Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 11:11 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.
#1
Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.
I have read numerous posts saying that a creator has to be at least as complex and frequently more complexed than the things being created. It is not so, and surprisingly, no one has corrected it()Unless I am wrong).

For example, we have created a game like chess. Just define the rules. whether or not we understand the complications, it is certainly possible to create somethign more complex.

For instance, say, the process of creating the universe is to just assign properties to certain particles and let them go off in whatever direction there after. A case where we can create complex stuff, even though we have the ability to assign properties one by one, is obvious.

It is difficult for me to describe, but I am sure many will see the flaw of their logic here.

So God can be as complex, more or less complex, or more or less improbable than the universe, or that in which arose in itself. We, including me, do not know.
Reply
#2
RE: Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.
Are you claiming the game of Chess is more complex than the people inventing it?
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Pastafarian
Reply
#3
RE: Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.
This is a common misunderstanding of the argument. As Dawkins says some people would say physics is more complex than biology.


Well it probably IS; in the sense its very hard to understand. But that's not the kind of complexity that is being talked about here. Its a confusion between the two different meanings.

Physics are about tiny fundamental particles - the workings of them may be very hard to understand - physics books may be very hard to understand etc - but physical particles are a lot more simple than complex biological objects like, fish, spiders, us humans or whatever!

And God would have to be very complex in this respect.

Not to mention that all these biological objects obviously contain a lot more physical fundamental particles than simply one of them! And they all have to work together! And the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Living things are a lot more complex than their parts put together - but for them to be understood they must be understood through their parts.

As Dawkins explains at the start of The Blind Watchmaker (I paraphrase): Our sun and stars may seem highly complex due to their size and mass, etc! But they are made up of a lot of the same kind of things in comparison with living things. And they don't have complex parts that all work together. Let alone intelligently in order to survive and reproduce etc.

In this sense biological, living things, etc, are much more complex than non-biological physical things. Whether those they are Mountains, Stars of Galaxies or whatever!

Galaxies are more complex in the sense they are harder to understand! Biology is more deeply known than Cosmology for example. There are many mysteries (or puzzles) in the universe that don't have an answer yet. And some may never have an answer.

But in the sense of complexity that needs to explained with simplicity living agents are much more complex than non-biological objects. And once again - we're not talking about simplicity and complexity as in whether its easy or difficult to understand here.

P.S: Leo good point. Us humans are a lot more physically complex than the game of chess. Chess is played with relatively simple non-biological objects and us biological living things are a lot more complex than that.

Chess is complex as in its quite a sophisticated game. These are two completely different kinds of complexity and it seems there's often a confusion between the two!

Complex as in how sophisticated an object and its parts is. And how they work together.

And complex as in hard to understand - even if physically the object(s) may be very simple!!

Two different kinds of complexity that are often confused.

EvF
Reply
#4
RE: Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.
(February 21, 2009 at 10:33 am)Ephrium Wrote: For example, we have created a game like chess. Just define the rules. whether or not we understand the complications, it is certainly possible to create somethign more complex.

For instance, say, the process of creating the universe is to just assign properties to certain particles and let them go off in whatever direction there after. A case where we can create complex stuff, even though we have the ability to assign properties one by one, is obvious.
That is a massive fallacy. A game of chess doesn't just have rules. You have to have interactions between two people, who move the pieces, keep track of the score, etc. I could create a game in my head by assigning rules, but in order to make the game real you have to play it. The same applies to the universe. The universe isn't just here because someone set the variables, it is here due to a string of events that needed to happen first.

Also, I disagree with your argument that chess is more complex than the inner workings of a human...or any animal / plant / natural process on this planet. A woodlouse is more complicated than the inner workings of a space shuttle!
Reply
#5
RE: Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.
(February 21, 2009 at 12:25 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: Are you claiming the game of Chess is more complex than the people inventing it?

THIS!

That's exactly what I would ask.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin

::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :Tongueodcast:: Boston Atheists Report
Reply
#6
RE: Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.
I have in title this is just a small post, and I do not understand why so much exclamation is in here.

Do not tell me you guys cannot see the point here.

Lets not talk about chess then. Humans can indeed invent many many things more complicated than himself (Even though he does not understand it) can't he?

Do not talk about Chess anymore then. Answer the sentence above, which is more related to the topic at hand.

It is obvious the thing created can be more complex than the creator.

Also, it had been mentioned many times in this forum, but with no one correcting it--If the universe can pop out out of nothing, that a God can pop out of nothing is MORE improbable.

I fail to see the reasoning. At the very least, they both seem equally improbable or probable.
Reply
#7
RE: Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.
Quote:Humans can indeed invent many many things more complicated than himself
Name something and we can discuss that point.
Quote:It is obvious the thing created can be more complex than the creator.
For you maybe, not for anyone else. The trouble with this logic is that we still don't understand everything about the human body, and we have no method for evaluating the "complexity" of stuff.
Quote:Also, it had been mentioned many times in this forum, but with no one correcting it--If the universe can pop out out of nothing, that a God can pop out of nothing is MORE improbable.
The universe, as far as we are aware, does not have a conscience, and operates due to several laws. A God by definition is a conscious being, usually omnipotent and omniscient. It is far more complex. I'd also like to see you backup up your claim that we believe the universe simply popped out of nothing. I don't think I know anyone who believes that...
Reply
#8
RE: Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.
(February 22, 2009 at 6:17 am)Ephrium Wrote: I have in title this is just a small post, and I do not understand why so much exclamation is in here.

Do not tell me you guys cannot see the point here.
Do not presume that what is obvious to you is obvious to everyone else.

(February 22, 2009 at 6:17 am)Ephrium Wrote: Lets not talk about chess then. Humans can indeed invent many many things more complicated than himself (Even though he does not understand it) can't he?
No. Can you name one man-made thing that is more complex than the person/people who made it?

(February 22, 2009 at 6:17 am)Ephrium Wrote: Also, it had been mentioned many times in this forum, but with no one correcting it--If the universe can pop out out of nothing, that a God can pop out of nothing is MORE improbable.

I fail to see the reasoning. At the very least, they both seem equally improbable or probable.
Nope: we know the universe exists, we know that its constituents can and do pop out of nothing. But we don't know that deities exist, nor that they can pop out of nothing.

It's parsimony: we know universes exist, so we're not positing anything new or unnecessary there. But we don't know that deities exist, so we are positing something new. By Occam's Razor, the latter is less probable than the former (until such time that evidence to the contrary is presented).
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right." - Stargate: SG1

A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone. - Charles Darwin
Reply
#9
RE: Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.
Yes.

And what's interesting is in the first chapter of The Blind Watchmaker that Dawkins treats robots and man-made things as biological objects because they couldn't exist without people which ARE bilogical objects. And that's why these man-made things are more complex than rocks for example.

ALthough of course they're not REALLY biological objects, but he says "Words are our servants, not our masters" and in the matter of complexity - treating them as biological objects helps explain. Since they're more complex than just any other non-biological objects since they are made by humans rather than just occuring in nature.

If you saw complex robots on an alien planet you may think that they were created by biological aliens or something.

But if you see just a bunch of rocks it doesn't imply any complex life.

Non-biological things that are made BY biological things (us humans for example) tend to be more complex than just any other non-biological things.

But they are still not as complex as the biological things that made them. At least - not yet. Maybe one day if computers and robots get complex enough they can get a snowball effect (the faster it goes the bigger it gets the faster it goes the bigger it gets, etc) and surpass us perhaps. I dunno.

But, not yet.

EvF
Reply
#10
RE: Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.
(February 22, 2009 at 12:44 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: But they are still not as complex as the biological things that made them. At least - not yet. Maybe one day if computers and robots get complex enough they can get a snowball effect (the faster it goes the bigger it gets the faster it goes the bigger it gets, etc) and surpass us perhaps. I dunno.
Ah, that would be the so-called 'technological singularity': we design machines that can create other machines more intelligent than those we originally made. They in turn create still-further intelligent machines, and so on indefinitely. So the technological sophistication of our machines (and their progeny) increases exponentially.

Maybe then, their complexity will exceed our own.

And the universe will turn into Marmite.
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right." - Stargate: SG1

A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone. - Charles Darwin
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Is my argument against afterlife an equivocation fallacy? FlatAssembler 61 2488 June 20, 2023 at 5:59 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Argumentum ad Ignorantium Fallacy Agnostico 49 5224 March 18, 2019 at 9:40 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Common Sense shows religion screws people up. Usalabs 11 2758 March 20, 2017 at 12:34 am
Last Post: SuperSentient
  Atheists who have never read common atheist literature ComradeMeow 68 9633 March 2, 2017 at 4:46 pm
Last Post: Cephus
  How would you respond to these common theist statements? TheMonster 21 5227 July 5, 2015 at 8:20 pm
Last Post: Regina
  Schooling on Facebook with Common Sesnse dyresand 11 3357 March 31, 2015 at 4:47 pm
Last Post: Clueless Morgan
  Atheism and Small Towns Vox Populi 14 2437 February 28, 2015 at 2:33 pm
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  One Small Step For Life, One Giant Leap For Understanding LivingNumbers6.626 6 3373 July 28, 2014 at 2:28 pm
Last Post: LivingNumbers6.626
  Theist fallacy A_Nony_Mouse 1 1177 March 31, 2013 at 5:44 am
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  A Small Census rexbeccarox 157 37945 March 13, 2013 at 1:52 am
Last Post: Whateverist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)