Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

God's complexity

245

Comments

  • #52
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.

    eh? :confused:

    Can you link to the part where Dawkins say it's more reasonable to believe a simple being created a complex universe?


  • #53
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Can you link to the part where Dawkins say it's more reasonable to believe a simple being created a complex universe?

    Pretty much the whole article. The problem for Dawkins is that if God is complex, we also have to account for his complexity for a cause, in the same way as those who subscribe to the teleological argument subscribe to God as a means of describing the complexity of the universe.
    A central thesis of the argument is that, compared to supernatural abiogenesis, evolution by natural selection requires the supposition of fewer hypothetical processes and thus, according to Occam's razor, a better explanation than the God hypothesis. He cites a paragraph where Richard Swinburne agrees that a simpler explanation is better but reasons that theism is simpler because it only invokes a single substance, God, as a cause and maintainer of every other object.
    The theologians, he writes, demanded that there must be a first cause, which can be given the name God. Dawkins responds that it must have been a simple cause, and he contends that God is not an appropriate name for it, unless God is divested of its normal associations.


    The attributes of the Judeo-Christian God are apparently too complex for such a creation.


    The argument is flawed for it's clear assumption that what is true in biology, must also be true for physics. His argument is based on faith that physics is going to pull through and back up his position. That's pretty lousy reasoning.


  • #54
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.

    The teleological argument, applied to the laws of physics, normally becomes a 'fine tuning' argument. The standard model of particle physics has a lot of nobs that have to be perfectly turned in order to get something resembling our universe. While it's tempting to see this as a sign that God did the tuning, physicists generally believe there is something incorrect about our standard model, and that a deeper, simpler theory is needed. In fact, we know our model has to be incomplete, as it cannot deal with the gravitational field properly. This is what I presume Dawkins is talking about: A physical explanation for all the nobs that are twiddled.


  • #55
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    You could approach this in two ways: 1) God/the motive force exists outside the universe and as such terms constrained within the universe have no meaning to such a motive force. Complexity, time, physicality even consciousness as we know it are all universal terms and bound within them. 2) Good oul universal pantheism. God/the motive force is the universe/multiverse. In which case considering all the information within the universe from the quantum level up(and below), you have all the complexity you require for a "consciousness" to exist. It would allow knowledge of the future and past as a whole. This would also allow both a distant and personal god, which seems to be a stickler for some. If it is the universe then it would notice the death of a wren as much as the death of a star or the thoughts of a human/conscious being.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #56
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    You just don't get it, do you?

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

    No they aren't

    If can do something in 2 steps and you do it in 4 you waste 2.

    That holds even if you do this infinitely forever. It will aways take 2 steps more than it need to. That has nothing to do with finite resources.
    PDN wrote: »
    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.

    Like I said if you want to believe God was just having a laugh, or what ever reason you come up with, that is your prerogative. I can't convince you that your idea of god isn't ridiculous.

    But it doesn't change the facts of the logic.
    PDN wrote: »
    You are talking as if "waste" is inherently bad. As such you are projecting your finite values onto an infinite God.

    The idea that a perfect being would design something that is inefficient and overly complex and wasteful just because he wants to is ridiculous.

    Again if you choose to believe that I can't stop you.

    But the logic is sound. Finite resources has nothing to do with it. Something is either efficient or it isn't. Everything doesn't become efficient by simply giving it infinite resources.
    PDN wrote: »
    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.

    A Rubik cube is not simple compared to a cube, or for that matter a flat 2D shape.

    No offense PDN but I'm not sure you understand the concepts here.
    PDN wrote: »
    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.

    I'm pretty sure Erno Rubik would take offense with the idea that he is more simple than the cube he designed. :)

    Complexity builds up. The Rubix cube is complex because it is made up of simpler parts. Complexity is not designed by something simple, it emerges from the combination of simpler things that by themselves cannot be as complex as what they combine to be. A square is more complex than a line. A cube is more complex than a square. A rubix cube is more complex than a cube.

    That is the way the world works and thus if God exists it is the way God designed the world. If it is not necessary that God has designed an inefficient and wasteful universe. If you are happy with that concept I'm not going to convince you otherwise. To me it is ridiculous when you pair it with the idea that God is omnipotent and perfect.
    PDN wrote: »
    And, unfortunately, ii does not logically follow that God share's Wicknights aversion to wastefulness. :)

    These discussions all end the same because you guys just imagine what ever version of god you like, ignoring any contradictions or absurdities. The joy of theism I guess :)


  • #57
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No they aren't

    If can do something in 2 steps and you do it in 4 you waste 2.

    That holds even if you do this infinitely forever. It will aways take 2 steps more than it need to. That has nothing to do with finite resources.

    Unfortunately your repeating that assertion ad nauseam doesn't make it true.

    The word 'need' has no meaning when used of an omnipotent infinite Being. 'Waste' is only meaningful as a concept if you are referring to a finite resource. Can you really not see this?

    A spaceship can waste fuel, because fuel is finite. But it cannot waste space, because space is infinite. Take away finite restrictions and waste as a concept is neither good nor bad.
    The idea that a perfect being would design something that is inefficient and overly complex and wasteful just because he wants to is ridiculous.
    It's only ridiculous to someone who projects their own feelings about waste onto a supreme being.
    A Rubik cube is not simple compared to a cube, or for that matter a flat 2D shape.

    Nobody said it was, did they?

    But the design behind the Rubik's cube is simple compared to the solution of the puzzle.
    No offense PDN but I'm not sure you understand the concepts here.
    Here we go. Once you get frustrated that your constant assertions don't actually convince anyone, your next step is to start getting personal. Next it's going to be patronising comments about "you guys".
    These discussions all end the same because you guys just imagine what ever version of god you like, ignoring any contradictions or absurdities. The joy of theism I guess
    Well done!


  • #58
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Unfortunately your repeating that assertion ad nauseam doesn't make it true.

    The word 'need' has no meaning when used of an omnipotent infinite Being. 'Waste' is only meaningful as a concept if you are referring to a finite resource. Can you really not see this?

    I can't see that because it isn't true. It is simple not true, you are just making that up to try and win an argument.

    Waste has nothing to do with the finite nature of the resource. That fact has actually nothing to do with this discussion, it is simple what the word means.

    Waste is unnecessary consumption or expenditure. Again (for the 4th time) if you can do something in 2 steps and you do it in 4 you have wasted that in that it serves no purpose if your goal is merely the end result of the steps.

    The finite nature of the resource is irrelevant to this. Imagine that water is infinite and my goal is to drink a glass of water. Which is more efficient, that I take a glass fill it up and then take another (repeating as I go) or that I take a glass drink it then take another glass and throw it on the floor?

    You can argue that there is nothing "bad" about waste if resources are infinite since you aren't going to run out of anything, but that has nothing to do with my point.
    PDN wrote: »
    A spaceship can waste fuel, because fuel is finite. But it cannot waste space, because space is infinite.

    Of course you can waste space.

    If it's goal is to get from planet A to planet B and it , for no reason, goes to to planet b via planet c which is back in the other direction, it has wasted space during the journey. Its path is not efficient. If it only requires to travel 1 light year to the planet and it travels 2 light years it has wasted 1 light year.

    Once again it has nothing to do with the finite or infinite properties of the thing you are using. Space isn't going to be used up, but it still is inefficient and a waste.

    If I am counting to infinity and every 5 numbers I go back 4 I'm being inefficient and thus wasteful. I'm counting numbers twice when there is no reason to.

    Numbers are still infinite, that has nothing to do with it.
    PDN wrote: »
    Take away finite restrictions and waste as a concept is neither good nor bad.
    Good or bad is irrelevant. Something either is or isn't efficient. If it is not then it is wasteful. Whether waste is "bad" is a moral judgment based on context and circumstance (wasting hours with my girlfriend on a road trip is good, wasting water in Africa desert is bad)
    PDN wrote: »
    It's only ridiculous to someone who projects their own feelings about waste onto a supreme being.

    My "feelings" about waste? Care to explain that one?
    PDN wrote: »
    Nobody said it was, did they?

    You did. You said that Rubik had come up with a simple concept. He hadn't, he had come up with a complex concept, arrived by combining simpler concepts, such as cubes.

    A Rubik cube is simpler than a Aerbus 380, but your idea that its complexity some how is designed by its simpler parts is nonsense.
    PDN wrote: »
    But the design behind the Rubik's cube is simple compared to the solution of the puzzle.

    The Rubik cube is the solution of the puzzle. That is what makes it more complex than a square, the fact that it is in fact multiple squares with a vast array of different combinations and colours.

    If you take a simple cube and then multiply it a number of times you will produce something that is more complex than the simple cube.

    If you add colour coding to it you make it more complex still.
    PDN wrote: »
    Here we go. Once you get frustrated that your constant assertions don't actually convince anyone, your next step is to start getting personal.

    How is me stating that you appear not to be following what I'm saying "getting personal"?

    Would you prefer is I said you were "falling into the trap" of not following me? :pac:


  • #59
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I can't see that because it isn't true. It is simple not true, you are just making that up to try and win an argument.

    I'm not trying to win an argument. But if what I'm saying isn't true then maybe you should present a coherent argument against it?

    The concept of waste is based on the need to conserve finite resources. Nothing you have posted has demonstrated otherwise.
    Waste is unnecessary consumption or expenditure.
    Which is pointless when used of God since, for Him, nothing is necessary. If there is no 'necessary' then there is no 'unnecessary' - therefore there is no waste.
    The finite nature of the resource is irrelevant to this. Imagine that water is infinite and my goal is to drink a glass of water. Which is more efficient, that I take a glass fill it up and then take another (repeating as I go) or that I take a glass drink it then take another glass and throw it on the floor?
    You seem to be unable to discuss the concept of Infinity and Omnipotence.

    The concept of efficiency only has meaning for you because you have a limited amount of time and energy to expend. If you had infinite energy and an infinite supply of glasses then throwing them on the floor might be good fun.

    Of course you can waste space.
    If it's goal is to get from planet A to planet B and it , for no reason, goes to to planet b via planet c which is back in the other direction, it has wasted space during the journey. Its path is not efficient. If it only requires to travel 1 light year to the planet and it travels 2 light years it has wasted 1 light year.
    No, you're talking about wasting time, not space. If you were eternal then you wouldn't give a rat's arse whether it took 2 seconds or two light years to reach its destination. Why not take the scenic route?
    If I am counting to infinity and every 5 numbers I go back 4 I'm being inefficient and thus wasteful. I'm counting numbers twice when there is no reason to.

    Numbers are still infinite, that has nothing to do with it.

    You're still committing the same logical fallacy. That only seems wasteful to you because you have a limited life span and don't want to spend it all counting.

    If you were eternal, and enjoyed counting things, then going back 4 numbers out of every 5 might be jolly good fun and, since your time is not limited, there is no drawback to doing so.
    My "feelings" about waste? Care to explain that one?
    OK, you keep saying that for God to be wasteful is ridiculous. That clearly demonstrates that you see waste as a negative. Therefore you project your puny finite human values onto an infinite supreme being. What's even funnier is that you can't seem to see the problem with that.
    How is me stating that you appear not to be following what I'm saying "getting personal"?
    Play the wind-up merchant all you want. I'm not playing your games.


  • #60
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I don't think God can be made of anything. God simply is.

    Sorry I have to ask... Why? Can you explain what has led you to this conclusion?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    I'd imagine the very definition of what 'complex' is as regards the natural world is only relevant and relative to those of us actually in the natural world. So the laws are only relative to 'us' alone, the same as time itself is...God exists outside of all these things, that's why we say he is omniscient. We don't know the 'sum' of the parts of God, all we know is that which we have been told - that we are made in his 'image' with a will and the ability to create, and that he said his name is 'I am'... ( Which is very profound really, and a cool name too..lol.. )The alpha and omega of all things..

    I'd agree with Fanny...God told us he 'is'...and if he 'is' perhaps what we call in our puny universe the essence of conscious existence itself..

    Interesting topic :)


  • #62
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    lmaopml wrote: »
    ...all we know is that which we have been told - that we are made in his 'image' with a will and the ability to create, and that he said his name is 'I am'... ( Which is very profound really, and a cool name too..lol.. )The alpha and omega of all things..

    I'd agree with Fanny...God told us he 'is'...and if he 'is' perhaps what we call in our puny universe the essence of conscious existence itself..

    God also condones human sacrifice, yet I'm sure you'll happily ignore that part.


  • #63
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Um, why so sarky? I'm sure there was a thread about that somewhere abouts magicmarker...If you search about you'll probably find it....

    ...'human sacrifice' that is - not what 'lmaopml' happily accepts or ignores ;)


  • #64
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Um, why so sarky? I'm sure there was a thread about that somewhere abouts magicmarker...If you search about you'll probably find it....

    ...'human sacrifice' that is - not what 'lmaopml' happily accepts or ignores ;)
    If all we know is what we've been told then I'm just highlighting that a lot of what God has told us is wrong.


  • #65
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Ok, well maybe have a peek at the thread, it's a little while back though, and it will throw more light on how Christians themselves relate and answer your image of a contradictional God???...and the reconciliation of God's nature and being. It's more 'complex' than one may first think... (".)


  • #66
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Ok, well maybe have a peek at the thread, it's a little while back though, and it will throw more light on how Christians themselves relate and answer your image of a contradictional God???...and the reconciliation of God's nature and being. It's more 'complex' than one may first think... (".)
    I really don't see any sense in reading the opinions of a bunch of people trying to justify their beliefs in such a creature tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    er, ok no problemo....but that is kinda 'contradictory'..lol..

    Anyways, that's ok, it's magic :)


  • #68
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    Sorry I have to ask... Why? Can you explain what has led you to this conclusion?

    Sure. First you may want to look here for more info.

    If God is composed of 10% aether and 90% fairy dust (as the post I replied to seem to be aiming at) it raises the question, "Who created the bits that go into making God?" Furthermore, if characteristics associated with God are somehow independent of him, over against the same characteristics being him, then I don't think we are talking about the God of the Bible after all.


  • #69
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    I really don't see any sense in reading the opinions of a bunch of people trying to justify their beliefs in such a creature tbh.

    The the solution is rather simple: don't read. Also, pleaser be aware that we don't expect you to tell us when you aren't interested in reading opinions different to you own. Seriously, there is no pressure to type a word.


    pot-kettle.jpg


  • #70
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    The the solution is rather simple: don't read. Also, pleaser be aware that we don't expect you to tell us when you aren't interested in reading opinions different to you own. Seriously, there is no pressure to type a word.


    pot-kettle.jpg
    I'm more than interested in reading opinions that are different to my own, so long as they're somewhat coherent. But thanks for the heads up.


  • #71
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    I'm not trying to win an argument. But if what I'm saying isn't true then maybe you should present a coherent argument against it?

    I've done that three times already. Perhaps it wasn't clear enough before, so lets take it point at a time.
    PDN wrote: »
    The concept of waste is based on the need to conserve finite resources. Nothing you have posted has demonstrated otherwise.

    The concept of waste is not based on the need to conserve finite resources. That is the moral conclusion of waste, not the concept itself.

    Waste is used material or resources that is not required to perform a task or purpose but is consumed anyway.

    Imagine I have an infinite supply of water and imagine I have a machine that requires one cup of water a day to keep it cool. Any excess water is released onto the floor.

    I then build a mechanism to put two cups of water into the machine a day. The machine is now wasting one cup of water each day, as it does not require the second cup of water to function.

    The water is infinite, so there is no harm in doing this. I'm not going to run out of water, nor am I depriving water from anyone else. But it is still "waste" in the basic sense of the word, divorced of any moral implications you wish to introduce. My machine is inefficient in how it handles water.

    Now do you have any argument why what I just said is in fact wrong or than simply telling me it is?

    If the water is infinite then what do you call the extra cup of water the machine takes each day that is not required to perform the function. Because if you are unhappy with the term "waste" I'm happy to use a different word if you can think of a better one. The word is not the important bit, the concept is.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I've done that three times already. Perhaps it wasn't clear enough before, so lets take it point at a time.



    The concept of waste is not based on the need to conserve finite resources. That is the moral conclusion of waste, not the concept itself.

    Waste is used material or resources that is not required to perform a task or purpose but is consumed anyway.

    Imagine I have an infinite supply of water and imagine I have a machine that requires one cup of water a day to keep it cool. Any excess water is released onto the floor.

    I then build a mechanism to put two cups of water into the machine a day. The machine is now wasting one cup of water each day, as it does not require the second cup of water to function.

    The water is infinite, so there is no harm in doing this. I'm not going to run out of water, nor am I depriving water from anyone else. But it is still "waste" in the basic sense of the word, divorced of any moral implications you wish to introduce. My machine is inefficient in how it handles water.

    Now do you have any argument why what I just said is in fact wrong or than simply telling me it is?

    If the water is infinite then what do you call the extra cup of water the machine takes each day that is not required to perform the function. Because if you are unhappy with the term "waste" I'm happy to use a different word if you can think of a better one. The word is not the important bit, the concept is.

    Look it up in a dictionary, It's pointless discussing anything with you when you get like this. Been there, done that, worn the t-shirt.


  • #73
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Look it up in a dictionary, It's pointless discussing anything with you when you get like this. Been there, done that, worn the t-shirt.

    Fair enough. The "coherent argument" you were asking for is there. If you choose to ignore it that is your issue.

    Oh and by the way

    waste (noun)
    useless consumption or expenditure; use without adequate return; an act or instance of wasting:

    or

    anything unused, unproductive, or not properly utilized.

    :rolleyes:


  • #74
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    I think there's a little miscommunication here.

    I think we can all agree that God is, in a sense, wasteful. I think we can also all agree that there is no reason God should not be wasteful, as being wasteful is only a deficiency when you have finite resources.


  • #75
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morbert wrote: »
    I think there's a little miscommunication here.

    I think we can all agree that God is, in a sense, wasteful. I think we can also all agree that there is no reason God should not be wasteful, as being wasteful is only a deficiency when you have finite resources.

    Agreed. There is no reason God should not be wasteful. At the same time that doesn't explain why he would. A perfect being creating a wasteful design seems illogical to me, given that he would have to choose to do this since there is no reason why he would have to if it is not necessary.

    As I said to PDN this doesn't prove anything but I reject the idea that you can't infer anything from it though. God would appear to be saying that complexity is required. The alternative is that God is saying that he is pointlessly wasteful. Which position people are happier with will ultimately depend on which version of God they think makes more sense.


  • #76
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Agreed. There is no reason God should not be wasteful. At the same time that doesn't explain why he would. A perfect being creating a wasteful design seems illogical to me, given that he would have to choose to do this since there is no reason why he would have to if it is not necessary.

    The thing is you could turn it around and say: "A perfect being creating an efficient design seems illogical to me, given that he would have to choose to do this since there is no reason why he would have to if it is not necessary."


  • #77
    raah!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Fair enough. The "coherent argument" you were asking for is there. If you choose to ignore it that is your issue.

    Oh and by the way

    waste (noun)
    useless consumption or expenditure; use without adequate return; an act or instance of wasting:

    or

    anything unused, unproductive, or not properly utilized.

    :rolleyes:

    Well one could argue (I certainly would) that to use the term properly you need to address the persons intentions in using the resources, or have some standard of how they should be used.

    For example, you could say throwing loads of corn down a hole is a waste, but not if it's "hole corn" for being thrown into holes, if that's the case then it's the proper use of the corn.

    I agree that it doesn't apply here, because an omniscient, omnipotent etc. god would have differing standards of "useful" and "productive". For example, you say why didn't he just make things out of the same simple substance of which he was made, a simple answer which precludes further use of the term "waste" would be that it was his intention to make the substance in a form which we call complex.

    Here is a definition from my dictionary

    1 [ trans. ] use or expend carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose : we can't afford to waste electricity | I don't use the car, so why should I waste precious money on it?

    An example of contemporary usage which reflects this definition is "don't waste your time playing computer games, you should study". It's clear that if "studying" is defined as a good use of time, then things removed from this are not a "good" or "useful" use of time. However if one's aim is to have a good time (or simply to play computer games) then it is not waste.

    To summarise, there is no objective meaning for the word waste. I think that was pdn's point, you are using your own subjective definition of wastage of atoms or something to describe a creator god as wasteful.


  • #78
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    raah! wrote: »
    Well one could argue (I certainly would) that to use the term properly you need to address the persons intentions in using the resources, or have some standard of how they should be used.

    For example, you could say throwing loads of corn down a hole is a waste, but not if it's "hole corn" for being thrown into holes, if that's the case then it's the proper use of the corn.

    I'm not following. If it is the proper use of the product then it isn't waste.
    raah! wrote: »
    For example, you say why didn't he just make things out of the same simple substance of which he was made, a simple answer which precludes further use of the term "waste" would be that it was his intention to make the substance in a form which we call complex.

    But that is the waste. If our complexity is not required to function then it is waste. Him wanting to be wasteful doesn't prevent that. You can choose to be wasteful, but that doesn't mean it isn't wasteful.

    I may want to build a machine that uses 3 times the amount of electricity it requires to do something, but that doesn't mean the machine is efficient.
    raah! wrote: »
    An example of contemporary usage which reflects this definition is "don't waste your time playing computer games, you should study". It's clear that if "studying" is defined as a good use of time, then things removed from this are not a "good" or "useful" use of time. However if one's aim is to have a good time (or simply to play computer games) then it is not waste.

    Exactly. Waste is dependent on the goal and what is required to achieve that. I would see the goal of reality to be existing and function. If it requires more complexity to exist and function than is necessary then this complexity is waste.
    raah! wrote: »
    To summarise, there is no objective meaning for the word waste. I think that was pdn's point, you are using your own subjective definition of wastage of atoms or something to describe a creator god as wasteful.

    There is a commonly understood term waste. In case there was any misunderstanding I clarified what I meant by waste a few times to PDN. He still continued to say I was wrong, not simply in my usage of the word, but the actual concept behind it.


  • #79
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morbert wrote: »
    The thing is you could turn it around and say: "A perfect being creating an efficient design seems illogical to me, given that he would have to choose to do this since there is no reason why he would have to if it is not necessary."

    Not really. If we assume God had a purpose to create creation then the efficient design achieves that purpose. That is the reason why, so to speak, the reason being to fulfill the purpose.

    If on the other hand God creates an inefficient design then you require an extra reason, the initial reason is not enough. It requires the reason to fulfill the purpose and an extra reason as to why to do so inefficiently.

    For example if your goal is to walk from A to B then this purpose fulfills the justification for walking from A to B.

    If though your goal is to walk from A to B and you do so via C you then require a reason why you did that.


  • #80
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    There is a commonly understood term waste. In case there was any misunderstanding I clarified what I meant by waste a few times to PDN. He still continued to say I was wrong, not simply in my usage of the word, but the actual concept behind it.

    Not true. You used words like 'ridiculous' which would make no sense if you were using the word 'waste' in a neutral sense.
    Wicknight wrote:
    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.


  • #81
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Not true. You used words like 'ridiculous' which would make no sense if you were using the word 'waste' in a neutral sense.

    I used the word ridiculous to refer to the concept of a perfect being who creates an inefficient/wasteful system for no reason. I wasn't saying God was acting ridiculously, I was saying the concept of God acting this way at all was ridiculous. Wasteful was thus used in a purely "neutral sense". No where did I say that this waste was morally wrong because of finite resources or any other such nonsense. This should have been clear to you because I stated this a number of times to clarify this to you, something you obviously ignored.

    You apparently aren't bothering to read my posts properly before you declare that I'm wrong. Until you give me that curtsy I don't see much point in trying to explain the point to you yet again.
    wicknight wrote:
    I can't convince you that your idea of god isn't ridiculous.
    wicknight wrote:
    The idea that a perfect being would design something that is inefficient and overly complex and wasteful just because he wants to is ridiculous.
    wicknight wrote:
    Waste is unnecessary consumption or expenditure. Again (for the 4th time) if you can do something in 2 steps and you do it in 4 you have wasted that in that it serves no purpose if your goal is merely the end result of the steps.

    The finite nature of the resource is irrelevant to this.
    wicknight wrote:
    The concept of waste is not based on the need to conserve finite resources. That is the moral conclusion of waste, not the concept itself.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I used the word ridiculous to refer to the concept of a perfect being who creates an inefficient/wasteful system for no reason. I wasn't saying God was acting ridiculously, I was saying the concept of God acting this way at all was ridiculous. Wasteful was thus used in a purely "neutral sense". No where did I say that this waste was morally wrong because of finite resources or any other such nonsense. This should have been clear to you because I stated this a number of times to clarify this to you, something you obviously ignored.

    Nonsense. If 'waste' is a neutral concept then there is just as much reason for an infinite being with unlimited resources to create something inefficiently as to create something efficiently.

    Therefore, if you were indeed using the term in a neutral sense. It would be ridiculous for an infinite being with unlimited resources to create something efficiently.


  • #83
    b318isp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,646 ✭✭✭b318isp


    It may help to bring the two points in this thread back to first principles. Firstly, there is a premise being suggested and is worthy of tight debate:

    "All waste is wrong"

    or perhaps "All waste is bad". Swap inefficiency for waste if it helps.

    Secondly, simplicity and complexity are often discussed in philosophy. Being relative and artbitary attributes (or adjectives if you like), there is no absolute reference applicable unless it can be defined. Terms such as fast, hot, red, etc., may be considered abstract unless given certain characteristics, e.g. above 100mph, more that 100 degrees C, wavelength of light between...I'm sure you get the idea.

    Applying these to less tangible or behavioural things such as tiredness, stress, being happy, etc. becomes much harder but can be defined somewhat in terms of behaviour.

    Factor in that you also need to know what these characteristics apply to and the circumstances that apply at the time. For example, if "fast" is characterised by being "above 100mph", it clearly would be wrong if applied to a rocket travelling space, but may hold true for the same rocket if it was moving inside a workshop.

    When it comes to the idea of applying simple or complex attributes to a god, I personally can't see any sensible discussion on this matter getting going until we agree that we are talking about theism, polytheism, deism or panthesim.


  • #84
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Nonsense. If 'waste' is a neutral concept then there is just as much reason for an infinite being with unlimited resources to create something inefficiently as to create something efficiently.

    See this post as to why that isn't the case. Inefficiency requires an extra reason over efficacy, since the goal itself is all that is required to produce an efficient system. This is assuming God doesn't randomly do something for no reason, if you aren't happy with that assumption of God you better clarify that now.


  • #85
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    b318isp wrote: »
    It may help to bring the two points in this thread back to first principles. Firstly, there is a premise being suggested and is worthy of tight debate:

    "All waste is wrong"

    or perhaps "All waste is bad". Swap inefficiency for waste if it helps.

    That isn't my point, if you are referring to me when you say a premise is being suggested.
    b318isp wrote: »
    When it comes to the idea of applying simple or complex attributes to a god, I personally can't see any sensible discussion on this matter getting going until we agree that we are talking about theism, polytheism, deism or panthesim.

    I imagine we are talking about Christianity, since this is the Christanity forum ;)


  • #86
    b318isp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,646 ✭✭✭b318isp


    Wicknight wrote: »
    That isn't my point, if you are referring to me when you say a premise is being suggested.

    Apologies if I've picked this out wrong, I've just tried to get the core of your arguement to a premise that could be reasonably discussed. I feel that the ping pong is not getting anywhere.
    I imagine we are talking about Christianity, since this is the Christanity forum ;)

    Hah! Fire ahead then!


  • #87
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Maybe we can find a word or sentence that amounts to the same thing but doesn't carry the baggage as the word waste. Perhaps something along the line of "direct means" or some such. Even then I don't necessary see a resolution between the two sides.

    For my own two cent, I think it logical to assert that the concept of waste only exists in a system that is built upon limitations of space, time and matter. So claiming that going from A to B via C is wasteful only makes sense if we are talking about something (or someone) constrained by time or distance or energy. Perhaps God, like an artist, isn't primarily interested in efficiency. Rather, his purpose in constructing the universe was simply an act of incomparably sublime artistry.


  • #88
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Inefficiency requires an extra reason over efficacy.

    Why?


  • #89
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    For example if your goal is to walk from A to B then this purpose fulfils the justification for walking from A to B.

    If though your goal is to walk from A to B and you do so via C you then require a reason why you did that.

    Why would you need a reason to choose A -> C -> B over A -> B if both serve the same purpose, with neither being disadvantageous?

    [edit]-Fixed letter order


  • #90
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    For my own two cent, I think it logical to assert that the concept of waste only exists in a system that is built upon limitations of space, time and matter. So claiming that going from A to B via C is wasteful only makes sense if we are talking about something (or someone) constrained by time or distance or energy.

    Ok, what would you call that then? What do you call something that is used that is unnecessary to achieve the purpose at hand? Ignore for a sec any issues of whether you can use it, or the moral justification for using it, and simply what do you call it when something that is not needed is used anyway.

    I'm open to using any word people want (I have also used inefficiency) but to be honest Fanny this seems to be a mountain out of a mole hill. I can't think of a better word, PDN apparently couldn't either since I asked him what word would he like me to use, I've clarified exactly what I mean by this. All of this debate around PDN's misunderstanding seems rather unnecessary (wasteful as it where :P)
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Perhaps God, like an artist, isn't primarily interested in efficiency. Rather, his purpose in constructing the universe was simply an act of incomparably sublime artistry.

    I'm not sure what you mean by primarily interested in efficiency but I would say artists are very interested in efficiency and often produce the best real world examples of this, conveying meaning and emotion using only the required amount of words of visuals, nothing more.

    In fact the things we often see as inherently bad from an artistic point of view are things that are inefficient, such as movie that goes on too long, or a story that uses too many words, or a piece of music that has too much background noise.

    This goes back to what I was saying earlier about the ridiculousness of the concept of a god that wastes complexity. If you view God as an artist (which is a valid view) to me it would seem equally ridiculous that God would produce the work of art that is the universe in an inefficient manner to achieve the beauty of the universe.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morbert wrote: »
    Why would you need a reason to choose A -> B -> C over A -> C if both serve the same purpose, with neither being disadvantageous?

    Because I'm assuming God, as an omnipotent and omniscient being, doesn't do anything without a reason.


  • #92
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Why?

    Because you need a reason to pick it over efficacy. Otherwise you would always pick efficacy since efficacy fulfills the purpose itself.

    Again, this is assuming God doesn't do anything without a reason.

    Say you are walking to the bank. You are walking in a straight line since that is the direction the bank is in. Your goal is to reach the bank and this is the way you reach the bank.

    Now, you could reach the bank by going via the river to the left of you, but it will add distance to your journey.

    Now if your goal is to get to the bank you will go to the bank. You require an extra reason to go to the bank via the river.

    The initial justification for going to the bank is satisfied by the first route. There is no reason not to pick this route if your goal is purely to get to the bank. You require another reason to go via the river.

    That reason could be as simple as you want to see the river, or you are sick of going straight to the bank, or you want to meet someone at the river. But there is a reason.

    The alternative is that God randomly picks what he wants to do, which I'm assuming isn't the case.


  • #93
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Because I'm assuming God, as an omnipotent and omniscient being, doesn't do anything without a reason.

    Then what would be his reasoning for choosing A -> C over A -> B -> C if both serve the same purpose, with neither being disadvantageous?

    Or to phrase it another way: Yes, it is unnecessary to go to B. It is also unnecessary to go straight to C.


  • #94
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morbert wrote: »
    Then what would be his reasoning for choosing A -> C over A -> B -> C if both serve the same purpose, with neither being disadvantageous?

    You don't choose the efficient system over the inefficient one. You choose to do the thing you want and the efficent system fulfills that reason. It is the default. You choose to go to the bank and going from my house to the bank in a straight line fulfills the goal of going to the bank.

    You need a reason to pick any other course of action over this one other than the most efficient system.

    You need a reason to choose to go to the bank via the river over just going direction to the bank otherwise you would just go to the bank.


  • #95
    b318isp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,646 ✭✭✭b318isp


    I would suggest that that an omniscienent designer would want to create things in an efficient and non wasteful manner on the assumption that to do otherwise would undermine his very omniscience or perhaps suggest malice.

    What I have a greater problem with is the logic around if an omnipotent designer choose to do so. For example, why is the sun such a great waste of gas, light and heat it only a tiny proportion is for life on earth? Is this "waste" right or wrong? How would we know? Is there another purpose for the this "waste" we do not take into account?

    Then there is the extension - what if the thing created in itself is inefficient or wasteful or even evil? The orginal sin argument from a different direction.


  • #96
    raah!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I'm not following. If it is the proper use of the product then it isn't waste.
    My point is that "proper use" is subjective. The corn was not being wasted because I designated it as "hole corn", not lets imagine this was just regular corn which I decided to call hole corn. This makes it a waste by the standards of someone who says "corn is for eating" but not by my own. You are assuming universal "proper use" of things when you use the word like that without specification. This is fine for everyday conversation, but in philosophical ones these distinctions become very important.

    But that is the waste. If our complexity is not required to function then it is waste. Him wanting to be wasteful doesn't prevent that. You can choose to be wasteful, but that doesn't mean it isn't wasteful.
    This assumes that our complexity was not meant for anything else. Another example, a person, making a stick man... puts a hat on him. This hat isn't necessary for the stick man to be a stick man, but makes him more aesthetically pleasing.
    I may want to build a machine that uses 3 times the amount of electricity it requires to do something, but that doesn't mean the machine is efficient.
    Yes, and this would be a waste if you specified efficiency as your primary goal in making the machine.

    Exactly. Waste is dependent on the goal and what is required to achieve that. I would see the goal of reality to be existing and function. If it requires more complexity to exist and function than is necessary then this complexity is waste.
    So to rephrase what you've been saying all along "I think God is wasteful in his complex creations, as my estimation of the goal of reality is to exist and function".

    And again, there have been some good points made about an infinity of resources too, which would support the inappropriateness of the word waste, when used in this context, from any set of axioms.

    There is a commonly understood term waste. In case there was any misunderstanding I clarified what I meant by waste a few times to PDN. He still continued to say I was wrong, not simply in my usage of the word, but the actual concept behind it.
    I don't think your understanding of the concept is really off, you just have some assumptions about reality which you should state before using the term.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    raah!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Because I'm assuming God, as an omnipotent and omniscient being, doesn't do anything without a reason.

    You're also assuming that He has no reason to choose B. He could go to the river (or whatever else the middle one is) because it's nice.


  • #98
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    raah! wrote: »
    My point is that "proper use" is subjective. The corn was not being wasted because I designated it as "hole corn"

    You hit the nail on the head there. There is no problem understanding what waste means, allowing you to say whether or corn is or isn't being wasted based on the criteria.
    raah! wrote: »
    This assumes that our complexity was not meant for anything else.

    It does but that again goes back to the original point.

    If God can be infinity powerful and omnipotent yet simply this would mean, by definition, that complexity is not required for anything. If simplicity is all that is needed for infinite existence then finite existence does not require complexity.

    God is everything. Thus if God is simply everything can be simple.

    So it doesn't matter what purpose we were created for because by definition it wouldn't require complexity.
    raah! wrote: »
    Another example, a person, making a stick man... puts a hat on him. This hat isn't necessary for the stick man to be a stick man, but makes him more aesthetically pleasing.

    "Aesthetically pleasing" is a goal. The hat performs that function, therefore it is not waste (assuming there isn't a more efficient way to make the man pleasing)


  • #99
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    raah! wrote: »
    He could go to the river (or whatever else the middle one is) because it's nice.

    That is a reason, and therefore it is not waste.

    It is only waste if his only goal is to go to the bank.


  • #100
    raah!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    Wicknight wrote: »
    It does but that again goes back to the original point.

    If God can be infinity powerful and omnipotent yet simply this would mean, by definition, that complexity is not required for anything. If simplicity is all that is needed for infinite existence then finite existence does not require complexity.
    Complexity could be considered a goal in itself. There's many things you could think up, depending on which notion of complexity we use. Simple things are easier to understand complex things are they not? It's not hard to find reasons for such things, since we are essentially just speculating (I am anyway, since I don't know as much about the bible as people here)
    If God can be infinity powerful and omnipotent yet simply this would mean, by definition, that complexity is not required for anything. If simplicity is all that is needed for infinite existence then finite existence does not require complexity.
    Well I don't accept this straight out, but I think it's a very interesting point. I don't think that it follows that simple infinity=simple finiteness.

    An example is, a finite part of an infinite material could be considered more complex because it has things like edges dimensions etc.

    If we hearken back to Anaximander's apeiron we see earlier mention of such ideas. The apeiron was infinite and indefinite, containing opposites. Whilst these opposites neutralise each other within apeiron, they seperate out to form distinct more complicated things (here we can use the word complex to mean that there are more parts to these things than there is to apeiron). This isn't that related, anaximander's great though. I've always wondered if that "ashes to ashes" thing at funerals is in anyway related to anaximander's existening written fragment.
    God is everything. Thus if God is simply everything can be simple.

    So it doesn't matter what purpose we were created for because by definition it wouldn't require complexity.
    That we can be simple, does not mean complexity isn't required for the goals a creator had in mind in creating us.
    "Aesthetically pleasing" is a goal. The hat performs that function, therefore it is not waste (assuming there isn't a more efficient way to make the man pleasing)
    Perhaps the person who made the man find efficient ways of doing things to be aesthetically displeasing? :)


  • #101
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You don't choose the efficient system over the inefficient one. You choose to do the thing you want and the efficent system fulfills that reason. It is the default. You choose to go to the bank and going from my house to the bank in a straight line fulfills the goal of going to the bank.

    You need a reason to pick any other course of action over this one other than the most efficient system.

    You need a reason to choose to go to the bank via the river over just going direction to the bank otherwise you would just go to the bank.

    We see the efficient course as the default or 'expected course' because to do something else implies another motive. Why does it imply another motive? Because sensible beings conserve their efforts. Our inferences about expected courses of action people take stems from how we manage our effort. But if everything is effortless then there is no expectations, and we can no longer infer motive. If it required just as much effort to go to the bank via Saturn as it did to walk directly there, then why would you be expected to choose the direct route over the indirect route?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement