chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
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.
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
Again both points are outside of any empirical evidence, there is no reason to subscribe to such hypothesis.
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
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.
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
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.
interesting article from the bbc.. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141029-are-oceans-hiding-inside-earth.
(genesis 7:11) "....on that day all the springs of the vast watery deep burst open....".
.
Kaik is right, underground aquifers are in porous rocks. They aren't oceans as such, the water isn't slopping about in underground caverns. The water can end up mixed with oil and gas deposits in the same rock.
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
Here's a key difference in our perspective, however: you're suggesting that only a small portion of this god would be used for the universe. I'm suggesting that it could be half of the god, or even the whole god. We can't theorize what a god would be made of. It could be that he has no "body" and is all "mind". In that case the god could have essentially turned himself into the universe.
Even if you take your example of a god turning itself into our universe that process would involve the transformation of energy from one form into another, assuming that this transformation follows the laws of physics then a certain portion of that transformation would involve entropy losses. Hence you still have the same problem that you had before just on a smaller scale.
If you want to say your god is utterly unfalsifiable that is fine by me, I thought that anyway.
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
Apognophos,
What you describe is commonly referred to as 'last thursdayism' and is utterly unfalsifiable and meaningless.
if the creator is using any part of himself to produce the universe, then the complexity is the same -- whether he uses his brain or a portion of his body to construct the universe. The amount of information that he would be dedicating to the universe would be the same whether it came from what we would consider to be its mind or its body (its "active force", to borrow a JWism). It seems that most people assume that a creator would build the universe with new material that it summoned into existence, but this ought to be impossible. It's more logical to imagine that it must use a part of itself.
You are then stuck back with the same problem, this (god's spare third testicle) universe that you are talking about has the same level of complexity as my materialistic natural universe. You still have the same problem I described before, that the rest of your god (sans third testical) also has a seperate level of complexity.
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
I have yet to read or hear an explanation that cotradicts that world picture
'A brief history of time' by Hawking contradicts your view of time and the universe. It is well worth reading.
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
Prologos,
Whilst I admire that you seem genuinely interested in science and that is obviously a good thing; it sometimes sounds like you have swallowed a book by Deepak Chopra (who is an awful charlatan and fraudster).
what is at the fringes of the natural universe gives us indications what is outside of it. The Background radiation, (really younger than the big bang), The movement, radiation that signals that all that matter has disappeared, out of the universe into a black hole, leaving only it's effects. time stands still in these conditions, and you can not be part of the universe if you do not paricipate in its movement through time. Remember that we live in a fabric of spacetime that is moving, expanding, and black hole matter has left us.
As I have said several times there is no outside our universe, our natural universe is everything there is. It includes billions of of black holes, the entire microwave background radiation and all of space-time. If you don't believe me feel free to research it, there are are dozens of books that explain this stuff. I and several others here would be happy to recommend some if you want to really have a scientific understanding of the universe. I don't say this merely to disagree with you but because you seem to have missed some fundamental aspects of the scientific understanding of the universe.
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
Hooberus,
See my post 1968 where I answered your question. It's interesting that you suddenly want evidence when in all the previous threads on this site where you have posted you run a mile when asked for your evidence.
Apognophos,
I see you are still having difficulties with the definition of complexity. Have you tried reading the wikipedia entry that I linked to?
