The Value of Testing

[variant]

I find that the idea of a spontaneous increase in complexity to be without example. I am left to believe that the matter/space/time continuum is not a necessary or open system. This begs a necessary cause. Thus I am a creationist.

If the universe can not be uncaused saying it is caused by God just gives us the same problem of an uncaused thing and a more complex system to explain.

I am left to believe that no effect can transcend its cause, therefore non-person cannot produce person. Thus I am left to believe that the Creator is a person, a personal God.

That is simply a dubious understanding of thermodynamics. Effects are more complex than their causes all the time, otherwise starch is impossible.

It doesn't take more than that, for me, to dismiss the belief systems I cited above.

You haven't argued against pan-theism where the universe has a personality or polytheism (at all).

 

[variant]

The crystaline patterns in a snowflake do not equate to an increase in complexity.

Untrue. Snowflakes are more complex than water vapor.

 

[bricklayer]

Untrue. Snowflakes are more complex than water vapor.

Pattern does not equate to complex.

 

[3sigma]

The crystaline patterns in a snowflake do not equate to an increase in complexity.

Pattern does not equate to complex.

Perhaps you should begin by defining what you mean by complexity because if patterns of connections between molecules are no more complex than the disorder of a formless, amorphous liquid then you can hardly claim that a person is more complex than a non-person or that your formless, amorphous God is more complex than a person.

 

[bricklayer]

Perhaps you should begin by defining what you mean by complexity because if patterns of connections between molecules are no more complex than the disorder of a formless, amorphous liquid then you can hardly claim that a person is more complex than a non-person or that your formless, amorphous God is more complex than a person.

Ice is not more complex than water.
If that is not self-evident to you, no amount of explanation will help.

 

[3sigma]

Ice is not more complex than water.
If that is not self-evident to you, no amount of explanation will help.

Okay, if you think snowflakes are no more complex than water droplets then here’s another example of a spontaneous increase in complexity for you: stars. Are you going to try to tell us that stars are no more complex than clouds of hydrogen?

Stars are quite complex. They have nuclear reactions going on inside them; they create heavier elements through a series of reactions; they have complex processes of convection; complex magnetic fields; and they produce solar winds, flares, arches and coronal mass ejections. Stars are much more complex than simple clouds of hydrogen yet they form spontaneously and the cause is the simple force of gravity.

So, again, your premise is false and your conclusions are unsound.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ice is not more complex than water.
If that is not self-evident to you, no amount of explanation will help.

What do you mean by "complex"? Please give examples of complex entities in contrast with simple ones. It may become self-evident to us what you mean.

Also, while you are it, can you give a clear example of:

The truth is that which corresponds to its predicate.

Please explain what a predicate is, and how the truth corresponds to that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SithDoughnut]

Of course, someone will make the claim that they can prove that 2+2=4,
which amounts to claiming that everything = everything, which is easily des-proven.
What that one actually claims is that 2+2 exclusively =4.

2+2 (in base 10) is exclusively 4. That is how the number 4 is defined - it can be nothing else.

 

[bricklayer]

What do you mean by "complex"? Please give examples of complex entities in contrast with simple ones. It may become self-evident to us what you mean.

Also, while you are it, can you give a clear example of:



Please explain what a predicate is, and how the truth corresponds to that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Increasing complexity is exampled in a germinating seed.

Predicate losely equates to subject.
One could say that, the truth is that which corresponds to its subject.

Triangles are round is not true, because round does not correspond to triangles.
Triangles have three sides is true, because it corresponds to triangles.

I affirm the correspondence of truth, because any explicit attempt to deny it implicitly affirms it. It is self-evident.

 

[bricklayer]

2+2 (in base 10) is exclusively 4. That is how the number 4 is defined - it can be nothing else.

"it can be nothing else" is my very point.

2+2=4 is true, but to prove it exclusively true, one must des-prove all the other answers.
Apart from exclusivity, a claim the 2+2=4 is tantamount to claiming that everything=everything.

2+2, exclusivly=4 involves: identity, non-contradiction and exclusion.

 

[SithDoughnut]

"it can be nothing else" is my very point.

2+2=4 is true, but to prove it exclusively true, one must des-prove all the other answers.

No, it's true by definition. If I say a cat is a mammal with 4 legs, I don't have to prove that it doesn't have a different number of legs, or that it isn't a reptile.

 

[bricklayer]

No, it's true by definition. If I say a cat is a mammal with 4 legs, I don't have to prove that it doesn't have a different number of legs, or that it isn't a reptile.

2+2=4 can be proven true, but proving it exclusively true requires des-proof.

Philosophy 101

 

[SithDoughnut]

2+2=4 can be proven true, but proving it exclusively true requires des-proof.

Philosophy 101

Not if it's true by definition. If I define a square as a 4 sided shape, I do not need to show that it isn't a 3 sided shape.

 

[Eudaimonist]

2+2=4 can be proven true, but proving it exclusively true requires des-proof.

Philosophy 101

That doesn't apply to formal logical systems such as mathematics. Proving 2+2=4 does not require disproving every other definable result. No mathematician would support your statement.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bricklayer]

Not if it's true by definition. If I define a square as a 4 sided shape, I do not need to show that it isn't a 3 sided shape.

One does to prove that it is exclusively a four sided shape, and if you don't, your claim equates to claiming that everything is everything.

 

[3sigma]

I find that the idea of a spontaneous increase in complexity to be without example. I am left to believe that the matter/space/time continuum is not a necessary or open system. This begs a necessary cause. Thus I am a creationist.
I am left to believe that no effect can transcend its cause, therefore non-person cannot produce person. Thus I am left to believe that the Creator is a person, a personal God.

I’ve given you the formation of stars as a valid example of a spontaneous increase in complexity. Your creationism and your belief in your God are based on a false premise and are therefore unsound. Please tell us again how you tested and disproved atheism, but this time use sound reasoning, please.

 

[SithDoughnut]

One does to prove that it is exclusively a four sided shape, and if you don't, your claim equates to claiming that everything is everything.

Everything is everything. That's another statement that's true by definition.

Tell me, when you look up a word in a dictionary for someone and find it, do you have to prove to that person that it isn't any other word that you've found?

 

[Tielec]

Cogito ergo sum?