God's complexity

philologos

I've been over at the A&A section again, and I was wondering what your take would be on this issue, that I hadn't really thought of before.

If God is complex, where does His complexity arise from?

Personally, I would hold that God has existed eternally, but if God is the only, where did the complexity that He had come from? Or was it just what it was?

nozzferrahhtoo

I thought the standard reply to this by people like Plantinga for example is that god is not complex, but simple?

kelly1

Yes, God is simple in the sense that He is not composed of parts. If God were composed of parts, how would the parts have come together and this would imply that God is subject to change.

Splendour

Where is the idea that God is complex coming from? I don't think God is complex at all but I think men's minds can make God out to be complex.

MagicMarker

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, God is simple in the sense that He is not composed of parts. If God were composed of parts, how would the parts have come together and this would imply that God is subject to change.

Erm, okay.

So what is he made of?

Fanny Cradock

MagicMarker wrote: »

Erm, okay.

So what is he made of?

I don't think God can be made of anything. God simply is.

kelly1

Splendour wrote: »

Where is the idea that God is complex coming from? I don't think God is complex at all but I think men's minds can make God out to be complex.

People like Richard Dawkins who argues along the lines that that He must be very complex if He's so intelligent. Maybe he thinks God has physical brain?

MagicMarker wrote: »

Erm, okay.
So what is he made of?

some kind of "spiritual" substance, the nature of which we can't really grasp because we're only familiar with created physical matter. Best I can do

philologos

I think the point was if God has made a complex world, that God Himself must be complex in order to create such a complex world.

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

I think the point was if God has made a complex world, that God Himself must be complex in order to create such a complex world.

Exactly, a designer must be more complex than the complexity of his design.

Whether God has two arms and legs or is a mere cloud of magic dust is irrelevant really.

PDN

MagicMarker wrote: »

Exactly, a designer must be more complex than the complexity of his design.

Says who?

MagicMarker

PDN wrote: »

Says who?

Says common sense.

Ush1

He's referring to the the cosmological arguement.

PDN

Ush1 wrote: »

He's referring to the the cosmological arguement.

The cosmological argument states that everything must have a first cause. It does not refer to complexity.

Perhaps you are confusing it with the teleological argument (otherwise known as the argument from design)? However, while the teleological argument argues that complexity may infer a designer, it does not specify that the designer must be more complex than the thing which it designs.

MagicMarker

So to clarify, everyone is saying that God is not as complex as his creation?

PDN

MagicMarker wrote: »

So to clarify, everyone is saying that God is not as complex as his creation?

I don't think we know whether He is or not. I simply object to dogmatic assertions that He must be.

Ush1

PDN wrote: »

The cosmological argument states that everything must have a first cause. It does not refer to complexity.

Perhaps you are confusing it with the teleological argument (otherwise known as the argument from design)? However, while the teleological argument argues that complexity may infer a designer, it does not specify that the designer must be more complex than the thing which it designs.

If you see the thread in A & A it quickly regresses to the cosmological arguement. i.e If God answers prayers and controls all particles in the universe, he would need a very complex explanation of his own.

Splendour

kelly1 wrote: »

People like Richard Dawkins who argues along the lines that that He must be very complex if He's so intelligent. Maybe he thinks God has physical brain?

But one can surely be intelligent and simplistic without being complex? Maybe that's why Dawkins just doesn't get it; his too 'intelligent' mind can't accept the simple Christian message.

MagicMarker

PDN wrote: »

I don't think we know whether He is or not. I simply object to dogmatic assertions that He must be.

Can you honestly not see the logic of this assertion?

Splendour

Ush1 wrote: »

If you see the thread in A & A it quickly regresses to the cosmological arguement. i.e If God answers prayers and controls all particles in the universe, he would need a very complex explanation of his own.

What's complex to us is in all probability quite straightforward to God.

This is like a man trying to figure out the mind of a woman; in her mind she knows what she's thinking but to his mind he finds her extremely complex. Difference being God doesn't expect us to know what he's thinking

MagicMarker

Splendour wrote: »

What's complex to us is in all probability quite straightforward to God.

Which would mean that God is more complex than his creation, which leads us back to the original question.

Ush1

Splendour wrote: »

What's complex to us is in all probability quite straightforward to God.

This is like a man trying to figure out the mind of a woman; in her mind she knows what she's thinking but to his mind he finds her extremely complex. Difference being God doesn't expect us to know what he's thinking

There is nothing probable about the existence of God.

I'm gonna leave this here as I'm not getting involved in it!:)

Splendour

MagicMarker wrote: »

Which would mean that God is more complex than his creation, which leads us back to the original question.

Worded that wrong. What I meant to say was what 'appears' to be complex to our minds is more than likely not complex in the least to God. For instance in Genesis the creation reads like it was a piece of cake to make the world. Therefore if God is not complex then to him the world is not complex. To us it can be total confusion and complexity.

PDN

Ush1 wrote: »

If you see the thread in A & A it quickly regresses to the cosmological arguement. i.e If God answers prayers and controls all particles in the universe, he would need a very complex explanation of his own.

I prefer to talk about reason and logic rather than about assertions made in the A&A Forum.

PDN

MagicMarker wrote: »

Can you honestly not see the logic of this assertion?

No. It certainly does not seem to be self-evident from a logical or philosophical standpoint.

Why can a designer not design something more complex than itself?

philologos

OK - One can agree that God's substance isn't of necessity complex, but one would have to agree that God's intellect (omniscience) and power (omnipotent) are.

I have to admit, it does seem nonsensical to ask where did ones knowledge, of what they contrived come from. The knowledge evidently comes from their own intuition. God knows what He created, precisely because He created it. What author does not know about what they have written? What artist does not know about what they have painted?

Likewise, it is the same in respect to asking about where did ones power come from, particularly if God was an uncontended being. This is a bit more difficult I think.

So, where we seem to be at is, that God is of simple substance, but of abundant knowledge about His own Creation, and power for the above reasons.

This is seeming a bit clearer now I must admit.

MagicMarker

Splendour wrote: »

Worded that wrong. What I meant to say was what 'appears' to be complex to our minds is more than likely not complex in the least to God. For instance in Genesis the creation reads like it was a piece of cake to make the world. Therefore if God is not complex then to him the world is not complex. To us it can be total confusion and complexity.

If the world is not complex to God then that would still mean that he is more complex than the world. It doesn't really matter how you word it, the same conclusion will always be met.

Ush1

PDN wrote: »

I prefer to talk about reason and logic rather than about assertions made in the A&A Forum.

The A&A Forum has quite alot of logic therein, perhaps you should check it out.;)

I'm not bothered spewing the exact same thing here.

dvpower

MagicMarker wrote: »

So to clarify, everyone is saying that God is not as complex as his creation?

MagicMarker wrote: »

Which would mean that God is more complex than his creation, which leads us back to the original question.

MagicMarker wrote: »

If the world is not complex to God then that would still mean that he is more complex than the world. It doesn't really matter how you word it, the same conclusion will always be met.

God is supernatural, so the usual rules of nature don't apply. God just is (or isn't, depending on your perspective).

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

OK - One can agree that God's substance isn't of necessity complex, but one would have to agree that God's intellect (omniscience) and power (omnipotent) are. .

I don't see that these characteristics are necessarily complex.

For example, God sees and knows everything at once. For Him there is no past, present or future, no wondering what's around the corner, no hedging his bets "just in case", no false memories. Everything simply is and is known to be. Do you see how that may be gloriously simple, while we get ourselves bogged down in the complexities of time and tense?

philologos

PDN wrote: »

I don't see that these characteristics are necessarily complex.

The concepts, themselves of knowing, and having power, are themselves quite simple. The amount of content involved in such knowledge is probably complex, but only in comparison to ourselves. The same is probably true of the power.

It seems reasonable, that one would have knowledge about what one has created.

The power to be able to make such a vast and complex universe is probably the more difficult of the two. But then again, power isn't always "bestowed", it can be sometimes assumed.

dvpower

PDN wrote: »

I don't see that these characteristics are necessarily complex.

For example, God sees and knows everything at once. For Him there is no past, present or future, no wondering what's around the corner, no hedging his bets "just in case", no false memories. Everything simply is and is known to be. Do you see how that may be gloriously simple, while we get ourselves bogged down in the complexities of time and tense?

That sounds simple in the same way as the Apple IPhone is simple; it has a simple interface that everyone can understand, but we all understand that its actually really complex.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

The power to be able to make such a vast and complex universe is probably the more difficult of the two. But then again, power isn't always "bestowed", it can be sometimes assumed.

Again, I think God's omnipotence may be stunningly simple. He simply is, and when He wills something then it happens. He doesn't have to exert Himself, no muscles or brain cells are involved, it may all be very simple indeed.

PDN

dvpower wrote: »

That sounds simple in the same way as the Apple IPhone is simple; it has a simple interface that everyone can understand, but we all understand that its actually really complex.

But it's only complex because it is striving to get the most out of components and materials that are subject to limitations and whose properties sometimes act against each other. So, for example, a chip can only hold a finite amount of information, or a certain process creates heat which might damage another component, therefore necessitating the need for cooling etc. Take away those limitations and inherent clashes and the IPhone could be so much simpler.

The fact is our finite minds can only dimly imagine the concept of an Infinite God - so we can only speculate - but there is no logical or philosophical necessity for God to be complex.

Klingon Hamlet

Perhaps you may consider the possibility that applying our own ideas of complexity to a being that cannot be thoroughly analysed, is like discussing the sensation of being sucked into a black hole. Hypothesise to your hearts' content, but our minds could not begin to comprehend the nature of the creator of the multiverse*.

*Do you believe God transcends all parallel universes, and therfore sees every possible eventuality occuring simultaneously...and would this explain the complete lack of compassion shown us by the big dude in the ether? Are we to him merely following one path in an infinite sprawl of paths, therefore our actions, intentions and destinations are trivial and without worth, as are we?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Says who?

Well God apparently.

Otherwise there would be no need to create complex things (like us) out of similar parts.

It seems some rather ridiculous that if something as powerful and omnipotent as God can exist without requiring complexity that he would then build a world like ours using simple things in ever more complex arrangements.

What purpose would that serve? If this is unnecessary why would an all powerful being do it in the first place?

Doesn't our mere existence demonstrate the requirement for complexity?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well God apparently.

Otherwise there would be no need to create complex things (like us) out of similar parts.

It seems some rather ridiculous that if something as powerful and omnipotent as God can exist without requiring complexity that he would then build a world like ours using simple things in ever more complex arrangements.

What purpose would that serve? If this is unnecessary why would an all powerful being do it in the first place?

Doesn't our mere existence demonstrate the requirement for complexity?

Not at all. You are falling into the all too common trap of discussiong an Infinite Being as if He was like us only magnified x number of times.

An omnipotent being can build something that is simple or complex, but since He is omnipotent there is no effort involved. It is as easy for Him to create a single-celled amoeba as it is for Him to create a giraffe - but none of that implies that He Himself is complex.

He doesn't need a purpose to do anything. He does what He wants.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It is as easy for Him to create a single-celled amoeba as it is for Him to create a giraffe

That PDN is the point. It is as easy for him to create humans as simple as God as it is for him to create us complex as we are.

There is no need for God to create beings from complexity if that is not a natural law or requirement. If a being of infinite power and ability can be the simplest thing imaginable then there is no need for a being of finite power and ability to be complex. We can be even simpler than God, though if God is the simplest thing possible that in itself poses a problem.

Thus our complexity is totally unnecessary. Not only that but unnecessary on a grand scale of ridiculousness since we are far more complex than other things in the universe such as rocks.

Of course you can always fall back on the tried and tested God can do what he likes position but that is only an argument against proving anything (you can't logically prove God didn't do something stupid since he can do anything), it doesn't remove the ridiculousness of it all.

We end up being Rube Goldberg machines, overly complex to the point of silliness. Does that sound like your god, given that arguments on both side can't prove anything about God and are merely appeals to reason?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

That PDN is the point. It is as easy for him to create humans as simple as God as it is for him to create us complex as we are.

There is no need for God to create beings from complexity if that is not a natural law or requirement. If a being of infinite power and ability can be the simplest thing imaginable then there is no need for a being of finite power and ability to be complex. We can be even simpler than God, though if God is the simplest thing possible that in itself poses a problem.

Thus our complexity is totally unnecessary. Not only that but unnecessary on a grand scale of ridiculousness since we are far more complex than other things in the universe such as rocks.

Of course you can always fall back on the tried and tested God can do what he likes position but that is only an argument against proving anything (you can't logically prove God didn't do something stupid since he can do anything), it doesn't remove the ridiculousness of it all.

We end up being Rube Goldberg machines, overly complex to the point of silliness. Does that sound like your god, given that arguments on both side can't prove anything about God and are merely appeals to reason?

I've bold-faced the major flaws in your reasoning.

Using words like "need" or "grand scale" in relation to God is meaningless. You might as well ask what would be the purpose in creating simple things when it just as easy for Him to make something complex.

Inferring complexity in God from complexity in His creation is a leap of logic. You might inuitively feel it should be so - but such intuition counts for nothing.

Now, remember I'm not arguing that God is necessarily simple. He may be incredible simple or He may be incredibly complex - but we can make no valid inference either way from observing the Creation of an omnipotent Being. The only way we can know such things about God is if He chooses to make them known through revelation.

Ush1

Here is the major flaw in your reasoning.

PDN wrote: »

But it's only complex because it is striving to get the most out of components and materials that are subject to limitations and whose properties sometimes act against each other. So, for example, a chip can only hold a finite amount of information, or a certain process creates heat which might damage another component, therefore necessitating the need for cooling etc.

Here you are attempting to explain organised complexity.

PDN wrote: »

Take away those limitations and inherent clashes and the IPhone could be so much simpler.

The fact is our finite minds can only dimly imagine the concept of an Infinite God - so we can only speculate - but there is no logical or philosophical necessity for God to be complex.

Here you are explaining nothing. Indeed, it is a failure of an explanation.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I've bold-faced the major flaws in your reasoning.

No offense but I don't think you are following my reasoning.

You are focusing purely on the effort required by God to make something, which is irrelevant since as you say anything God does requires no effort.

PDN wrote: »

Using words like "need" or "grand scale" in relation to God is meaningless. You might as well ask what would be the purpose in creating simple things when it just as easy for Him to make something complex.

You could ask that but that would be a bit silly. You are focusing purely on the effort required to make something, and ignoring the effort to do the thing it is made it for.

By definition simplicity is more efficient than complexity. Anything that achieves a goal in more complexity than is necessary is waste.

Not for God to make (as you point out God can do anything as easily as anything else), but in general. If you can do something in 2 steps doing it in 4 is 2 extra pointless steps. Waste.

This is my point. The reason a Rube Goldberg machine is ridiculous is not just because it a takes longer to make. It is because it does things in a far more complex than is necessary and is thus waste. It takes the waste to a ridiculous extreme for humor, but the point is the same.

PDN wrote: »

Inferring complexity in God from complexity in His creation is a leap of logic. You might inuitively feel it should be so - but such intuition counts for nothing.

Like I said none of us here are going to prove God is simple or God is complex. You can say you think God is simple but that is as meaningless.

All I am doing is putting forward an argument why the idea that a simple all powerful being would create a finite yet vastly more complex creation is ridiculous. How unlikely you think it is based on this will depend on how comfortable you are with the idea of a ridiculous God.

You can argue God could still have done it, which is fair enough, but like I said that doesn't explain the ridiculousness.

PDN wrote: »

Now, remember I'm not arguing that God is necessarily simple. He may be incredible simple or He may be incredibly complex - but we can make no valid inference either way from observing the Creation of an omnipotent Being.

Well we can actually, you are just ignoring it.

Creating something that performs a function in a more complex fashion than is necessary is waste. If God is simple and can exist and be all powerful then any creation of God's that is more complex than this yet not as powerful is by definition wasteful.

That is a simple logical deduction.

You are correct that I cannot demonstrate that God was not being wasteful, but then how valid that position is comes back to what you guys think God is in the first place.

PDN

Ush1 wrote: »

Here you are explaining nothing. Indeed, it is a failure of an explanation.

:rolleyes: It can hardly be a failure of an explanation when it doesn't attempt to be an explanation. We can't explain God. How can a finite being hope to comprehend or explain an infinite Being? All we can go on is any revelation that the Infinite being chooses to give us.

However, your post is a failure of a ham sandwich.

Ush1

PDN wrote: »

:rolleyes: It can hardly be a failure of an explanation when it doesn't attempt to be an explanation. We can't explain God. How can a finite being hope to comprehend or explain an infinite Being? All we can go on is any revelation that the Infinite being chooses to give us.

However, your post is a failure of a ham sandwich.

This is why I won't be posting again as your posts have already become glib.

Your post has demonstrated why your stance is totally illogical and not reasonable.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

By definition simplicity is more efficient than complexity. Anything that achieves a goal in more complexity than is necessary is waste.

You just don't get it, do you?

Concepts such as efficiency and waste are only meaningful when we are dealing with finite resources.

Think of it this way, if I am out walking in the hills I can choose to take a big breath of fresh air and shout for joy for no other reason than because I feel like it. Only a moron would argue that I need a reason for behaving in such a way, and that I am being ridiculous for not breathing evenly and speaking in a low voice (which would be a more efficient use of my lungs and of the oxygen in the air). There's so much fresh air in the hills, and so much capacity in my lungs, that concepts of waste and efficiency are irrelevant in that situation.

Now, having said that, the capacity of my lungs, and indeed the oxygen in the air, are finite. So imagine that my lungs were infinte, that the quantity of oxygen was infinite, and that my energy to shout was infinite. What value is there in simplicity or efficiency?

You are talking as if "waste" is inherently bad. As such you are projecting your finite values onto an infinite God.

Like I said none of us here are going to prove God is simple or God is complex. You can say you think God is simple but that is as meaningless.

What I actually said was that we have no way of knowing whether God is simple or complex unless He reveals that to us. So I'm not sure why you would want to put words into my mouth?

Btw, one example of of simplicity and complexity is a Rubik's Cube. The concept of the cube is pretty simple, but solving it can be very complex.

It was wonderful, to see how, after only a few turns, the colors became mixed, apparently in random fashion. It was tremendously satisfying to watch this color parade. Like after a nice walk when you have seen many lovely sights you decide to go home, after a while I decided it was time to go home, let us put the cubes back in order. And it was at that moment that I came face to face with the Big Challenge: What is the way home?" - Erno Rubik

So, Erno Rubik came up with a simple concept, and suddenly realised that he had designed something that was monstrously complex.

How complex?

11 August 2010 Last updated at 10:51 GMT

Rubik's Cube quest for speedy solution comes to an end
By Jonathan Fildes Technology reporter, BBC News
Rubik's Cube The Rubik's Cube was invented in 1974 by a Hungarian architect called Erno Rubik

A 30-year quest to find the fewest number of moves needed to solve any one of the billions of configurations for a Rubik's Cube may have ended.

Any scrambled puzzle can be solved in 20 moves or fewer, researchers claim.

The international team used a bank of computers at Google to help crank through the solutions.

The figure is known as "God's number" because an all-knowing entity would know the optimal number of steps needed to solve the puzzle.

"We now know for certain that the magic number is 20," Professor Morley Davidson, a mathematician from Kent State University, told

The results suggest that there are more than 100 million starting positions - of a possible 43 billion billion - that can be solved in exactly 20 moves.

However, the majority of solutions take between 15 and 19 moves to solve.

Until 1995 researchers thought that the theoretical minimum number of moves to solve the classic puzzle was at least 18 for many positions. Work by mathematician Michael Reid revised the figure to 20 after the discovery of a configuration that could not be cracked in fewer moves.

However, Prof Davidson said that the popular notion that 20 was also the maximum remained. He said this was "pure religion" as no-one had managed to crunch their way through all configurations.

"We were secretly hoping in our tests that there would be one that required 21," he said.

To crunch their way through all of the possible combinations of a Rubik's Cube, the researchers split all of the possibilities into 2.2 billion groups, known as cosets, each containing 20 billion positions.

Prof Davidson said that it would have been "completely hopeless" to try to compute all of the groups. So, to make it more manageable, they reduced it by spotting duplicates and using symmetry to spot other similar combinations.

The team eventually managed to reduce the number to 56 million sets of 20 billion combinations.

Each coset would take a "good PC 20 to 30 seconds to sort", said Prof Davidson, meaning it would take a huge amount of time to compute with a standard desktop PC.

As a result, the team had planned to process the batches on a supercomputer.

"Then Google stepped forward and offered to run the computation," he said.

"We still don't know what machinery they used."

In the first of two phases, the computers were used to crank through as many combinations as possible. However, some still "slipped through the cracks" and required slower desktop software to solve.

As the exercise went on, he said, the probability of there being a combination which required more than 20 moves to solve "dropped into the very low digits".

At the end of the exercise, Prof Davidson and his team said they were convinced the problem had been cracked and that God's number for the Rubik's Cube was 20.

"It's come full circle for me," he said. "Rubik's Cube was an icon of the 80s when I was growing up and was the reason I went into mathematics."

The initial results have already been published online and Prof Davidson said they would now be submitted to peer-reviewed journals.

"People are welcome to verify the code," he said.

However, he said, the team may not be done with the Rubik's Cube just yet.

They might now turn their attention to the four-layered version or could attack other mathematical problems related to the classic cube.

"It's the universal popularity of the puzzle - it's probably the most popular puzzle in human history."

The work was carried out with John Dethridge, an engineer at Google, Herbert Kociemba, a maths teacher and Tomas Rokicki, a programmer from California.

It is perfectly possible, from a logical and philophical standpoint, to believe that complexity can emerge from, or be designed by, something that is more simple.

And, unfortunately, ii does not logically follow that God share's Wicknights aversion to wastefulness.

PDN

Ush1 wrote: »

This is why I won't be posting again as your posts have already become glib.

A loss that we will try to bear with fortitude.

MagicMarker

A rubiks cube is designed for the purpose of complexity. I personally wouldn't say a human brain and all that it entails is simpler than a rubiks cube.

This is all getting a bit ridiculous tbh.

PDN

MagicMarker wrote: »

A rubiks cube is designed for the purpose of complexity.

Not according to Erno Rubik, but heck, what would he know about it?

Morbert

kelly1 wrote: »

People like Richard Dawkins who argues along the lines that that He must be very complex if He's so intelligent. Maybe he thinks God has physical brain?

Dawkins might not have chosen the best words, but he was making a good point. The context of his remarks were regarding the explanatory power of God directly creating life. Life is a complex and mysterious thing, and scientists are trying to solve the mystery. The ID claim that God directly engineered life does nothing to solve that mystery. It only substitutes it for an even greater mystery. Dawkins was highlighting the uselessness of Creationism as a scientific explanation, and the naivety of the teleological argument.

As for whether or not God is simple. We can't really say He is simple. At best, we can say the language we use to describe Him is simple. Though we can't say He is complex either.

philologos

It seems he loses the audience a little towards the end of the argument where he basically puts his lot into the notion that physics must be the same as Darwinian evolution, in that it can be unguided. This is where the argument is lacking I think.

Ash.J.Williams

The Truth is we don't know. God has never revealed himself or informed anybody of his own complexity.
end of thread

MagicMarker

Well considering that we don't know, it's highly coincidental that most of the believers are leaning towards the 'simple' option, considering it means they can basically just ignore the original question.

philologos

The point that Dawkins is trying to make is that it is more reasonable that a simplex being created a complex universe, in pretty much the same way that simplex organisms through evolution / natural selection can become more complex ones. Occam's Razor would lead us to believe that we should rule out unnecessarily complex beings in order to explain our complex.

If God isn't unnecessarily complex, I can see how that would be an issue to the argument.