Infinite Regression and Irreducible Complexity Question

Josh Clarke
Superfan
Josh Clarke's picture
Posts: 107
Joined: 2008-01-27
User is offlineOffline
Infinite Regression and Irreducible Complexity Question

So a friend and I were talking and I brought up "If God made everything, he must be more complex, what made God?" and he brought up "Things can become more complex, look at evolution"

 

Someone educate me.

 

Laughing out loud


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
what made God?

"what made God?"

Funny that he merely skipped over your infinite regress question(which is a severe problem for theistic arguments) and just asked you another question to change the topic.

This argument of "things can become more complex" is a complete non sequitir from your original question of what made God, and does not attempt to answer or refute a question or argument but merely states that complexity exists(which is not an earth-shattering raising of your consciousness I hope).

For irreducible complexity, the eye is most commonly used as an example of something that is irreducibly complex and shown as a perfect creation.

Here are a couple Dawkins videos about irreducible complexity and the eye

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUOpaFVgKPw&feature=related

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb2fjftZrkE&feature=related

If you want an in depth explanation of diversity, complexity, and how they relate to evolution try this:its an hour long

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFT7YUWSQbk

 

 

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


Josh Clarke
Superfan
Josh Clarke's picture
Posts: 107
Joined: 2008-01-27
User is offlineOffline
Misunderstanding

lol, my friends hardcore atheist too, he just is really good at looking at both sides. What he was trying to say is that basically that things can start out simple and end in something more complex, therefor if God is all complex, then something even simpler than he could have created him as we were created from primordial ooze.

 

he was saying that it's not fair to ignore the fact that we are saying that we came from something less complex than ourselves, so if there is a God what says the same rules couldn't apply to him.

We pop theist like Orville Redenbacher!


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
What you are really trying

What you are really trying to do is to reason a way into finding out if this "god" can fit into a box with specific notions that we already deem plausible(more complex things came from simple things). It sounds like this is a very roundabout question that boils down to "what is the nature of God." Was he created, did he evolve, was he not always perfect in the sense that we think of as God? I would say it is extremely hard to define something of which there is no evidence of existence for that something.

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2386
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Concepts

The concept of a god/religion began when small hunter-gatherer groups had time on thier hands when not worrying about the next meal. The god idea started simple enough, likely with a concept we would call LUCK (Why wolf kill Grog and not me?). It evloved into itemized concepts, (God of lightning.....god of the wind.....god of...etc.) from there it evolved into more complex religions we are embarrased by today. Linguistic studies point out language came first, about 45,000 years ago, with god concepts about 5,000 years later. No one said evolution was fast.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:Linguistic

Jeffrick wrote:

Linguistic studies point out language came first, about 45,000 years ago, with god concepts about 5,000 years later. No one said evolution was fast.

 

I hadn't heard that before, do you have a reference or something on that. I have read some things on early religions, but 5000(EDIT-Oops you meant 40,000) years sounds a bit too recent. Do they have evidence that language predated religion, god, belief in afterlife. I thought Neanderthals(okay not necessarily proven human precedents) and CroMagnon peoples, among other prehistoric hominids, showed evidence of burial and flowers in their graves  which most researchers took as a belief in the afterlife(religion).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_religion

 

 

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2386
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Linguistics

I must appologize for not being able to do links like everyone else can seem to do. But you got me on my favorite subject. I do not automaticly assume burrying someone you love with flowers and thier personal possesions is an act of religion versus a simple act of honoring the departed. The wikipedia entry agrees with me on this point in its first two lines, they slant towards religion - I may be too much the athiest. Animal 'whorship' as described in the Kalahari might better be described as the pre-game gab-fest before the big hunt. This shows honor for or understanding of the animals they wish to eat, I would not call that a religion; it would evolve into religion. Religion as the concept we understand today can't exist without verbal language, try describing your latest dream in full detail, useing only sign language, and make your audience understand every nuiance. Neanderthals never had the ability of speach, I bet it led to thier extinction, they coúldn't organize the ideals on how to avoid extinction with sign language alone. The Cro-magnons had the one thing other homanids and primates never had, a voice box. This larynx was NOT AN ASSET for the first 200,000 years (more likely it evolved in over the 200,000 years) With a larynx you can choke to death on food!! Neanderthals and primates can't do that, only modern humans have this detriment to survival, a detriment unless you can use it to verbalize organized ideals. According to experts human speach has been around about 45,000 years give or take a few thousand. I think much longer but I'm no expert. Earliest or oldest words relate to the family circle and basic survival, one syllable words dominate. Meny generations later religious ideals come along with thier two and more syllable words. One day I hope science can find the genome in DNA that is the voice box, from that human speach can be more accurately dated.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Josh Clarke
Superfan
Josh Clarke's picture
Posts: 107
Joined: 2008-01-27
User is offlineOffline
... no ...

The question at hand has nothing to do with IF some god exist, it has to do with what is the difference between life as we know it evolving (becoming more complex) and the argument that we like to use alot "Well if some god created us, what/who created  the god", I'm just saying could the rules we live and grow by not apply to some sort of god? What if this said god started out as something very simple, more simple than I know how to explain, and over a HUGE amount of time (according to the Christians, their god has ALWAYS been) maybe said god "evolved"? Just something a friend brought up.

We pop theist like Orville Redenbacher!


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Josh Clarke wrote:I'm just

Josh Clarke wrote:
I'm just saying could the rules we live and grow by not apply to some sort of god? What if this said god started out as something very simple, more simple than I know how to explain, and over a HUGE amount of time (according to the Christians, their god has ALWAYS been) maybe said god "evolved"? Just something a friend brought up.

It's a cute idea, and I think it's one Dawkins entertained when he was interviewed for Expelled (or "Crossroads&quotEye-wink. Unfortunately, it still ends up with a being of supernatural capacity. Once you take the though experiment into the realm of the supernatural, that's when I start having a problem with it. todangst did a thorough piece on that, with the conclusion that as soon as you enter the realm of the supernatural, natural rules don't apply. That is, if we imagine this creature that evolved "so much" that it developed the capacity to create a universe (or whatever arbitrary powers your friend wants to assign to this evolved god), then that creature can't be discussed with the same rules as you'd talk about an elephant, for example.

But it's still a cute idea. There certainly could exist some super-sentient being that seeds life on planets or something. But (to use the now-tired refrain) until evidence pops up that there is such a thing, I'd say it's idle chat.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Josh Clarke
Superfan
Josh Clarke's picture
Posts: 107
Joined: 2008-01-27
User is offlineOffline
Yeah!

That was basically my thoughts on the subject.

 

I'm trying to get my friend to make an account here, he always brings up good questions and I figure SOME people here might appreciate some good ones. Others would probably get mad and call him a theist because he is asking "What if things aren't how we want them to be". But he isn't, he just really likes to argue both sides, regardless of which side he agrees with. (aka he wants truth). I have noticed alot of "Cheerleading parrots" that call themselves atheist but all they know is what other people have said, and they go around saying it to others but not really understanding what it means.

 

Anyways, no hard feelings anyone.

We pop theist like Orville Redenbacher!


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Josh Clarke wrote:I'm trying

Josh Clarke wrote:
I'm trying to get my friend to make an account here, he always brings up good questions and I figure SOME people here might appreciate some good ones. Others would probably get mad and call him a theist because he is asking "What if things aren't how we want them to be". But he isn't, he just really likes to argue both sides, regardless of which side he agrees with. (aka he wants truth)

If he's good at arguing, yeah, get him to sign up. I do this for fun, and as far as theistic debate goes, this is the big show. He won't find a more difficult arena to argue theism, so ask him why he wouldn't want to test his skill.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Josh Clarke
Superfan
Josh Clarke's picture
Posts: 107
Joined: 2008-01-27
User is offlineOffline
ha

He doesn't want to argue that there is a god, he just likes to take whatever it is that you say, turn it around, and apply it to what your trying to disprove with it somehow. I will ask him if he wants to make one, who knows.

 

I like to debate with him because he helps me see that what i'm saying sometimes makes no sense. Laughing out loud

We pop theist like Orville Redenbacher!


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Josh Clarke wrote:He doesn't

Josh Clarke wrote:
He doesn't want to argue that there is a god, he just likes to take whatever it is that you say, turn it around, and apply it to what your trying to disprove with it somehow. I will ask him if he wants to make one, who knows.

"Proof" is a funny thing, since it seems to never happen outside of math and philosophy, and even then, proofs are looked at with a great deal of skepticism. So disproving doesn't really take that much effort if you know which questions to ask.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Josh Clarke wrote:There is a

Josh Clarke wrote:

There is a difference between a Theory and a Hypothesis. Stop saying something is "Just a Theory"! You're silly.

It was actually your sig that caught my attention here. It's true, and obviously you're referring to evolution is just a theory. Thing is, christians aren't just mixing up hypothesis and theory, but theory and theory.

Like a lot of words I would imagine, it has a layman and scientific term:

Layman: Used to signify a opinion or idea, not neccesarily backed with facts. In this context, it's easy to see why theists make this claim.

Scientific: A testable model, capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For scientists, fact and theory do not stand in opposition. It is something that has been tested and has backing evidence. With this correct definition, the argument for evolution is much stronger.

(Paraphrased from wiki)

 

I don't think that many people even know the difference between a hypothesis and theory. It's just they don't bother to look things up.

 

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.