Irreducible Complexity

[kilczer15]

The main problem I have with understanding the concept of a God, an omnipotent, all knowing being that created the universe, is that he would have to be pretty complex himself.

Let me back up. If the universe is so complex that it needs a creator, wouldn't God be so complex that He also needs a creator?

[wgreen]

Let me back up. If the universe is so complex that it needs a creator, wouldn't God be so complex that He also needs a creator?

I'm sorry. I don't understand the issue. What do you mean by "complex" as it would apply to God?

Thanks,

Bill

[QED]

Let me back up. If the universe is so complex that it needs a creator, wouldn't God be so complex that He also needs a creator?

I'm sorry. I don't understand the issue. What do you mean by "complex" as it would apply to God?

Specific information I would think. To tune the physical parameters like the fine structure constant (giving the strength of the electromagnetic interaction) to values that result in the periodic table implies knowledge of what was wanted and how to get there in a very technical sense. People often cite the remarkable properties of water as evidence for ingenious tinkering. Naturally there are very strong self-selection effects operating on our perceptions here so I personally don't expect to see a God with a stack of university degrees.

[thenormalyears]

The main problem I have with understanding the concept of a God, an omnipotent, all knowing being that created the universe, is that he would have to be pretty complex himself.

Let me back up. If the universe is so complex that it needs a creator, wouldn't God be so complex that He also needs a creator?

The basic sentiment behind what you are trying to say is what was the answer to the first cause proof of god. They would say everything has a cause so eventually it has to stop somewhere. That somewhere is god. Well eventually people got fed up and said, you are using a redundant feature when appealing to a god. We will take the universe as the first cause, if god doesnt need a first cause then the universe doesn't either.

Before one understands this, one needs to understand that the universe existed before the big bang, just not in this state. So indeed, the feature of a God is an outdated and redundant idea in terms of explaining the universe being here as opposed to it not being here.

[boris010666]

The main problem I have with understanding the concept of a God, an omnipotent, all knowing being that created the universe, is that he would have to be pretty complex himself.

Let me back up. If the universe is so complex that it needs a creator, wouldn't God be so complex that He also needs a creator?

Even from early childhood, I have often pondered this question myself, and the answer is in the Bible: "I AM the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End." But it is the beginning and the end of His creation He is referring to, NOT His self existence! He has always been. There is no way mankind can fathom this, because for every cause, there is an effect. Life exists because LIFE Created life.

Think of it this way: You're standing in front of a mirror and behind you there is a mirror as well. If you keep adjusting your line of sight, you can see multiple reflections of yourself because the light continues to bounce back and forth from each mirror......forever..... and you are the "cause" of that image of yourself. And even though you can't see it, it goes on into infinity and you are the starting point.

For our existence, God is the starting point. He created us in His image, and He can see every reflection, starting with Himself, on through infinity. And yes, He is very comlex, more than we'll ever know in this life. And the critics of His self-existence will continue to assert that in His complexity, He needs a "creator." Well, then the creator of the Almighty must be MORE complex and even MORE Almighty.....and then that creator's creator must be even.....!!!!!!!!!

Just remember that our Lord God tell us in His word, the Bible, "I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NO OTHER!" No one needs to be a rocket scientist to have faith in the Lord. He doesn't expect us to understand, He wants us to have FAITH!

[Chad]

Just remember that our Lord God tell us in His word, the Bible, "I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NO OTHER!" No one needs to be a rocket scientist to have faith in the Lord. He doesn't expect us to understand, He wants us to have FAITH!

The problem with this is that it becomes circular. You're using the bible as proof of the bible.

[QED]

Hello boris! Welcome to DC&R.

Even from early childhood, I have often pondered this question myself, and the answer is in the Bible: "I AM the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End." But it is the beginning and the end of His creation He is referring to, NOT His self existence! He has always been. There is no way mankind can fathom this, because for every cause, there is an effect. Life exists because LIFE Created life.

Mankind is certainly presented with a paradox here, but then our experiences are necessarily restricted to a particular scale, one among many, which almost certainly presents us with a "distorted view" of the full breadth and depth of nature. Causality is something apparentely firm at our level, but it evidently takes on an unexpected degree of flexibility at the microscopic, Quantum, level. Events at this level necessarily dictate the processes of nature and probably played a pivotal role in determining the very origins of nature and there, perhaps, lies the heart of this paradox.

I personally think that all the ideas embedded in the bible and in all other classical thought prior to the discovery of the "New Physics" of the Sub-atomic world are the inevitable reflections of this slightly distorted view. In all matters of philosophy of this sort, thinking has typically centered around man and his propensities for purposeful creativity and the language of meaning. This I think predisposes us to look for and find these things in nature -- much as we look for and see faces in clouds and rocks etc.

Think of it this way: You're standing in front of a mirror and behind you there is a mirror as well. If you keep adjusting your line of sight, you can see multiple reflections of yourself because the light continues to bounce back and forth from each mirror......forever..... and you are the "cause" of that image of yourself. And even though you can't see it, it goes on into infinity and you are the starting point.

Even in principle (given the finite nature of the Planckian quantities) such infinities cannot exist. The image you refer to breaks down (for other reasons long before the Planck scale is reached). Again, only in pure thought can we achieve such a scenario. The relevance of such thought is, in reality, an unknown quantity.

Just remember that our Lord God tell us in His word, the Bible, "I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NO OTHER!" No one needs to be a rocket scientist to have faith in the Lord. He doesn't expect us to understand, He wants us to have FAITH!

This argument reminds me of my Son when he catches me out with the old "pinch and a punch for the first of the month" routine. It's the "and no returns!" clause that seals it. Whosoever first issues such a statement is gaining all credibility simply from being the first to claim it for themselves. If we were to dig up a more ancient text from a civilization who worshipped other God(s) proclaiming the same thing, would they not gain precedence?

[Cathar1950]

boris010666 wrote:

Even from early childhood, I have often pondered this question myself, and the answer is in the Bible: "I AM the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End." But it is the beginning and the end of His creation He is referring to, NOT His self existence! He has always been. There is no way mankind can fathom this, because for every cause, there is an effect. Life exists because LIFE Created life.

The Bible gives an answer or maybe better many answers but there are many outside of the bible that are also plausible but also some like the bible which are a matter of belief on fact. When a writer describes God as and says God said I am the beginning and the end is all we really have to go on. What God is referring to in the statement is beyond the scope of the reading and has been reinterpreted into the text as you are doing. He says that he is the beginning and the end and offers no other information concerning his existence. He does not state he has always been in the text. If mankind cannot fathom the meaning then what relevance does it have except as pure apologetics and speculation?
If Life created life then what created Life?
QED:

Mankind is certainly presented with a paradox here, but then our experiences are necessarily restricted to a particular scale, one among many, which almost certainly presents us with a "distorted view" of the full breadth and depth of nature. Causality is something apparentely firm at our level, but it evidently takes on an unexpected degree of flexibility at the microscopic, Quantum, level. Events at this level necessarily dictate the processes of nature and probably played a pivotal role in determining the very origins of nature and there, perhaps, lies the heart of this paradox.

This is an important point that seems often overlooked. Paradoxes seem to show us the limits to our models and not that the universe is unknowable.

boris010666 wrote:

Just remember that our Lord God tell us in His word, the Bible, "I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NO OTHER!" No one needs to be a rocket scientist to have faith in the Lord. He doesn't expect us to understand, He wants us to have FAITH!

I see the problem ultimately is that this scenario leaves us open to the object of faith to be arbitrary and historically contingent.
First you assume an ”our Lord God” and that God is yours on the other hand you don’t expect to understand which leave a question concerning what is “our”, what is “God”: and what is “Lord”. These ideas are assumed in your system and not, by you own admission, understandable. You also assume the bible is God’s word which is a mater of faith and again not understandable. No one needs to be a rocket scientist to not understand something. It seems faith becomes rather arbitrary and some what a-historical while only being expressed in a historical setting.

[Sleepy]

Being new to this forum I will keep this brief.

If God exists and we assume he created the universe
If this universe has properties of space and time

Then we assume that God must have created space and time. This leaves us with two possibilities.

One - God only created space and he is limited to time. Hence he would indeed either have to be infinite within the continuity of time or need a designer himself. However being that God himself supposedly would be limited to time this would suggest that whatever made time made God. This leads to a designer anyway which leads me to my second option.

Two - God created space and time. If God made time then the question of his origin becomes very difficult to handle. If God is timeless then he has no origin, He is. To a bible believer this becomes apparent when God describes himself as I am. He is self existent. This brings its own difficult questions such as... If God is timeless how and when did he decide to create time? (which is a self destructive question because it assumes time to be able to initiate it) A more interesting question is, if God created time and is therefore outside of it, how does he think?

I think the answer to those last two questions is 'God knows'.

When thinking of other worlds or other dimensions, it is possible to render the question of the origin of God both irrelevant and unanswerable. Fascinating.

[Grumpy]

Sleepy

If God exists and we assume he created the universe
If this universe has properties of space and time

Then we assume that God must have created space and time. This leaves us with two possibilities.

Only IF we assume god exists.

Why should we assume any such outlandish notion without evidence???

IF(big word, that "if") we go by the valid objective evidence there is no reason to inject the concept of a god onto the reality we see. This is true whether we wished there was a sugardaddy in the sky or not. There are a lot of things I might wish for that would make my reality more pleasant(large chunks of cash and trophy girlfriends being two of my favorites)but I see no evidence leading me to expect either, but both seem much more likely than a whole supernatural realm.

Grumpy

[boris010666]

Sleepy

If God exists and we assume he created the universe
If this universe has properties of space and time

Then we assume that God must have created space and time. This leaves us with two possibilities.

Grumpy wrote:

Only IF we assume god exists.

Why should we assume any such outlandish notion without evidence???

IF(big word, that "if") we go by the valid objective evidence there is no reason to inject the concept of a god onto the reality we see.

Grumpy

But in reality, you look at variations within species and call it microevolution, you assume the concepts of evolution such as macro, stellar, chemical, etc., are true! In my opinion, it takes a lot more faith to believe that we came from a rock 4.5 billion years ago than to believe that there is a God!