Hindu Proof of God: Best Arguments

[ratiocinator]

I have argued that if we find a complex functional system we necessarily infer an intelligence.

An intelligence is a complex functional system - so your argument would lead to infinite regress.

Not only that but this intelligence needs to contain all the ideas about the complexity of the universe and have the ability to 'supervise' them all and so must be even more complex than the universe itself.

So, you are saying that one complex functional system needs an even more complex functional system to sustain it but that that (even more) complex functional system can just exist for no reason.

There is an older watchmaker argument which argues similarly, if I were to to chance upon an alien desert and find in the desert a functioning watch, it would immediately force the inference there is a watchmaker.

Yes it's very old and and it's been refuted many times (search for "Paley's watch"). There are obvious differences between deliberate design and nature - otherwise your example wouldn't make sense.

Further, we know that all the intelligences we have any evidence of, evolved from simpler lifeforms. So intelligence infers evolution in a far more direct way than complexity infers intelligence.

Biological systems are unlike the sort of "top down" designs produced by intelligence and we can trace their evolution - we understand how their complexity can be produced.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

An intelligence is a complex functional system - so your argument would lead to infinite regress.

No, because this begs the question that intelligence is a complex functional system. A functional system infers a functionary that uses it, but it does not mean functionary itself is a functional system e.g. I use a tool, but it does not mean I myself am a tool.

Not only that but this intelligence needs to contain all the ideas about the complexity of the universe and have the ability to 'supervise' them all and so must be even more complex than the universe itself.

No, the intelligence only has to be omniscient.

Yes it's very old and and it's been refuted many times (search for "Paley's watch"). There are obvious differences between deliberate design and nature - otherwise your example wouldn't make sense.

The refutations are inadequate, because the materialist only accepts matter exists, and hence the watch or the cell are both made out of exactly the same stuff matter, the same groups of particles that make up the watch make up the cell. The watch is an example of a group of particles arranged in a certain intelligent configuration, so that it indicates the watchmaker. Similarly, a cell is a group of particles arranged in a certain intelligent configuration, sot that it indicates the intelligence.

Further, we know that all the intelligences we have any evidence of, evolved from simpler lifeforms. So intelligence infers evolution in a far more direct way than complexity infers intelligence.

Biological systems are unlike the sort of "top down" designs produced by intelligence and we can trace their evolution - we understand how their complexity can be produced.

This argument here ignores the argument that even at the simplest stage, just the single cell, it was already an irreducibly complex system.

You are basically telling me this if you chance upon an alien planet and find an abandoned city, you infer the city built itself. As that is basically what a single cell is, it is a nanocity.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Just a note on irreducible complex system, as this often strawmaned. An irreducible complex system is a system where the parts are arranged in an intelligent configuration so that the system functions. There can be simple systems and more complex systems, both which are irreducibly complex:

This is a very basic system, where the the parts light bulb, switch and battery are arranged in an intelligent configuration so that the entire systems funtions i.e., the light can turn on. If there is no switch, or no light bulb or no power source the system will not function.

Here is a more complex system:

In this system, the system consists of the parts heat sensors, resistors, battery arranged in an intelligent configuration that the entire system functions i.e., it monitors the temperature.

Now let us look at even more complex systems:

Radio transmitter and receiver:

It is easy to see that such a system can never just come into being by random chance. And this is not even complex by this standard:

Television:

And this is not complex by this standard:

Motherboard of computer:

As technology becomes more advanced we can miniaturise the complexity of everything above into an object the size of a single grain of rice. Then into an object as small as a part of a part of of a hair follicle. If we do, we eventually reach the kind of complexity we see in a single cell. In other words a single cell is a more system complex than the most complex system above. It is hard to visualise how mindbogglingly complex a single cell is, so to visualise it often compared to a factory:

In this system, there are hundreds and thousands of unique parts, and millions of parts, each of which has a department in the cell.

cell products « factory products: Cells do not work in isolation but provide and receive resources from other cells or from the surrounding environment. Factories produce products so that they may be sold and earn money for the corporation. Similarly, cells produce products that may be used by surrounding cells, and in turn receive resources from surrounding cells. For example, cells in the Beta Islets of Langerhans in the pancreas produce insulin that is used by surrounding cells. Simultaneously, these same cells receive oxygen and nutrients provided by the red blood cells and plasma that flow in their neighborhood.​

organelle membranes « walls: In factories, walls are used to separate regions with different functions. For example, the paint room is separated from the upholstery shop so each can carry on its functions without interference from the other.


nucleus « headquarters: The nucleus of a cell controls the operations of a cell. In a similar manner, factory headquarters controls the operations of a factory. The nucleus is separated from the rest of the cell by a nuclear membrane that allows it to function without interruption from surrounding organelles, just as the office walls of the headquarters allow planners and managers to direct the operations of the factory without being distracted by surrounding operations.

nuclear pore « doors: Communication is essential to the proper functioning of a factory. Doors allow people from different departments to visit and communicate. In a similar manner, nuclear pores allow for information and resources to flow between the nucleus and the cell it manages.

DNA/chromosome « plans: Each factory has plans that govern the production and development of their products, as well as plans that govern the day-to-day operation of the factory. DNA is analogous to such plans, providing the code not only for all cell products, but also the proteins that govern daily operations within the cell.

smooth endoplasmic reticulum « hallways: Factories have hallways through which information from the office travels to the workers in all departments. Similarly, the cell has smooth endoplasmic reticulum through which it is believed that messenger RNA travels from the nucleus to places where it is decoded.

ribosome « worker: Factory workers “translate” instructions from headquarters into products. In an analogous fashion, ribosomes are the site where messenger RNA is translated into proteins.

rough endoplasmic reticulum « assembly line: Workers gather in regions of the factory where assembly takes place. Similarly, ribosomes are positioned on rough endoplasmic reticulum where the proteins are assembled.

protein « product: Factories produce products for internal and external use. Similarly, cells produce proteins for internal use and for export. Proteins result when DNA code has been transcribed into RNA and translated into polypeptide chains. Similarly, factory products result when plans from the office are copied and distributed to workers who combine various components to assemble a product.

cytoplasm « stock room: A factory needs a stock room from which parts can be taken for use on the assembly line. Similarly, resources are distributed through the cytoplasm until they are used by surrounding organelles.

m-RNA«photocopy: Although the master plans of a company may be protected in the factory headquarters, individual plans may be photocopied from these plans and distributed to workers as needed. m-RNA is like a photocopy of DNA that accurately transmits data from the nucleus to the ribosomes where it is translated into useful proteins.

t-RNA « stockroom helpers: Stockroom helpers bring components to the assembly line where they can be combined into products. Similarly, t-RNA brings amino acids from the cytoplasm to the ribosomes where assemblage of proteins may take place.

mitochondrion « powerhouse: A powerhouse converts energy from one form to another. For example, the powerhouse at a hydroelectric dam converts the kinetic energy of falling water into electrical energy for distribution to homes and businesses. In a similar manner, mitochondria convert energy from the bonds in glucose to the phosphate bonds of ATP.

ATP « electricity: Electricity is a flexible energy source that can be easily distributed to homes and businesses. Similarly, ATP is a flexible energy source that is used to power the growth, movement and metabolism of the cell.

Golgi apparatus « warehouse: Products from a factory are generally stored in a warehouse before exporting. The Golgi apparatus may serve as a warehouse where proteins are stored prior to export.​

Untitled Document​

If we were to magnify on a single cell to make it all visible on our scale, it would look an advanced alien technological city. It would be more complex than the most advanced supercomputers we have today.

Now, here is what I am going to test the consistency of my opponents, if they were saying "No" at even the level of the temperature monitor, that it cannot just build itself, then how can they be saying "Yes" at the level of the single cell that it built itself? It proves my point my opponents are not consistent.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, because this begs the question that intelligence is a complex functional system. A functional system infers a functionary that uses it, but it does not mean functionary itself is a functional system e.g. I use a tool, but it does not mean I myself am a tool.

This is playing word games. An intelligence is incredibly complex system - it has to have the ability to perceive, discern patterns, construct models, make plans and so on and so on - it entails data processing on a massive scale. All of which might be a bit of a hint as to why it is always observed emanating from a massively complex physical object consisting of 100 billion neurons and why we don't come across instances of it that just happened to have exited for all eternity.

If you encountered an intelligent being on an alien planet, would assume it had evolved or that it just happened to exist?

No, the intelligence only has to be omniscient.

That doesn't even make sense. Not only have you now equipped it with a perfect information gathering system (that just happens to exist, for no reason) but that doesn't cover all it needs at all. It still needs plan and carry out all the 'supervising' - whatever that is supposed to entail. Also, if it knows all about itself - as omniscience would seen to imply, you have another infinite regress on your hands...

The refutations are inadequate, because the materialist only accepts matter exists, and hence the watch or the cell are both made out of exactly the same stuff matter, the same groups of particles that make up the watch make up the cell. The watch is an example of a group of particles arranged in a certain intelligent configuration, so that it indicates the watchmaker. Similarly, a cell is a group of particles arranged in a certain intelligent configuration, sot that it indicates the intelligence.

It's the arrangement that is important - and you can clearly see the differences between arrangement prduced by intelligence and those produced by nature.

This argument here ignores the argument that even at the simplest stage, just the single cell, it was already an irreducibly complex system.

Seriously? Unless you're claiming to be omniscient yourself, you have no way of knowing this. There are plenty of hypotheses if you're interested, but you claim falls flat without them.

What are you suggesting anyway? That this "supervising intelligence" of yours magicked some cells into existence on the early Earth and then sat back and let evolution do the rest? Did it forget that particularly tricky bit when it designed the natural laws that did the rest?

 

[sealchan]

The problem with the atheists/materialist approach is they are applying old obsolete 18th century reductionist thinking to the universe and to living things, this is the approach of taking things apart like a machine, and then putting it back together part by part. This way of thinking was applied to the universe, thinking of it to be a giant machine where parts somehow came together, built upon one another forming atoms, then nebulas, then planets, then molecules, then water, then amino acids, into blobs of life or cells, then single cell organisms, then, into multicelluar organisms, and multicellular organisms into fishes, plants, insects, reptiles, birds, mammals and humans etc.

This sort of thinking dominated the last 200-300 years of modern science. We can forgive our early modern scientists for thinking like this, but we cannot forgive our postmodern or latemodern scientists for thinking like this. That is, because we know that the universe and life does NOT work like that, we know appreciate that the universe and life is a system. We now appreciate that systems are embedded within systems. Like the atomic system, in a molecular system, in cellular system, in an ecosystem, in a planetary system, in a solar system in a galactic system, in a universal system. Here are some features of a systems

1. Systems are more than the sum of their parts. This means you cannot just break it down in its parts and then put them together one by one and form the system, because you destroy the system as soon as you do that. Rather, the system is the parts organised in such a manner that all the parts interconnect and intercommunicate and function as a single whole.​

2. Systems are dynamic, organic and self-organising. This means that systems are not static closed systems like machines nor are they fully open systems or like chaos, rather they tend towards and remain in dynamic equilibrium That means every every moment new information is being received by the system, but the systems processes it and organises it to maintain balance e.g. The human body is a perfect example of a system that tends towards equilibrium, if a foreign source such as a "germ" tries to enter the system of the body, the germ will bring in its new information in the body, and the body will instantly react to it to bring the body back to equilibrium.​

3. Systems are goal orientated. This means that systems have goals or purposes if you like, to achieve certain ends, irrespective of the limiting factors. In the old mechanistic way of thinking, it is assumed that certain things are "emergent" due to random aggregations of atoms. In systems there is no such thing as "emergence" whatever "emerges" is already intended by the system. This assumed a natural teleology that tends towards certain goals. Meaning, that life was suppose to emerge anyway from the moment of the big bang. The time it took from the big bang to the first emergence of life is is merely the unfolding process. There are now modern epigenetic studies add to evidence that this is the case, we find with very simple living organisms like cells that they have a preference towards reaching certain goals. Such that if we try to add foreign limiting factors to limit their behaviour, they will still find a way to reach the same goals​

4. Systems have no time. This means, that because every part in the system interconnects and intercommunicates, that if you affect one part in the system, instantly every other part of the system has to resolve because it has been affected. There is no delay of time. There is now evidence towards in quantum physics, which shows when you have a quantumly entangled system, such as two particles separated across a distance, if you affect one pair the other one is near instantly affected. Attempts to calculate the speed at which information travels comes to 20,000 times the speed of light. In principle it is isntant.​

5. Systems have no space. This means, that because part of of the system interconnect and intercommunicates and changes every moment, you cannot locate a single fixed position of any part. Again we have evidence from quantum physics which shows every moment a particle changes its position and therefore without having any fixed position of any particle in the universe, there cannot be any space. The only type of space that is permitted in quantum physics is an abstract Hilberts space.​

The systems approach is now starting to take over every field of science and new sciences are emerging with the prefix "quantum" quantum biology, quantum psychology, quantum physics etc This signals we have moved away from old 18th century reductionist approach. Unfortunately, many atheists and materialists remain stuck in the old paradigm.

We now are starting to appreciate the universe and life is an inseparable system and there is no such thing as emergence. The implications of this type of thinking is a dead-ringer for the Hindu "Brahman" The inseparability of consciousness and the universe leads to only one conclusion that the universe and consciousness are identical and one: Atman = Brahman. The universe exists, because I exist; I exist, because the universe exists.
The coherence of the universe is because of the coherence of 'I'

I haven't even finished reading your OP but I am very excited to. I have a deep and developing appreciation for both Hinduism and systems thinking.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

In your analogy the "puddle" is us and the "hole" is the universe, and just because we happen to exist in a universe where we can exist does not imply the universe was created for us. This argument presupposes though that there are many universes where life does not exist, and this just happens to be a universe where life can exist. This argument begs the question, as you first need to prove other universes exist where there is no life.

Regarding the part I bolded above... what are you talking about? Why does that argument presuppose "many universes?" It only presupposes that the one universe in which we exist is capable of supporting our existence... which is, of course, a fact. It does not require that there be any other universe that may or may not be able to support life. This is one of the reasons why I have a hard time applying any credibility to your arguments - you make sweepingly inaccurate, assuming statements like this and just move on in your assumptions pretending as if you are speaking from a position that is untouchable.

Just because we exist does not mean that the universe was created for us.

Why is that so hard to accept? You feel you're too "special" to simply "exist" without some predefined purpose dreamt up by some super-entity? Why? Why do you feel this way? It is arrogance - a conceit deeply rooted within so many on this planet, believing they have to have been created for something more because they feel "oh so special" to themselves and they can't imagine that there isn't something out there that has some great plan for them, because they so desperately desire such a plan be played out for them.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I thought this was one of the best information on gods existence.

IS THERE ANY PROOF FOR GOD?

I AM. You are. Everybody is. God is nothing but the totality. The trees are, the rivers are, the mountains are. These are the proofs. The sun rises in the morning and the moon is in the night, and the stars. These are the proofs. The flowers and the butterflies and the grass, these are the proofs.

God is not a syllogism. God is not a conclusion. God is an experience of beauty, of truth, of good, of consciousness. Where are you looking for the proofs? Your very being is the only proof. The seeker is the sought. God resides in you as you. God is a tree in a tree and a dog in a dog and a man in a man. God is all these things. God is this whole.

– OSHO

The problem with this argument is that it is a tautology. If you define God as a tree, a river or a mountain, or the experience of beauty, truth, goodness or consciousness, me, a a dog or a man, or all things, then all the aforementioned exist, therefore God exists.

The problem psychoslice with this kind of approach is, is what I pointed out with Vinakaya as well, you come into these kind of debates with a superior spiritual attitude, which is actually patronising. You claim there cannot be proofs for God, but then end up making claims yourself about God, like here "God is an experience" In doing so, you end up involved in the debate, because then you have to provide logical justification for your claims. Therefore, if you really do believe in mysticism as regards to God, you should just keep your silence and not get involved at all.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Carry on, Spirit_Warrior, like a true warrior, what if half the world does not agree with you.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

This is playing word games. An intelligence is incredibly complex system - it has to have the ability to perceive, discern patterns, construct models, make plans and so on and so on - it entails data processing on a massive scale. All of which might be a bit of a hint as to why it is always observed emanating from a massively complex physical object consisting of 100 billion neurons and why we don't come across instances of it that just happened to have exited for all eternity.

Again, your argument begs the question intelligence is a complex system. I think you are mistaking artificial intelligence for real intelligence. If I used the word 'person' or 'designer' instead you would still probably say, "well that is a complex functional system too" You also dodged my refutation, If I use a tool, it does not mean I am a tool myself.

If you encountered an intelligent being on an alien planet, would assume it had evolved or that it just happened to exist?

If it was a material body, I would assume it came into being like all material things and grew to the form it was then. I am not sure what this has to do with the OP argument though.

That doesn't even make sense. Not only have you now equipped it with a perfect information gathering system (that just happens to exist, for no reason) but that doesn't cover all it needs at all. It still needs plan and carry out all the 'supervising' - whatever that is supposed to entail. Also, if it knows all about itself - as omniscience would seen to imply, you have another infinite regress on your hands...

I am not sure what you are arguing here. You need to clarify. I said that the intelligence that maintains this universe is omniscient, meaning it is aware of every single part of the system simultaneously, so that it can keep it in the same dynamic equilibrium moment to moment, so that the universe does not collapse the next moment because the spin of a particle has changed by a minuscule amount. This does not mean the intelligence itself is a system.

Your problem is you are creating an infinite regression where there need not be one. You can terminate an infinite regression when you arrive at a first cause, which is the uncaused cause.

You argument also suffers from absurdity. You keep telling me that something just existing and needing no explanation is "magic" and yet you accept that atoms just happened to exist. Did atoms then not come into being?
Eventually, you have to terminate somewhere

It's the arrangement that is important - and you can clearly see the differences between arrangement prduced by intelligence and those produced by nature.

Exactly and we an clearly see that a single cell is arranged in a such a manner that millions of parts that make it interconnect as a system for the functioning of a cell, in much the same way as any other system. The difference is some systems we have designed ourselves, and some systems have been designed by nature. However, we know that such systems cannot be assembled without intelligence.

In fact what you are proposing IS magic. You are proposing a system like a nanocomputer more complex than the most advanced supercomputers we have today built itself blindly. As I demonstrated above, you would intuitively say 'No' even at the stage of a temperature monitor. It cannot just build itself into a functional system.

Seriously? Unless you're claiming to be omniscient yourself, you have no way of knowing this. There are plenty of hypotheses if you're interested, but you claim falls flat without them.

I am beginning at the level of a single cell as it the basic first unit of all life. This is what Darwin began with too. His theory of evolution proposed that the single cell joined with other single cells, and over a duration of a long time of billions of years, the cells started to form various organs. He thought a single cell was just an amorphous blob of chemical slime. But he did not know what we know today, that the cell is in fact the most complex known nanocomputer. The cell already has in place all the organs in a rudimentary state e.g. what later becomes the brain is the nucleus in the cell containing information which gives instructions to every other part of the cell, and not just that it also contains error-checking procedures, hence it is aware when something has gone wrong, and it rectifies it. It has its own defence mechanism such as the doors of the membrane only allow certain units to pass through and bar entry to others, like security doors. It contains millions of tiny robot(ribsomes) that manufacture products and then these products are sent via channels in the cell to other parts of the cell for storage and then shipping to other cells.

We Hindus can explain this quite easily, it is only you materialists that cannot explain this. Why even at the very first stage of life the cell already is a complete functioning system and has every organ already in place in a rudimentary state?

What are you suggesting anyway? That this "supervising intelligence" of yours magicked some cells into existence on the early Earth and then sat back and let evolution do the rest? Did it forget that particularly tricky bit when it designed the natural laws that did the rest?

It has become very evident to me in these discussions it is materialists that believe in Magic. What you believe is in a Disney cartoons. First matter comes to life(Pinocchio) then it assembles all by itself into these complex functional systems more complex than our most advanced supercomputers, and then it starts asking questions "Who am I". If this is not magic, then what is?

 

[ratiocinator]

Just a note on irreducible complex system, as this often strawmaned. An irreducible complex system is a system where the parts are arranged in an intelligent configuration so that the system functions...

That is a rather strange definition of "irreducible complexity" the term is usually ascribed to Behe - a quick search comes up with: "Irreducible complexity is just a fancy phrase I use to mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning." (Behe, 1996, speech delivered to the Discovery Institute).

So, less intelligence and more irreducibility.

And a link with a simple explanation as to how "irreducible complex" systems can evolve:

The Mullerian Two-Step: Add a part, make it necessary - or, Why Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" is silly

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

That is a rather strange definition of "irreducible complexity" the term is usually ascribed to Behe - a quick search comes up with: "Irreducible complexity is just a fancy phrase I use to mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning." (Behe, 1996, speech delivered to the Discovery Institute).

So, less intelligence and more irreducibility.

And a link with a simple explanation as to how "irreducible complex" systems can evolve:

The Mullerian Two-Step: Add a part, make it necessary - or, Why Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" is silly

I have said pretty much the same thing that Behe says. I have used the word intelligence too, and so does Behe elsewhere, as he is an intelligent design proponent . The parts are arranged and obviously arranged implies intelligently, so that all the parts interconnect and function, such that if you remove any part the system would cease to function. I even explained above showing the circuit diagrams, if any part is missing, the system does not function.

Look at the television diagram for example and just remove one single part from the circuit and the entire system will not function.

This is what I said in the OP(#2) a system is more than just the sum of its parts. If you reduce to its parts, you destroy the system. Even a single part that is missing means the system does not function.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Carry on, Spirit_Warrior, like a true warrior, what if half the world does not agree with you.

Thanks, that is because truth is not a popularity contest. I could have been having a debate that the Earth is not flat a few hundreds years ago, and more than half of the world would have disagreed with me, but it would not have made my arguments invalid.

I believe my arguments are valid and I am demonstrating here how absurd the materialist reductionist position is. It will not convince them, because they are subscribers to this worldview, but it will show impartial parties the massive holes in their worldview. I showed in the other thread materialists cannot explain why unconscious matter becomes conscious, and here I am showing(specifically targeting atheist materialists) how they cannot explain how matter assembles by itself into complex systems, by showing that that their reductionist methodology is fatally flawed, and obsolete.

The new approach that is taking over all sciences is the systems approach.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Here is a thought experiment. Try it.

You are blind folded.

I will give you all the parts that make up a complex functional system, like this one:

Your job is to connect all the parts together like in the circuit diagram above so that you build a functioning kettle.

You can have all the time you need.

Can you build it?

 

[ratiocinator]

Again, your argument begs the question intelligence is a complex system. I think you are mistaking artificial intelligence for real intelligence. If I used the word 'person' or 'designer' instead you would still probably say, "well that is a complex functional system too" You also dodged my refutation, If I use a tool, it does not mean I am a tool myself.

The tool is not a refutation of what I said - it's just irrelevant. A system doesn't need to be a tool and a toll user is not somehow not a system because it uses one.

Of course intelligence is a complex system (and, of course including people) - it has to do all the things I listed and more - how do you think it does all that data processing without being a complex system? Why do you think your brain has 100 billion neurons - to keep your ears apart?

I am not sure what you are arguing here. You need to clarify. I said that the intelligence that maintains this universe is omniscient, meaning it is aware of every single part of the system simultaneously, so that it can keep it in the same dynamic equilibrium moment to moment, so that the universe does not collapse the next moment because the spin of a particle has changed by a minuscule amount. This does not mean the intelligence itself is a system.

Firstly, you've given no sensible reason why the universe might be in danger of said collapse without an intelligence. Secondly, intelligence itself quite obviously is a system for the reasons given above - and now you've given it a vast amount of data (all of it, actually) which it needs to act on - so even at the most basic level it has to contain data and process that data - that's a system.

Your problem is you are creating an infinite regression where there need not be one. You can terminate an infinite regression when you arrive at a first cause, which is the uncaused cause.

No, omniscience itself entails an infinite regression - if it knows everything about itself, then it knows everything about its knowledge of everything, including itself - and how it is dealing with it at the time - which includes a knowledge of everything about its knowledge of everything, including itself - and how it is dealing with it at the time - which includes a knowledge...

You argument also suffers from absurdity. You keep telling me that something just existing and needing no explanation is "magic" and yet you accept that atoms just happened to exist. Did atoms them not come into being?
Eventually, you have to terminate somewhere

Don't you know how atoms came into being?

Anyway - yes you have to terminate somewhere - but we have no evidence for anything apart from the universe itself. Why that exists, I don't know - and neither do you or anybody else.

The problem is that you want (for religious reasons) to terminate with an intelligence - which is why you keep getting into infinite regress - because intelligence, according to all the evidence we have about it, needs order and complexity in order to exist - not the other way around.

In fact what you are proposing IS magic. You are proposing a system like a nanocomputer more complex than the most advanced supercomputers we have today built itself blindly. As I demonstrated above, you would intuitively say 'No' even at the stage of a temperature monitor. It cannot just build itself into a functional system.

No but complex systems can and do evolve - we have the evidence that they did.

I am beginning at the level of a single cell as it the basic first unit of all life. This is what Darwin began with too...

Nobody today would assume that a cell was the start of evolution.

Try here: The Origin of Life

Also, here is a bit from a book I recenty read on the subject:

NNNNNNUGCUCGAUUGGUAACAGUUUGAAUGGGUUGAAGUAU–GAGACCGNNNNNN

Can you see the family resemblance? This is R3C, and is the child of Jerry Joyce and Tracey Lincoln from Scripps in California. If evolutionary genetics is the process of tracking the slight changes in our genes back through time to reconstruct the Darwinian replicators of the past, R3C might be the end of the line. With RNA being a decent contender for the first world of information and replication, this is a simple piece of RNA that does both those things. The letters are standard RNA (N being a wildcard, representing any of the four bases A, C, G and U), and is made of two parts (shown separated by a dash). In a test tube, R3C contorts into a shape like a hairpin. Its function is to makes a mirror version of itself by linking the two parts together. This propinquity for its reflection in turn makes a new copy of the original, and so on. This goes on ad infinitum, as long as the system is fed with the ingredients that will enable the continued chemical reactions that drive replication. Hundreds of millions of copying molecules can be made in a few hours.

From: Rutherford, Adam. Creation: The Origin of Life / The Future of Life. Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

 

[sayak83]

No Biological, Chemical or Physical systems are irreducibly complex. All such systems are completely and adequately explainable by the interactions of natural entities through the laws of physics, chemistry and biology that created them. Nothing else is needed.

Step by step explanation of the development of the eye through evolution and standard biological processes

It has often been supposed that basic processes of life are irreducibly complex and could not have evolved in early earth from standard chemical and physical processes. This assumption too has been falsified. Last two decades of research on abiogenesis has explained how the laws of physics and chemistry acting on elements in early earth created and assembled the parts of early life systems in good detail.

Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

It was also thought that the apparent handedness of life's molecules could not have evolved by natural processes. This too (the so-called chirality problem) has been debunked.
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

Thus again and again it has been shown that the laws of physics and chemistry and biology/evolution are completely adequate in accounting for the workings and development of complex systems like life etc.

Finally systems biology is not an acknowledgement of irreducible complexity at all. It is the study of how natural laws of physics and chemistry and biology act on tightly coupled biological elements to create novel emergent properties and qualities at the level of groups and wholes. No claim is made that the system itself is irreducibly complex (in fact quite the contrary, looking at simpler precursors often give the system biologists clues as to how the various networks have been assembled by natural mechanisms and what parts they play).

Systems Biology

 

[ratiocinator]

Here is a thought experiment...

Evolution 101

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Evolution does not refute the argument of irreducible complexity. This is actually a strawman. Irreducible complexity does not say that that simple systems cannot evolve into complex systems, it only says that simple systems and complex systems are both irreducibly complex.

Take this, an early vacuum tube computer

Today, a single mobile phone is millions and millions of times more complex, sophisticated and powerful.

But both systems are irreducibly complex. If you remove a single vacuum tube from the the above computer, or if a single component in the mobile phone chip is missing, the system will not function. This is what meant by irreducibly complex.

A human eye is like a more complex, sophisticated and powerful version of the first primitive eye, but both are irreducibly complex. It means that part are arranged in such a manner that every part interconnects as a system so that it can function.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Evolution 101

You did not answer the question in the thought experiment. Can you build the kettle?

 

[sayak83]

Here is a thought experiment. Try it.

You are blind folded.

I will give you all the parts that make up a complex functional system, like this one:

Your job is to connect all the parts together like in the circuit diagram above so that you build a functioning kettle.

You can have all the time you need.

Can you build it?

Evolutionary processes can, as has been demonstrated by the frequent use of genetic and evolutionary algorithms to design these circuits
http://www.cartesiangp.co.uk/papers/eurogen1998.pdf
On the Origin of Circuits

Today, researchers are just beginning to explore the real-world potential of evolving circuitry. Engineers are experimenting with rudimentary adaptive hardware systems which marry evolvable chips to conventional equipment. Such hybrids quickly adapt to new demands by constantly evolving and adjusting their control code. The space exploration industry is intrigued by the technology— an evolving system could dynamically reprogram itself to avoid any circuits damaged by radiation, reducing the need for heavy shielding and redundant systems. Similarly, researchers speculate that robots might one day use evolution-inspired systems to quickly adapt to unforeseen obstacles in their environment.

Modern supercomputers are also contributing to artificial evolution, applying their massive processing power to develop simulated prototypes. The initial designs are thoroughly tested within carefully crafted virtual environments, and the best candidates are used to breed successive batches until a satisfactory solution has evolved. These last-generation designs are then fabricated and tested in the real world. NASA recently used this approach to produce the antenna for a spacegoing vessel, resulting in flamboyant-yet-effective shapes that vaguely resemble organic lifeforms— unlike anything an engineer would design without the benefit of mood-altering drugs. Scientists hope to eventually use genetic algorithms to improve complex devices such as motors and rockets, but progress is dependent upon the development of extremely accurate simulations.

http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/ucacpjb/GOBECH1.pdf

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Evolutionary processes can, as has been demonstrated by the frequent use of genetic and evolutionary algorithms to design these circuits

Well this begs the question, because we already know that in nature these natural circuits do exist, but that does not mean that they assembled by themselves. The argument is arguing that only is nature possesses or was guided by an intelligence can these circuits exist.

The design is the sign of intelligence.

Today, researchers are just beginning to explore the real-world potential of evolving circuitry. Engineers are experimenting with rudimentary adaptive hardware systems which marry evolvable chips to conventional equipment. Such hybrids quickly adapt to new demands by constantly evolving and adjusting their control code. The space exploration industry is intrigued by the technology— an evolving system could dynamically reprogram itself to avoid any circuits damaged by radiation, reducing the need for heavy shielding and redundant systems. Similarly, researchers speculate that robots might one day use evolution-inspired systems to quickly adapt to unforeseen obstacles in their environment.

You are just adding more evidence to my argument that such things evolvable chips or machines can only be designed by an intelligence.

Therefore, because we see that naturally occurring evolvable chips and machines, they indicate that nature possesses or is guided by an intelligence.

Here is an argument from Shankarcharya on the absurd notion that matter can self-build:

If matter could self-built, then atoms would either collide with one another and aggregate indefinitely to form useless composites and/or collide with one another and then collide into something else, disagregating, again forming nothing of use. Therefore, matter could never build itself into any useful composites.​

The idea that any kind of blind chaotic collisions could assemble itself into anything useful is an unproven fantasy of materialists. It is very easy to test, we can set up a supercomputer with a particle program with the same properties as elementary particles, and then have those particles randomly collide with one another, and see if that ever leads to any useful functional systems.

It is already obvious NOT. We intuitively know it will not happen, just as I have demonstrated with my thought experiment above. We know that complex functional systems require design they cannot just magically appear.