Is God an overly complex explanation for the universe?

[5micky2]

I'm not religious  but I can see a way for you to strengthen your arguments. Look up on YouTube the numerous videos on Fractals and their discoverer Benoit Mandelbrot. Using a simple marthematical formula and a computer, Mandelbrot was the first man on the planet to show us how infinitely complex and majestic structures can be created from virtually nothing. If a Godlike being exists, this is its hands at work. A good place to start: Arthur Clarke - Fractals - The Colors Of Infinity 1 of 6

[alessandrogiordano]

God does not have to be more complex than the universe, the universe is a complex storage of knowledge of the enitre cosmos including Gog "perhanps". Eg. ppl created machines which are more complex than people right? the peo-le have a greater knowldege because they created the machines.

[TamaThePeck]

If God knows everything about the entire universe, but is not equal to that universe, then he is more complex. The simplest means of storage for ALL information regarding any particular particle is the particle itself. Therefore, an all-knowing God would have to be as complex or more complex than the things he knows about.

[delbert0504]

this is really good video. It's always encouraging to see someone who explains the concept of God with reason and logic and doesn't just accept or deny based on logical fallacy.

[ScrapGoldBass]

great vid

[lobster123456789]

nice.

[grammastola]

overide1234 says, "The cause we are talking about has to be more complex, because it interacts with the creation it created..."

Absolutely not. In fact, I offered multiple reasons why that does not logically follow -- and if you watched the video, you know that.

Moreover, your statement is simply unjustified. There is no principle of logic or science from which it follows. That argument is entirely ad hoc; i.e., it was created to justify a point of view rather than proceeding from logic.

[grammastola]

"I think the problem rests on the word 'God' itself, which essentially refers to the masculine principle in the universe. Clearly there is a feminine principle as well..."

I don't think that's clear at all, nor did my argument assume that God is a masculine principle. Rather, this argument only requires that God be the creator, regardless of whether God is masculine, feminine, or neither.

[AzathothianBrew]

I think the problem rests on the word "God" itself, which essentially refers to the masculine principle in the universe. Clearly there is a feminine principle as well, and I feel that the word "God" doesn't quite give the feminine principle due credit. In comparison to other culture's notion of "God", the Native Americans came up with the term "Great Spirit", the Chinese conceived the notion of the "Tao", etc. These conceptions reconcile the mascaline/feminine principles in a nameless anonymity.

[SeraphsWitness]

I feel like I know you're entire house after watching these videos! haha

[grammastola]

"I feel like I know you're entire house after watching these videos! haha"

Heh. Actually, some of these videos were shot in my old office building, my old apartment, various hotel rooms, and other locales. I would shoot some from within a park setting if I could only guarantee that there'd be peace and quiet.

[SWAUVE4U]

awesome video brother....blessings

[overide1234]

The cause we are talking about has to be more complex, because it interacts with the creation it created, since you believe in jesus and the bible.

It would of been fine if you believed in a noncomplex god, like Spinoza's God, but at the end is where your thinking just falls to the ground, because you believe in heaven, jesus, angels, and the god that watches all those things, and can read minds, hearts, and damn people to hell, and is not complex.

[grammastola]

"but in your video you claimed god isn't complex or intelligent, yet his alive and doing all those things"

That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. I said that God does not have to be complex. I never said that he was unintelligent. Pay close attention, please.

Moreover, there is NO logical inconsistency in sayign that God condemns people to damnation, splits seas, etc. You might object to them on other grounds, but there is NO logical inconsistency in these statements.

[overide1234]

Wow you had some good thoughts, till the end there like a typical christian you started blabbering on about Jesus Christ.

[SavedTru8]

"Wow you had some good thoughts, till the end there like a typical christian you started blabbering on about Jesus Christ."

-Gramma left this comment up so we can have a good chuckle eh?

[legodesi]

you hit a good point at 3:45. Dawkins compares God to a machine, presuming materialism.

[oztronix]

QUESTION:

Is God an overly complex explanation for the universe?

THE ANSWER:

NO, HE'S A MAKER OF IT ! (ha,ha,ha).

God is NOT complex, but: some humans really are. Perfection is NOT in the complexity, never was, never will be. And praised Him, since He is also not logic either (lol).

If he is "logic" some will try to put him into micro chip, and issue a patent. (ha, ha,ha).

Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooo­oooooL.

(love your video, keep'em coming!).

It leafed me just fine.

[Marcello777]

Very nice video. I guess God is not so complex. You're right that things that are perfect are fairly simple.

[ATL45]

a well thought out argument.

however i still think that anything that could create something from nothing must invariably be more complex than the creation. if god set all of these physical laws and constants, then he must have had the potential existing within him not just to create them but to specify them as well. that strikes me as an over-complicated state of "just the way things are".

something must "just be", and an unconscious universe sounds simpler than a sentient, sapient god.

[grammastola]

"a well thought out argument.

however i still think that anything that could create something from nothing must invariably be more complex than the creation. "

You're welcome to think that; however, I have yet to find a single physical or logical law which dictates that this must be so. And even if the cause were more complex, this would not necessarily make it less probable. Not unless one postulates that the cause must have arisen through probabilistic (e.g. evolutionary) means.

[LaneCh]

I hope everything is well with you, grammastola. I'm looking forward to new videos if you'll be able to make more.

[DYkurama]

I agree with your critics. The universe is not fine tuned for life, life is fine tuned for the universe. I do not have the burden of proof here. You are making the claim that only one kind of life is possible. You have to prove that. I am simply saying that we do not know and so cannot say the universe is designed for life as we know it. And when you consider the immense size of the universe and our very small galaxy(relatively) this is not improbable

[BassP86]

With all due respect, DYkurama, Grammastola has already given that evidence. In fact that evidence is itself seen the world today, and this you cannot deny. Because there has been no evidence shown, thus far, that any other kind of life is possible, one must go wherever the evidence is most prevalent. The burden of proof remains on those who claim that "the kind of life that is seen here on earth is not the only kind that is possible".

[MindLasers]

You're using the words "cause" and "design" interchangeably. A complicated effect can arise from a simple cause, but a complicated design needs an even more complicated designer. Christians assume the universe is "designed" so logic demands an improbably complicated designer. Atheists usually think it as an effect arising from an accumulation of simple causes.

[grammastola]

"You're using the words 'cause' and 'design' interchangeably," says MindLasers.

No, I'm not. You're severely misrepresenting what I said. In this video and the previous ones, I took great pains to emphasize that the precise cosmic constants suggest an INTELLIGENT cause, not just any cause at all.

[kirisuchan33]

"There is no interaction between the components of God." The potential problem I see with that: the apparent interactions between the persons of the Trinity.

I think a more valid rebuttal of Dawkins' claim is: the act of creation does not constitute the whole of God's complexity (Job 26:14).

[lukasz]

thank you friend, I know you don't to this to get thanks and praise, but really thank you-- Your such a catalyst for my learning(and others I'm sure as well), please please please continue to post more things!

[mogthew]

"Please don't ... find a way to explain the evidence away ... go where the evidence points"

And where does the evidence point? For you, to the existence of god. I think it wise to question any evidence on such matters.

[adipiscor]

Another very interesting video. This deistic instigator seems eminently plausible, but I was wondering where you obtain evidence to attribute attributes such as "all powerful", "loving", and so forth, to such an abstract entity? The idea that complexity does not logically follow from these attributes is fascinating, but does any of this have anything to do with Christianity?

Thank you.

[grammastola]

"...but I was wondering where you obtain evidence to attribute attributes such as 'all powerful', 'loving', and so forth, to such an abstract entity? "

Interesting question. Those are matters of further philosophical inquiry though, beyond the scope of the fine-tuning argument. Maybe someday I'll post a video discussing those issues. Obviously, one cannot cover all theological questions with just a few ten-minute videos.

[thestoneddog]

this came to me a couple of days ago so i thought i would say it here. cosmic fine tunning is proof against god no for because god is all powerful.he can make what ever kind of univers he wishes and put whatever he wants in it.the only univers that has to be fine tuned is the univers in which there is no god.

[grammastola]

thestoneddog, you're talking about the kind of fine-tuning where physical parameters start out wrong and must be incrementally adjusted to make them work. That's not what philosphers mean by cosmic fine-tuning though, nor do I know any physicists who believe that's what happened. Rather, they mean that the constants exhibit extreme precision right from the start. Nobody claims that they started out wrong and were incrementally adjusted in order to produce life!

[thestoneddog]

i dint say that i was i said that god could have put us in any type of univers he wanted regardless of whether it was fine tuned for us.he is god he should be able to do anything. so what this means is that the only univers that need to be fine tuned is one which there is not a god that can do whatever he wants.

[grammastola]

Thanks for clarifying. I based my remakrk on yoru statement that fine-tuning means there is NO God, which I don't think logically follows.

Besides, omnipotence does not mean that God can do ANYTHING at all. That's a kindergarden-level understanding of omnipotence. Philosophers typically state that God can only do things that are logically consistent, since his character is logical. Hence, we cannot conclude that he would produce life in a universe where the physical laws prohibit life.

[overide1234]

"God can only do things that are logically consistent, since his character is logical."

hmm, what do you mean by that, splitting seas, damning people into eternal damnation, etc is logically consistant.

[grammastola]

overide1234 says, "hmm, what do you mean by that, splitting seas, damning people into eternal damnation, etc is logically consistant."

Do you mean that they're logically inconsistent? If so, that's untrue. There is nothing logically inconsistent about dividing a sea, for example. It violates the laws of physics, but that's no problem for the one who created physics. As for damnation, you might not like the notion, but that doesn't make it logically inconsistent.

[overide1234]

If the one who created it is violating the laws of physics at any given time, he/she has to be complex. he/she has to be aware and complex enough to understand what it's doing, and how it will affect the universe

[grammastola]

"If the one who created it is violating the laws of physics at any given time, he/she has to be complex"

Absolutely not! In fact, I explained why at great length in my video. With all due respect, either you didn't view it or you weren't paying attention. Instead, you simply assert that he must be complex as though this were self-evident. I presented multiple reasons why this does not logically follow.

[overide1234]

You know it'll be better if you could remove the comment filter, or not remove comments, so people can have a discussion about your ideas and thoughts. I wrote some comments and I guess you deleted them or haven't put them up, for whatever unknown reason.

[grammastola]

"You know it'll be better if you could remove the comment filter, or not remove comments, so people can have a discussion about your ideas and thoughts."

The comment filter does NOT preclude people from discussing this matter. Rather, it ensures that the discussion remains on-topic and relevant.

For example, your statements suggest that you didn't actually watch the video, as I had addressed the points you raised in great detail. Comments like those simply muddy the discussion.

[grammastola]

To continue my earlier response, you are perfectly free to post whatever disagreement you want. However, if you post off-topic attacks or continue to misrepresent my stance (e.g. claiming that I said God is not intelligent), then such comments simply obscure rational discussion and are best ignored. I know you wouldn't like that, but frankly, I don't feel obligated to give people a platform when they don't represent my statements accurately.

[synonys]

This video is either a huge strawman or a huge misnderstanding. I believe the former. You take Dawkin's argument out of context, his argument illustrates why god explanations are inherently fallacious. They explain an unexplained quantity with an unexplaned quantity.

[grammastola]

"You take Dawkin's argument out of context, his argument illustrates why god explanations are inherently fallacious. They explain an unexplained quantity with an unexplaned quantity. "

There is no law of logic which says that we can only explain something using things that we can already explain. Using that logic, we would have had no reason to accept quantum mechanics, and yet we did. Why? Because that's where the evidence pointed.

[teenspirit1]

I also think that the commentator is brilliant (in a blaise pascal way) and the use of stairs as a background is aesthetically pleasing.

Talking about pascal makes me sad though, since he is an example of how a brilliant person loses the use of logic and starts making wishful assumptions when it comes to christianity.

[teenspirit1]

As an atheist who took pleasure from watching this video, I agree that

1) The idea of god is not complex, since it is not explained at all.

2) the complexity of an explanation does not invalidate itself

3) making up for what lacks when you disbelieve an explanation is not the way to go.

I think that the christian God is not an explanation of the existence of the universe at all, and that the bible or the mechanism of the universe does not consist of evidence to prove the christian God.

[thestoneddog]

sorry for so many comments on this but i have allot to say. i fully understand that at the moment must people will not accept computer viruses as life but i do believe it will become clear when computers themselfs become complicated enough to allow for a form of natural selection to occur on the viruses. also you never answered my question as to weather or not you would consider a fully self replicating robot to be a life form.

[thestoneddog]

i do not believe that anyone say that because god would be more complex that it is not posible god did it just that its is less probable than the univers existing without being created.

[grammastola]

"I do not believe that anyone say that because god would be more complex that it is not posible god did it just that its is less probable than the univers existing without being created."

Several of the skeptics I spoke to most assuredly said that we cannot postulate a cause that is more complex than the effect we want to explain. If that's not what Dawkins meant, then they misunderstood his view. AS for your phrasing, I'll tackle that in an upcoming video.

[macguy]

While you can lower the argument to the level of probability, it still fails to address the arguments by grammastola . 1) God is not complex 2) Comparing the complexity of the universe to God is like comparing Apple's to oranges. 3) My enhancement: There is no reason to argue that a complex God makes the creation of the universe unlikely in the same way that the probability of a human creating Mount Rushmore is not made less probable. The point is to establish what the BEST explanation is.

[thestoneddog]

the funny thing is you claim god has no interacting parts without any proof that anything can exist that way and do anything. as far as we know nothing capable of reading minds can be that simple. you are doing what you claim people like me are doing when we invoke the multivers to explian fine tunning.

[mogthew]

Good video :)

Having recently read the god delusion I know exactly what your talking about.

Considering the term 'fine-tuned', assumes sentience, creation of the universe would assume intent, and in this case the sentient life form would be perfect in every way, I don't think its to hard to consider the idea that God would be more complex than the universe, and hence its existence would be less likely.

Just my thoughts though.

[bitbutter]

There is no generally accepted consensus on where to draw the distinction between life and non-life. So it seems quite dishonest (or just badly researched?) of you to suggest otherwise.

[grammastola]

"There is no generally accepted consensus on where to draw the distinction between life and non-life. So it seems quite dishonest... of you to suggest otherwise."

I disagree. For one thing, even if we grant certain gray areas (viruses, for example), we can still acknowledge that the odds are overwhelmingly against most other forms of life existing, even protozoans. Second, numerous constants must be finely tuned for ANY form life to exist, even by the broadest definition.

[franticmonk]

Yes, if a protozoan spontaneously appeared from a collection of amino acids, that would be improbable indeed.

However this is a classic misunderstanding of evolution. The protozoa did not appear in one step, but through the many-step process of natural selection working on successive generations over an incomprehensibly huge period of time.

[grammastola]

franticmonk said, "However this is a classic misunderstanding of evolution."

I said absolutely nothing about evolution. In fact, I avoided doing so. Rather, I solely addressed the issue of physical constants that are required for life to even BEGIN to exist. That is, even if evolution is true, it still requires physical constants that are set with extreme precision.

[cjinnett]

franticmonk should have said "abiogenisis." gram, you're right in saying that it has nothing to do with evolution, however, when you research abiogenisis, you will actualy find out that it isn't as unlikely for it to occur, than it would seem at first glance.

[grammastola]

I agree that "abiogenesis" would have been more accurate; however, I don't think that it solves the problem. As I emphasized in this video series, the physical constants must be set very precisely for atoms to form, for sufficient carbon to exist, etc. These conditions must be precisely set before abiogenesis can even begin!

[cjinnett]

You're absolutly right. There does have to be certain conditions for abiogenisis to occur. And strangly enough these are exactly the sort of conditions that existed on earth before the emergence of life.

[grammastola]

"And strangly enough these are exactly the sort of conditions that existed on earth before the emergence of life. "

As you know though, I was talking about THE PHYSICAL CONSTANTS OF THE UNIVERSE. This is vastly different from the premordial conditions on earth, which is what you describe.

Besides, scientists still don't have a good model for abiogenesis. You do have the Miller/Urey experiment, which I'll discuss shortly, but nothing that comes close to a complete explanation.

[grammastola]

Now, about the Miller/Urey experiment...

This is the famous experiment which supposedly demonstrated that lightning could have produced amino acids in the primordial atmosphere. This experiment employed a hydrogen-rich atmosphere, though. Scientists now recognize that there was surely very little free hydrogen in the atmosphere, which violates their conditions.

[Xaulted]

Thanks for posting another excellent video. I love them, please keep them coming.

I've been researching Dawkin's myself lately, and he's definitly an interesting character indeed... a debate between you and him would be sensational!

[Stephanreyu]

Another Great video. God Bless.

[AwokenSpirit]

I always look forward to your videos my friend. I have been wanting to tackle this subject with some points of my own for quite a while now. I'll try and post a video response to this in the near future.

[boydysurf]

Thanks Grammastola for the video. You're clear thinking and good articulation always help to bring your points across so well. I'm learning from you (although you're not an authority) and I'm praying that your goals will be met too.

[jonjames1986]

A good test for design is specified complexity. Something that works to a specific purpose. This is evidence of design at some level.

[AlienFnord]

I don't think I have any particular aversion towards the idea of a God. My world view is a bit bleak, and perhaps it would be less so if there was a God?

I'm a bit curious of yourself though. Was it scientific or philosophical evidence which led you to believe in God or did you find the evidence after already believing?

[grammastola]

Thanks for asking, AlienFnord. I was raised as a believer, but at various poitns, I began to question much of what I was taught. I rejected much of what I previously believed, but I did decide that there was a God after all and that the Bible was more reliable than I had thought.

I arrived at these convictions through combined scientific, historical, and philosophical means.

[BassP86]

AlienFnord, that's a great question. However, it is worthy of discussion in another video board. Some people prefer to address questions, in their comment boards, that are relevant to the video itself. I think I speak for Grammastola when I say that he happens to be one of those people. Take care and God Bless.

[baseballgeek]

You, Sir, are a blessing on YT. I am hardpressed NOT to favorite every video you put out. Excellent.

[megawolf7]

Grammastola, you should challange Dawkins to a debate!

[ZeroShift5000]

In a strange way we can thank Dawkins for arguing that God is too complex. It gives us Christians a chance to contemplate Gods complexity. lol

[runteddy]

IMO, an explosion that came pretty much from nowhere which resulted in this awesome universe that we live in, complete with all of it wonders and mysteries and so forth, is an outrageously complex explanation for the universe. However, I see the explanation of God creating the universe as the simplistic one. But, that's just me:)