Yes, we can point to instances that seem to suggest the reverse of my argument, that complexity arises from greater complexity still. Termite mounds are created by termites, and termites are more complex than termite mounds; ants create ant hills; an ant hill is less complex than an ant. But this is trivial because the origins of both the termite and the termite mound are traceable back to simpler origins ultimately - life diversifies and develops through repeated underlying mechanisms that are insentient and simple such as cell division and copying errors which themselves are traceable back to yet simpler principles of energy conservation and statistical probability. The cosmos produces pockets of increasing complexity against the backdrop of thermodynamic dissipation which tends to break them down and some of those pockets themselves produce pockets of lesser complexity in the short term but the overarching principle is that complex systems derive ultimately from simpler systems not the reverse as is implied by matrix theory or theism. I think this poses more difficult problems than the reverse, which is something from nothing. Something from nothing is the way to go I think, this is challenging I agree but we can rise to challenges; theism on the other hand merely avoids the challenge by presenting what is ultimately a tautology to get out of the regression.
Your honesty is appreciated here Torridon…
I would give more consideration to the
something from nothing side if I didn't see the concept appearing to be contradicted by observation and other areas of science.
On the science side, I could use e.g. from Physics, Newton’s conservation of xxx laws from Physics, or Chemistry, where something does appear to come from nothing (e.g. the order from disorder in a snowflake), something is given up in order for this to happen, namely heat energy.
On the observation side, complexity can come from something less complex (no problem with that), but either there is some guiding influence for this to happen and/or the ability is there to do so from the start.
Personally, I don’t see theism avoiding the challenge of the regression as there is one on either side of the debate. The theistic solution is to have a first cause that is eternal (without beginning or end) therefore needs no cause itself. The alternative is the
uncaused cause. Personally, I go with the former.
