Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

But who are you to say just how easy or difficult it is to build up life from nothing?

He didn't, you did.

[Alan Burns]

Don't tell me we have to hold your hand and walk you through the concept of emergence again, do we?

If we observe something specifically complex emerging from something which is not complex, do we automatically assume that this is just what happens naturally?  Or is there any possibility of an intelligently driven interaction which has carefully nurtured the specific complexity from that which is not complex?  There is no logic behind the assumption that specific complexity is a naturally emergent property from a non complex state.  Random events are demonstrably destructive of specific complexity and are seen to produce chaos.

[Shaker]

What's "specific complexity"?

[torridon]

But who are you to say just how easy or difficult it is to build up life from nothing?

It's your claim that the cosmos is overwhelmingly hostile to life. If I were a universe-creating god wishing to create life, I wouldn't set about it by creating a hostile, anti-life arena in the first place.  When I had small children, I created a safe nurturing environment for them, not one that was full of hazard everywhere you look.  In the implausibilty stakes, this idea is right up there with a god of goodness that creates and tolerates evil in the form of the Devil, and the god that cannot get the design for humans right from the get go and has to constantly tinker, secretively with evolution with a mutation here, a mutation there.

[torridon]

If we observe something specifically complex emerging from something which is not complex, do we automatically assume that this is just what happens naturally?  Or is there any possibility of an intelligently driven interaction which has carefully nurtured the specific complexity from that which is not complex?  There is no logic behind the assumption that specific complexity is a naturally emergent property from a non complex state.  Random events are demonstrably destructive of specific complexity and are seen to produce chaos.

It's a simple logic fail to explain complexity by invoking even greater complexity to explain it.  That only makes your problem harder, not easier.

[Gordon]

If we observe something specifically complex emerging from something which is not complex, do we automatically assume that this is just what happens naturally?

Yes - since it is a reasonable opening assumption given that all the other provisional explanations we have for phenomena are natural and we also so know that incomplete explanations, or even 'don't know as yet'  are perhaps all we can do as an interim measure and we also know that continued investigation using naturalism can revise, add to or even refute previous explanations (for example 'miasma' theory). In addition the only reliable methods of investigation we have a naturalistic so there is no other option as things stand.

If you want to claim a non-natural explanation then you need a method that is specific to that claim - and that you don't have. 

Or is there any possibility of an intelligently driven interaction which has carefully nurtured the specific complexity from that which is not complex?

Maybe there is: but you'll need more than personal incredulity to support that. Currently there are no good reason to think this, especially since you attempts to go down this route have been shown to be fallacious in various ways....

There is no logic behind the assumption that specific complexity is a naturally emergent property from a non complex state.  Random events are demonstrably destructive of specific complexity and are seen to produce chaos.

...as you continue to demonstrate with relentless reliability.

[Stranger]

They know their creativity is under their control - it is what they do.

The debate isn't about whether 'me' or 'you' (as we subjectively perceive ourselves) are in control or not (that is another debate entirely) - it's about what 'me' or 'you' actually are.

The idea of 'us' being in control is perfectly consistent with deterministic, material entities.

[Stranger]

What's "specific complexity"?

I was you about to ask the same question.

[Shaker]

I was you about to ask the same question.

I do know it's the sort of jargon peddled by (un)intelligent design buffoons, but I've yet to hear one of these IDiots actually define it. "Crashes and"'s chances of defining it are similarly slender.

[ekim]

What do you mean, 'indifferent'? That is an emotion, needing brains, chemicals and nervous systems to be produced.  I think you should get your definitions more precisely stated.

Indifference ..... Lack of interest, concern, or sympathy. ..... Oxford Dictionery

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I do know it's the sort of jargon peddled by (un)intelligent design buffoons, but I've yet to hear one of these IDiots actually define it. "Crashes and"'s chances of defining it are similarly slender.

I take it then that a Simulated universe is off the table.

[Alan Burns]

What's "specific complexity"?

complexity which is seen to do specific functions, as opposed to the non specific complexity we may see in such things as snowflakes or star formations,

[Shaker]

complexity which is seen to do specific functions

Wasn't it Raphael who was said to be able to draw a perfect circle freehand? He had nothing on you 

[Alan Burns]

The debate isn't about whether 'me' or 'you' (as we subjectively perceive ourselves) are in control or not (that is another debate entirely) - it's about what 'me' or 'you' actually are.

The idea of 'us' being in control is perfectly consistent with deterministic, material entities.

To have control in any form, you need a source for that control.  So this source must have the power to initiate a controlling event.  In a physically deterministic scenario involving only material reactions to previous events, there can be no defining source event to initiate a controlling command.  In this scenario, everything is just uncontrollable reactions to previous events.

So in the physical scenario there can be no us, or we or you or me in control - only inevitable uncontrollable reactions.  For any of us to exist as creative human beings, the me's and you's must exist as non physical entities with the power to control.

[floo]

To have control in any form, you need a source for that control.  So this source must have the power to initiate a controlling event.  In a physically deterministic scenario involving only material reactions to previous events, there can be no defining source event to initiate a controlling command.  In this scenario, everything is just uncontrollable reactions to previous events.

So in the physical scenario there can be no us, or we or you or me in control - only inevitable uncontrollable reactions.  For any of us to exist as creative human beings, the me's and you's must exist as non physical entities with the power to control.

Even if an intelligent designer was responsible, why should the less than credible story book character, the Biblical god, be it? 

[Alan Burns]

Even if an intelligent designer was responsible, why should the less than credible story book character, the Biblical god, be it?

It all comes down to faith that our Creator made Himself known to us in the form of Jesus Christ, and it is the only credible explanation I can see for our existence.

[BeRational]

It all comes down to faith that our Creator made Himself known to us in the form of Jesus Christ, and it is the only credible explanation I can see for our existence.

Fallacy

[Stranger]

To have control in any form, you need a source for that control.  So this source must have the power to initiate a controlling event.  In a physically deterministic scenario involving only material reactions to previous events, there can be no defining source event to initiate a controlling command.  In this scenario, everything is just uncontrollable reactions to previous events.

This is a very dishonest attempt to redefine the word 'control'. The word has a perfectly good meaning in English (and science and engineering). There are all sorts of physical, deterministic control systems, in biology, nature more generally, and in human made systems.

The central nervous systems of all complex animals control many aspects of their behaviour, so please don't pretend that 'control' means god-magic.

You also didn't answer my previous question: how can control not be a reaction - in order to control anything one needs to react to it?

So in the physical scenario there can be no us, or we or you or me in control - only inevitable uncontrollable reactions.  For any of us to exist as creative human beings, the me's and you's must exist as non physical entities with the power to control.

Bland, empty, and baseless assertion.

Nobody disputes that we experience ourselves and that we at least appear to be in control (the extent to which we are is debatable). The question is only whether 'we' are produced by physical systems or not.

I'll bring you back again to the question you keep running away from:-

How about just stopping for a moment and thinking about how we make decisions and exert control? We gather and evaluate all the information, we contemplate our options, we bring to bear our knowledge and experience, we consult our feelings, values, preferences, and beliefs. Finally, based on all that (or not, if we decide to act impulsively) we make a choice and act.

Nothing in the that is in any way incompatible with us being deterministic beings (the impulse my be (pseudo)-random). What exactly is the magic non-material part of us supposed to bring to the party?

How about answering this time...?

[Stranger]

complexity which is seen to do specific functions, as opposed to the non specific complexity we may see in such things as snowflakes or star formations,

The kind that is produced by evolution, then.

[Gordon]

It all comes down to faith that our Creator made Himself known to us in the form of Jesus Christ, and it is the only credible explanation I can see for our existence.

Not only is the above not credible: it isn't even an explanation.

[wigginhall]

Just echoing Stranger's point about control - the idea of executive functions in the brain used to be a common idea, I don't know if it is now, as I am out of date.   But we can see with some kinds of brain damage (through accident or disease), that these executive functions can malfunction.   Yes, AB is cheating really with his notion of control, as if physical systems can't have it.

I thought torridon's point about a hostile universe was a zinger - why would God make such a hostile place? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought torridon's point about a hostile universe was a zinger - why would God make such a hostile place?

The greater hostility is not from nature but humanity........which has wrought havoc on nature and on itself. Torridon is wrong.

[Sebastian Toe]

The greater hostility is not from nature but humanity........which has wrought havoc on nature and on itself. Torridon is wrong.

Who created humanity?

[torridon]

So in the physical scenario there can be no us, or we or you or me in control - only inevitable uncontrollable reactions.  For any of us to exist as creative human beings, the me's and you's must exist as non physical entities with the power to control.

If we were purely 'non-physical entities' then we wouldn't be able to control or interact with physical stuff.  You are trying to have your cake and eat it, avoiding trying to understand along the way.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who created humanity?

Who violated nature?