Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.

[Edwardo Piet]

Good point about the humans working on the airport...

Because if THEY count as part of the complexity of the airport then of COURSE airports are more complex if you mean it that way.....

Because, all I'm thinking is: An airport AND all the people who work on it is more complex than just one person alone I would think!

On the other hand - the interaction is pretty one sided of airport to human, do you think? I dunno. And people are separate, they're individuals, they just interact with each other, socialize, a lot. But each one is a separate entity aren't they? Could you really count several as more complex than one? Hm, maybe the interactions between them. But I don't think it really changes the people themselves - to make them more complex - does it?

I think perhaps humans effect airports (as in get them to function properly?) more than airports effect humans? Hmm I dunno.

I'll stop there. I do find the issue of complexity very interesting though.

EvF

[Ephrium]

Deeper blue won Kasparov in Chess didn't it?

And I still stand with the possible scenario that the creator CAN be less complex. But I wont argue further, because I think God should have been more complex too. I mentioned it, because someone in the forum had repeatedly stated as though a fact that the creator MUST be at least as complex.



I am willing to debate though, that the poping out of god from nothing is MORE improbable than the poping out of the Universe from nothing.

No one has observed that the universe had poped out of nothing, jsut as it applies to god.

By what logic is it more Improbable?

Because god is more complex?

Or what?

Mentioned many times, as a support for atheism, but unchallenged by anyone.

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!

[allan175]

Deeper blue won Kasparov in Chess didn't it?

No, just to be pedantic, Deeper Blue *beat* Kasparov!

Unless of course Kasparov now sits on Deeper Blue's shelf as a trophy.

Anyway, on topic, whether or not it beat Kasparov, the level of "complexity" (on some arbitrary scale I am working with) is nowhere near the same:-

http://www.thocp.net/hardware/deep_blue.htm

The human brain has a huge number of synapses. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) neurons has on average 7,000 synaptic connections to other neurons. It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, ranging from 1014 to 5 x 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion).[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurons#Connectivity

[Tiberius]

Deeper blue won Kasparov in Chess didn't it?

And I still stand with the possible scenario that the creator CAN be less complex.

Deeper blue beat Kasparov at Chess, but what does that prove? Only that a computer can beat humans at certain tasks (well we knew that already). It only beat Kasparov because it can think of moves in advance to a very deep level, whereas Kasparov cannot go as deep.

You still haven't given a scenario where a creator is less complex, so I don't see why you are standing by it.

[leo-rcc]

Deeper blue won Kasparov in Chess didn't it?

Now you are comparing a machine designed specifically to do one task well and nothing else to a human that is much more allround and therefore needs to balance out in what fields of expertise it must excell. That is hardly a fair comparison. Kasparov is way more complex than Deeper Blue. You might as well argue a cheetah is more complex because it can run faster than humans. It is not a good comparison.

And I still stand with the possible scenario that the creator CAN be less complex.

Supply the evidence for that and I will consider it. Not the evidence for a creator, but that a creator can be less complex that created a universe and everything in it.

But I wont argue further, because I think God should have been more complex too. I mentioned it, because someone in the forum had repeatedly stated as though a fact that the creator MUST be at least as complex.

So far I have seen nothing that seems to suggest otherwise.

I am willing to debate though, that the poping out of god from nothing is MORE improbable than the poping out of the Universe from nothing.

Who claimed the universe "popped" out from nothing?

[Meatball]

Ephrium, you really need to address some of the points raised against you.

Humans have not created anything even remotely close to rivaling the complexity of the human body. Hypothetically, let's say we make a robot that can physically and intellectually out-perform human beings. With that in mind, can this SuperRobot survive on plants and water? Can it break down food sources in useful compounds, filter toxins, repair itself, eliminate waste or reproduce? Perhaps, but can it do this at the same level of efficiency and microscopic complexity as the human body? Doubtful.

Science has revealed a lot of information about the human body, but it's still a massive puzzle because of it's staggering complexity. There are so many subtle mechanics going on every second that there's no way we're anywhere close to creating something rivaling it.

I think it's a valid point that a creator must be at least as complex as the thing it's (intentionally) creating. Flukes and freak coincidences are possible, I suppose, but don't really apply to this argument.

[allan175]

Deeper blue won Kasparov in Chess didn't it?

And I still stand with the possible scenario that the creator CAN be less complex.

Deeper blue beat Kasparov at Chess, but what does that prove? Only that a computer can beat humans at certain tasks (well we knew that already). It only beat Kasparov because it can think of moves in advance to a very deep level, whereas Kasparov cannot go as deep.

You still haven't given a scenario where a creator is less complex, so I don't see why you are standing by it.

I'd say he is sticking with it because he *believes* it to be the case.

In the same way a theist believes in creationism.

[Edwardo Piet]

The thing is its because the question here isn't 'God' or 'the universe'.

Its the universe or God PLUS the universe.

And God would have to be pretty bloody complex to have been there right from the start and be capable of creating it out of absolutely nothing!!

If it was God on his own, without the universe lol, and he was simple - used as the metaphor for the big bang for example. Then that's just the big bang really isn't it? Not God.

Lol :

[DD_8630]

Supply the evidence for that and I will consider it. Not the evidence for a creator, but that a creator can be less complex that created a universe and everything in it.

Surely the onus is on you to show that a Creator couldn't be less complex?

---

And God would have to be pretty bloody complex to have been there right from the start and be capable of creating it out of absolutely nothing!!

Would he?

[leo-rcc]

Supply the evidence for that and I will consider it. Not the evidence for a creator, but that a creator can be less complex that created a universe and everything in it.

Surely the onus is on you to show that a Creator couldn't be less complex?

No it isn't. Whenever we look at something that has actually been designed or created, as opposed to something that has evolved over millions of years by natural selection or formed by billions of years in the universe, we always find that the designer is an incredibly complex being. We simply have no experience of anything that is known to have been designed except by a highly complex designer. So as evidence points to creations being created by entities more complex than the creation itself, until an exception to this comes along it is the standard. Can you think of an example where the creation is more complex than the creator?