Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List

subscribe to our mailing list:


Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes


Serious Notions with a Smile


Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site


[Write a Reply] [Letters Index]

Title Author Date
A simple god Rossum, Aug 24, 2004
Mariana Fuzaro said:

"Try to imagine god as being a simple, uncomplete CONSCIENCE and INTELLIGENCE that exists by chance."

I cannot think of intelligence as "simple". I suspect that Dr Dembski would not either. His argument for Intelligent Design relies on showing that ID cannot arise by chance, but that it requires intelligence. If intelligence is simple and can arise by chance then Dembski's argument is destroyed; chance causes design indirectly through a chance arising of intelligence. For Dr Dembski, intelligence is too complex to have arisen by chance.

I deal with the case of a simple God in section 2.1 of the article. Dembski's Filter assigns a simple God to chance. As I say in the article, I do not think that any Christian would agree that their God arose by pure chance, so I reject the possibility of a simple God.

Mariana further said:

"But this simple being is omnipotent and can increase its attributes, getting complex and creating complex things."

As I understand it the standard description of the Christian God includes "unchanging", "eternal", "rock of ages". I am not sure that a changing God would be allowed within Christianity. Certainly a changing God cannot be eternal, since whatever changes cannot be eternal.

As to something that can "increase its attributes, getting complex and creating complex things"; that is a good description of the evolution of human intelligence and our own creation of complex things. I agree with the description, I just do not think that it applies to the Christian God as usually defined.

My object in writing the piece was to poke a little fun at Dr Dembski's proposed Explanatory Filter, it was not intended as a discussion on the nature of God. I am Buddhist so I am generally indifferent to the nature and properties of Gods.

rossum (Martin Ross)

Related Articles: God and the Explanatory Filter