If it has infinite knowledge, then it has to have infinite complexity. Knowledge is complexity.
It may not be impossible for a simple being to build a universe more complicated than itself. But, if we also contend that this being is omniscient and holds all knowledge of said universe, I think it is a necessity that this being be more complicated than the universe it built. That is, if complexity has anything to do with information content.
Or, what DtC said.
Perhaps another way to frame this would be to look at what I’ll informally call the totality of existence, totality for short. Let’s first suppose that this totality were only to include the physical universe. Then, the argument from complexity takes the form of a purported reductio ad absurdum, asserting that since this totality is complex, it’s in need of a creator. Thus, the totality can’t be just limited to the physical universe – it has to comprise that universe, plus its creator.
Let’s now assume this reductio is valid. Our new totality, however, is even more complex than the old one – even an arbitrarily simple creator can only add to the total complexity. If, now, that first reductio is valid as we assumed, we have only one conclusion – that this new totality similarly is in need of a creator. Which, of course, again only adds to the complexity, etc.
Since this leads to absurdity, we have no choice but reject the first reductio, and conclude that complexity is not sufficient to postulate a creator, or at least that’s how it seems to me.
In other words, to explain the possibility of a physically impossible creature that needs to be taken on faith, you are postulating an environment that also is impossibility according to our knowledge and has to be taken on faith; this “sphere of existence that imposes no limitations”. At best, that just pushes the argument one step back.
wow. ITR stands alone. poor guy.
before you skewer me and eat me alive, i’m going to jump in the fire willingly. and let me submit: 1. i’m not smart
and
2. i do not argue with or approach atheists for debate, nor do much debating at all on the existence of God. so i’m not so good at this.
Let it be known: *i believe in God *(whatever that means)–but i have some issues with the debates ITR is raging. first and foremost, i do not think there is a scientifically or critically way to prove OR disprove God, which is perplexing to attempt.
second, i think it’s cute that people fail to realize atheism is a religion (it is just an antireligion, like gum:sugar free gum), and people like Dawkins are its prophets. he sure writes a lot of shit about something he doesn’t believe in. that’s an astounding dedication of time and resource to nonsense!
and, what difference does it make? to him, you or anyone else, what i, itr, or anyone else “believes” in? of what consequence is it to dawkins that I have a God, as to the extent that he must write many books to convince me (us) otherwise, or that we are fools, etc?? that’s concisely backwards evangelizing.
critics (atheists/cosmologists/scientists) do not believe in belief. they believe only in tangibles, testables, items that can be expressed as integers, equations, sums of parts or wholes, conglomerates of ingredients, or any other irrefutables. No “belief” exists. Speaking of belief to these people is fruitless. I notice they find the same comfort in this system of proofs as many religious types find in their system. Sometimes, the science-folk hold unproven theories, which is kind of like a belief but not exactly the same.
or is it?
why can’t this just be considered My Personal Theory of God Based on Unequivocal Evidence as Detected by Me?
which brings us to: experience.
so many here negate experience as being to intangible and too questionable (ie: hallucinations).
granted.
but i rebut: prove this experience (me being on this forum, here, now) as NOT being a hallucination? all of existence could be a hallucination. There’s technically no way to prove or disprove existence of ourselves, at all. Experience cannot be tested.
on the backside of that coin is experience as the only conduit of existence. that is, all we have is our experience.
for instance, you could blather on about a drug, say–Valdecoxib. to me, that drug does not exist. to me. because it’s never been in my sphere of existence. yes, it exists. but not to me. iv’e never heard of it, had to take it, known anyone who’s taken it, etc etc etc. it’s just not in my frame of reference.
i’m sure you are going to poke holes in that until it sinks, but my point is somewhat valid: existence somewhat hinges on experience, and vice versa.
another example is human love. i would say God is as convoluted and nebulously defined as human love. He is as succinctly and cohesively defined as the functions we can define as ‘love.’
however, those definitions (of both God and LOVE) are just abstract concepts until experience factors in. everyone says "when you’re in love, you’ll just know.
“now love makes sense, i know love. i’ve had love. I never believed in love, but now I know love.”
I would surmise he who has never known love (he who cannot love) denies the existence of love at all, looking at those in love as backward fools when compared to his higher-evolved, mechanical way of living. Would we thus say love does not exist?
And with that, on to evolution–
the more i learn, the more i reject religion, yet the more certain i become in knowing there’s a God. agreed, my perceptions of that God and his definitions evolve as i learn–not because i’m backed into a corner must reverse-engineer them in order for them to make sense, but because i’m simply learning more. Sort of the way scientific concepts evolve and change as we learn more about science.
superstition is man trying to explain things he doesn’t fully understand. i believe that is what religion has always been–man trying to understand God. superstition is the real GOTG. Superstition (aka religions) has little (if anything) to do with God, proving there is a God, or serving as a conduit TO God. Superstition existed in science for the same purpose, to fill the gaps, and not very long ago on the human timeline. hell, it still does in many facets of science (and the world). but as we learn and evolve, we re-define those roles, those attributes, then dispatch the superstition and replace it with more understanding. Science.
God might be something we simply do not understand yet in scientific terms. like black holes, which were posited ‘superstitions’ or science fiction to some people back in time, but are more and more becoming science-fact. how is that different than God?
i propose that the best functioning universal machine is one where there IS a God and we do not NEED for him to exist. God shouldn’t exist because of a necessity (ie God of the Gaps), and for me, does not.
What evidence for God would that be?
For that matter, what if we evaluated the evidence for God by the same standard we evaluate evidence for your mother?
It’s not cute when people fail to realize that atheism is not a religion. Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief. Period. It’s not like gum & sugarless gum, it’s like gum and no gum at all. They are not the same.
Because these same people push their beliefs on others. They demand to be able to teach their beliefs as science. They want their beliefs ensconced in law. They want to be able to discriminate according to their belief. And they don’t want to have their beliefs questions while they’re doing it. Dawkins isn’t a prophet, he’s the kid pointing at the emperor.
This is called a strawman argument, an argument that you have falsely attributed to your opponent so you can knock it down easier than their actual argument. Please find a scientist or atheist who believes beliefs do not exist. The existence of this thread hinges on beliefs existing.
The word ‘theory’ in science does not mean ‘wild guess’. It mean ‘repeatedly tested idea with lots of corroboration’. Evolution is a theory. So is the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun.
The problem isn’t that you had an experience. I have no doubt that you think you saw a light or heard a voice or whatever. The problem is your interpretation of that experience. If you want to attribute the experience to something supernatural, then you’re going to require evidence. We have loads of data on how very fallible the human senses are. It’s actually up to you to show that not only was it not a hallucination, but that god had anything to do with it.
How do you know god exists? How do you know that god isn’t just another part of the superstition?
Superstition is the opposite of science. Science displaces superstition. Also, superstition doesn’t necessarily have to have anything to do with god.
We have evidence for black holes. We don’t have any evidence for god.
If we don’t need a god, then why do you think one is there?
It’s more like gum:not-chewing-gum, and having people insist that not chewing gum IS the type of gum you chew
Did you know that four out of five dentists recommend atheism for their patients?
Well, welcome to the boards from this atheist (and fellow not-smart person). 
Just as a point, while i’m an athiest, I feel that there are degrees of reasonability. There are plenty of theists or otherwise believers on these boards and elsewhere who, while I obviously disagree, have considerable respect for in terms of how they come to their arguments and their way of debating. Where I often find myself in disagreement with ITR is, however, often on those points of debate; I don’t think i’d really want him on my side on these things.
The lack of something isn’t the same of something. Baldness isn’t a hair style, as is the usual analogy.
As far as Dawkins devoting time and effort to nonsense, while I don’t think i’d call all of religiousness nonsense (though Dawkins may well), whatever we may think, the fact is that a lot of people are religious, and for both those people and atheists the effects of faith affect us every day. It’s well worth dedicating time and resource to something that’s so important to society.
I agree it’s evangelizing. But I would say there are plenty of reasons why someone would care about what others think. There’s the simple idea that the truth is a good thing to know. There are effects of religiousness or irreligiousness both personal and societally. At stake is, at various points, the existence of the soul after death, conflicts in which many people have lost their lives, and the state of what is acceptable and not acceptable in society. It’s an important topic.
I believe in belief. I don’t have it in religious area myself, but I certainly recognise that other people have it. When you claim belief, I take your word for it - i’m certainly prepared to accept that you truly believe something.
The difference between unproven theories and belief is reasonably large - for one thing, scientifically speaking, you can’t have a proven theory, so all scientific theories are technically unproven. But the difference I would say generally lies in that an unproven theory may well be disproven, at which point a new theory will have to be selected, generally on the basis of which has the most evidence for it.
You’re quite correct. Everything could be a hallucination, or otherwise unreal. This isn’t a rebuttal; it’s a reasonable point to make. You could well be right. But accepting one thing as not be a hallucination doesn’t mean we accept all things as not hallucinations. There’s generally more agreement about your experience than there might be about your religious ideas (or my irreligious ideas). Perhaps more importantly, there’s a considerable lack of similar contradictory experiences. There are, around the world, enough personal experiences that end up contradictory that we can’t really accept personal experience as a fair point, either in terms of theists or atheists.
I’m afraid I think I do see some flaws in that. Our experience of existence hinges on experience, but existence itself doesn’t. Things don’t disappear once they’re out of your frame of reference, or appear once they are. That’s one of the reasons why inquiry is so important; we take lots and lots and lots of experiences to compare them and try to figure out what is the right one; we make experiments that can be done repeatedly by different people and yet come up with the same results. The idea, at least, is to try and eliminate as much as possible those factors which come from personal experience and might bias what we see.
I’ve never known romantic love, but I don’t think of those who do as backward or myself as higher-evolved. We’re just different and with different experiences. The difference between love and a god is that love is the experience - the experience, itself, is that love. Whereas the existence of a god is a concrete claim. The equivalent of love in this regard isn’t God, but rather, the belief in God. And, like I said, I certainly believe belief in God exists, just as I believe romantic love does.
A fair and reasonable position.
It’s certainly a possibility. The problem is whether the evidence supports that; for a lot of people, it does, and for others it doesn’t. I certainly wouldn’t, and I think that most atheists wouldn’t, rule out the existence of a god entirely.
The problem is; if we do not need a God, then the mere existence of the universe doesn’t imply the existence of God. We need other evidence or proofs as to why he might.
@dontbesojumpy: Personal experience can be corroborated with empirical evidence. Every esoteric “religious experience” can be simulated and even intensified by triggering certain areas of the brain, either with drugs or otherwise. This suggests that religious experiences are just your run of the mill delusions.
As for love, as with any emotion, it’s just another biochemical reaction. If someone claims to have never experienced love, it still exists. If someone has never been to Antarctica, it still exists.
As for God being both inexplicable and unnecessary, yet still believing in him… I don’t know what to say, really. I remember someone here said recently that a theist will believe when he is told there is an elephant in his garage, while an atheist will peek in, see no elephant, and call shenanigans. The theist may then claim to be able to smell the elephant, but again - such a personal experience has no basis in reality as far as anyone else is concerned.
The smell bit isn’t quite accurate. It’s more like you then bring in a third person and if he’s told that there was an elephant there, then there’s a good likelihood that he’ll say that he smells it, while as if you don’t tell him anything, he’ll not smell anything or that he smells engine grease or some other unidentified item which would make more sense.
Ze power of suggestion.
I feel that this mischaracterises my position (and probably RD’s as well). Would you characterise yourself as an ‘Odin atheist’, or your presumed lack of belief in faeries as a religion? To consider an entity as unnecessary when attempting to explain the universe or the experiences of things living in it is not a religious conviction but a rational one. (That’s not to say it’s correct, of course.)
Of course we do. You saying “I believe in God” is a significant datum in cognitive science and psychology.
If you look at this post, you’ll realise that cognitive science does not ‘negate’ anything. Misattribution is my suggested term if (repeat if) they are not actually divine in origin.
Yes it can. I can give you a drug, or electromagnetically stimulate your limbic system, and ask what you experience.
“I God you, darling”? All this defining God as something other than a supernatural being is unhelpful linguistic legerdemain, IMO.
Because black holes are natural, physical entities which can even be detected via their gravitational influence on other bodies and their ‘lensing’ of the light behind them. God is supernatural and cannot be detected unambiguously.
Then Ockham’s Razor compels you to accept that God is merely an option you prefer – the very definition of wishful thinking.
What’s your definition of evangelizing?
Going out of one’s way to expound on a particular viewpoint with intent to explain and convert.
Welcome to the SDMB! From your first post, I don’t think you’ll be eaten alive, since you seem to write thoughtfully and respectfully, but you can expect to be challenged!
Just a style tip - saying something is “cute” is usually viewed as dismissive. Like if I said that I think it’s cute that theists keep making the same mistake you just made calling the lack of religion a religion. It implies incompetence in the people you’re talking about.
Yep, and if we didn’t live in a society where people’s religious beliefs keep affecting all of us, we’d probably spend less time on it. But you’ve stumbled on a whole community here dedicated to critical thinking - look at how much time we spend on other unsupported beliefs such as homeopathy, UFOs, or dowsing.
You should think this out some more. A belief is when you accept that an idea is true. I accept that the solar system is actually centered around the Sun and not the Earth, so I believe that. I believe that biological evolution is the proper explanation for how the diversity of life came to be. I don’t accept the idea of the existence of God, so I don’t believe that.
I think you’re using the word “belief” here to mean what is usually meant by religious faith, which is belief without evidence. I do reject faith as a way of establishing beliefs.
We could, but I think you and everyone else should realize that trusting personal sensations, things we absolutely know can be explained by just the normal workings of a human brain, is the worst way to go about establishing what you believe about external reality.
That’s very different from God. The existence of black holes was predicted because we understood how physics works and our other observations of the universe, if you extrapolate, tell us there should be black holes, if our understanding so far is correct. So we’ve looked for them and observed them. If the existence of God were predicted by observation, or confirmed by observation, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion, would we? That’s the whole point - if something doesn’t have effects on the physical world that we live in, then in what way can it be said to exist?
I think you’re saying that the best universe would be one where a God exists but could not be observed. So again, how do you separate out “can’t be observed” from “doesn’t exist”? There are an infinite number of things that I could speculate on their existence if there is no possible way to observe them, so do you believe all of them? If not, then why believe in God?
this @ the last three posts:
you guys equate religious experiences to be some kind of fanatical mumbo-jumbo, which, being ignorant to the aspects of God as you are, i guess i dont blame you. but when i speak of ‘experiencing God’ i do not mean God came and spoke to me, or i saw God, or anything Old-Testament. you all seem to think having an experience attributed to God as hullucinatory or…big. i speak more of very tiny, subtle gestures.
personal experience can be corraborated with evidence: DENIED. that evidence could be part of the experience, part of the grand hallucination. again, prove it’s not. this whole discourse could be a hallucination of mine, as could be your evidence against me.
furthermore, you all lump “religion” into belief in God. perhaps you missed my point, but i do not believe in religion as anything more than superstitious nonsense. it’s garbage people made up and has nothing to do with God. so Dawkin’s books have nothing to do with keeping religion out of schools or textbooks and a lot more to do with simply re-inforcing his anti-God ideas by trying to smash mine. just like you guys are doing. why? what purpose does it serve? again, what difference does it make if i believe in God, to you? i’m not trying to convince you to believe in something, or anything.
the only concession i could ever want from this is that “to this guy, God exists, and i can’t prove He doesn’t. to this guy.”
as for athiesm as religion: it’s just as fervent and evangelical as southern baptists, dude. athiests want to convert just as christians do, they preach their word and ideals and seek to change your mind, just the same. i certainly do not see how it’s different. it’s people cramming their lack of belief down the throats of believers.
as to God being an elephant i cannot see: the athiest will see no evidence. however in this case, the athiests simply refuse to accept that i could personally have any evidence (even if it’s person and contengent on my experiences). you say there’s none, i say there’s some and it’s mine. i’m not believing in an elephant i cannot see simply because someone told me. again, i do not believe in some christian-judeo God of mythology. that’s what you’re arguing against but i’m not that guy.
see, that’s my point: ‘belief as faith.’ you all believe in things you can prove or measure, or have large groups to back up. my last statement was that perhaps God isnt a sciency thing you can go grab some calipers and map out. Maybe it’s something transcendental, or broader than science, or beyond these simple parameters YOU keep trying to insist he MUST exist within. i’m certainly not saying i know, i’m just posing the question. to deny that God exists simply because you cant formulate an equation that expresses Him doesnt prove anything.
there are a lot of things in science that were held as truth that we look back on as absurdity–also called supersitions. as we evolve we realize how stupid it was for us to think those things. i’m saything this could be another…those were beliefs, beliefs based on what they called “evidence” but was actually just retardery. that’s what i’m saying scientists (or those of this forum’s ilk) no longer have, or, yes, faith.
faith’s still a thing. God’s still a thing, too–you’re arguing against it. and Dawkins writes books against it. and i believe in it. it’s certainly something…
What sort of gestures do you mean? And what convinces you that such experiences are caused by a God rather than being natural? (not being snarky, just wanting to clarify so nobody argues against you on a position you don’t actually hold )
People try to change each others minds on all sorts of things all the time, that doesn’t necessarily make something a religion. We try to convince each other to change our minds on the validity of all sorts of propositions, whether they be religious ideas, scientific concepts, political ideals, ethical considerations, acceptable pizza toppings, and so on…
Although religions will often try to change peoples minds, there’s nothing about the act of trying to change peoples minds about their beliefs that is inherently religious in itself. It’s just part of the ongoing dialogue we participate in every day to continue trying to work out what it is we know about the world (and why we think so) and what the best ways to live in it might be.
Note that I used to be a Christian, and have experienced both the epiphanic and the subtle episodes you speak of. I came to understand that they need not have had an external source.
I don’t care what you believe. I just seek to educate you about my beliefs so you don’t mischaracterise and misrepresent them in the way you have here.
You’re right, I can’t prove he doesn’t, since ‘proof’ only exists in maths, not science. All I could do is convince you that He is unnecessary as an explanation, and let Ockham’s Razor do the rest of the work for me.
I assure you, that’s not the case. I seek to change your mind only about this mischaracterisation, not about whether God exists or not.
Personal experience is evidence of a sort, agreed. I would argue only that there is an alternative explanation for this evidence which does not require a divine source, and that if you said there was no other possible explanation you would be creating a Gap for God.
Of course it’s something. We’re just telling you that the phenomenon can be explained without referincing supernatural entities. (And Dawkins has only written one book specifically against it. His others are solely about natural explanations, and I’d say he’s the best popular science writer on the planet.)