Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly

by Coded Logic 116 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Viviane
    Viviane

    I am not a scientist

    Or particularly educated on science.

    and only an armchair cosmologist.

    No. No you aren't.

    I have come to see, that these people, Krauss, Penrose, Davis, Krauss, Feynman et al seem to be very vague when it comes to the beyond, the before, the void of the future, the cosmos.

    Anyone who claims to know more than those you listed (such as yourself) is either a liar or a fool.

    I see a world picture trying to incorporate all this, and am stuck with a model where there was always time, a given, part of an unfathonable, eternal 'ueber', or 'Ur" dimension, a void beyond our capacity to mesure, understand.

    You pretend to, while claiming to be only a casual observer, to know more than the finest minds ever to study the subject. You are either a liar or a fool. Or both, I suppose. You present your ramblings as fact when in fact they are at best comic book quality science.

    As a compulsive worker and deliberate 'out-of-the-box thinker' with tangible patent, $, results

    Yeah, that means exactly nothing. Literally, nothing.

    When people charactarize what I say with these ideas as a base, as babbel, as rambling, it is, because they must have a better model, they are not trying to see my consistency.

    Consistently babbling and rambling in no way lends credence to that babbling or rambling.

  • Caedes
    Caedes

    If you cannot understand how adding a powerful creator god adds a hugely additional level of complexity to the natural universe then I don't know I can help you. We are not talking about maths we are talking about the concept. Of course any god sufficiently powerful to create universes has to be more complex than it's creation.

    If so, by complex do you mean composed of "many parts" (Dawkins type definition)?

    and, if so, What is the evidence that a supernatural God must be composed of "parts"???

    Hooberus,

    I am not interested in getting into an argument with you regarding semantics, this discussion is about logic, if you had a serious point to make regarding my posts you would have made it already. How many times do I have to state that there is not one scrap of empirical evidence for your god? My point is that a proposed god that can create universes must logically be complex. I am not stating anything about your god other than that. If you think that your god must or must not have parts that is your problem to define not mine.

  • Caedes
    Caedes

    I'm not arguing that the "something from nothing" hypothesis is incredible (as in, "unbelievable"), but simply pointing out that it's arrogant of humans to think they really have already, at this primitive stage of science, worked out the answer to how the universe got here. We don't know nearly enough to say that such a scientific idea is probable, only that it's possible, let alone do we know enough to say that the idea of a creator is less possible.

    The point I was making is specifically not stating an answer to how we got here. It is also not claiming any particular knowledge since I am specifically stating that the natural universe (including all its unknowns) is the same for both positions.

    I would say that we do know enough to say the idea of a creator is less possible. For example every single process that we have studied has a natural cause, there is not one process that requires supernatural intervention. Why on earth should that 100% rate be broken? There is no reason to suppose that it would be.

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    Well, I agree that the places for God to "hide" in the universe seem to disappear every time we peer into them with science. I'm still hesitant, however, to extrapolate from what we have learned inside the universe to what may have happened outside the universe at its start (if there is an outside, and many scientists think there is, insofar as they believe there are multiple universes).

  • prologos
    prologos

    or a possible 'succession' of Universes. Roger Penrose : Periods of Time. Information squeezing through the Big Bang to organize the present uninverse without a detectable outside, signa of a preceding source.

  • Viviane
    Viviane

    Hypothesizing aside, if a given universe (or any system) has a complexity value of u and a creator has a complexity value of c, adding them together is larger than either indivdual unit, increasing the total complexity. The only way that would decrease complexity is if somehow a creator could have a negative complexity, meaning is has a value of interrelating and connected parts of less than zero.

  • Caedes
    Caedes

    Again both points are outside of any empirical evidence, there is no reason to subscribe to such hypothesis.

  • Caedes
    Caedes

    The only way that would decrease complexity is if somehow a creator could have a negative complexity

    As ever other people express these things so much more eloquently than I do.

    I'm not sure what something with negative complexity looks like but I could do with one on my desk! It would make work so much easier.

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    Viviane, your logic is indisputable, but I didn't suggest that the complexity of "creator+universe" could be less than just "universe" -- only equal to it, or maybe just a bit more than it (conceivably within an order of magnitude, e.g. creator+universe only being 2x or 4x as complex as the universe alone).

    And to recap, Occam's Razor is not a law of nature, so even if the creator makes the picture 10x as complex, this is not necessarily meaningful in estimating probability. After all, complexity is not the sole indicator of probability.

    It could be that the formation of a creator according to the laws of a different universe was much more likely than the formation of intelligent life on earth; a number of non-religious scientists have stated that our own evolution could be an extreme fluke event.

    We can also see lots of examples in nature where evolution chose to do things in a more complicated way than is necessary, when its "creations" are looked at as finished products. The more complex approach that nature used only makes sense to us once we understand the steps it followed to get there.

  • Viviane
    Viviane

    Viviane, your logic is indisputable, but I didn't suggest that the complexity of "creator+universe" could be less than just "universe" -- only equal to it

    How could a creator have zero complexity yet create something with complexity?

    It could be that the formation of a creator

    A created creator? A non-first cause?

    We can also see lots of examples in nature where evolution chose to do things in a more complicated way than is necessary, when its "creations" are looked at as finished products

    Evolution doesn't choose and is never done.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit