Ockham's Razor (sharpening it)

[irichc]

1) Which is the simpler hypothesis: God, as Creator of the Universe, or an eternal Universe without a God? The first one, since God is simpler than any extense thing. An eternal Universe, on the other hand, would imply an unnecessary multiplication of entities in space and time.

We must apply the Razor: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem".

2) You can ask yourselves the following questions: Why should cease existing that which has started to exist? And why should never start to exist that which exists contingently? There are no reasons at all.

We must apply the Razor: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem".

3) Does an eternal Universe explain something? No. Then, does the hypothesis of God enrich our knowledge? Yes, by stating that nothing is without a reason or, in other words, that everything which exists can be known.

We must apply the Razor: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem".

Greetings.

Daniel.

 

[Piscivore]

1) Which is the simpler hypothesis: God, as Creator of the Universe, or an eternal Universe without a God? The first one, since God is simpler than any extense thing. An eternal Universe, on the other hand, would imply an unnecessary multiplication of entities in space and time.

This is a false dichotomy. There is nothing to suggest the universe is "eternal". And even assuming for the sake of argument that your dichotomy was valid, the god concept is very complex. Further, your first option assumes two entities and the second only one...

2) You can ask yourselves the following questions: Why should cease existing that which has started to exist?

Entropy

And why should never start to exist that which exists contingently?

What?

There are no reasons at all.

Yes, entropy.

3) Does an eternal Universe explain something? No.

No, that's why it is not currently a valid hypothesis

Then, does the hypothesis of God enrich our knowledge? Yes, by stating that nothing is without a reason or, in other words, that everything which exists can be known.

"God" is not a hypothesis, it is an unsupported assertion intended to wrap up experience in a convienient little package so the vastness of the universe (temporary and finite as it may be) does not overwhelm the believer's ego.

We must apply the Razor: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem".

Okay, how was that

Greetings.

Daniel.

Back atcher!

 

[LostAngeles]

1) Which is the simpler hypothesis: God, as Creator of the Universe, or an eternal Universe without a God? The first one, since God is simpler than any extense thing. An eternal Universe, on the other hand, would imply an unnecessary multiplication of entities in space and time.

We must apply the Razor: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem".

2) You can ask yourselves the following questions: Why should cease existing that which has started to exist? And why should never start to exist that which exists contingently? There are no reasons at all.

We must apply the Razor: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem".

3) Does an eternal Universe explain something? No. Then, does the hypothesis of God enrich our knowledge? Yes, by stating that nothing is without a reason or, in other words, that everything which exists can be known.

We must apply the Razor: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem".

Greetings.

Daniel.

1) But who made God? Also, the account in Genesis does not fit the evidence as equally as the current multitude of scientific theories. Therefore, the razor cannot be applied.

2) I think you're missing a "something" in that question, but I'll pretend it's there. It seems as if you're asking "Why would life be created spontaneously and why would something go extinct if it's been created?" As to the latter, it seems as if enviroment changes, both sudden and fast, and flawed design in regards to the enviroment causes extinction. For the first question, I can't see how that's not possible. Occam's does not require a reason, it requires explanations that fit each hypothesis equally well.

3) Here, you're just wholly misusing the razor. Also, I've only heard of God's universe being "eternal". All other theories I've heard posit a collapse.

So here's a thought since you seem the Creationist type: Who's to say God isn't a scientist. God looked at a condensation of mass and said, "What happens if this explodes and expands?" There's a universe. "What happens if these clouds of dust start coming together in little clumps?" We've got galaxies and stars and planets and other astronomical bits. "What happens if I put these chemicals together?" Hey, life. "What happens if I have this creature develop this feature?" Evolution. "What happens if I change the climate?" And so on.

Well, God could do that in "seven days". Made the earth and the heavens, light, life... And it could fit into the evidence.

 

[Yahweh]

1) Which is the simpler hypothesis: God, as Creator of the Universe, or an eternal Universe without a God? The first one, since God is simpler than any extense thing. An eternal Universe, on the other hand, would imply an unnecessary multiplication of entities in space and time.

You've got your razor just a bit off the sharpening block...

1. Occam's Razor states unfalsifyable theories ought to be rejected. So "God, the Creator of the Universe" is rejected outright, unless of course you can you define a way to test this hypothesis.

2. Any claims which are not logically connected to test said hypothesis ought to be rejected (this is just an extension of the above).

3. What Occam's Razor means by the phrase "dont multiply entities needlessly" is essentially given two theories which make exactly the same testable claims, if those two theories differ in any way which is not simply semantic, then at least one of them must possess claims which are not logically necessary to account for its testable claims. "God, as the Creator of the Universe" and "eternal universe without a God" do not make exactly the same testable theories, so Occams Razor does not apply at all in your proposal.

4. You are making an error called False Dichotomy. "Creator God" and "Eternal Universe" are not the only hypothesized models of the universe which are ought there.

 

[Martin]

Which is the simpler hypothesis: God, as Creator of the Universe, or an eternal Universe without a God? The first one, since God is simpler than any extense thing. An eternal Universe, on the other hand, would imply an unnecessary multiplication of entities in space and time

You overlooked the very first step in applying the razor - consistency with current observations. Before we can apply the razor to our existing hypotheses, we must ensure that those hypotheses are valid. Both eternal and finite Universes without any god are consistent with all known observation. Further, any god-created Universe under consideration must look like this Universe, which looks distinctly absent of any gods. Thus the question becomes - which is simpler: the laws of physics, or the laws of physics plus god?

2) You can ask yourselves the following questions: Why should cease existing that which has started to exist?

First step, again. Observation tells us that this does happen, unless you want to invent ridiculously unparsimonious 'afterlives' for all objects in the Universe. Thus the fact that you can find no reason for this to be the case does not make the most parsimonious explanation simply that it is not, in fact, the case.

And why should never start to exist that which exists contingently? There are no reasons at all

Could you try parsing this in English, please? I think what you're asking is 'why should any contingent object be past-eternal?' But whether there are any such objects, or if the Universe itself is such, is a question for empiricism, not the razor. And it is a question which currently remains wide open.

3) Does an eternal Universe explain something?

Yes, actually. It answers the question of first cause; namely, that there wasn't one. It also eliminates the horizon problem, though that can be solved in a finite Universe also.

Then, does the hypothesis of God enrich our knowledge? Yes, by stating that nothing is without a reason or, in other words, that everything which exists can be known

Bollocks. The God hypothesis is consistent with both that statement and its negation, unless you want to arbitrarily fudge it to fit.

 

[Piscivore]

Re: Re: Ockham's Razor (sharpening it)

So here's a thought since you seem the Creationist type: Who's to say God isn't a scientist. God looked at a condensation of mass and said, "What happens if this explodes and expands?" There's a universe. "What happens if these clouds of dust start coming together in little clumps?" We've got galaxies and stars and planets and other astronomical bits. "What happens if I put these chemicals together?" Hey, life. "What happens if I have this creature develop this feature?" Evolution. "What happens if I change the climate?" And so on.

Okay, now when I think of "god" I'm not going to picture Chuck Heston, but Thomas Dolby!

It explains a lot, really- the Holy Spirit straightened up, and now God can't find anything!

 

[Martin]

No, that's why it is not currently a valid hypothesis

I'm sure that will come as something of a surprise to, say, the entire cosmological community. Especially that part of it working with past-eternal models of the Universe

 

[Iacchus]

2) You can ask yourselves the following questions: Why should cease existing that which has started to exist? And why should never start to exist that which exists contingently? There are no reasons at all.

Do you believe that we're all here arbitrarily and meaning doesn't exist? I don't. That makes a lot more sense than the lack thereof now doesn't it?

 

[Piscivore]

I'm sure that will come as something of a surprise to, say, the entire cosmological community. Especially that part of it working with past-eternal models of the Universe

Oops, that wasn't my understanding. I thought that it was pretty well settled that "the heat death of the universe" was an inevitable eventuality. mea culpa! Thanks for the correction!

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Ockham's Razor (sharpening it)

Do you believe that we're all here arbitrarily and meaning doesn't exist? I don't. That makes a lot more sense than the lack thereof now doesn't it?

How so?

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

Old news....



ARGUMENT FROM ECONOMY
1. A law of reason states that the simplest answer is usually the right one. (Occam's Razor)*
2. God is the simplest answer.
3. Therefore God exists.

*Occam's Razor: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity." (From medieval philosopher William Occam) Rephrased, "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." It is also called the principle of parsimony. The modern version states that all other things being equal, the simplest answer is usually the right one. It is often used by skeptics and atheists to shoot down things like psychic phenomena and ghost stories, but anyone can use it for any purpose. This principle is a basic one used in epistemology (the branch of philosophy dealing the extents and limits of knowledge) and you will sound really smart if you memorize it.

http://www.harborside.com/~pagani/pagani-proofs_of_god.html

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

God is simpler than any extense thing.

Inane rubbish. There is neither warrant nor method for mapping terms such a simplicity to the supernatural and, therefore, not the slightest reason to presume the applicability of Occam's Razor.

 

[LostAngeles]

Re: Re: Ockham's Razor (sharpening it)

Inane rubbish. There is neither warrant nor method for mapping terms such a simplicity to the supernatural and, therefore, not the slightest reason to presume the applicability of Occam's Razor.

I second that.

A God who makes an entire universe, is concerned with the slightest actions and thoughts of his creations, will damn or reward them can not be simple.

Ineffable, but not simple.

 

[Iacchus]

How so?

How does meaning arise out of arbitrariness? Or, how does something arise out of nothing? You tell me. Tell it to Occam!

Can you be absolutely certain that our existence is arbitrary? Because this is the reality you have without a God. And, if it was arbitrary, what's to keep it from slipping back into total arbitrariness at any time? Better yet, why hasn't it done so within the billions of years since the Universe began? Could it be that there's something a bit more solid to our existence than a state of arbitrariness?

 

[RandFan]

This was lifegazer's belief. Odd you should show up as soon as he left.

In any event. God = mysterious forces and unknown processes.

Not at all parsimonious.

 

[Iacchus]

This was lifegazer's belief. Odd you should show up as soon as he left.

In any event. God = mysterious forces and unknown processes.

Not at all parsimonious.

How can a Universe which is non-existent come about on its own whim? Not much of an alternative now is it?

 

[Tricky]

How does meaning arise out of arbitrariness?

Actually, this is what you are saying, but mostly because you don't understand all the meanings of arbitrary, the primary one being:

1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law

. I'm guessing you mean random, rather than capricious. Don't feel bad. Lots of people use it that way.

How does something arise out of nothing? You tell me. Or, tell it to Occam!

There are a number of theories, including some that do not involve "nothingness". We don't have enough information to say for sure, but we keep looking. You have stopped looking and prefer to call your lack of curiosity "God".

Can you be absolutely certain that our existence is arbitrary? Because this is the reality you have without a God.

That's the reality with a God too, friend. Since you cannot fathom the mind of God, you cannot say what the meaning is. I know it comforts you to think that there is a meaning, but you cannot possibly know it. So what is the difference between a universe with no meaning and one whose meaning you can never fathom? Only that the latter makes you feel good.

And, if it was arbitrary, what's to keep it from slipping back into total arbitrariness at any time? Better yet, why hasn't it done so within the billions of years since the Universe began?

More questions to answer (given that by arbitrary you mean random) and more reason not to give in to the urge to throw up our hands and say "because God did it." I'm glad for your sake that you have found an answer that pleases you, but I am sad that it has cost you your inquisitiveness.

Could it be that there's something a bit more solid to our existence than a state of arbitrariness?

Yes, it could be. Let's try to find out. Don't try to guess the answers without doing the work.

 

[Solitaire]

We must apply the Razor...

Have you been using pyramid power to sharpen it?

 

[Yahweh]

How does meaning arise out of arbitrariness? Or, how does something arise out of nothing? You tell me. Tell it to Occam!

Can you be absolutely certain that our existence is arbitrary? Because this is the reality you have without a God. And, if it was arbitrary, what's to keep it from slipping back into total arbitrariness at any time? Better yet, why hasn't it done so within the billions of years since the Universe began? Could it be that there's something a bit more solid to our existence than a state of arbitrariness?

I'm not sure I follow...

Substitute any word for "God". You can use the example of "money".

Now ask the question again: "Can you be absolutely certain that our existence is arbitrary? Because this is the reality you have without <s>a God</s> money."


I dont know what you are implying when you use the word "meaning", its a bit vaguely defined.

"Meaning", the nature of this "meaning", and where it comes from can be just about anything. Perhaps Russian novelist Doestyevsky was correct in simplifying the "meaning" of life to no less than being happy with one's meager existence.

 

[Iacchus]

Actually, this is what you are saying, but mostly because you don't understand all the meanings of arbitrary, the primary one being:

I'm guessing you mean random, rather than capricious. Don't feel bad. Lots of people use it that way.

Description 3b ...

3b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will ... when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary -- Nehemiah Jordan

Actually I wasn't aware of the first two definitions -- albeit I think to say something "happened on a whim" might also be applicable -- but yes, this describes what I'm saying.

There are a number of theories, including some that do not involve "nothingness". We don't have enough information to say for sure, but we keep looking. You have stopped looking and prefer to call your lack of curiosity "God".

Actually it's more like reverse engineering on my part. In fact I'm working backwards, from the predication that God does exist. Neither is it based upon something which Science tells me mind you.

That's the reality with a God too, friend. Since you cannot fathom the mind of God, you cannot say what the meaning is. I know it comforts you to think that there is a meaning, but you cannot possibly know it. So what is the difference between a universe with no meaning and one whose meaning you can never fathom? Only that the latter makes you feel good.

Do you believe in absolute truth?

More questions to answer (given that by arbitrary you mean random) and more reason not to give in to the urge to throw up our hands and say "because God did it." I'm glad for your sake that you have found an answer that pleases you, but I am sad that it has cost you your inquisitiveness.

Indeed, perspective is a very peculiar thing now isn't it?

Yes, it could be. Let's try to find out. Don't try to guess the answers without doing the work.

And you think you know everything about that which you don't know about, right?