Agreed, good to define terms and sometimes essential to do so. Also good practice to be prepared to define terms as needed as the conversation progresses. Unless of course the parties are well aware of the subject matter and then for the most part it’s unnecessary.
If they are well aware of the subject matter and the definitions for that subject matter are crystal clear
and unambiguous.
Unfortunately a problem with defining terms is that it’s often used as a crutch in that either side can simply cling to the idea that any definition given is "not a cogent explanation" or is "an insufficient definition". It's an argumentative convenience wrapped in a clever disguise....it’s intellectual cowardice. It can be utilized randomly and is often a personal means of absolution. It's not that definitions can't be discussed, but when no definition is ever sufficient I find the motivation to be suspect......smoke and mirrors.
Good, accurate definitions don't allow the sort of wiggle room that you describe. If one side can't produce a clear, internally consistent and unambiguous definition, then it's not intellectual cowardice for the other side to point that out.
Certainly not all scientific findings summarize as increasing complexity, but that’s certainly what is continually uncovered at CERN. I think it’s a good thing and it amazes me what these folks are finding and understanding….blows my mind actually.
If you're referring to the pentaquark, while I agree that it was an awesome and intriguing discovery, I'll point out that the pentaquark simply constitutes a new way for quarks to combine. But CERN certainly lets us explore existing theories and is helping us improve our understanding of the Universe.
It’s not necessarily the general notion of complexity that implies the existence of God. For me it’s the improbability of that seemingly unending complexity.
So to you the something like the
Julia set proves God?
Decreasing complexity? Hmmm…..I would have to use an example of something that the vast majority of scientists and scientific enthusiasts understand thoroughly and/or as completely as humanly possible. Certainly complexity is subjective, but let’s take a single drop of water as an example. For the most part, we can agree that water is fairly simple and we understand it thoroughly. It’s essential to our lives, covers the majority of the earth and our bodies are composed of a ton of it. From a perspective of chemistry it’s quite simple and we teach the simple chemistry of water to small kids in elementary schools. Yet, despite how simple and essential water is we can’t create a single drop of it. We can produce it as a by product of others processes or convert it from other states (air vapor to liquid water), but we can’t produce one drop of water from nothing (at the present). From a perspective of our understanding that’s a relatively simple concept that science understands thoroughly and yet eludes science completely. I think that the simplicity of water can imply something greater at work. Heck we’re attempting to scour the universe for other places that have water and haven’t been all that successful in our endeavors.
I have many problems with this, the least of which is that your analogy doesn't work very well: as you point out we can easily produce water (by mixing an acid with a base, for example, to get salt , water and heat). You suggest that producing a drop of water from nothing somehow "eludes" science; of course, that's false: science, quite convincingly, tells you that you can't violate the conservation of charge or energy. And, given enough time, it's almost certain that we will be able to take pure energy and convert it to cold, refreshing water.
I am curious what you mean when you say that water is "simple"? How is water simpler than, say, beryllium hydride (BeH
2) or hydrogen fluoride (HF)? What, exactly, does "simple" mean in this context?
Well, I don’t have much to add here because that isn’t my position. I’m a lifetime student and enjoy reading and learning. I don’t subscribe to the naïve proposition of “why is the sky blue? God.” or "I can't answer a question so 'God'." I fully believe that God is creator, but that isn't license to stop learning and seeking to understand. Personally I think the Lord delights in our explorative efforts and findings therein. Reason being, the more we discover of his creation the more we glorify him in the process.....just my opinion.
I know you consider yourself a lifetime student and that you enjoy both reading and learning new things, so please don't take this the wrong way. You may think that this isn't your position but, at the core, it has to be. If you believe in God, you believe that there exists a level, below which is the answer to the question "why?" is "God!" And if that's the case, then the answer to everything above, is, ultimately God, even if by proxy.
Let's use the "blue sky" example.
Why is the sky blue?
- Because the molecules in our atmosphere scatter more blue light than red light.
Why do they do that?
- Because the wavelength of light we perceive as blue is shorter than the wavelength of light we perceive as red.
Now assume the "why" continues. We talk about more fundamental and deeper concepts of physics. At some point we'll get to the Big Bang. It's the best theory we have to explain the Universe. At this point, if you ask "why?" science says: "we don't know." But you, as a believer in God, don't. You say: "God!"
Let's be clear: your belief in God doesn't bother me. I don't care if you can provide a rational and consistent definition for your deity. I don't care if you think that it created the Earth 6,000 years ago or set the Big Bang in motion and let evolution run its course. You are free to believe whatever you want, provided you don't seek to impose your beliefs on others. I don't think you are, so we're cool.
What I am bothered by is the notion that supernatural revelation - which is the foundation of all religions - is another tool in our mental arsenal that we can use to understand the world around us.
