Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.

[DD_8630]

But what you're talking about is the kind of what I think of when I try to imagine a Creator less complex than its creation: a kind of 'particle' that, while fully concious and omnipotent and stuff, is ultimately simple. Funky stuff.

Well considering how I've said earlier in the thread that the two kinds of complexity; - 1: difficult to understand and 2: something that is unlikely to simply come about by chance - often get mixed up... and right now I'm talking about number 2 - I would say that with this definition of complexity a particle that is fully conscious AND omnipotent would be complex! It wouldn't be ultimately simple! Because its total consciousness and omnipotence would give it a lot of complexity.

By your definition, biological life is 'simple'. I don't think that's the kind of complexity people are talking about here.

---

Of course I know about Popper and the Swans. But until a black swan appears you don't support the notion that one might be there

What? Yes you do. Or I do, at least. The possibility of a black swan existing, while extremely unlikely, was non-zero. And, lo and behold, black swans do exist.

but you adopt your understanding of Swans when a black Swan is observed. I am not considering a Dragon might be in your garage just because someone asserts that you can't exclude the possibility that there is one.

Then you're dismissing possibilities without justification. There might be a dragon in my bins, but it's so unlikely that we act as if there isn't. That's why theories are never promoted to facts: no matter how unlikely the alternatives, no matter how much evidence is gathered, there's always the possibility that it's wrong.