God's complexity

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

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)

Why would complexity be a goal in itself? Are you saying God is trying to make things harder to understand?

raah! wrote: »

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

That is true and it is a good point. By definition making something finite adds complexity, since you add at least two variables, start and end.

The problem with that is God already has variables, an infinite amount of them, and yet is still described as simple. If God can be angry and happy he is more complex than something that can just be angry. So we are quickly running into the brick wall of paradox on all fronts :P

raah! wrote: »

That we can be simple, does not mean complexity isn't required for the goals a creator had in mind in creating us.

It is difficult to see why it would be required to fulfill these goals though given that they could be fulfilled without complexity if God can exist and be infinitely powerful.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

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?

God has to pick something, and he has to pick it for a reason. If the reason is purely the goal then the default choice would be the efficient process. If there is no reason to pick one of the other options then there is no reason to pick one of the other options.

You are asking why would he not pick the inefficient route. That is not really the question, because of in the absence of an answer to that question you still haven't explained why he would. And without that reason he isn't going to pick it, since he picks everything for a reason.

Morbert wrote: »

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?

It is the solution to the problem. To pick any other option would require a reason other than simply to solve the problem.

Again you are asking why he would not pick an inefficient route when that isn't really the question.

It only becomes relevant if God randomly picks.

raah!

Wicknight wrote: »

Why would complexity be a goal in itself? Are you saying God is trying to make things harder to understand?

I was just giving examples really. I don't know enough about the bible or anything to attribute reasons for the christian god to do this or that.

The problem with that is God already has variables, an infinite amount of them, and yet is still described as simple. If God can be angry and happy he is more complex than something that can just be angry. So we are quickly running into the brick wall of paradox on all fronts :P

I think this is what b318isp was talking about, while it's easy to say that a theistic god is more complex than, say, a deistic or otherwise one it is much harder to say that "God is more complicated than a stone". Depending on which planes of existence you want to attribute to each of them. I do think however, that empirical descriptions will always be more complicated (and become increasingly complicated as we look into them further) than metaphysical ones.

An example can be "God is Good", against "a stone is made of atoms".

It is difficult to see why it would be required to fulfill these goals though given that they could be fulfilled without complexity if God can exist and be infinitely powerful.

I agree. This gets us to the old existence of evil and all that. Or is similar to it, rather.

Edit: Also, if ayone wants to be jealous, I once attended a debate about god which Richard Swinburne attended and espoused that very view quoted by jakkass. It was great, the actor who plays dougal in father ted was there too.

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

God has to pick something, and he has to pick it for a reason. If the reason is purely the goal then the default choice would be the efficient process. If there is no reason to pick one of the other options then there is no reason to pick one of the other options.

You keep saying this, and I keep countering with "If there is no reason to pick the efficient option then there is no reason to pick the efficient option.". The unnecessary components of the inefficient options can't reflect a motive unless there is a reason to avoid the unnecessary components.

You are asking why would he not pick the inefficient route. That is not really the question, because of in the absence of an answer to that question you still haven't explained why he would. And without that reason he isn't going to pick it, since he picks everything for a reason.

<snip>

Again you are asking why he would not pick an inefficient route when that isn't really the question.

It only becomes relevant if God randomly picks.

Oh I agree that the question would be unanswered. But the question would still be there if he picked the efficient option. If a realm of complicated, inefficient beings is just as good and as effortless to God as a realm of simple, efficient beings then why would he pick the latter?

It is the solution to the problem. To pick any other option would require a reason other than simply to solve the problem.

They are all solutions to the problem though.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

You keep saying this, and I keep countering with "If there is no reason to pick the efficient option then there is no reason to pick the efficient option.".

The reason to pick the efficient version is that it performs the goal. The goal is the reason and the only reason.

The question I think you are asking is what is the reason to pick the efficient version over the inefficient one.

But that to me is the wrong question because given no reason to pick the inefficient one over the efficient one you would just pick the default one, the efficient one.

There is one efficient one and an infinite set of inefficient ones.

To purely perform the task he picks the efficient one (ie the perfect one).

An inefficient one though requires that God decide how he will be inefficient, and that requires more choice. Performing the goal is not enough for the inefficient option, he has to decide how to perform the goal inefficiently and there is a lot of different ways to do this (an infinite set actually). He has to pick one and being God has to pick one for a reason.

Again unless he randomly picks.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

We just aren't going to agree. There is a fundamental difference of opinion between most posters here and yourself that seems as insurmountable as the differences we have in the foreknowledge/ free will debate. You think that efficiency and inefficiency applies to God and whatever plans he has. I don't. I think that for God there was no creation and then there was creation, and it is of no consequence to a being without any temporal or material limitations if there was one step or 1000 steps involved from nothing to something.

Wicknight wrote: »

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)

Well, perhaps we simply lack the language to describe God. Again, as I don't believe the concepts of efficiency, waste or whatever apply to God, I don't think they are particularly helpful. But perhaps you and PDN can work out a more mutually acceptable way of discussing things.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Drop the "primarily" if you like. It might make more sense that way.

I didn't actually say that God was an artist, I said that he was comparable to an artist in terms of motivation. You can, of course, push any analogy until it collapses in on itself, but in doing so you rather miss the point of the argument. So, yes, it is conceivable that an artist may be interested in the pursuit of efficiency. But even then I would imagine they see beauty in their creation. In other words, there was motivation beyond simply gaining efficiency. But as I don't believe that God is bound by the concept of waste, all of this is rather off the point.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

And what impact has that on a being unaffected by time, matter and what is showing in the film theatre? Do you suppose God has a pressing engagement that he can't be late for? To an atemporal being a film that is two hous long is the same as a film that is 100,000,000 years long.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

I think you rather miss my artist analogy. I was attempting to say that God created creation because creation was reason in itself. The universe didn't exist and then it did. I suggest that the amount of time and energy that went into getting to this point in the universes existence is of no consequence to God. So while we may see things like economy and efficiency reflected in nature, there is absolutely no reason why God should be bound to these.

You say that a person should go directly to the bank if efficiency is of concern. But if that person doesn't have any constraints on time, or energy or anything else (in other words, your notion of efficiency isn't a constraint on them) then there is no reason why they shouldn't stop at the river and the mountains and then the beach. Why, in choosing not to stop at the these places that person could be denying themselves wonderful experiences. Perhaps denying oneself these experience demands an explanation. There simply is no reason why efficient (assuming the concept even exists to God) takes precedence over inefficient.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We just aren't going to agree.

Try me.

I'll use what ever word is clearer for people. What is the word for when something uses more than is required to perform the function?

There is no point saying I'm using the wrong word when no one will tell me what is the correct word.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You think that efficiency and inefficiency applies to God and whatever plans he has. I don't. I think that for God there was no creation and then there was creation, and it is of no consequence to a being without any temporal or material limitations if there was one step or 1000 steps involved from nothing to something.

Fair enough.

To me supposing the idea that an omnipotent being would take 1000 steps to do something when he could do it in 1 is bizarre given that there is no reason to do the former given his omnipotence. But if that makes sense to you I'm at a loss of how to explain the problems with that.

Ultimately people will choose to believe what they believe. I'm not looking for an argument, I'm merely clarifying my position. Neither yourself nor PDN have to engage.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

To me supposing the idea that an omnipotent being would take 1000 steps to do something when he could do it in 1 is bizarre given that there is no reason to do the former given his omnipotence. But if that makes sense to you I'm at a loss of how to explain the problems with that.

And hence my artist comparison. Art and beauty are reasons unto themselves, just like creation (of the universe) is a reason unto itself. It seems to me that 1000 steps is only bizarre if we are using our limitations and applying them to God

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not looking for an argument, I'm merely clarifying my position. Neither yourself nor PDN have to engage.

That is fine. And I think at this point I will make my dramatic exit.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And hence my artist comparison. Art and beauty are reasons unto themselves, just like creation (of the universe) is a reason unto itself. It seems to me that 1000 steps is only bizarre if we are using our limitations and applying them to God

Fair enough, if you view it that way. To me that argument is illogical based on your religions definition of God and I'm happy to get into all the reasons why, but if you genuinely believe there is a difference of opinion here that cannot be breached it is probably best to leave it.

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

The reason to pick the efficient version is that it performs the goal. The goal is the reason and the only reason.

The question I think you are asking is what is the reason to pick the efficient version over the inefficient one.

But that to me is the wrong question because given no reason to pick the inefficient one over the efficient one you would just pick the default one, the efficient one.

There is one efficient one and an infinite set of inefficient ones.

To purely perform the task he picks the efficient one (ie the perfect one).

An inefficient one though requires that God decide how he will be inefficient, and that requires more choice. Performing the goal is not enough for the inefficient option, he has to decide how to perform the goal inefficiently and there is a lot of different ways to do this (an infinite set actually). He has to pick one and being God has to pick one for a reason.

Again unless he randomly picks.

Again, the we consider the default, 'expected' method to be the efficient one purely because we must manage our efforts. Once everything is effortless, the question of why the efficient method over another is very much the right one. The 'default' for God could just as easily be the method that employs the most Ferris wheels. The Ferris wheels might not serve any extra purpose; God might just like that method. I never thought an atheist would be quoting a bible verse at another atheist but I have to say that I like Exodus 3:14

"I am who I am".

Fanny Cradock

Painful as it may be to an atheist, if we are on the Christianity forum discussing God then I would imagine that a religious definition of God is inevitable.


Again...

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

I never thought an atheist would be quoting a bible verse at another atheist

Don't worry, you wont suffer SCH

Morbert wrote: »

"I am who I am".

Funnily enough, I was going to post that same point yesterday but deleted it. YHWH can be translated as meaning "I am who I am" - which fits in nicely to the idea that God does it on his terms.

lmaopml

Yep, 'I am that I am'...is perhaps one of the most really cool quotes describing God himself - by himself...

A minefield of philosophies - that get complex, from our perspective, and yet a very 'simple' answer we are always left with....'I am'

Cool !

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

Again, the we consider the default, 'expected' method to be the efficient one purely because we must manage our efforts.

Possibly but that has nothing to do with my argument. It is not about managing effort. It is not about effort at all, it is about choice.

There is one most efficient way to do something, which would be known to God as he is omnipotent and all powerful and would be effortless for God to do.

There is an infinite set of other inefficient ways of doing something, again which would all be known to God and would be effortless for God to do.

Now this is the important bit.

God needs no reason to pick the one efficient method other than purely the reason to he wants to do the thing in the first place. There is only one option and thus no extra choice. There is one most efficient way to do something.

But, and this is the key point, if God wishes to choose one of the others from the set of infinite possibilities he must choose one out of the infinite set of possible inefficient possibilities.

This is an extra choice on the part of God, that does not exist in the efficient one because there is only one most efficient choice.

Think of it this way. The most efficient route between two points is a straight line, A to B.

Now if I choose to go another, inefficient route I must choose that route, out of all the other possibilities that might exist. I could go A -> C -> B. I could go A->C->D->B. I could to A->C->D->C->E->B.

This is an extra choice because there is not only one way to do something inefficiently, there are an infinite ways of doing something inefficiently. I must pick one.

Morbert wrote: »

The 'default' for God could just as easily be the method that employs the most Ferris wheels. The Ferris wheels might not serve any extra purpose; God might just like that method.

Possibly but then that get back to the goal. There is no issue if the goal is to do something via Ferris wheels. Then that is the goal and you talk about the most efficient way to do something with Ferris wheels, and the infinite set of ways of doing something with Ferris wheels inefficiently.

The issue is when there is no reason for God to do something inefficiently over efficient. If there is a reason then there is no issue.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Yep, 'I am that I am'...is perhaps one of the most really cool quotes describing God himself - by himself...

A minefield of philosophies - that get complex, from our perspective, and yet a very 'simple' answer we are always left with....'I am'

Cool !

I would see this as supporting my case. I am than I am would imply nothing less and more.

God is not excess or unnecessary. There would be no part of God that would be the equivalent of our appendix, there but serving no purpose.

God is almost by definition efficiency personified

I appreciate that some don't like that idea or have trouble with it, but it is I am that I am, not I am what some Christians would like me to be.

Anyway a phrase like that can no doubt mean what ever people want it to mean so I don't anticipate much of a debate on these grounds.

raah!

Your use of "efficient" here runs into the same problems as your use of the term waste. It depends on the use to which things are supposed to be put "efficiently".

efficient |ɪˌfɪʃ(ə)nt|
adjective
(esp. of a system or machine) achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense : fluorescent lamps are efficient at converting electricity into light. See note at effective .
• (of a person) working in a well-organized and competent way : an efficient administrator.
• [in combination ] preventing the wasteful use of a particular resource : an energy-efficient heating system.

The sense in which you are using it is nearly the exact same as the sense in which you've used waste.

"Efficient" is just as subjective as "waste" it depends on the ultimate goal to which the resources are to be put. This is the exact same as your earlier assumptions about the nature of reality, and since this is a christian forum, and you are arguing against another conception of god, and not putting forward your own god, who operates on your understanding of effiency then your argument is not valid.

philologos

So Wicknight, if God were trying to create the universe you mean that He would have to go through the path super-efficiently, like if He were trying the most efficient solution to the Travelling Salesman Problem

Couldn't it be argued that there are so many ways to create the universe, that it is actually a polynomial problem (P = NP?)

Computer Science FTW :pac:

But seriously, if we don't even know what the most efficient solution to what a problem is, how on earth can we tell how efficiently, or how inefficiently the problem is being solved?

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

Possibly but that has nothing to do with my argument. It is not about managing effort. It is not about effort at all, it is about choice.

There is one most efficient way to do something, which would be known to God as he is omnipotent and all powerful and would be effortless for God to do.

There is an infinite set of other inefficient ways of doing something, again which would all be known to God and would be effortless for God to do.

Now this is the important bit.

God needs no reason to pick the one efficient method other than purely the reason to he wants to do the thing in the first place. There is only one option and thus no extra choice. There is one most efficient way to do something.

But, and this is the key point, if God wishes to choose one of the others from the set of infinite possibilities he must choose one out of the infinite set of possible inefficient possibilities.

This is an extra choice on the part of God, that does not exist in the efficient one because there is only one most efficient choice.

Think of it this way. The most efficient route between two points is a straight line, A to B.

Now if I choose to go another, inefficient route I must choose that route, out of all the other possibilities that might exist. I could go A -> C -> B. I could go A->C->D->B. I could to A->C->D->C->E->B.

This is an extra choice because there is not only one way to do something inefficiently, there are an infinite ways of doing something inefficiently. I must pick one.

Yes, I get the idea. I am not saying God picks randomly, I am saying that there is no motive for God to build an efficient system. To pick A -> B over A -> C -> B by default implies you have a reason to avoid C. Your above reasoning assumes there is a reason to not go through C.

Possibly but then that get back to the goal. There is no issue if the goal is to do something via Ferris wheels. Then that is the goal and you talk about the most efficient way to do something with Ferris wheels, and the infinite set of ways of doing something with Ferris wheels inefficiently.

The issue is when there is no reason for God to do something inefficiently over efficient. If there is a reason then there is no issue.

The reason could be little more than it is God's will. Similarly, if he chose the efficient approach then the reason would equally be it is his will.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

(P = NP?)

No

philologos

(P = NP?) is the notation for the P vs NP problem, but yes I had read recently that a guy at HP had come up with a proof that the solutions cannot be computed at the same rate as they can be verified.

I think Wicknight's reasoning is flawed as we can't tell the efficiency or lack of efficiency involved in God's Creation as we don't know what is the most efficient way of Creation.

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

I would see this as supporting my case. I am than I am would imply nothing less and more.

God is not excess or unnecessary. There would be no part of God that would be the equivalent of our appendix, there but serving no purpose.

God is almost by definition efficiency personified

I appreciate that some don't like that idea or have trouble with it, but it is I am that I am, not I am what some Christians would like me to be.

Anyway a phrase like that can no doubt mean what ever people want it to mean so I don't anticipate much of a debate on these grounds.

In a way Wicknight you're looking on the 'name' of God as different to our given names and moreso to do with God's nature.......and I think that is the way most people look on the phrase, 'I am that I am' too.....so yes, it's more like an action word or a way of 'being' than just a 'static' name, it implies being static and in movement from our perspective..which can be difficult to grasp to say the least..lol..

As for the concept of 'efficiency' in relation to God, I think this is something that is a strictly human concept, so I guess that's where our views part...For a being outside of time itself 'efficiency' and 'waste' don't really have the same meaning as they do to us...if they have any meaning at all..

..It's kinda like up and down don't exist in a one dimensional universe iykwim..

Here's what St. Thomas thought...it's only an excerpt, but pertinent and enlightening from the mind of a great thinker...


Since then the Hebrew imperfect is admittedly not to be considered as a future, and since the nature of the language does not force us to see in it the expression of transition or of becoming, and since, moreover, early tradition is quite fixed and the absolute character of the verb hayah has induced even the most ardent patrons of its historical sense to admit in the texts a description of God's nature, the rules of hermeneutics urge us to take the expressions in Exodus 3:13-15, for what they are worth. Jahveh is He Who Is, i.e., His nature is best characterized by Being, if indeed it must be designated by a personal proper name distinct from the term God (Revue biblique, 1893, p. 338). The scholastic theories as to the depth of meaning latent in Yahveh (Yahweh) rest, therefore, on a solid foundation. Finite beings are defined by their essence: God can be defined only by being, pure and simple, nothing less and nothing more; not be abstract being common to everything, and characteristic of nothing in particular, but by concrete being, absolute being, the ocean of all substantial being, independent of any cause, incapable of change, exceeding all duration, because He is infinite: "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, . . . who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:8). Cf. St. Thomas

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

(P = NP?) is the notation for the P vs NP problem, but yes I had read recently that a guy at HP had come up with a proof that the solutions cannot be computed at the same rate as they can be verified.

I think Wicknight's reasoning is flawed as we can't tell the efficiency or lack of efficiency involved in God's Creation as we don't know what is the most efficient way of Creation.

One would imagine we are the most efficient way of Creation, otherwise God created an inefficient Creation, which leads to the question why would a perfect omnipotent being create an inefficient Creation. It seems some what paradoxical.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

Yes, I get the idea. I am not saying God picks randomly, I am saying that there is no motive for God to build an efficient system. To pick A -> B over A -> C -> B by default implies you have a reason to avoid C.

Not really. You are not avoiding C. You are just getting the job done, and the job doesn't require C.

If you want to get the job done while also invoking C you need a reason for this, because C is actually an infinite set of possibilities and it requires that you pick one.

I'm not saying that God couldn't have done this, but he would have required a reason to, a reason other than getting the job done.

Morbert wrote: »

The reason could be little more than it is God's will. Similarly, if he chose the efficient approach then the reason would equally be it is his will.

Invoking the unknowable "God's will", Morbert you old closet Christian :P

Again he could have a reason, what ever the X of God's will is. But he would still require a reason.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

So Wicknight, if God were trying to create the universe you mean that He would have to go through the path super-efficiently, like if He were trying the most efficient solution to the Travelling Salesman Problem

He wouldn't have to go the path of super-efficiently, he just would. Remember I'm working of your religions definition of God being omnipotent and omniscient. The most efficient route would be the default one for God as he would just know this.

Jakkass wrote: »

Couldn't it be argued that there are so many ways to create the universe, that it is actually a polynomial problem (P = NP?)

Computer Science FTW :pac:

Not if God is omniscient. If you want to drop that property of God ...

Jakkass wrote: »

But seriously, if we don't even know what the most efficient solution to what a problem is, how on earth can we tell how efficiently, or how inefficiently the problem is being solved?

We don't have to, we are not omniscient. You claim your god is. Therefore he would know. And if he knows, and he is omnipotent, then the most efficient solution would be the default one, and he would require an extra reason to make the world inefficient.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

As for the concept of 'efficiency' in relation to God, I think this is something that is a strictly human concept, so I guess that's where our views part...For a being outside of time itself 'efficiency' and 'waste' don't really have the same meaning as they do to us...if they have any meaning at all..

People keep suggesting that but it seems a bit of a cop out. It seems when ever something is said around these parts that troubles some people the stock response is that God is outside time and space so what ever was just said doesn't apply. I mean this never seems to be applied to the standard Christian things said about God. When was the last time someone said God is love to be met with someone saying Well now God exists separate to space time so concepts like love don't apply to God.

Can you explain why efficiency would not apply outside of time and space?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

He wouldn't have to go the path of super-efficiently, he just would. Remember I'm working of your religions definition of God being omnipotent and omniscient. The most efficient route would be the default one for God as he would just know this.

How do we know that God of necessity would? - This is an assumption. Just because God would know the most efficient solution doesn't necessarily mean that He would of necessity take it.

I'm not saying that God wouldn't take it, but there certainly is no compulsion for Him to take it.

I think this is a flaw in your reasoning.

Wicknight wrote: »

Not if God is omniscient. If you want to drop that property of God ...

My point is, that there are so many solutions, that you can't really verify which is the most efficient.

Your reasoning is flawed as to omnipotence as I've described above.

Wicknight wrote: »

We don't have to, we are not omniscient. You claim your god is. Therefore he would know. And if he knows, and he is omnipotent, then the most efficient solution would be the default one, and he would require an extra reason to make the world inefficient.

We certainly do have to if we are to reasonably criticise that God's creation is "inefficient". We can't. Therefore we can't reasonably criticise God's creation as being "inefficient".

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

How do we know that God of necessity would? - This is an assumption. Just because God would know the most efficient solution doesn't necessarily mean that He would of necessity take it.

I'm not saying that God wouldn't take it, but there certainly is no compulsion for Him to take it.

I think this is a flaw in your reasoning.

I'm not saying it proves he would, but given that there is no reason why he wouldn't it seems the logical assumption.

Jakkass wrote: »

My point is, that there are so many solutions, that you can't really verify which is the most efficient.

Again we don't have to. God is omniscient.

Jakkass wrote: »

We certainly do have to if we are to reasonably criticise that God's creation is "inefficient".

I'm not saying God's creation is inefficient, you guys are.

I'm working under the assumption that God's creation is the most efficient it can be given that it makes little sense to suppose that an omnipotent deity would create an inefficient universe. By inefficient I mean carrying out his goal of creation in a manner that requires more than is necessary. So arguments like Fanny's that maybe God wanted the universe to be beautiful don't apply since that would be is goal and thus the universe would be as efficient to be beautiful.

If God is simple, and we are complex, then this requires that God created an inefficient universe since God is infinitely powerful, infinitely beautiful, infinitely holy and infinitely advanced yet this only requires the simplicity of God.

If we (ie creation) are more complex than God yet less beautiful, less powerful (for want of a better word) then we are by definition inefficient.

This seems to not make any sense from a logical position.

This to me would lead to the conclusion that God is as complex if not more complex than his creation.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not saying it proves he would, but given that there is no reason why he wouldn't it seems the logical assumption.

It is still very much an assumption. It doesn't discredit God's omnipotence as you've been making out, even if the Creation is inefficient.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again we don't have to. God is omniscient.

In order to adequately verify God's creation as efficient or inefficient that is the requirement.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not saying God's creation is inefficient, you guys are.

How?

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm working under the assumption that God's creation is the most efficient it can be given that it makes little sense to suppose that an omnipotent deity would create an inefficient universe.

I think it's by and large irrelevant to the question at hand whether or not it is efficient or inefficient.

Wicknight wrote: »

By inefficient I mean carrying out his goal of creation in a manner that requires more than is necessary. So arguments like Fanny's that maybe God wanted the universe to be beautiful don't apply since that would be is goal and thus the universe would be as efficient to be beautiful.

I'm aware of what you mean. I'm not sure if one can really say that God intended the universe to be X and only X, it is possible that the universe was created to serve any number of intentions that He may have had.

Wicknight wrote: »

If God is simple, and we are complex, then this requires that God created an inefficient universe since God is infinitely powerful, infinitely beautiful, infinitely holy and infinitely advanced yet this only requires the simplicity of God.

I don't see where you are getting this out of. Perhaps we are the way we are with specific intent. Perhaps we aren't meant to be in the same structure as God.

Before we can even discuss efficiency, we have to determine what God desired for the universe. I'm not really sure that we can do that with any form of accuracy.

Wicknight wrote: »

If we (ie creation) are more complex than God yet less beautiful, less powerful (for want of a better word) then we are by definition inefficient.

I don't agree for the aforementioned reason.

Wicknight wrote: »

This seems to not make any sense from a logical position.

A logical position riddled with unwarranted assumptions.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

It is still very much an assumption. It doesn't discredit God's omnipotence as you've been making out, even if the Creation is inefficient.

I think you are assuming motivation to me Jakkass that I don't have. I'm not discrediting anything other than the idea that God is simple, and if I understand anything that idea is something humans came up with.

Jakkass wrote: »

In order to adequately verify God's creation as efficient or inefficient that is the requirement.

You don't need to verify it, it is based on properties you ascribe to God. If God is infinitely powerful and simple then we are by definition inefficient since we are not infinity powerful and we are complex.

Jakkass wrote: »

How?

By saying I'm wrong

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it's by and large irrelevant to the question at hand whether or not it is efficient or inefficient.

Not all at, the question at hand is whether God is simple.

If an infinitely powerful being can exist and be simple then a finite powerful being that is complex is unnecessary and thus inefficient.

There is no logical reason why we need to be more complex than God since we are not as powerful.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm aware of what you mean. I'm not sure if one can really say that God intended the universe to be X and only X, it is possible that the universe was created to serve any number of intentions that He may have had.

That is what I mean by X. X is the goal(s) God has for the universe. It doesn't matter if this goal is one specific thing (ie support life) or an infinite number of specific things.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see where you are getting this out of. Perhaps we are the way we are with specific intent. Perhaps we aren't meant to be in the same structure as God.

It doesn't matter. God is the max. He is the alpha and omega of everything. He is the pinnacle of anything.

It doesn't matter what we are supposed to be, the only thing that matters is that what ever we are supposed to be we are less than God. By definition we are not more than God because nothing is more than God. Therefore there is no reason why we would require more complexity than God because God being everything can exist at what ever level of complexity he is at.

Think of it this way. You find a big bowl in your grandmothers house and she says that is the biggest bowl in the house. It doesn't matter now what other bowls you find in the house, what shape they are what size they are. None of them will hold as much as this bowl. You only need to know that this is the biggest bowl in the house to know that no other bowl will be that big.

We don't need to know anything about us or creation to know that is will not require more complexity than God.

Now if you want to argue that God made us more complex anyway you can but since that complexity is not required for anything it is inefficiency.

Jakkass wrote: »

Before we can even discuss efficiency, we have to determine what God desired for the universe. I'm not really sure that we can do that with any form of accuracy.

No we don't again because of how you describe your god. God is omnipotent meaning all powerful. Which means all options are open to God to fulfill his goal for creation, no matter what that goal is.

Jakkass wrote: »

A logical position riddled with unwarranted assumptions.

If you think there is a problem with the logic by all means point it out. Falling back to the age old "We can't know this" excuse is just a cop out. You have no problem claiming to know things about God when it suits you.

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really. You are not avoiding C. You are just getting the job done, and the job doesn't require C.

Yes really. You are choosing to avoid C by 'getting the job done'. The reason for this is it would be harder to get the job done if C isn't avoided. The same reasoning does not apply to God.

If you want to get the job done while also invoking C you need a reason for this, because C is actually an infinite set of possibilities and it requires that you pick one.

I'm not saying that God couldn't have done this, but he would have required a reason to, a reason other than getting the job done.

Then please show explicitly why God, if all he cares about is result B, would pick A -> B over A -> C -> B.

Invoking the unknowable "God's will", Morbert you old closet Christian :P

Again he could have a reason, what ever the X of God's will is. But he would still require a reason.

To be honest it isn't even about God anymore. I am trying to explain that our concept of expected solutions to problems is predicated on finite resourses, and that all solutions become equivalent once resources aren't an issue. This is probably more suited to the philosophy/ivory tower forum.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

Yes really. You are choosing to avoid C by 'getting the job done'. The reason for this is it would be harder to get the job done if C isn't avoided. The same reasoning does not apply to God.

No, again not really

Harder doesn't come into it. If the only thing I'm taking about is B I'm not thinking about C, so it isn't a factor.

I'm not choosing to avoid C. C doesn't even factor into it, like when I go down stairs to the shop to buy a can of Coke (that reminds me..) I'm not choosing to avoid New York. New York doesn't even fact into it.

Its not like I'm thinking "Man I would go to the shop via New York if it was easier". It doesn't factor into the though process. My goal is to go to the shop and get a can of coke.

Morbert wrote: »

Then please show explicitly why God, if all he cares about is result B, would pick A -> B over A -> C -> B.

Because C is variable, and thus it would require an extra unnecessary choice. If all he cares about is B he is not going to think about C. C becomes irrelevant. God doesn't require a reason to avoid C.

Morbert wrote: »

I am trying to explain that our concept of expected solutions to problems is predicated on finite resourses

They aren't. Again I don't not go to New York when going to the shop because it is hard to go to New York. It is not a factor because it is irrelevant to the goal

lmaopml

Wicknight I'm trying to understand exactly where your A,B and C analogy and concepts of waste, efficiency and complexity are going in relation to God? and what the underlying impressions are..

There seems to be some underlying impression that we are somehow 'inefficient'? or that somehow our perceived 'complexity' is a bad thing or somehow unnecessary?

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Wicknight I'm trying to understand exactly where your A,B and C analogy and concepts of waste, efficiency and complexity are going in relation to God? and what the underlying impressions are..

There seems to be some underlying impression that we are somehow 'inefficient'? or that somehow our perceived 'complexity' is a bad thing or somehow unnecessary?

Ok, start with first principles.

Do you agree that if God is an infinitely powerful and capable being and is simple then anything that is less capable than God but is more complex than God is unnecessarily complex.

Leave all issues of "bad" things out of this, this has nothing to do with things be good or bad, this is to do with what we can logically deduce from what your religion already claims about God.

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, start with first principles.

Do you agree that if God is an infinitely powerful and capable being and is simple then anything that is less capable than God but is more complex than God is unnecessarily complex.

No. I'll try to explain..

Firstly, the way I think about it is;... the whole concept of God's simplicity is based on our understanding of God, and what we actually are told by him himself, of himself, and of course this being the Christianity forum, by Jesus. When we say God is 'simple' we are talking about a philosophical concept of simple 'being' from which all substantial 'being' is derived - not of 'parts' etc. There are most certainly things we do not know about God also...we can only know so much.

Secondly, I think you would have to understand the reason for our existence and makeup to say anything is 'unnecessarily' complex. God wills our complexity for his own reasons..

Leave all issues of "bad" things out of this, this has nothing to do with things be good or bad, this is to do with what we can logically deduce from what your religion already claims about God.

I don't know if Christianity as a whole lays down a de facto position on anything other than what 'can' be understood of God's nature and being. There are certainly many things that we cannot know, but strive through our complexities and natures to understand. That's why faith is a journey and not a destination in this life, an honest struggle must be important to God, that we learn and want to learn.....We are given 'reason' because God wills it, and I presume he wants us to use it while trusting in him and persevering in faith. That's the position Christianity takes to my relatively puny mind anyways...lol

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

No, again not really

Harder doesn't come into it. If the only thing I'm taking about is B I'm not thinking about C, so it isn't a factor.

I'm not choosing to avoid C. C doesn't even factor into it, like when I go down stairs to the shop to buy a can of Coke (that reminds me..) I'm not choosing to avoid New York. New York doesn't even fact into it.

Its not like I'm thinking "Man I would go to the shop via New York if it was easier". It doesn't factor into the thought process. My goal is to go to the shop and get a can of coke.

It does not matter how many times you say 'not really' if you cannot support your assertion because, again, your attention is biased towards the easy/efficient solutions. If no solution is easier, then there is no need to only think of the easy ones. The conversation has reduced to me asking you repeatedly to support your assumption that C 'doesn't factor into it'.

Because C is variable, and thus it would require an extra unnecessary choice. If all he cares about is B he is not going to think about C. C becomes irrelevant. God doesn't require a reason to avoid C.

They aren't. Again I don't not go to New York when going to the shop because it is hard to go to New York. It is not a factor because it is irrelevant to the goal

Consider the set of all solutions. This set may be finite or infinite. A solution could be picked randomly, or it could be picked with a motivation in mind. Solutions with unnecessary steps are disadvantageous to us, so we have a reason to avoid them. So the vast majority of solutions do not factor into our decision making processes, and they are rendered irrelevant. Remove this reason, and we no longer have an automatically preferred solution. You are asserting that the most efficient is still the expected/preferred choice because the unnecessary steps in others "do not factor". But 'not factoring/relevance' is predicated on conserving efforts, which we have removed.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

It does not matter how many times you say 'not really' if you cannot support your assertion

I really wish people would stop saying things like that when I am expending large amounts of effort and time going into great detail to support my assertions and everyone else seems to but just going "No you are wrong" :pac:

Morbert wrote: »

because, again, your attention is biased towards the easy/efficient solutions. If no solution is easier, then there is no need to only think of the easy ones.

It has nothing to do with being easy. I'm not sure how many times I have to say that, but lets try one more time :- It has nothing to do with being easy

Again I don't not consider going to New York on my way to the newsagents because it is hard, nor would it become a the default option of how to get to the news agents if it suddenly became easy.

Going to New York irrespective or whether it is hard or easy accomplishes nothing more than simply going to the news agents. Therefore the goal "Go to news agents" does not justify the choice to go via New York on its own. I require an extra reason to go via New York.

Therefore if the my goal is solely to go to the news agents there is no reason for me to go via New York, irrespective of whether it would be easy to.

Without any reason to do something I won't do it (unless I'm randomly picking things to do as extras to my trip to the news agents).

To say that if it it was infinitely easy to go to New York I would need a reason not to go to New York on my way to the news agents is silly. I still wouldn't because I don't have a reason to go there in the first place. And without reason I won't do something.

You are asking why would I not go there as if I need a reason to not go to all these places when in fact I need a reason too go to all these places. Otherwise I won't.

Morbert wrote: »

The conversation has reduced to me asking you repeatedly to support your assumption that C 'doesn't factor into it'.

I've explained ad nausea why C doesn't factor into it, it serves no purpose towards the goal.

I would need a reason to include C, not a reason to not include C. Since C serves no purpose to the goal at hand then the goal itself is not a reason to include C. I would require an extra reason, just like I would require an extra reason to go to New York on my way to the news agents.

That logic is wholly independent of any effort on my part.

Morbert wrote: »

Consider the set of all solutions. This set may be finite or infinite. A solution could be picked randomly, or it could be picked with a motivation in mind. Solutions with unnecessary steps are disadvantageous to us, so we have a reason to avoid them.

It is not about avoiding them nor do you pick randomly. I've stated a number of times that my assumption is that God is not randomly doing things, that everything he does is for a reason.

If everything he does is for a reason he requires a reason to pick A-C-B over A-B. The reason for A-B takes care of itself as this is the most efficient way to achieve a goal. A-C-B requires a reason to pick this over A-B because if the only thing you were interested in was the goal then A-B is the default option.

If my goal is to get the news agents then I go from here to the news agents.

If on the other hand I go from here to the news agents via New York I have to pick New York as where I want to go via.

I could have picked London, I could have picked Paris, I could have picked Pluto. Effort is not a factor but I must pick one and that requires a further choice (unless it is assumed that the picking is random which we are not assuming).

So I want to go to the news agents becomes I want to go to the news agents via Pluto.

There is an added choice in the latter.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

No. I'll try to explain..

Firstly, the way I think about it is;... the whole concept of God's simplicity is based on our understanding of God, and what we actually are told by him himself, of himself, and of course this being the Christianity forum, by Jesus. When we say God is 'simple' we are talking about a philosophical concept of simple 'being' from which all substantial 'being' is derived - not of 'parts' etc. There are most certainly things we do not know about God also...we can only know so much.

What is the simple being and what is the substantial being derived from it? And how is this not "parts"?

No offense but you seem to be just throwing words at me. I mean anyone can say something simple but that still requires that this assertion is logically backed up.

lmaopml wrote: »

Secondly, I think you would have to understand the reason for our existence and makeup to say anything is 'unnecessarily' complex. God wills our complexity for his own reasons..

Given God is omnipotent the reason is irrelevant since it is paradoxical to say God has to do something one way.

lmaopml wrote: »

I don't know if Christianity as a whole lays down a de facto position on anything other than what 'can' be understood of God's nature and being. There are certainly many things that we cannot know, but strive through our complexities and natures to understand.

Again all these things that we can't know about God always seem to be the things that cause believers trouble. And all the things we can know about God seem to be the thing that provide believers comfort. That seems a little coincidental.

We can't know this about God seems more of a apologetics cop out than an actual logical fact.

lmaopml wrote: »

an honest struggle must be important to God, that we learn and want to learn

See, you know that about God don't ya, no problems there :P

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

I really wish people would stop saying things like that when I am expending large amounts of effort and time going into great detail to support my assertions and everyone else seems to but just going "No you are wrong" :pac:

It has nothing to do with being easy. I'm not sure how many times I have to say that, but lets try one more time :- It has nothing to do with being easy

But you are saying it has nothing to do with being easy, and then making an assertion that only makes sense if easiness is important. As I said in my last post: You are asserting that the most efficient is still the expected/preferred choice because the unnecessary steps in others "do not factor". But 'not factoring/relevance' is predicated on conserving efforts, which we have removed.

Again I don't not consider going to New York on my way to the newsagents because it is hard, nor would it become a the default option of how to get to the news agents if it suddenly became easy.

Going to New York irrespective or whether it is hard or easy accomplishes nothing more than simply going to the news agents. Therefore the goal "Go to news agents" does not justify the choice to go via New York on its own. I require an extra reason to go via New York.

Therefore if the my goal is solely to go to the news agents there is no reason for me to go via New York, irrespective of whether it would be easy to.

Without any reason to do something I won't do it (unless I'm randomly picking things to do as extras to my trip to the news agents).

To say that if it it was infinitely easy to go to New York I would need a reason not to go to New York on my way to the news agents is silly. I still wouldn't because I don't have a reason to go there in the first place. And without reason I won't do something.

If it became identically easy, you wouldn't care. Or if you did care, that would be for your own reasons, and could not be assumed or expected of others.

Imagine, for example, if there were only two paths to the newsagents. One path was 1mm shorter than the other. We have two paths, where one is more 'direct/efficient' but both are just as easy to walk. Would you automatically pick the direct path without that unnecessary millimetre? Of course not. You wouldn't give a damn.

I've explained ad nausea why C doesn't factor into it, it serves no purpose towards the goal.

I would need a reason to include C, not a reason to not include C. Since C serves no purpose to the goal at hand then the goal itself is not a reason to include C. I would require an extra reason, just like I would require an extra reason to go to New York on my way to the news agents.

That logic is wholly independent of any effort on my part.

The sentence in bold assumes effort is important. Drop this assumption, and I could just as easily say

I've explained ad nausea why avoiding C doesn't factor into it, it serves no purpose towards the goal.

I would need a reason to avoid C, not a reason to not avoid C. Since avoiding C serves no purpose to the goal at hand then the goal itself is not a reason to avoid C. I would require an extra reason, just like I would require an extra reason to not go to New York on my way to the news agents.

That logic is wholly independent of any effort on my part.

<The rest of the post is a reiteration of the above, so I have ommitted it>

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

But you are saying it has nothing to do with being easy, and then making an assertion that only makes sense if easiness is important

Well that would be a bit stupid of me and I like to think I'm an intelligent fellow, so can I suggest that you have another read over my posts and, ignoring any issue of easy or hard, see if you can understand my point.

Morbert wrote: »

You are asserting that the most efficient is still the expected/preferred choice because the unnecessary steps in others "do not factor". But 'not factoring/relevance' is predicated on conserving efforts, which we have removed.

No I'm not.

The most efficient option is the default because it is the one that fulfills the goal with the least amount of choices. Not because these choices are hard or easy, that has nothing to do with it. If you want to go to the news agents and that is your goal and that is your only goal then you go to the news agents. The goal is fulfilled by the action.

Fulfilling the actions required to achieve your goal is the default choice if your goal is merely to achieve your goal.

Achieving your goal via extra actions unnecessary to achieving the goal requires further choice on your part because you have to choose what the extra is. Is it going via new york. Is it going via paris etc.

The work required to fulfill these is utterly irrelevant to that point.

Morbert wrote: »

If it became identically easy, you wouldn't care.

It is not about caring. You have to choose one of them. And that is an extra choice.

If I could travel instantly from my office to new york and then to the news agents I wouldn't care that my journey took me through new york. But I still have to pick new york and picking new york has nothing to do with my decision to go to the news agents.

Morbert wrote: »

Imagine, for example, if there were only two paths to the newsagents. One path was 1mm shorter than the other. We have two paths, where one is more 'direct/efficient' but both are just as easy to walk. Would you automatically pick the direct path without that unnecessary millimetre? Of course not. You wouldn't give a damn.

Given that you have to pick one of them what reason would you have to pick the longer one? Seriously? Not what reason would you have to not pick it, but what reason would you have to pick it, given that you have to have a reason.

Again you are introducing random choose when I've told you a dozen times I'm assuming God does not randomly choose.

Morbert wrote: »

The sentence in bold assumes effort is important.

Ok, you keep saying that over and over so time to back it up.

Assume that effort is irrelevant. Now explain to me what purpose towards the goal of reaching B going via C serves given that you can just go to B.

Not well theres is no harm in going via C, but explain the actually purpose towards achieving the goal that going via C holds.

Seriously, you either have to justify that assertion or stop using it because I'm running out of ways of trying to explain to you that effort is irrelevant.

Morbert wrote: »

I've explained ad nausea why avoiding C doesn't factor into it, it serves no purpose towards the goal.

Avoiding C does not achieve the goal of getting B, irrespective of effort. I could go to D and I would be avoiding C but I still wouldn't end up at B.

Morbert wrote: »

I would need a reason to avoid C, not a reason to not avoid C.

You don't magically end up at C unless you avoid it. C is not on the way to B. If your goal is to go to B you have to choose to go via C. You aren't just going to magically end up at C. You have to choose to go there.

Why would you choose to go there given that going there does nothing extra to achieve the goal of reaching B and that is your only goal? Not why would you choose to avoid it given taht you are not not just randomly ending up there unless you avoid it

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

Again I don't not consider going to New York on my way to the newsagents because it is hard, nor would it become a the default option of how to get to the news agents if it suddenly became easy.

Going to New York irrespective or whether it is hard or easy accomplishes nothing more than simply going to the news agents. Therefore the goal "Go to news agents" does not justify the choice to go via New York on its own. I require an extra reason to go via New York.

Therefore if the my goal is solely to go to the news agents there is no reason for me to go via New York, irrespective of whether it would be easy to.

Without any reason to do something I won't do it (unless I'm randomly picking things to do as extras to my trip to the news agents).

To say that if it it was infinitely easy to go to New York I would need a reason not to go to New York on my way to the news agents is silly. I still wouldn't because I don't have a reason to go there in the first place. And without reason I won't do something.

You are asking why would I not go there as if I need a reason to not go to all these places when in fact I need a reason too go to all these places. Otherwise I won't.

I've explained ad nausea why C doesn't factor into it, it serves no purpose towards the goal.

Only according to Wicknight lol!

You want to know God's reasons to include 'C', only because from your perspective whatever 'C' represents to you yourself in real terms is unnecessary, or represents a detour...but that's cause we live here, under the 'Dome' in linear time etc.

..but with omniscience and omnipotence there is no such thing as a 'detour'...'C' doesn't matter. It's irrelevant to where we are 'at' because from an omnipotent view point we are 'at' the place we should be always.

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as if I were throwing words about -maybe I'm just expressing myself arseways....:oMorbert seems to be better at explaining in ABC terms.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Only according to Wicknight lol!

You want to know God's reasons to include 'C', only because from your perspective whatever 'C' represents to you yourself in real terms is unnecessary, or represents a detour...but that's cause we live here, under the 'Dome' in linear time etc.

No I don't. By definition C is unnecessary to God because B is his goal. We have already defined that.

The question basically boils down to why God would do something that serves no purpose. How would that come about

It isn't a question of us not understanding the purpose. That is why they are variables. I've no idea what the purpose of creation was but what ever it was it is B. Any extra that does not serve God's purpose is C.

lmaopml wrote: »

..but with omniscience and omnipotence there is no such thing as a 'detour'

Yes there is. If what God wants to do is B then anything extra is C. If God does C it is by definition a detour.

lmaopml wrote: »

...'C' doesn't matter. It's irrelevant to where we are 'at' because from an omnipotent view point we are 'at' the place we should be always.

A B and C as points was just an analogy, this isn't about God being in all places at once. It is about goals and methods to achieve goals.

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

No I don't. By definition C is unnecessary to God because B is his goal. We have already defined that.

The question basically boils down to why God would do something that serves no purpose. How would that come about

It isn't a question of us not understanding the purpose. That is why they are variables. I've no idea what the purpose of creation was but what ever it was it is B. Any extra that does not serve God's purpose is C.


Yes there is. If what God wants to do is B then anything extra is C. If God does C it is by definition a detour.



A B and C as points was just an analogy, this isn't about God being in all places at once. It is about goals and methods to achieve goals.

Ok, I'll approach it this way... Imagine a being that achieves the 'goal' at the exact same moment as 'willing' it? For God, the goal is already known and also achieved - in the most perfect way according to his will. There is no past present or future and no 'waste' or detours..

So really it's not so much about being 'in all places' at once, but about both being in all places AND being in all times at once...There is no waste, there is no 'C' that didn't serve a 'purpose' as he willed it. 'C', or our definition of 'C' is irrelevant from that perspective...

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that would be a bit stupid of me and I like to think I'm an intelligent fellow, so can I suggest that you have another read over my posts and, ignoring any issue of easy or hard, see if you can understand my point.

I have read your posts, and I am telling you that, despite you assertion that effort is irrelevant, your point only follows from the assumption that effort is relevant. Without this assumption, the reasoning in blue is just as valid as your reasoning.

The most efficient option is the default because it is the one that fulfills the goal with the least amount of choices. Not because these choices are hard or easy, that has nothing to do with it. If you want to go to the news agents and that is your goal and that is your only goal then you go to the news agents. The goal is fulfilled by the action.

The least efficient option is the default because it is the one that fulfils the goal with the most amount of steps. Not because these steps are hard or easy, that has nothing to do with it. If you want to go to the newsagents, and that is your only goal then you go to the newsagents. That goal is fulfilled by the least efficient action.

Fulfilling the actions required to achieve your goal is the default choice if your goal is merely to achieve your goal.

Choosing the most complicated actions required to achieve your goal is the default choice if your goal is merely to achieve your goal.

Achieving your goal via extra actions unnecessary to achieving the goal requires further choice on your part because you have to choose what the extra is. Is it going via new york. Is it going via paris etc.

Achieving your goal via omitting extra actions unnecessary to achieving the goal requires further choice on your part because you have to choose what actions to omit. Is it not going via new york. Is it not going via paris etc.

If I could travel instantly from my office to new york and then to the news agents I wouldn't care that my journey took me through new york. But I still have to pick new york and picking new york has nothing to do with my decision to go to the news agents.

If I could travel instantly from my office to the news agents I wouldn't care that my journey didn't take me through new york. But I still have to avoid new york and picking that avoidance has nothing to do with my decision to go to the news agents.

Given that you have to pick one of them what reason would you have to pick the longer one? Seriously? Not what reason would you have to not pick it, but what reason would you have to pick it, given that you have to have a reason.

Again you are introducing random choose when I've told you a dozen times I'm assuming God does not randomly choose.

I'm not saying you would have to pick the longer one. I'm saying you don't automatically pick the shorter one if it doesn't make a difference to your effort.

Ok, you keep saying that over and over so time to back it up.

Assume that effort is irrelevant. Now explain to me what purpose towards the goal of reaching B going via C serves given that you can just go to B.

Not well theres is no harm in going via C, but explain the actually purpose towards achieving the goal that going via C holds.

Seriously, you either have to justify that assertion or stop using it because I'm running out of ways of trying to explain to you that effort is irrelevant.

It serves no purpose to go to B via C over going to B directly. Similarly, it serves no purpose to go to B directly over going to B via C if it is effortless. There is a symmetry. As I said in a previous post "I agree that the question [why god chose a specific option] would be unanswered. But the question would still be there if he picked the efficient option."

Avoiding C does not achieve the goal of getting B, irrespective of effort. I could go to D and I would be avoiding C but I still wouldn't end up at B.

Exactly. Avoiding C does not factor into it. Avoiding C does not achieve the goal of getting B, irrespective of effort. I could go to D and I would be avoiding C but I still wouldn't end up at B. So not going to C is unimportant.

You don't magically end up at C unless you avoid it. It is not on the way to B. If your goal is to go to B you have to choose to go via C. You aren't just going to magically end up at C. You have to choose to go there.

If you don't avoid C then you end up in it. Or (to pre-empt a debate over what 'avoid' implies) if don't not go to C, you go to C.

Why would you choose to go there given that going there does nothing extra to achieve the goal of reaching B and that is your only goal? Not why would you choose to avoid it given taht you are not not just randomly ending up there unless you avoid it

Why would you chose to not go there given that not going there does nothing extra to achieve your goal of reaching B and that is your only goal?

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Ok, I'll approach it this way... Imagine a being that achieves the 'goal' at the exact same moment as 'willing' it? For God, the goal is already known and also achieved - in the most perfect way according to his will. There is no past present or future and no 'waste' or detours..

So really it's not so much about being 'in all places' at once, but about both being in all places AND being in all times at once...There is no waste, there is no 'C' that didn't serve a 'purpose' as he willed it. 'C', or our definition of 'C' is irrelevant from that perspective...

That is in fact my entire argument :P

There is only B. God wills it and it is done. God never accidental does something he didn't mean to. God never randomly does something he didn't mean to. God never over does something. Such ideas are attributes that limited beings like we would do. We make mistakes. We make misjudgments.

Like I said already God is almost the definition of efficiency. It would seem stupid to say that God is not efficient, such an idea seems paradoxical.

Which again leads back to the idea that the world is overly complex. It stands to reason that the world is as complex as God requires it to be.

Everyone is saying I need to present a reason why God wouldn't make the universe unnecessarily complex, but as you say yourself above such an idea is almost nonsensical.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

It serves no purpose to go to B via C over going to B directly. Similarly, it serves no purpose to go to B directly over going to B via C if it is effortless.

Ok, so you have no reason to go to C. So why would you end up there if your only goal is to get to B?

You can say you have no reason not to go to C. But that doesn't give you are reason to go to C. And without a reason to go there how do you end up there?

This is the point. You won't go to C without a reason to. You won't just end up there randomly unless you avoid it.

Explain to me how you end up at C without choosing to go there.

NB notice that none of this has anything to do with effort.

Morbert wrote: »

If you don't avoid C then you end up in it.

No you don't. You go direct to B.

lmaopml

pml..

who said God was inefficient?

...and I guess 'complexity' especially the concept of 'overly complex', is relative to how omnipotent our viewpoint and understanding is too..lol..

We're only beginning to understand ourselves...but in another millenia under the dome, perhaps our concepts of complexity will be seen as being as simple as one and one is two...

Mathematics makes sense of complexity in the most wonderfully illustrative and simple way...

Who knows what another millenium will bring...

...only God

Imo of course lol...

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, so you have no reason to go to C. So why would you end up there if your only goal is to get to B?

You can say you have no reason not to go to C. But that doesn't give you are reason to go to C. And without a reason to go there how do you end up there?

This is the point. You won't go to C without a reason to. You won't just end up there randomly unless you avoid it.

Explain to me how you end up at C without choosing to go there.

NB notice that none of this has anything to do with effort.

Ok, so you have no reason to not go to C. So why would you not end up there if your only goal is to get to B?

You can say you have no reason to go to C. But that doesn't give you are reason to not go to C. And without a reason to not go there how do you end up not there?

This is the point. You won't not go to C without a reason to. You won't just end up not there randomly unless you don't avoid it.

Explain to me how you won't end up at C without choosing not to go there.

NB notice that none of this has anything to do with effort.

Notice also that, as soon as effort becomes important, the reasoning in blue becomes invalid and absurd, and yours makes perfect sense. This is what I meant by your reasoning assumes effort is important. Without that assumption, both lines of reasoning are on par.

No you don't. You go direct to B.

Morbert wrote:

Or (to pre-empt a debate over what 'avoid' implies) if don't not go to C, you go to C.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

pml..

who said God was inefficient?

Anyone who supposes that God is simple but created a complex creation.

lmaopml wrote: »

...and I guess 'complexity' especially the concept of 'overly complex', is relative to how omnipotent our viewpoint and understanding is too..lol..

"overly complex" is irrelevant. If God is simpler than his creation then his creation is inefficient.

lmaopml wrote: »

We're only beginning to understand ourselves...but in another millenia under the dome, perhaps our concepts of complexity will be seen as being as simple as one and one is two...

I'm understanding all of this perfectly fine thanks very much.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

Ok, so you have no reason to not go to C. So why would you not end up there if your only goal is to get to B?

You can say you have no reason to go to C. But that doesn't give you are reason to not go to C. And without a reason to not go there how do you end up not there?

This is the point. You won't not go to C without a reason to. You won't just end up not there randomly unless you don't avoid it.

Explain to me how you won't end up at C without choosing not to go there.

NB notice that none of this has anything to do with effort.

Notice also that, as soon as effort becomes important, the reasoning in blue becomes invalid and absurd, and yours makes perfect sense.

That isn't an answer to the question I'm asking you.

How do you end up at C if you have no reason to go there?

If effort is removed from the equation (which I'm more than happy to do) do you just randomly end up at C?

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't an answer to the question I'm asking you.

How do you end up at C if you have no reason to go there?

If effort is removed from the equation (which I'm more than happy to do) do you just randomly end up at C?

You end up at C by choosing to go there. Similarly, the answer to "how you won't end up at C" is by choosing not to go there.

Similarly, you wouldn't randomly end up at C, but you also wouldn't randomly end up not at C.

Anyway, I'm leaving this game till tomorrow.