Timeline for Dawkins on God: What are the strongest counters to his argument?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2023 at 14:57 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | @ToddWilcox Ok. But simple and complex are always relative to some criterion. So fine, say one hydrogen atom is not simple. But simplER is always a comparison between two alternatives. Are two hydrogen atoms together (or, say, a water molecule) simplER or complexER than one hydrogen atom? If you don't have a scale, it means you are not agreeing to communicate with anyone else. Is a bath hotER than an ice cube? I hope so. | |
| Feb 20, 2023 at 1:46 | comment | added | Todd Wilcox | @ScottRowe I mention the standard model because physicists no longer see all matter as made up of only protons, neutrons, and electrons. A single atom can be an extremely complex object, even if it’s not radioactive. And I categorically disagree that “many objects clumped together cannot be simpler than any one of the components.” What is “simple” depends a lot on perspective. A single hydrogen atom taken as a whole is quite simple compared to any other atom, but its internal structure is very complex compared to a photon. Then again photons are complicated from other points of view. | |
| Feb 19, 2023 at 23:09 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | @ToddWilcox ordinary matter is made from the 3 particles, so the other parts of the Standard Model weren't even theorized until 100 years ago. What is your definition of 'simple'? I don't see that people disagree about it in a meaningful way. Is one transistor just as complex as a cpu? It makes no sense. Things are made of smaller things. A collection is more complex by definition. Many objects clumped together cannot be simpler than any one of the components. What kind of Alice in Wonderland definition would that be? | |
| Feb 19, 2023 at 13:50 | comment | added | Todd Wilcox | @ScottRowe Your comment also does not clarify what is meant by “simple” or “complex”. The standard model (in which there are far more than three elementary particles) is not inherently simple. Nor is a piano. Nor is even the notion that all music is made up of four fundamental parameters. This whole notion of “complex arises from simple” or vice-versa seems to be built on the assumption that we all know and agree on what things are “simple” and what things are “complex” and that assumption doesn’t hold at all from my point of view. | |
| Feb 19, 2023 at 13:14 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | @ToddWilcox All material things are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. Pretty simple, right? Biochemistry, pretty complex. How many biochemicals are there, compared to 3 elementary particles. 88 keys on the piano keyboard, with a simple relationship of each note to the next one higher. How much music is there? Lots. If people suggest design, it means they are not seeing things in this way. Reductive reasoning doesn't solve all problems, but it gets rid of a lot of bad questions. | |
| Jan 9, 2023 at 1:02 | comment | added | Todd Wilcox | My previous comment is meant to suggest clarifying the notions of simplicity and complexity used to support your critique of Dawkins’ argument. | |
| Jan 9, 2023 at 0:52 | comment | added | Todd Wilcox | I can’t personally see, philosophically or scientifically, how flowing water is "simpler" than a river bed, nor how flame is "simpler" than its products. I feel like your comments on comparison of complexity reasonably apply to comparisons of simplicity also. How does one reasonably compare water to a river bed? That’s not to say I think statement (1) is defendable. Only that your critique of statement (1) does not satisfy me at all. | |
| S Jan 6, 2023 at 17:20 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S Jan 6, 2023 at 17:20 | comment | added | Philip Klöcking♦ | Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. | |
| Jan 6, 2023 at 1:46 | history | answered | David Gudeman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |