Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.

[moodydaniel]

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.

I'd agree that complex things can arise from simple creators.

Evolution consits merely of DNA errors vetted by natural selection for improvement. This has created the wonderful complexity we see in the living word.

What i don't see is the importance of whether the creating force is more or less complexed than the creations it produces. Why is this important? It proves nothing as we have examples of both to draw upon.

[lukec]

The problem is that ephrium is not talking about a process- he is talking about an actual entity, "God," which is less complex than its creation. Which is, and I'm agreeing with what others have said, really unlikely. For a creator god to have actually gone through the act of creating EVERYTHING else, then that entity must be able to not only conceive of what it is creating, but have the power to create it all. If that is not an argument for creator being of greater complexity than what is created then I am confused.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yep. Well said I think

EvF

[Ephrium]

This point is not that Important, I know, but certain posters here keep posting them as facts, until such point where if you keep quiet, it is as though implicit agreement is given to them.

Adrain does not agree that a thing can create a more complex thing. I give this possible scenario of the future.

It is certainly conceivable(sp) That one day, humans can create a robot, with memory and processing power far greater than the human brain.

There you go.

"The problem is that ephrium is not talking about a process- he is talking about an actual entity, "God," which is less complex than its creation. Which is, and I'm agreeing with what others have said, really unlikely. For a creator god to have actually gone through the act of creating EVERYTHING else, then that entity must be able to not only conceive of what it is creating, but have the power to create it all. If that is not an argument for creator being of greater complexity than what is created then I am confused. "

Not exactly too. I have high IQ, as I have mentioned in another post, and when I see fallacies repeated over and over again, it irks me and as I have mentioned in the title, just created a small post to correct it.

I am not really talking about God here. I am , as the title says, correcting a logical flaw which keeps appearing in this forum..

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.

I'd agree that complex things can arise from simple creators.

Evolution consits merely of DNA errors vetted by natural selection for improvement. This has created the wonderful complexity we see in the living word.

What i don't see is the importance of whether the creating force is more or less complexed than the creations it produces. Why is this important? It proves nothing as we have examples of both to draw upon.

[lukec]

Still I would disagree with you that the complexity is of the same type. Yes, we could give a robot ridiculously large memory and it could probably access that memory rather quickly. But have we actually CREATED anything? Or have we re-arranged what was already there? The point made by saying a creator must be more complex than what it is actually CREATING in the sense of out of nothing. Not as in, we can build a computer with ridiculous amounts of memory. They are not the same kinds of complexity.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I would say that a creator, assuming it understand what it has created, of necessity has to be more complex than that which it directly creates.

Just my opinion though.

Kyu

[Tiberius]

It is certainly conceivable(sp) That one day, humans can create a robot, with memory and processing power far greater than the human brain.

There you go.

Complete and utter speculation. I offer my challenge again, come up with 1 thing humans have made that is more complex than themselves and a method of determining complexity.

Even if you can think of something which you reckon is more complex than its creator, you would need a method of testing its complexity. Robots today already have greater memory and processing power than us, but this doesn't make them complex, it only makes them more advanced in those specific attributes. We don't even properly understand how our brains work yet, we don't know how memory works yet, so how can we even begin to say things are more complex.

By the way, I'm loving this new "debate". It's a great new topic, thanks for bringing it up!

[moodydaniel]

I offer my challenge again, come up with 1 thing humans have made that is more complex than themselves and a method of determining complexity.

It's not perfect but Dawkin's definies something as complex if it has parts that are "arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone." I'll also assume that the item must be fully functional for it's purpose. I'll also assume by 'themsleves' you meant individuals (as opposed to humanity as a whole), I think that's what you meant.

An airport when seperated to each indivisible component must rival the number of parts in a human body. It must be equally as unlikely that all the components of a fully working airport could come into existance as a fully formed human could appear naturally. Both are highly speciallised (remove one or two key parts and they stop working) and each is made up of a number of smaller vital parts.

[Edwardo Piet]

I am certainly not an expert on this...

But considering for example, the vast complexity of the human brain, doesn't that make humans more complex than airports (airports minus the humans of course)? Even just from their brains (or certain parts of their brains?) alone?

Isn't it true that still today the human brain is much more complex than even the most powerful computers? Despite the fact we cannot simply: 'do really big sums practically instantly quickly.'

I think I may have read somewhere - and I think it might have been Dawkins, but I'm not sure - that the human brain is the most complex working thing in the known [and I stress the word KNOWN] universe?

EvF

[Tiberius]

I offer my challenge again, come up with 1 thing humans have made that is more complex than themselves and a method of determining complexity.

It's not perfect but Dawkin's definies something as complex if it has parts that are "arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone." I'll also assume that the item must be fully functional for it's purpose. I'll also assume by 'themsleves' you meant individuals (as opposed to humanity as a whole), I think that's what you meant.

Technically speaking, everything must have some degree of complexity. The problem I was trying to highlight was how we measure different levels of complexity. Computers can already beat humans in terms of memory and speed, but how do we decide which is more complex. Can the computer come up with new ideas? Can a computer build stuff on it's own?

An airport when seperated to each indivisible component must rival the number of parts in a human body. It must be equally as unlikely that all the components of a fully working airport could come into existance as a fully formed human could appear naturally. Both are highly speciallised (remove one or two key parts and they stop working) and each is made up of a number of smaller vital parts.

Can an airport repair itself? Does it think? I'm not saying this is proof that airports are less complex than humans, but they are all considerations we must take into account when we decide on a complexity rating. Also, an airport cannot function without humans working it, so is it really more complex or a tool?