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.
So why does creator+creation have to be more complex than simply creator or creation?
You claim that a creator created the entire universe which by definition means that the creator must be more complex than its creation. Hence a universe plus creator is more complex. Anything you say to claim that an infinitely powerful creator (who can create a universe) is not complex are merely weasel words.
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.
When the Rasor has given a clean shave, it has not gotten rid of the hair. There is more under the skin that does not meet the eye.
The point is that the complexity (or how much science has yet to uncover) of the natural universe is the same for everyone, no matter your beliefs regarding gods. The natural universe that you look at is the same one I look at. You however choose to make it infinitely more complex by adding an infinitely powerful creator being to that picture.
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.
Theory that the Acceleration of the universal expansion derives it's energy from the void that it expands into; the total energy content of the universe is increasing, feeding the acceleration. article in one of the science journals, nature, Sci AM or new scientist.
Coded logic,
Prologos is probably talking about dark energy, as usual Prologos doesn't really understand what s/he is quoting.
The universe doesn't expand into a void, it's the universe itself that is expanding. One hypothesis (Prologos talks about this as if it is accepted scientific fact) is that dark energy is the thing that keeps the universe expanding, it is supposed to do this by providing a balancing negative force to the energy equations. Without this negative energy the equations don't add up to a stable universe. This is because an expanding universe would mean that energy is constantly being created. Dark energy is a fudge factor for a mechanism we don't yet understand.
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.
Occam's Razor is not useful in a situation where we lack so little knowledge. Besides that, if a god exists, then the universe's degree of complexity simply is a result of the pre-existing complexity in his mind, and therefore the sum complexity of god+universe is not greater.
Occam's razor is always useful. 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.
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.
However you want to cut it, adding a creator to the picture makes it needlessly more complex.
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.
It's as complex as it needs to be and as simple as it can be.
honestly, do you??
and if you do, isn't that hypocritical!.
Thank Darwin for that!
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.
Personally, I look at it this way; There are two ways of looking at this problem. The natural universe as we know it is the same for the theist, deist or atheist. If you take that universe and add any kind of supernatural creator (as the theist or desit must) then you have just made your picture of the universe almost infinitely more complex.
natural universe
natural universe plus incredibly powerful creator that can create universes.
Ask yourself which of these two world views is simplest? Occam's razor does the rest.
pakistani blasphemy law used against jehovahas witnesses.https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2014/_05/article_3156846.html/bangalore.
It just goes to show there is a very good religious reason to have an entirely secular government and legislature.
i know this is going to come up in a conversation shortly, how would you respond to this?
i've had it said to me before, specifically about health, one week wine/eggs/milk/axle grease is good for you, next week it's not..
You would have to go quite a long way back in time to find a scientific theory being completely overturned. Usually science is modified rather than overturned. But the thing is that the ability of science to self correct is one of the good things about science. If you think that you can prove a scientific theory is wrong all you have to do is show sufficient evidence to prove your case to your peers.
It is important to distinguish between 'hard' science and the 'softer' sciences, one of the examples given was healthy foodstuffs. Anyone can call themselves a 'nutritionist' and hence these 'nutritionists' can make any sort of claim and not have to back it up with evidence.
