I already suggested in this thread (a few times) that the creator used himself as material for the universe, either by thinking it up (simulating the universe in his "brain") or reconfiguring his "body" to serve as the universe.
So you're still adding to complexity in either of those scenarios.
but it would explain how the universe could be created without an increase in complexity, or at least a significant one.
It still doesn't do either of those things. Just to be clear, what definition of "complex" are you currently using?
Did you not read the rest of my sentence? "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 ". Yes, I am suggesting a creator ex nihilo.
Yes, I did, and that's not ex nilho. Not sure what you are getting at, but your premise and conclusion completely contradicted each other.
These superficial objections are very tiresome, as well as predictable. Obviously I don't mean that evolution can "choose" something consciously.
I've obviously no way of knowing that since you didn't know the definition of complex or information.
Are you seriously suggesting that scientists don't personify nature when they write about evolution? If you don't think so, shall I dig up some examples from Dawkins et al. for you to read? If you do think so, do you write to them complaining about their terminology, or am I the sole focal point of your attention for some lucky reason?
I've suggested no such thing at any time. You're arguing with your own wrong notion of your misunderstanding.
And I was clearly not referring to the results of evolution as "done". I was referring to a particular point of view, which is why I said " when its 'creations' are looked at as finished products". People do this all the time when they criticize things like the roundabout nerve in the giraffe's neck or anything else that could have been designed better. They are criticizing the result of a process that had a good reason to happen that way because it developed in logical steps through successive prior organisms.
OK. So... write more clearly next time.
The point I am making, and which risks getting lost in pedantry, is that the concept of a god, when looked at as a finished product, seems complex, but that doesn't mean it couldn't come about through a simple process, step by step, and possibly one that was more likely than the process which produced intelligence on Earth.
A creator or the concept of a creator? I hate to lose you in more pedantry, but you did spend several post repeatedly misuing the words complex and information and in this post misued ex nihlo and attempted to falsley ascribe ridiculous views to me. So, just be more clear. Also, it also possible that a teapot is the core of Jupiter. Both ideas have just as much merit.
