Some Schmo wrote: Because god, himself, would need to be the product of long gradual evolution. Complex things don't just pop into existence (they evolve over millions of years), and god would have to be the apex of complexity.
That's how I understood what Dawkins was saying, and it's a compelling argument.
That is one of the single dumbest arguments for atheism I've ever heard. The LDS faith allows for the development of God anyway, but even so the universe and the laws that govern it is the apex of complexity and either it just exists at some level or it poofed into existence. Plus, there's not rule of nature that I'm aware of that says complex things must arise through temporal development.
Some Schmo wrote: Because god, himself, would need to be the product of long gradual evolution. Complex things don't just pop into existence (they evolve over millions of years), and god would have to be the apex of complexity.
That's how I understood what Dawkins was saying, and it's a compelling argument.
That is one of the single dumbest arguments for atheism I've ever heard. The LDS faith allows for the development of God anyway, but even so the universe and the laws that govern it is the apex of complexity and either it just exists at some level or it poofed into existence. Plus, there's not rule of nature that I'm aware of that says complex things must arise through temporal development.
With all due respect, that's one of the dumbest arguments for the Mormon cosmology that I've ever heard. Either the complexity in the universe always existed or it just poofed into existence? I humbly suggest that you do not understand how evolution is actually proposed to work. The arguments that describe relatively simple environments in which complexity grew gradually through successive small improvements are well documented, and the theory contains vast explanatory power. The religious paradigm doesn't really tell us much of anything, really. It's all just "God did it". That doesn't help much, does it? We still don't know the how or the why.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Some Schmo wrote: Because god, himself, would need to be the product of long gradual evolution. Complex things don't just pop into existence (they evolve over millions of years), and god would have to be the apex of complexity.
That's how I understood what Dawkins was saying, and it's a compelling argument.
That is one of the single dumbest arguments for atheism I've ever heard. The LDS faith allows for the development of God anyway, but even so the universe and the laws that govern it is the apex of complexity and either it just exists at some level or it poofed into existence. Plus, there's not rule of nature that I'm aware of that says complex things must arise through temporal development.
How would you know whether "the universe and the laws that govern it is the apex of complexity?" How do you know it can't get more complex? And if you really think that this all just "poofed into existence" well... I don't know that I'd be making statements like this and calling other things dumb in the same post.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Sethbag wrote:With all due respect, that's one of the dumbest arguments for the Mormon cosmology that I've ever heard. Either the complexity in the universe always existed or it just poofed into existence?
Reading comprehension probably isn't your strong suit. I wasn't even making a case for Mormon cosmology. The universe - the existence of the rules of existence - is itself the apex of complexity. Dawkins alleged argument suggests that it must've therefore developed over milliions of years because of some rule that this is how complexity must arise. But that can't work in the case of the rules of existence, as those rules already must exist in order for development to occur. Either it always existed in some sense or just "poofed." There's nothing illogical about either and in absense of any kind of evidence that's all we are dealing with.
I humbly suggest that you do not understand how evolution is actually proposed to work.
I in turn will humbly suggest that my understanding of evolutionary biology is in all likelihood vastly superior to yours.
The arguments that describe relatively simple environments in which complexity grew gradually through successive small improvements are well documented, and the theory contains vast explanatory power.
What's this got to do with what is being discussed? Evolution isn't about the origin of complexity. It's about the origin of biodiversity, which itself is complex.
Some Schmo wrote: Because god, himself, would need to be the product of long gradual evolution. Complex things don't just pop into existence (they evolve over millions of years), and god would have to be the apex of complexity.
That's how I understood what Dawkins was saying, and it's a compelling argument.
That is one of the single dumbest arguments for atheism I've ever heard. The LDS faith allows for the development of God anyway, but even so the universe and the laws that govern it is the apex of complexity and either it just exists at some level or it poofed into existence. Plus, there's not rule of nature that I'm aware of that says complex things must arise through temporal development.
How would you know whether "the universe and the laws that govern it is the apex of complexity?" How do you know it can't get more complex?
It's as complex as God is defined as. I'm merely borrowing Dawkins', or your retelling of him anyway, assertion. God is complex in the same way that the universe as the fundaments of existence is. I think the term "complex" is suffering from ambiguity here anyway, but I can play on Dawkin's own assertion to answer the argument. Really, it's as simple as pointing out that he is not justified to say that complex things must arise through long times of development. Just because some complex things have arisen in this manner doesn't mean all must. Just like just because some things with interworking parts arise through intelligent design does not mean all must.
And if you really think that this all just "poofed into existence" well... I don't know that I'd be making statements like this and calling other things dumb in the same post.
I don't think it just poofed into existence. It's either that or it always existed perhaps because time does not apply to it perhaps something else. I'm not picking one. There's not any other option available. You got one?
Ahh atheism. What a little bit of philosophy and a lot a bit of arrogance will get you.
A Light in the Darkness wrote: Reading comprehension probably isn't your strong suit. I wasn't even making a case for Mormon cosmology. The universe - the existence of the rules of existence - is itself the apex of complexity. Dawkins alleged argument suggests that it must've therefore developed over milliions of years because of some rule that this is how complexity must arise. But that can't work in the case of the rules of existence, as those rules already must exist in order for development to occur. Either it always existed in some sense or just "poofed." There's nothing illogical about either and in absense of any kind of evidence that's all we are dealing with.
I humbly suggest that you do not understand how evolution is actually proposed to work.
I in turn will humbly suggest that my understanding of evolutionary biology is in all likelihood vastly superior to yours.
The arguments that describe relatively simple environments in which complexity grew gradually through successive small improvements are well documented, and the theory contains vast explanatory power.
What's this got to do with what is being discussed? Evolution isn't about the origin of complexity. It's about the origin of biodiversity, which itself is complex.
Yeah, I also wouldn't be making comments about other people's reading comprehension if I were you. I mentioned that god would have to be the apex of complexity, not the universe. You're the one who somehow conflated the two.
And incidentally, it wasn't an argument for atheism; it was an argument against the idea of an all-powerful creator.
But I can now see how your current paradigm is bogged down with the god fantasy when you make outrageous assertions as you have in this last (albeit hilarious) post.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
asbestosman wrote:I also await FARMS review of Dawkins and hope it will spark another fun discussion on it.
Didn't DCP mention a FARMS review of Hitchens' god is not Great? Does anyone have a link for that?
He and Hamblin are writing (or perhaps it's already done) a full length book that responds to it. as far as I know, it hasn't been released yet.
Bill did give a brief sampling of some of it on a thread over at MA&D. Unfortunately, I don't remember the thread title. I do remember it had to do with Christian suppression of books (mainly Aristotle and Plato, If I recall correctly).
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
for what it's worth, I don't think Dawkins argues that complexity must arise through evolution. I think his argument was more that evolution makes improbably complex things much more probable--at least where evolution is a possibility. If I recall correctly, Dawkins rejected the idea of an evolving or evolved God on the basis that this was changing the definition of God as he meant it. Dawkins has said, for example, that he could imagine extra-terrestrials who would have god-like powers compared to us, but if these beings evolved then they are not god. I suppose he would say this even if those extra-terrestrials created our universe.
I suppose in that sense, Dawkins rejects the LDS idea of humans becoming gods.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
A Light in the Darkness wrote:It's as complex as God is defined as. I'm merely borrowing Dawkins', or your retelling of him anyway, assertion. God is complex in the same way that the universe as the fundaments of existence is. I think the term "complex" is suffering from ambiguity here anyway, but I can play on Dawkin's own assertion to answer the argument. Really, it's as simple as pointing out that he is not justified to say that complex things must arise through long times of development. Just because some complex things have arisen in this manner doesn't mean all must. Just like just because some things with interworking parts arise through intelligent design does not mean all must. .
I suggest you actually read the relevent portion of the book rather than try to argue against my synopsis of it. It's quite likely your misunderstanding of his argument is the result of basing it entirely on what I said about it.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:I don't think it just poofed into existence. It's either that or it always existed perhaps because time does not apply to it perhaps something else. I'm not picking one. There's not any other option available. You got one?
More baseless assertions. Time does not apply? And that's because...? And there are only two options because.... you can't think of any more? Well then, there must only be two!
A Light in the Darkness wrote:Ahh atheism. What a little bit of philosophy and a lot a bit of arrogance will get you.
Really? You don't sound like an atheist to me.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Yeah, I also wouldn't be making comments about other people's reading comprehension if I were you. I mentioned that god would have to be the apex of complexity, not the universe.
And I talked about the universe.
Why is God the apex of complexity? What does that even mean? Mind you, you are asserting this given that God exists within the logical context of a universe. I'm not talking about a physical universe. I'm talking about all that there is to existence. The universe, regardless of whether God exists, is the "all powerful creator" so to speak.
But I can now see how your current paradigm is bogged down with the god fantasy when you make outrageous assertions as you have in this last (albeit hilarious) post.
