by goddidit 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
We know the universe has within it the capabilty for things to become more complex with direct divine intervention. Look at snowflakes.
As far as I can see, that fact alone invalidates the argument from complexity (isn't the eye complex? evolution must be false).
Can anyone suggest a good way to phrase this that might get into a dubs head?
I like how you jump right in with the absolute conviction that "direct divine intervention" was involved in snowflakes.
And why would you think some way to disprove evolution or to prove a need for God would "get into a dubs head" when they believe the same way?
I am sure they accept the argument from complexity, once they learn what it is.
I'm pretty sure, given his (her?) phrasing (and also his fun username), that he meant without divine intervention.
Ok, goddidit, here's a link to a page from Talk Origins. The outline is very brief and sketchy, but could be built upon.
Well, I can't help it if people negate their entire post by forgetting a negative or dropping a clarifier.
Still, the dub will say that the snowflake DID benefit from a designer. So why bother?
What exactly is "complexity"?
If you put your iPod earbuds in your pocket and then later pull them out....the cord is all weirdly knotted and twisted into a COMPLEX tangle.
Is that what you mean by complexity?
If you don't clean your room and put everything neatly away it becomes an awful mess where you can't locate anything. Is that complexity?
A steaming pile of cat poop is an active volcano of molecules, atoms, enzymes, energy and bacteria. Is that complexity?
What would an example of non-complexity be?
Isn't this context driven and isn't there a real burden on interpretation?
Complexity Theory states that critically interacting components self-organize to form potentially evolving structures exhibiting a hierarchy of emergent system properties.
This theory takes the view that systems are best regarded as wholes, and studied as such, rejecting the traditional emphasis on simplification and reduction as inadequate techniques on which to base this sort of scientific work. Such techniques, whilst valuable in investigation and data collection, fail in their application at system level due to the inherent nonlinearity of strongly interconnected systems - the causes and effects are not separate and the whole is not the sum of the parts. The approaches used in complexity theory are based on a number of new mathematical techniques, originating from fields as diverse as physics, biology, artificial intelligence, politics and telecommunications, and this interdisciplinary viewpoint is the crucial aspect, reflecting the general applicability of the theory to systems in all areas
"If we define a religion to be a system of thought that contains unprovable statements, so it contains an element of faith,
then Gödel has taught us that not only is mathematics a religion but it is the only religion able to prove itself to be one."
Are we talking about "irreducible" complexity, ie ID?
I did indeed mean to write 'without direct divine intervention' in my original question.
Sorry for the confusion.
But even if one's position is correct, and dubs obviously think there's is, it doesn't follow that all the arguments in favour of the position are good arguments.
And I'm not talking about so-called "irreducible complexity", just complexity. Yes, I'm simplifying but I'm dealing with a dub here so I have to.
Basically, if god can create a world in which snowflakes form from water due to chemical reactions and we assume a snowflake is more complex than water, then god could have created a world in which evolution could happen. So the dub says he didn't but can't use the argument from complexity to demonstrate that.
So how do I put that in a form a dub would grasp?
They are taught that you are led astray by the devil, so they don't want to 'get' anything you have to say.
You are better off to pick a loopy doctrine of their own and get them to try and explain it. Then the hard part becomes keeping them wanting to answer the question and keeping them on topic.
