Complexity - The amount of information in a certain volume.
It seems that the dictionary definition is simply "having many parts". I could have played it safe and used such a definition. The reason why I proposed this alternate definition is that I wanted to encourage you guys to think about the information conveyed by parts. In other words, a modern car engine has more parts (I assume) than a car engine from 1900. The same-sized engine block therefore contains more information in a modern car.
You can accuse me of making up my own definitions, but I don't believe I'm actually doing that. I'm simply rephrasing the existing definition, which seemed slanted towards describing physical objects. I believe that the original definition works for my argument too, however.
To restate my assertion one more time using the precise dictionary definition of the word, "A brain does not increase in 'the number of parts it has' when it is thinking about something complex." I find this statement to be a poor representation of what I was trying to say, but it is indisputably true nonetheless.
On the subject of information, I have to retract my statement. I wasn't thinking clearly about what I know about information theory and noise vs. information. It's not really true that a network with random values has the same amount of information as a network that is storing something useful like a phone book. I don't know why I said that, I guess I need to get more sleep.
That being said, I don't really think this affects my suggestion. It was my feeling from the beginning that it was not necessary to argue the definitions of these terms. My point was that a creator is not adding considerable complexity to the scenario if the universe is essentially replacing an existing, equally-complex part of the creator. This is a very simple point that shouldn't require arguments over words because the terms are self-defining in that statement. The only objection to this idea that I can think of is that it pushes back the development of our universe's complexity to a "god universe" where this god evolved naturally, then made us deliberately. See below.
It is your problem since you are proposing it. Also, you aren't commenting on probablity, but simply arguing from incredulity.
I'm not arguing that the "something from nothing" hypothesis is incredible (as in, "unbelievable"), but simply pointing out that it's arrogant of humans to think they really have already, at this primitive stage of science, worked out the answer to how the universe got here. We don't know nearly enough to say that such a scientific idea is probable, only that it's possible, let alone do we know enough to say that the idea of a creator is less possible.
This forum is for discussion and not for conducting scientific research or even debating academically, so I feel totally justified in stating my personal opinions here regardless of whether they are currently testable. You are free to deride these ideas, of course. It doesn't really bother me because I know that you guys have allergic reactions to anything that smacks of mystical thinking.
I generally agree with you on that count, but I thought I would bring up an alternative viewpoint as a basic philosophical exercise. In hindsight I wish I never spoke up, since I really didn't want to spend hours defending a viewpoint that I'm not strongly attached to.