In order for something to create something else, doesn't that thing have to be at least as complex and the thing being created?
Whew. For a second there I was worried mankind would invent A.I. that would out-evolve and destroy us. Now I know that can never happen. Thanks Schmo.
Oh. You're serious. No. The answer is no. That statement does not follow. And for that matter, it doesn't follow when looking at anything from the formation of crystals to - yes - the evolution of vertebrates. Part of your problem might be in that you don't care just how ill-defined and slippery your use of the term "complex" is.
And what more is there to existence than the physical universe? Now you're just making stuff up.
Possibly more physical universes as proposed in multiverse theory? The "rules" that govern the existence of one? I was being careful not to confuse the physical limitations of the universe we live in with all that there can be to existence.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:And chemistry explains how water can form from hydrogen and oxygen. That doesn't mean God does not exist.
Of course. But evolution does reduce the necessity of an intelligent Creator as an explanation for the apparent design observed in nature.
Dawkins would argue that there is no necessity for God and in fact no good reason to believe in one (just as there is no good reason to believe in Thor or Pegasus or Leprochauns, or Nessie, or the celestial teapot or the FSM).
Last edited by Analytics on Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
It's an argument against the utility of using God to explain the complexity observed elsewhere.
It's an argument against a certain conception of God-
Yes. It is aimed at the one we call "God." Hence it is an argument against God. You realize this wouldn't apply to a God that did evolve, such as is possible in the LDS faith, but that's something Schmo's argument overlooks.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:The universe, regardless of whether God exists, is the "all powerful creator" so to speak.
And evolution explains why that creator can largely be blind, deaf, dumb, heartless, and otherwise unintelligent and yet "create" some very incredible and beautiful things.
And chemistry explains how water can form from hydrogen and oxygen. That doesn't mean God does not exist.
Evidence is presented for the affirmative. Your argument is for a (so called) negative proof. Those who claim God have the burden of proof.
No evidence for God or previously for gods has been established. Such claims are examples of myths which fail responsibility for compelling extraordinary evidence supporting extraordinary claim.
Absent compelling, peer reviewed, transparent evidence, God claims should be rejected.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:Yes. It is aimed at the one we call "God." Hence it is an argument against God. You realize this wouldn't apply to a God that did evolve, such as is possible in the LDS faith, but that's something Schmo's argument overlooks.
True, but as I mentioned, Dawkins does explain why he doesn't consider that to be God. I also mentioned the problem of parsimony--whether Dawkins stated it or not, I do remember being struck by the thought that an evolved LDS god isn't necessarily off the hook from Dawkins' book.
I certainly do look forward to the FARMS review.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
It's an argument against the utility of using God to explain the complexity observed elsewhere.
It's an argument against a certain conception of God-
Yes. It is aimed at the one we call "God." Hence it is an argument against God. You realize this wouldn't apply to a God that did evolve, such as is possible in the LDS faith, but that's something Schmo's argument overlooks.
No evidence has established gods or (more recently in human history) God (in the singular).
The burden of proof lies with those who claim “God.”
There is no need to present anything against mere claims presented and masquerading as explanation.
Absent compelling and extraordinary evidence for any God claim, such claims should be rejected.
The Dude wrote:I highly recommend his book Finding Darwin's God, especially for religious folks who aren't sure if evolution is compatable with faith in God.
It sounds interesting, but I'm having doubts about the compatibility of religion and evolution after reading Dawkins' The God Delusion. I may have to read that book again to remember why I got that impression.
Speaking of Intelligent Design, I miss having debates on that. Those were some of my favorites.
There's somebody over on MADB who started a thread about the PBS show. According to him, if ID is religion then evolution is too and neither one should be taught in science classes. It's so stupid an assertion that it will only make you miss the good debates more.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
In order for something to create something else, doesn't that thing have to be at least as complex and the thing being created?
Whew. For a second there I was worried mankind would invent A.I. that would out-evolve and destroy us. Now I know that can never happen. Thanks Schmo.
Oh. You're serious. No. The answer is no. That statement does not follow. And for that matter, it doesn't follow when looking at anything from the formation of crystals to - yes - the evolution of vertebrates. Part of your problem might be in that you don't care just how ill-defined and slippery your use of the term "complex" is.
And what more is there to existence than the physical universe? Now you're just making stuff up.
Possibly more physical universes as proposed in multiverse theory? The "rules" that govern the existence of one? I was being careful not to confuse the physical limitations of the universe we live in with all that there can be to existence.
Oh! You're being absurd on purpose! How silly of me not to notice right away. I get it now.
You know, you could have just said that up front and saved me the time of even thinking about it.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:In order for something to create something else, doesn't that thing have to be at least as complex and the thing being created?
Not necessarily; although I guess it depends on what one deems to be a characteristic of "complexity" and/or what makes something more or less "complex." Some estimate that by 2020 we will have computers that will be able to do more processes per second than the human brain.
I can't wait until I can get a chip in my noggin and download stuff Matrix style.
I know kung-fu.
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski