Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.

[Edwardo Piet]

Which is exactly what I said...

Really? What I read was that you said that my definition of complexity was something that is merely :"implausible". I just explained that its more than that - and the reason. And its not something that 'seems implausible'. Its something that is unlikely to come about by chance.

Which is almost exactly what I wrote, word for word.

Oh, really? When? If so then what are we debating here exactly?

Well, yes, in that definition. But generally complexity refers to the entity itself, not its plausibility. The eye is called because it has highly structured and identifiable parts with high specified and identifiable functions: the lens, the muscles, the nerves, the blood supply, etc, all have specific roles to play.

Yes. And my point is that things with highly complex parts are extremely unlikely to come about by chance alone.

And something with simple parts is highly unlikely to just 'be there' right from the beginning and create something more complex than its self right there. And know how to do it.

I think there's actually a logical contradiction there. Something ultimately simple isn't capable of creating a whole universe because by the definition of complexity that I'm talking about: something that can do that would have to be complex.

Basically to say it could be simple is like merely defining God as ultimately simple in order to say that he wouldn't be extremely improbable.

The point is its extremely improbable that God would NOT be complex - and still be God, be a creator. Be capable of doing those things.

If something 'created' the universe then it would almost certainly not be a God because it would be misleading to use the word, - and indeed be misleading to word 'creator' - because he would almost certainly have to not be a God, not be a 'He', not be a creator. We'd almost certainly just be talking about some kind of singularity here.

When it is NOT extremely improbable that something simple CREATED the universe which is something more complex than itself - then it is almost certainly misleading to call it God. Because it would almost certainly just have to be something like a 'big bang' singularity. And it would be wrong to call it God, or to say it is a creator.

If you want to call the 'Big Bang' or something like that, God. Then fine, but make sure we're clear on what you're talking about here.

Something ultimately simple is not God and is not a creator. If it was a creator it wouldn't be simple because it would need to be complex enough to be capable of creating anyway. Let alone creating something more complex than itself.

Basically: If God is a very simple particle that was at the very beginning of the universe that started it all off - then that's not God. Its just a particle at the start of the universe. Not God. Not a creator, not a supernatural designer!

If a creator is less complex than its creation in this case. Its not a creator - its just something that something else then developed from!

Just as a tree comes from a seed. But you wouldn't call the seed a creator! For it to be that it would have to be capable of purposefully constructing a whole tree out of its will, separate from itself. Rather than it just growing out of it.

THAT is a LOT more complex and improbable than just a tree going out of seed of course! When a tree goes out of a seed you wouldn't call it a creator!

EvF