I agree with Craig. The concept of divine simplicity exists in several
religions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity ). The concept
is also not dissimilar to the "Neti Neti" (Not this, not that) explanation
of Brahman in Hindusim ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti ) or the
Nirguna Brahman, which is Brahman without qualities.
Of course, the whole question of what is simple and what is complex
requires a definition of complexity. The universal dovetailer is a simple
program, yet it generates all programs. The Mandlebrot set has a simple
definition, but is infinitely detailed. Pi has a simple definition, but an
infinite expansion of digits.
So apparent complexity, of a universe, a world, etc. need not be dependent
on complex underlying principles or systems. Bruno often says, arithmetic
is much bigger when seen from the inside.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:54 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A two year old can understand what God is supposed to be.
> A two year old can't understand how something simple can know everything
> and neither can I; and there is a reason the word "simple" is often used as
> a synonym for "stupid". And the Bible just says that God made animals but
> it doesn't say how, but Darwin didn't just say Evolution made animals he
> explained how it did it. Saying "animals exist because of God" is no more
> helpful than saying "animals exist because of flobkneegrab".
> > The position that I am arguing is knock down that unsupported balloon
>> that you tried to float about science being better than religion because
>> science always means that complex things are explained by simple things.
> That is not what science means that is what a explanation means; a theory
> (like the God theory) that explains the existence of something unlikely
> (like us) by postulating the existence of something even more unlikely
> (like God) is worse than useless.
> > Your straw man of me arguing that God is not important didn't work.
> Good, now I don't have to find a verse in the Bible proving that it
> teaches that God is grand.
> > This is something that science and religion have in common, not which
>> sets them apart.
> But you aren't exactly a expert on science, you admitted that to you most
> scientific papers are just a huge amount of mumbo jumbo, so your readers
> might be wise to take your views on the value of science with a grain of
> John K Clark
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at