Occam's Razor V. Goddidit

[Guest Davka]

OK, first of all - please try not to derail this thread. This thread is about one thing, and one thing only: does Occam's Razor preclude the argument that the Universe must have an invisible, intelligent creator?

 

In another thread, LNC claimed there was tons of evidence for the supernatural. I asked him to provide some, and he claimed he already had, if I would just spend the next year of my life slogging through his verbose posts. He then said:

 

Origin of the universe, existence of morality, existence of the mind, fine-tuning of the universe, resurrection of Jesus...I could go on, but I will leave it here for you to address these.

 

To which I replied (in part)

 

None of those are evidence for anything other than a very complex universe. Occam's razor dictates that we accept the most logical explanation, and that is NOT an invisible man in the sky.

 

Rather than address the core fact of the matter, which is that Occam's Razor does indeed force us to throw out the Goddidit answer when a simpler, more logical one will do, LNC chose to dodge and prevaricate thusly:

 

You also are apparently not familiar with Occam's Razor as you have misrepresented it. Occam's Razor, looks for the most parsimonious explanation, that is, the simplest explanation that has both explanatory power and scope.

 

Now, the only possible explanation for this line of crap (other than wanting to dodge the question) is that LNC is such a pedantic twit that he saw the word "logical" in my reply, but not the word "simplest," and thought "aha! It is not logic but brevity which defines Occam's Razor! I shall impress this poor fool with my semantic skills, which will so dumbfound him that he dare not pursue this line of reasoning!"

 

IOW, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

 

LNC, I know full well that Occam's Razor seeks the simplest logical explanation. Since you present yourself as an educated man, I did not think it necessary to include the word "simplest," because that was already implied in the phrase "Occam's razor," and would be merely redundant. If that is the minor victory you sought, consider it won. I failed to fully define Occam's Razor. Bravo.

 

But you're not off the hook by a long shot, because you never dealt with the real challenge, which is this:

 

Resolved: Occam's Razor precludes the introduction of an eternal "god" to explain the existence of the Universe.

 

From Wikipedia: Occam's razor or Ockham's razor, attributed to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham is the principle that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" or, popularly applied, "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

 

Here we have two competing theories of the origin of everything:

 

1) Everything always was, in one form or another.

 

2) God made everything. God always was, in one form or another.

 

Theory #2 unnecessarily multiplies entities and is unnecessarily more complicated than theory #1.

 

Refutations?

[Ouroboros]

Moved it to Colosseum, since we should try to keep this thread un-de-railed. (I'm tired too of these expeditions into alternative topics each time we discuss something.)

[Guest Davka]

Thanks, Hans.

[Shyone]

OK, first of all - please try not to derail this thread. This thread is about one thing, and one thing only: does Occam's Razor preclude the argument that the Universe must have an invisible, intelligent creator?

<snip>

Refutations?

Let me play Devil's Advocate here.

 

Occams razor "suggests" that it the most likely solution to a problem is the one that does not unnecessrily multiply entities unnecessarily, but that does not exclude the possibility of multiple entities, or even one entity more than "necessary."

 

If a man, for example, finds a paper at his door, and two possibilities come to mind:

 

1. The paper delivery boy put it there

2. The paper delivery boy threw the paper which landed on his neighbor's yard, and the neighbor then brought it to his front yard.

 

Then the neighbor is becomes the "unnecessary" multiplication of entities. Does that mean it isn't true? Does that mean that it couldn't be true?

 

Regardless of the fact that the latter scenario can be verified and the former can't, excluding the possibility of an additional entity is unwarranted by the simple fact that God is an additional entity.

 

Hence, Occam's Razor does not preclude the introduction of an eternal "god" to explain the existence of the Universe.

 

How'd I do?

[Guest Davka]

How'd I do?

 

Not bad. "Preclude" was a poor word choice. But I still say that Occam's Razor is a serious obstacle to the goddidit thesis.

[Shyone]

How'd I do?

 

Not bad. "Preclude" was a poor word choice. But I still say that Occam's Razor is a serious obstacle to the goddidit thesis.

I would agree.

 

It makes the godditit theory less likely, and it is one more nail in the coffin of God. It is necessary, however, to refute the arguments for God directly.

 

Mostly, it gives me a headache.

[MathGeek]

Not to play devil's advocate for the other side, is LNC a presuppositionalist? I say this because I think Christianity is inherently presuppositional. I am of the opinion that since Christians believe their God created the Universe, then that being is the rock upon which human understanding rests. If humans were created by God, then God very likely is the foundation of all axioms that humans rely on including the laws of Logic and Mathematics. Even William of Ockham was a clergyman, therefore I wouldn't be surprised to hear LNC (if he is a presuppositionalist) make this claim. Anybody thoroughly trained in the presuppositional apologetics of Bahnsen and Van Til automatically understands this.

[Guest Davka]

LNC? Helloooo? Anybody home?

 

*crickets*

[LNC]

In another thread, LNC claimed there was tons of evidence for the supernatural. I asked him to provide some, and he claimed he already had, if I would just spend the next year of my life slogging through his verbose posts. He then said:

 

Origin of the universe, existence of morality, existence of the mind, fine-tuning of the universe, resurrection of Jesus...I could go on, but I will leave it here for you to address these.

 

To which I replied (in part)

 

None of those are evidence for anything other than a very complex universe. Occam's razor dictates that we accept the most logical explanation, and that is NOT an invisible man in the sky.

 

Rather than address the core fact of the matter, which is that Occam's Razor does indeed force us to throw out the Goddidit answer when a simpler, more logical one will do, LNC chose to dodge and prevaricate thusly:

 

You also are apparently not familiar with Occam's Razor as you have misrepresented it. Occam's Razor, looks for the most parsimonious explanation, that is, the simplest explanation that has both explanatory power and scope.

 

Now, the only possible explanation for this line of crap (other than wanting to dodge the question) is that LNC is such a pedantic twit that he saw the word "logical" in my reply, but not the word "simplest," and thought "aha! It is not logic but brevity which defines Occam's Razor! I shall impress this poor fool with my semantic skills, which will so dumbfound him that he dare not pursue this line of reasoning!"

 

IOW, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

 

LNC, I know full well that Occam's Razor seeks the simplest logical explanation. Since you present yourself as an educated man, I did not think it necessary to include the word "simplest," because that was already implied in the phrase "Occam's razor," and would be merely redundant. If that is the minor victory you sought, consider it won. I failed to fully define Occam's Razor. Bravo.

 

But you're not off the hook by a long shot, because you never dealt with the real challenge, which is this:

 

Resolved: Occam's Razor precludes the introduction of an eternal "god" to explain the existence of the Universe.

 

From Wikipedia: Occam's razor or Ockham's razor, attributed to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham is the principle that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" or, popularly applied, "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

 

Here we have two competing theories of the origin of everything:

 

1) Everything always was, in one form or another.

 

2) God made everything. God always was, in one form or another.

 

Theory #2 unnecessarily multiplies entities and is unnecessarily more complicated than theory #1.

 

Refutations?

 

Here are some basic formulations for Occam's Razor (OR) so that we can make sure that we are addressing it correctly (taken from an article on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entitled, Simplicity:

 

(OR) Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.

 

(OR₁)Other things being equal, if T1 is more ontologically parsimonious than T2 then it is rational to prefer T1 to T2.

 

The article indicates that OR₁ is a weaker formulation than OR. The key question for this discussion is whether God is necessary for the existence of the universe or whether the universe has either:

 

1) come into existence uncaused

2) existed from eternity past (or if not, a meta-universe that was the cause of this universe)

3) was self-caused

 

I would submit that each of these explanations has logical and philosophical, as well as, scientific problems. First, we have no empirical data suggesting that things can come into existence uncaused out of nothing. It seems to suggest such an explanation would be a metaphysical suggestion rather than a scientific suggestion and it fails on the grounds of violating the principal of causality which is one of the foundational principles that under girds the whole scientific enterprise. To suggest such a thing would bring the whole enterprise into question.

 

Let me go next to point (3). This also would violate logic in that a thing would have to causally exist prior to causing its existence, which is logically contradictory. Therefore, I believe that (3) fails.

 

In regard to point (2), I have already given arguments against it in the other thread; however, let me reiterate. First, work done by Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth gives evidence that inflation cannot be past eternal. Also, work by Borde, Ford, and Roman shows that an initial singularity cannot be avoided given the physics of our universe. To suggest wormholes and the like to avoid this is to move into the realm of metaphysics as it is not a falsifiable or testable hypothesis.

 

Second, to instantiate an infinite would also lead to logical problems as illustrated by David Hilbert in his Hilbert's hotel example. He sets up an illustration of a hotel with an infinite amount of rooms and every room full. Then he says another guest arrives, but every room is full. No problem, he moves the guest in room 1 to room 2, the guest in room 2 to room 3 and so on, creating an open room for the new guest. He then creates an infinite amount of open rooms by moving the guest from the odd number rooms to the room with the number double (i.e., from 3 to 6, 5 to 10, etc.). To make matters worse, all the guests in the odd number rooms check out (an infinite number of guests!), yet there are still and infinite number of guest remaining. All of these are logical paradoxes of instantiating an infinite. On top of that is the idea of crossing an infinite span from infinity past to today, it would take an infinite amount of time, yet we still have time marching on so apparently we have not crossed an infinite amount of time and therefore should not have arrived at today, yet here we are!

 

These and other reasons lead me to negate these three naturalistic explanations. Can you think of any that I have missed? Or, do you have a counter to my negation of any of these points?

 

I believe that God is necessary to explain the universe and therefore, does not violate Occam's Razor. Your thoughts?

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Here we have two competing theories of the origin of everything:

 

1) Everything always was, in one form or another.

 

2) God made everything. God always was, in one form or another.

 

Theory #2 unnecessarily multiplies entities and is unnecessarily more complicated than theory #1.

 

Refutations?

 

Rather vague don't you think? What are we talking about here? Creation? The mix of the entire universe, and it's origins are melted down to Occam's Razor and two theories??

 

So, lets me see if I am on the right track here. I should look at these two statements and determine which one is the more truthful, or logical, by using Occam's Razor. In return, I should not believe that God created the universe?

 

I....I will think about that one.

[Deva]

Second, to instantiate an infinite would also lead to logical problemsas illustrated by David Hilbert in his Hilbert's hotel example. He setsup an illustration of a hotel with an infinite amount of rooms andevery room full...

 

In the hotel example, the number of guests must exceed infinity if there are not enough rooms in the hotel, and the number of rooms is infinite.

 

Help this non-math person. Am I just dense? How can the number of anything exceed infinity?

[NotBlinded]

I would submit that each of these explanations has logical and philosophical, as well as, scientific problems. First, we have no empirical data suggesting that things can come into existence uncaused out of nothing. It seems to suggest such an explanation would be a metaphysical suggestion rather than a scientific suggestion and it fails on the grounds of violating the principal of causality which is one of the foundational principles that under girds the whole scientific enterprise. To suggest such a thing would bring the whole enterprise into question.

The principal of causality itself is a metaphysical discussion LNC. Now what are you going to argue?

[Ouroboros]

In the hotel example, the number of guests must exceed infinity if there are not enough rooms in the hotel, and the number of rooms is infinite.

 

Help this non-math person. Am I just dense? How can the number of anything exceed infinity?

I think the problem with the paradox is that it use finite numbers and infinite sets combined, and paradoxes will always arise from that. The paradox was intended more to show that we can't use common sense when applied to infinite sets, not to prove that actual infinite can't exist. If actual infinite cannot exist, then God cannot exist in actuality.

 

Lets say we have an infinite number of guests, but they each bring an infinite number of extra guests, they can all fit in the same hotel as well. Or lets say we have an infinite number of hotels, and only one guest. We can play with all these things for infinite time, but we'd never get to one answer. 1/0 is still undefined.

[Deva]

[quote name='HanSolo' date='18 September 2009 - 01:38 PM' t

Lets say we have an infinite number of guests, but they each bring an infinite number of extra guests, they can all fit in the same hotel as well. Or lets say we have an infinite number of hotels, and only one guest. We can play with all these things for infinite time, but we'd never get to one answer. 1/0 is still undefined.

 

Thanks for trying Hans. Infinity by itself is hard enough for me to grasp, much less different sets of infinities!

[Shyone]

Second, to instantiate an infinite would also lead to logical problemsas illustrated by David Hilbert in his Hilbert's hotel example. He setsup an illustration of a hotel with an infinite amount of rooms andevery room full...

 

In the hotel example, the number of guests must exceed infinity if there are not enough rooms in the hotel, and the number of rooms is infinite.

 

Help this non-math person. Am I just dense? How can the number of anything exceed infinity?

infinity + 1

 

"To infinity - and beyond!"

[Guest Davka]

The key question for this discussion is whether God is necessary for the existence of the universe or whether the universe has either:

 

1) come into existence uncaused

2) existed from eternity past (or if not, a meta-universe that was the cause of this universe)

3) was self-caused

 

I would submit that each of these explanations has logical and philosophical, as well as, scientific problems.

 

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that this statement is correct. Occam's Razor tells us to look for the most parsimonious explanation. Yet the "goddidit" explanation is the exact opposite of parsimonious. Here is why:

 

- Positing the existence of an invisible, un-measurable, unfathomable, omnipotent being introduces logical, philosophical, and scientific problems which at the very least are equal to those posed by a godless Universe. I would argue that they are for more problematic than any of the natural explanations proposed, but it is enough to show that they are at least equal. That being the case, the introduction of such a being unnecessarily multiplies entities.

 

- Saying that the Universe cannot be uncaused but an indefinable unprovable "god" can be uncaused is illogical. If it is possible for something to exist which is uncaused, then it is just as possible for the Universe to be uncaused as it is for a "god" to be uncaused.

 

- If it it not possible for anything to exist without a cause, then "god" must also have a cause, which leads us to the infinite regression fallacy.

 

First, we have no empirical data suggesting that things can come into existence uncaused out of nothing.

 

We most certainly do. The Universe exists. There is no empirical evidence of a causative agency for the Universe. Therefore, the data presented by the mere existence of the Universe suggests that things come into existence uncaused. The "out of nothing" part of your argument is a straw man, however - nobody is suggesting that the Universe came into existence "out of nothing." Rather, it is suggested that the Universe has always existed in some form or another, and that the current state of the Universe - with matter, time, and all the attendant laws of physics - had a discernible point of origin called the Big Bang.

 

It seems to suggest such an explanation would be a metaphysical suggestion rather than a scientific suggestion and it fails on the grounds of violating the principal of causality which is one of the foundational principles that under girds the whole scientific enterprise. To suggest such a thing would bring the whole enterprise into question.

 

This problem looms far larger for the "goddidit" hypothesis than it does for any natural explanation of the origin of the Universe. The "god" answer is purely metaphysical, not merely "suggestive" of the metaphysical. It therefore fails much more dramatically on the same grounds.

 

Let me go next to point (3). This also would violate logic in that a thing would have to causally exist prior to causing its existence, which is logically contradictory. Therefore, I believe that (3) fails.

 

This illustrates a common misperception related to the idea that time "began" with the Big Bang. It appears to be logically contradictory only because of the position from which you are viewing it: you are inside a post-Big Bang Universe, in which the laws of physics cannot allow for self-causation. Yet the first instants of the Universe appear to have operated under a set of laws which violate everything we consider to be a "law of physics."

 

However, since you seem to lean more towards philosophy rather than science, I will refer you to Quentin Smith's excellent article, A Cosmological Argument for a Self-caused Universe.

 

In regard to point (2), I have already given arguments against it in the other thread; however, let me reiterate. First, work done by Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth gives evidence that inflation cannot be past eternal. Also, work by Borde, Ford, and Roman shows that an initial singularity cannot be avoided given the physics of our universe. To suggest wormholes and the like to avoid this is to move into the realm of metaphysics as it is not a falsifiable or testable hypothesis.

 

Again, if the introduction of hypotheses which cannot be falsified or tested is a legitimate argument, then Occam's Razor suggests that we should accept a natural explanation rather than multiplying entities by introducing a supernatural being.

 

What's more, there is no concrete answer yet agreed upon by the scientific community as to whether the Universe is past eternal. If such an answer is arrived at, it will be through observation and logic, not through the frivolous introduction of an unnecessary entity.

 

Second, to instantiate an infinite would also lead to logical problems as illustrated by David Hilbert in his Hilbert's hotel example.

 

Hilbert's Hotel serves merely to illustrate that a subset of an infinite set can itself be infinite. It is a mathematical explanation, not a negation of the concept of infinity. Mathematics is full of paradox.

 

I believe that God is necessary to explain the universe and therefore, does not violate Occam's Razor. Your thoughts?

 

"I believe" is not a rational basis on which to base such an assertion. You have failed to demonstrate any way in which the introduction of "god" does not violate Occam's Razor.

[Ouroboros]

infinity + 1

I can do you one better: ∞^∞

 

I wonder if the Hotel paradox can be summarized in: ∞/∞ ≠ ∞?

 

---

 

And here's the Bio of Quentin Smith who wrote the article Davka linked to:

Quentin Smith is professor of philosophy and distinguished faculty scholar at Western Michigan University. He is the author or coauthor of more than one hundred articles and a dozen books on the philosophies of language, religion, time, and cosmology. From 2001 to 2007, he edited Philo: A Journal of Philosophy, and he currently edits a philosophy series for Prometheus Books. Professor Smith has also been featured in four PBS television and radio programs. In his spare time (sic), he writes poetry and paints.

Oh, he can't be competent enough to speak about these things. He doesn't believe in Jesus! (/sarc)

 

(And he does have PhD, even though the quote from the Infidel website doesn't mention that. So lets see, PhD in Philosophy vs someone who is currently getting a master in religious excuses, who can be more trustworthy about this philosophical topic? Hmm....)

 

Quentin Smith: link

[Shyone]

infinity + 1

I can do you one better: ∞^∞

That's because I couldn't find the damned "∞" sign.

 

Does ∞^∞ = ∞ + 1 ?

[NotBlinded]

 

And here's the Bio of Quentin Smith who wrote the article Davka linked to:

Quentin Smith is professor of philosophy and distinguished faculty scholar at Western Michigan University. He is the author or coauthor of more than one hundred articles and a dozen books on the philosophies of language, religion, time, and cosmology. From 2001 to 2007, he edited Philo: A Journal of Philosophy, and he currently edits a philosophy series for Prometheus Books. Professor Smith has also been featured in four PBS television and radio programs. In his spare time (sic), he writes poetry and paints.

Oh, he can't be competent enough to speak about these things. He doesn't believe in Jesus! (/sarc)

 

(And he does have PhD, even though the quote from the Infidel website doesn't mention that. So lets see, PhD in Philosophy vs someone who is currently getting a master in religious excuses, who can be more trustworthy about this philosophical topic? Hmm....)

 

Quentin Smith: link

 

 

My link

 

My ego is destroyed.

 

 

[Ouroboros]

That's because I couldn't find the damned "∞" sign.

 

On Mac, it's Alt(Option) and 5.

 

Does ∞^∞ = ∞ + 1 ?

Yes, and also ∞-1.

 

Perhaps the argument is that: ∞-n≠1? Infinite minus any finite number can never become 1 (the "Now").

 

My link

 

My ego is destroyed.

Oops. I missed that post by you.

 

Quentin and Craig co-wrote a book about these arguments, and they're arguing opposing sides.

 

It seems like it ultimately comes down to picking side rather than "knowing" who is right.

[NotBlinded]

Oops. I missed that post by you.

 

Quentin and Craig co-wrote a book about these arguments, and they're arguing opposing sides.

 

It seems like it ultimately comes down to picking side rather than "knowing" who is right.

I didn't know that. Do you happen to know the name of the book or where I could find a link to it? I guess I could google it huh? Nevermind, I found it...not that I could understand it. I wonder if it's technical? Oh crap, it says it's a scholarly resource.

 

Oh, he wrote that piece after the book and he addresses Craig often.

[LNC]

So..if time is infinite, today can't exist. I don't quite understand why not. But why the heck can God be infinite if nothing else can be infinite? Why is God outside of these rules?

 

I'm going to say I am having a difficult time following all of this. I can actually feel my brain straining to grok it. I'm also amazed that believing in God requires this level of cognition.

 

Phanta

 

The key is if time is past infinite it means that an infinite amount of time would be required to reach today as a terminus; yet, an infinite amount of time cannot be crossed, so therefore, we should not be at today. Philosophers figured out long ago that an actual infinite cannot be crossed, yet if the past is eternal, then we would have had to have crossed an infinite. The key is that God existed in a timeless, changeless state when the universe did not exist, so he would not be past eternal in that sense since time did not exist until the universe was created. Time is the measure of change. So, in essence, God is not outside or in violation of this rule.

 

I know it can be a bit to grasp, but philosophers have thought through all of these ideas and they do cohere. I don't think that it is only belief in God that requires this level of cognition; I am in a discussion group now that is wrestling with these questions in relation to the universe, man, time, morality, the mind, and other issues.

[LNC]

In the hotel example, the number of guests must exceed infinity if there are not enough rooms in the hotel, and the number of rooms is infinite.

 

Help this non-math person. Am I just dense? How can the number of anything exceed infinity?

 

That's part of the contradiction of instantiating an actual infinite, infinity cannot be exceeded.

[Ouroboros]

I know it can be a bit to grasp, but philosophers have thought through all of these ideas and they do cohere. I don't think that it is only belief in God that requires this level of cognition; I am in a discussion group now that is wrestling with these questions in relation to the universe, man, time, morality, the mind, and other issues.

So... if philosophers have thought about this, and some of them have solid arguments for a self-caused universe... then they are wrong because they don't agree with your favorite philosopher? How does that hang together? We should believe the Craig-an philosophy to be correct, and Quentin Smith's to be wrong, on your say so? Okay. Yes, God LNC! The almighty LNC has spoken! Hark and obey. You are telling the truth, because you are the truth teller and anything you say is the truth so when you tell us the truth it must be the truth so help me LNC...

[LNC]

The principal of causality itself is a metaphysical discussion LNC. Now what are you going to argue?

 

Yes it is, and it is a first principle that under girds science. I am not sure what question you are asking. Maybe you could give me more detail.