Hey DM
Regarding the concept of superfluity...
I don't know about using it as guiding principle, or anti-guiding principle. Now, if someone was telling themselves "what belief system could I construct that would include the most number of entities that I could possibly handle", I would probably think them to be a bit daft. At the same time, if someone was telling themselves "what belief system could I embrace that include the fewest number of entities", I'd wonder what their hang-up with entities is.
Occam's Razor as it is called states specifically that Entities should not be needlessly multiplied. I guess that makes sense. But the key word is "needlessly" I think. Who can possibly judge need, and by what standard? If you have a bad attitude about a belief system, you can say that the belief system has needless components.
Since our belief systems do not correspond, it goes without saying that I have superfluous beliefs by your standard, and you have superfluous beliefs by my standard.
How could rebelion work in the face of an all powerful God?
Depends what you mean by work. If the point of rebellion is to *defeat* God, then it could not possibly work. If the point of the rebellion is to make God unhappy, then it works all the time. Can an omni-whatever being ever be unhappy? Sure, why not, why shouldn't am omni-being feel unhappy sometimes? Since God creates creatures who can make decisions, a variety of rebellious decisions could be made. Their efficacy is not the point, since no one can conquer God. The rebellion is in the choices, and since I believe that every human being values the ability to make choices, this I think is understandable, if disagreeable.
Also for many years the cruel process of evolution occured with nonsentient beings. Tell me, how were chimps, bacteria and dinosaurs rebelling against God?
The planet Earth is not controlled by God, and I do not believe that God continually tinkers with every single thing that happens.
That isn't necessary. I don't have to know every little detail about a process to declare it parsimonious, if that were the case we wouldn't get everywhere. Geologists know continents move, they don't need to know every single rock on each continent to know that. The above is a red herring.
Correcet. Geologists know continents move.
Regarding every single rock...every single rock exists. Every single rock can be known if we do enough digging. When referring to abiogenesis you can't possibly know the exact genetic code of the first RNA, or whatever. See the difference? Present events (continental drift) and present existing entities (rocks), versus past events (abiogenesis) and past existing entities (the first replicating RNA(s)). Is there a distinction between the two classes? I think so, and if you disagree I think this could make an excellent new topic header. I'll be away on a vacation starting tonight, so when I come back I'll go ahead and start a new topic for this.
Also what is the alternative solution to abiogensis? Posit an infininately more complex organism, who's existence is unexplained i.e. God?
I'd prefer to consider the existence to be intuitively deduced, but that may be commensurate to unexplained by your standards of knowledge and belief.
That's supposed to be as parsimonious as an explanation that works in principle, works via stuff we already know exists, has some confirmation and explains things via simpler elements?
Some people think that God is the simplest explanation for reality.
As for simpler elements, sure, an explanation that does not include the supernatural does in fact exist. Every person has to decide the worth of that explanation.
As for confirmation, it seems that each explanation has non-confirmable elements.
We are instead supposed to consider a supernatural being, who's complexity is beyond imagination,
Ummm, sort of. I don't know. The complexity could be sort of like Anselm's ontological conception. Or, God could be the most ridiculously simple entity, if you view the ability to make imperfect chioces as a needlessly complicated attribute. He's definitely of a different kind. Complexity is one way of looking at it. Since I believe Jesus was God, that tells me something about God and how God operates, so at least in that instance his complexity is not beyond imagination.
that works by unknown/unrepeated means for uknown reasons,
As for means, since we can't control God that goes without saying.
As for reasons, I think the whole point of theology is to discuss reasons, and with the existence and importance I place on Jesus I disagree that the reasons are unknown.
that is made of an unknown substance and who's location cannot be specified as equally parsimonious? Wouldn't this being just require far more explanation then whatis was meant to explain?
Yes, it does require more explanation, and since are explanations are inherently limited I can see your concern.
To give you my perspective, this *being* essentially exists and it would take more of an explanation to make this being not essentially exist to me. It's a personal thing, I admit that.
If those two are equally parsimonious I'm throwing out theories of crimonology in favor of the crime gremlin. I'm throwing out theories of condensation in favor of the rain elf.
See, crime is a contemporary phenomonon, and so is condensation, so I don't want you to throw those things away at all, and I don't throw them away either. If we agree on present phenomenon, but disagree about past phenomenon, is there something to that disagreement, or not?
I didn't observe the fall of Rome either, that mean Ceasar is still in power?
No, but other people observed the fall of Rome, and you know the answer to the Caesar bit.
Well I can't say exactly why Rome fell either, do we then invoke the anarchy demon? A being that myseriously ruins empires? Would that really be as parsimonious and rational as other theories?
Well there were contemporary reasons, observed reasons, and much thought, put into the fall of Rome. It's an incident of human history. About the prehistoric stuff, surely you can see how that could be more problematic from various perspectives.
Is there disagreement over why Rome fell? Sure, minor disagreements among historians. I don't think anybody invokes an "anarchy demon" who destroys civilizations at whim. Sure, I guess some people believe that God struck down Rome, but I don't share their belief.
What are the chances of me getting across the street in one step? Very small. How about in a lot of little steps? Almost certain.
But you already exist, you are a mobile being. When does the entity in question come into being? And how? And what are the specifics? And how does it initiate self-directed motion?
Yes, we are self-organized entities that do things in small steps. I don't deny that. I scratch my head over origins.
Also your calculations, if they refer to abiogenesis, are incorrect. They make a lot of unwarranted assumptions and attack a straw man.
Well I do agree that abiogenesis is made of straw.
-Elliot
