Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.

[Edwardo Piet]

I agree Leo.

And if God isn't complex and for example he's something like the big bang singularity - then that's not really God now is it? And to use God as a metaphor for the big bang or some kind of very simple might be very confusing!

The creator of the universe is surely very complex indeed. Right from the start 'God' would have to be capable of designing it! And all its complexity! And unknowing it.

I mean talk about how smart he would have to be. How big his brain (whatever its made out of).

And if he's just DEFINED outside of material and he can be really simple no matter what - then that of course is very unparsimonious and way too big an assumption to make. Its against parsimony to just go about postulating too many entities, as you are aware DD.

I mean if the universe at the start is a very simple singularity. Then yeah, God could relatively be simple to CREATE something that is ALSO very simple I think.

But he'd still have to be a lot more complex and improbable relative to his creation - even if he's very simple because the universe started very simple and just expanded and developed from there I think.

Thoughts?

EvF

[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?

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?

No, and I don't believe one exists (on Earth, at least... ). Nevertheless, it is fallacious to use this evidence to conclude that all creators must be more complex than their creations. Ever heard of Popper's black swans?

---

I agree Leo.

And if God isn't complex and for example he's something like the big bang singularity - then that's not really God now is it? And to use God as a metaphor for the big bang or some kind of very simple might be very confusing!

The creator of the universe is surely very complex indeed. Right from the start 'God' would have to be capable of designing it! And all its complexity! And unknowing it.

But why do those traits imply that God would have to be complex? Or, at least, more complex than it's creation?

I mean talk about how smart he would have to be. How big his brain (whatever its made out of).

And if he's just DEFINED outside of material and he can be really simple no matter what - then that of course is very unparsimonious and way too big an assumption to make. Its against parsimony to just go about postulating too many entities, as you are aware DD.

I think we're not too bother about how parsimonious God is at this point: simply having God at all is unparsimonious, regardless of his relative complexity.

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.

I mean if the universe at the start is a very simple singularity. Then yeah, God could relatively be simple to CREATE something that is ALSO very simple I think.

But he'd still have to be a lot more complex and improbable relative to his creation - even if he's very simple because the universe started very simple and just expanded and developed from there I think.

Thoughts?

EvF

Can the universe become more complex of its own accord?

I think it might be prudent to define 'complex' at this point...

Negative entropy? Capacity to process information? Definitive structure (as opposed to homogeneous sludge)?

[leo-rcc]

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 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.

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

If its QUITE complex it could design a very simple universe. If its VERY complex it could design a QUITE complex universe...

Of course I'm being very general and vague here but I think you get the idea, (of what I'm talking about I mean - you won't necessarily agree).

EvF

P.S: this is an interesting thread

[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.

[Tiberius]

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

That's trying to prove a negative, which you can't do. Same reasoning for how atheists cannot be asked to "prove there is no god". The claim is ours, I agree with that much. We are claiming that all creations are less complex than their creator. This is quite obviously falsifiable; all someone would have to do is find one example of a creation that is more complex than it's creator.

[Ephrium]

I have already stated my stance, which is that I believe chances are God if he exists should probably be more complex than the initial or ensuing universe. I am merely clarifying a fallacy that the creator MUST be as or more complex.

Posts have mentioned here the complex biological attributes . I believe too that if this world is to continue for a few thousand or whatever umber years more, humans will be able to create something more complex.

I stick with this belief. If you do not it is your choice.

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

That's trying to prove a negative, which you can't do. Same reasoning for how atheists cannot be asked to "prove there is no god". The claim is ours, I agree with that much. We are claiming that all creations are less complex than their creator. This is quite obviously falsifiable; all someone would have to do is find one example of a creation that is more complex than it's creator.

[leo-rcc]

[

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.

If no one has ever seen a black Swan, and no one has ever even had the concept of a black Swan, there is absolutely no justification to entertain that notion of black Swan's. It is absurd to account for something that has never been observed or measured before. You can speculate but you don't build an exception in your thesis on what might or might not exist, that makes it completely unworkable. You only adjust your theory if new data arrives, not before.

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.

No, you are asserting that there might be some alternative without justification. You deviate from the norm (No dragons) and I am not selling you a car that is smaller than your garage just in case you need the extra space for your dragon.

no matter how unlikely the alternatives, no matter how much evidence is gathered, there's always the possibility that it's wrong.

Sure, but it is ludicrous to assert that your theory is incorrect when there is only data supporting your theory is correct and no data supporting that your theory is incorrect.

The current hypothesis is that a creator must be more complex than its creation because all the current evidence points to that hypothesis is correct, and there is no known evidence that it is incorrect. You only alter that hypothesis until the black Swan of an less or equal complex creator is found, not before.

[DD_8630]

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

That's trying to prove a negative, which you can't do. Same reasoning for how atheists cannot be asked to "prove there is no god". The claim is ours, I agree with that much. We are claiming that all creations are less complex than their creator. This is quite obviously falsifiable; all someone would have to do is find one example of a creation that is more complex than it's creator.

The difference is that atheists typically don't assert that there isn't a God, but rather merely lack belief in one. I'm well aware that you can't prove a negative, but that doesn't mean you can't be called on to do it if you assert one (e.g., "God doesn't exist").

That is, saying that a Creator must be less complex than its creator is the same as saying God doesn't exist: they are both assertions on something with absolutely no evidence (there's no evidence of God, nor for Creators).

So, if for the same reason we can ask theists to prove (or otherwise justify) the existence of their God, so too can we ask people to prove any assertion they might make. Including the assertion that Creators are more complex than their creation

[Tiberius]

If I were to claim "there is no God" then all someone would have to do to prove me wrong would be to find a God.
If I were to claim "A creator must be more complex than it's creation" the all someone would have to do to prove me wrong would be to find a creator that is less complex that it's creation.

Both are reasonable assertions because there is no evidence. It is up to the person making the positive claim to give the evidence (i.e. the theist must provide evidence for their God to counter the claim that it doesn't exist). You cannot be called to prove a negative if you assert something. It is up to the opposition to come up with proof FOR the existence.

Otherwise I put forward the following suggestion: "There exists a small pink dog at the centre of the Sun". This is my claim, your claim would be "The small pink dog doesn't exist". Since you cannot prove a negative, I could not rationally ask you to prove your claim, but I would have to prove mine. The burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim for the positive.

I am merely clarifying a fallacy that the creator MUST be as or more complex.

And I am merely pointing out how it is not a fallacy. You came up with a claim, it was challenged. You provided no evidence towards the observation that creators are always more complex than their creations. You gave not one example which was not refuted. You then proceeded to back out of the argument, and then you have the audacity to keep going on about it. Do you want a debate or not here? If you do, then provide some evidence to back up your claims. If not, accept that you have been defeated in your arguments so far. You don't have to give up your belief that you are right, but only accept that you have been beaten in a debate.