explanation. But the scientist (a posteriori) attempts to cover his ignorance of a complex property with a novel phrase. All we expect from the scientist is an explanation of the material and efficient causes (“what” and “how”) of things.

I tried to get past the other problems in your rebuttal post but since you press me.

You’re going backwards on this attempt: Traffic jams do not cause cars. And a plurality of cars is not necessary to cause a traffic jam. A single car has that potential property.

Rocks too have the property of “wetness” – ask the residents of the Big Island. In liquid state. wetness is simply a measure of surface energy.

The phrase “essential to life” qualifies a property or combination of properties but is not itself a property. Try again.

 

[Dan123]

Obviously evaporated water molecules in the air condensing and fall to the ground explain the rain, the question is does High Elf Bingbong have anything to do with it. Some say yes, others remain unconvinced.

 

[Vonsalza]

Gettin’ chippy in here!

 

[AndrewAxland]

The explanation wasn’t “humans do magic things”, it was “supernatural beings do supernatural things.” That’s not the definition of ‘magic’, it’s the definition of supernatural powers.

To me, that looks like a textbook example of special pleading. And a rather novel definition of magic, as well.

I don’t think you realize where you are going with this line of thought.

 

[Vonsalza]

The title says it all. The question is directed toward those who believe that beyond a certain level of complexity it is justified to assume that a “creator” was involved. They might assert that “simple” things do not require the assumption of a creator, but “complex” things do.

Just out of completely benign curiosity, is this thread targeted at a structural timber of Intelligent Design and Christians who are perfectly accepting of evolution need-not-apply?

 

[Gorgias]

Magical or miraculous are synonyms.

Maybe for unbelievers, but for Christians, they have vastly different meanings. If you’re gonna wanna engage in dialogue on a Catholic board, it would help if you immersed yourself in the jargon of the Church.

Of course now you demonstrated your ignorance about the conscious-subconscious dichotomy of the brain.

And there’s that red herring, as well. We should be playing Sophia buzzword bingo!

 

[Gorgias]

To me, that looks like a textbook example of special pleading.

Ahh… the normative appeal to ‘special pleading’! Of course.

NB: special pleading is only ‘special pleading’ when there’s not a logical reason for making the case for an exception. For example, if I made the claim that I should not be forced to swear on the Bible when giving court testimony, it’s not special pleading if the reason is that my religious beliefs forbid me from swearing oaths.

Oh… and just in case you were wondering: it’s not special pleading in God’s case because He’s God.

And a rather novel definition of magic, as well.

Do a bit of research, please. ‘Magic’ is always understood to be a set of actions by humans, in the attempt to appropriate for themselves powers that do not belong to humans. (Except, perhaps, by disbelievers in religion, when they use ‘magic’ as a means to make fun of the notion of a God.)

I don’t think you realize where you are going with this line of thought.

I do: secular scholars of religion would assert that religions come from a human attempt to explain sublime phenomena. I would disagree… but then again, I’m a Christian, so I believe that religion comes to us directly from God.

 

[Gorgias]

Yeah… I’m getting frustrated. Sophia’s pretty good at pushing my buttons.

Time to take a break from the keyboard for a bit…

 

[AndrewAxland]

Whoa, buddy! I was just politely pointing out that you are going down an alley that you don’t want to go down. And you’ve made quite a dog’s breakfast of it. You’ve effectively lost the argument.

Take it from me, there are a lot more elegant ways to proceed in demonstrating that religion is not magic out there than the line you have been pursuing. You should take some time to study up on them, before you shoot another self-goal.

Also, your antagonistic tone is going to be counterproductive if you want to engage in apologetics. You really need to work on that.

Right now, you’re making your opponents’ case for them.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Just out of completely benign curiosity, is this thread targeted at a structural timber of Intelligent Design and Christians who are perfectly accepting of evolution need-not-apply?

Hi Vonsalza!

I think this thread is indeed “targeted at a structural timber of Intelligent Design” but I think that “Christians who are perfectly accepting of evolution” are welcome to join in the fun.

The Creation/Evolution debate like many debates has four connected approaches: If you’re an Evolutionist, you produce evidence in favour of Evolution, and evidence discrediting Creationism. If you’re a Creationist, you produce evidence in favour of Creationism, and evidence discrediting Evolution. However, in practice, in this particular debate, on this particular site, the evidence for and against Creationism is largely ignored in favour of the evidence for and against Evolution. I understand this thread to be an attempt to probe the evidence for Creationism, particularly the idea that the spontaneous creation of living things can be demonstrated by the measurable difference between the complexity of living things compared to the complexity of non-living things. Sadly, but not unexpectedly, not a single Creationist has come forward to explain how to do this.

In the absence of any argument regarding complexity, the thread has turned to a discussion about the nature of Evolution, specifically in its extended sense to include the origin of the Universe (apart from the more recent squabble which I haven’t really followed, to be honest). There is no single Creationist position here, of course, and it is often difficult to know what position commenters are holding. Evolutionists, Christian and atheist, hold that the universe is an unfolding of an initial state which came into time and space from nothing. They can have an interesting discussion about the nature of this “nothing”, which Theists term “God” and atheists don’t.

 

[Sophia]

Just out of completely benign curiosity, is this thread targeted at a structural timber of Intelligent Design and Christians who are perfectly accepting of evolution need-not-apply?

As always, everyone is welcome to make their contribution. If I had the ability, I would restrict the contributions to those which actually deal with the topic, and would disallow the ones which try to derail it. Unfortunately I have do such power. But the basic problem is very simple and succinct: “What is this attribute, we call ‘complexity’?” Is it an objective, intrinsic attribute, or a subjective, extrinsic one? And once there is a good definition of it, the second question is: “How do we measure the complexity of an object?” Nothing esoteric, really.

And I think it fits perfectly to the realm of the “Philosophy” forum.

Now, there is a third, insofar hidden question, namely: “is there a reason to assume that complex objects require an outside designer / creator ?” Mind you, that the designer / creator does not need to be God. We do observe many objects, some simple, some complicated, and we can discern that some are designed / created, while others are not.

I definitely reject and disavow any responsibility for those posts, which tried to bring in evolution or abiogenesis into the thread. Indeed, I have explicitly asked not to do that - in vain.

 

[rossum]

Please read what you post before posting. The theologian (a priori) claims to know the explanation.

Exactly. The theologian starts with an assumption, not with knowledge.

But the scientist (a posteriori) attempts to cover his ignorance of a complex property with a novel phrase. All we expect from the scientist is an explanation of the material and efficient causes (“what” and “how”) of things.

The scientist starts with the assumption: “we don’t know”. If, and only if, there is sufficient evidence to move away from that initial assumption will science make a statement.

Rocks too have the property of “wetness” – ask the residents of the Big Island. In liquid state. wetness is simply a measure of surface energy.

Not at a temperature of 20°C they do not. I was deliberately specific about the temperature. Oxygen is liquid at a low enough temperature.

The phrase “essential to life” qualifies a property or combination of properties but is not itself a property. Try again.

Why is it not a property? Remove all salt from your body and your nerves will cease to work so you will die because your brain will stop working, your heart will stop beating and you will stop breathing.

Seems like a valid property to me.

My general point is that chemical compounds often have properties that are not found in any of their constituent elements. Your attempt to conflate emergent properties with complexity and hence design is incorrect.

rossum