Occam's Razor and God

[fosio]

Some say that Occam’s Razor inclines against the hypothesis that God exists. Of these, some believe in God anyway and others don’t for whatever reasons.

Occam’s Razor is that one should prefer the theory that makes the least assumptions all other things being equal.

For our discussion, let’s grant that all other things are equal and that an atheistic theory of the world explains as much and as well as a theistic theory of the world. Still, Occam’s Razor does not incline against the God hypothesis. Here’s why.

Let’s suppose there is a successful theory of everything. One might think amending that theory to include God would be against Occam’s Razor. However, even with a successful theory of everything, we have no explanation as to what accounts for why the laws and/or initial conditions of physics were this way and not some other way. We have no explanation for example of why there is something rather than just nothing. The atheistic theory can tackle this by saying that the way things happen to be need no explaining and just are – that the universe or the laws behind it are the ultimate mystery, not a god. But, in doing so, the theory has added another assumption – namely that the universe is the ultimate mystery that needs no explaining – so compared to a theory that assumes that there is some other ultimate mystery, they both fare exactly the same under Occam’s Razor.

Another way for the atheistic theory to tackle this is to instead say that everything that is possible exists, somewhat similar to a Leibnizian principle of plenitude without its value laden hiearchy. An MIT theorist has gone this route, identifying the universe with mathematics and saying that anything mathematically possible exists. But in going this route they have added assumptions – namely the assumption that everything possible exists and the assumption that the fact that everything possible exists needs no explanining but is part of an ultimate mystery.

There may be good arguments against the God hypothesis, but Occam’s Razor is not one of them.

 

[liquidpele]

There may be good arguments against the God hypothesis, but Occam’s Razor is not one of them.

I agree in regards to creation only. Occam’s Razor is not so much a rule as a guideline, and it doesn’t make much sense in this context. A purely scientific view of creation and that of God are similar in that there really isn’t much we know beyond what we think is likely given what we know about how things currently work. We may never know. I think Occam’s Razor is more suited to two very well defined theories, both with evidence, but one happens to be much simpler an explanation, and I don’t think that is the case with creation.

However, keep in mind that much of science sounds complicated, but that doesn’t mean Occam’s razor applies or that it’s correct. The sun moving around the Earth I’m sure seemed much simpler to people 500 years ago, but that’s simply not the reality.

 

[tonyrey]

Some say that Occam’s Razor inclines against the hypothesis that God exists. Of these, some believe in God anyway and others don’t for whatever reasons.

Occam’s Razor is that one should prefer the theory that makes the least assumptions all other things being equal.
There may be good arguments against the God hypothesis, but Occam’s Razor is not one of them.

There cannot be a more economical explanation than one Supreme Being!

 

[DavidHume]

There cannot be a more economical explanation than one Supreme Being!

Except you have at least two beings – one Supreme Being, and all that is not this Supreme Being. It’d be more economical if they were one and the same.

 

[tonyrey]

Except you have at least two beings – one Supreme Being, and all that is not this Supreme Being. It’d be more economical if they were one and the same.

All that is not the Supreme Being has not always existed. It exists only because it was created by the Supreme Being and it would cease to exist without the Supreme Being. The Supreme Being remains the most economical explanation.

 

[liquidpele]

All that is not the Supreme Being has not always existed. It exists only because it was created by the Supreme Being and it would cease to exist without the Supreme Being. The Supreme Being remains the most economical explanation.

Wouldn’t the most economical explanation be that things always existed, and thus no event was even necessary to create it?

 

[tonyrey]

Wouldn’t the most economical explanation be that things always existed, and thus no event was even necessary to create it?

It is not economical because there are** many** things rather than **one **Supreme Being. Moreover
we know nothing in the universe that can explain the universe.

 

[liquidpele]

It is not economical because there are** many** things rather than **one **Supreme Being. Moreover
we know nothing in the universe that can explain the universe.

Except in my example, you have a universe, and in yours you have a universe AND a super-being.

I agree we can’t explain very much of the universe with any real degree of certainty… but that includes theistic viewpoints. This is why I think Occam’s Razor is a very poor guideline to use in such an issue, because we don’t know enough to even know what the simpler solution would be!

 

[tonyrey]

Except in my example, you have a universe, and in yours you have a universe AND a super-being.

I agree we can’t explain very much of the universe with any real degree of certainty… but that includes theistic viewpoints. This is why I think Occam’s Razor is a very poor guideline to use in such an issue, because we don’t know enough to even know what the simpler solution would be!

We are not considering the present state of reality but the origin of reality as we know it, i.e. we are seeking a causal explanation of the universe. The universe is either uncaused or caused. Since there is no evidence to believe it is uncaused, i.e. eternal or self-explanatory, it is more reasonable to believe it was caused by one Supreme Being.

You probably reject Occam’s Razor in this context because it is not your preferred explanation. Why else?

 

[liquidpele]

We are not considering the present state of reality but the origin of reality as we know it, i.e. we are seeking a causal explanation of the universe. The universe is either uncaused or caused. Since there is no evidence to believe it is uncaused, i.e. eternal or self-explanatory, it is more reasonable to believe it was caused by one Supreme Being.

You probably reject Occam’s Razor in this context because it is not your preferred explanation. Why else?

My point is that Occam’s Razor serves no real purpose here because no one can agree on what the simple solution is. I think the simple solution is “no God” and you think it is “with God”… so how could it apply with any real meaning?

Later, I’ve got to go give blood

 

[tonyrey]

My point is that Occam’s Razor serves no real purpose here because no one can agree on what the simple solution is.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Since William of Occam was a Franciscan priest, it can hardly be assumed that he meant his razor to be used to cut God out of the picture.

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele;5272384:

Many people accept neoDarwinism because it traces all life back to the mono

cellular organism. If we go back further we reach one Big Bang. Then the logical alternatives seem to be nothing (which contradicts the principle of causality) or one Being.
That is hardly a simple solution. It isn’t a solution at all! It explains nothing…
I hope they don’t use a razor!

Actually, the latest research shows that there was NOT one first organism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

It is now clear that the genetic code is not the same in all living things and this provides credence that all living things did not evolve on a firmly-rooted tree of life from a single LUCA. Further support that there is no LUCA has been provided over the years by horizontal/lateral gene transfer in both prokaryote and eukaryote single cell organisms. This is why phylogenetic trees cannot be rooted; why almost all phylogenetic trees have different branching structures, particularly near the base of the tree; and why many organisms have been found with codons and sections of their DNA sequence that are sometimes unrelated to other species.[12]

Not that that refutes your claim, just pointing out a misconception. Your claim though, is that because two things have an origin, everything must then originate from one thing. This is funny, because if you look at light cones, it’s very clear that we come to such assumptions because we can’t see anything else that is out there besides what is in our own cone.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

In other words, yes everything has an origin, but that doesn’t mean there is only one origin just because we can only see one. Also, the principal of causality is an assumption based on logic and supported by Newton’s laws… which are technically incorrect and replaced by the general theory of relativity. Perhaps you should read this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

The most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open. The pattern of interference remains the same, as can be seen if many photons are emitted one at a time and recorded on the same sheet of photographic film. The clear implication is that something with a wavelike nature passes simultaneously through both slits and interferes with itself — even though there is only one photon present.

Causality from itself… crazy

I was indeed revealed that they did not use a razor when drawing the blood
I do it for the punnut butter cookies

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;5274158:

Actually, the latest research shows that there was NOT one first organism.

Even less economical!

Your claim though, is that because two things have an origin, everything must then originate from one thing. This is funny, because if you look at light cones, it’s very clear that we come to such assumptions because we can’t see anything else that is out there besides what is in our own cone.

In other words, yes everything has an origin, but that doesn’t mean there is only one origin just because we can only see one.

Why multiply entities, causes or explanations unnecessarily? It is arbitrary to restrict Occam’s razor to causes. Any factor that simplifies an explanation is valuable.

Causality from itself… crazy

The Supreme Reality is hardly restricted to human categories. Causality in this context is simply a term to conceal our ignorance of what divine creativity is.

 

[liquidpele]

Even less economical!

I suppose that’s up for debate, but whatever. It is what it is… err, the research and evidence points to what it points to? Maybe that’s better.

Why multiply entities, causes or explanations unnecessarily? It is arbitrary to restrict Occam’s razor to causes. Any factor that simplifies an explanation is valuable.

Sure, but it has to be a “simple explanation” that also explains all the evidence and what we see. If the solution violates what we know is true, it’s not even really an option. In this dicussion, we don’t have ANY read evidence for either side of the argument (concerning origin of life or the cosmos anyway), so trying to find the “simple” solution is a matter of opinion and not logic, thus Occam’s razor does not apply in the classical sense.

It’s like saying that the speed limit should apply in a lot full of parked cars.

The Supreme Reality is hardly restricted to human categories. Causality in this context is simply a term to conceal our ignorance of what divine creativity is.

I suppose that is one way to look at it, my point was just that causality is not a law, it’s a convenience theory for higher order daily usage because for 99.9% of stuff it is true.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Except you have at least two beings – one Supreme Being, and all that is not this Supreme Being. It’d be more economical if they were one and the same.

They are necessarily different by nature of being; they relate only in the general sense that they both exist. They cannot be one with out implying an insoluble repugnant contradiction. Occam’s razor rests well with the concept of a supreme creator and a creation.

Pantheism, naturalism, atheism; they are all flawed concepts. The sooner you get to grips with that, the better for you.

 

[tonyrey]

Sure, but it has to be a “simple explanation” that also explains all the evidence and what we see.

 

[liquidpele]

Not only what we see but “we”, i.e. persons and their (our) attributes. Atheism has the problem of explaining how persons are produced by impersonal things. Theism does not have that problem. Theism does not violate what we know is true.

We have plenty of evidence that things never appear out of the blue, i.e. spontaneously, that we can understand reality to a large extent, control events and control ourselves. Is that worth nothing? The success of science and the beauty of art are formidable arguments for the power of the mind. The magnificence of nature also requires explanation - unless you’re a cynic!

It doesn’t have to be a “law”. There is sufficient order to sustain a rational existence. That is a fact which requires explanation - unless you decide to abandon the quest altogether…

Define “theism” then! “A God exists” does not, but according to many definitions put out by different religions over the years, things HAVE been proven wrong. The Sun revolving around the earth and the age of the earth come to mind.

Things do appear out of the blue sometimes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_fluctuations

The magnificence of nature is subjective, and so is the reason for it’s magnificence (I agree that it’s magnificent though!).

Saying that “There is sufficient order to sustain a rational existence.” does not mean that order has a creator though.

Anyway, my main point was that I think using Occam’s Razor is fine in argument if there is enough evidence to agree on what that simple solution would be, and I don’t think that is the case with creation. If only part of the group is using Occam’s razor, is that really a fair assessment, or are they just using it as proof of their own beliefs that they had prior to using Occam’s Razor?

 

[Shike]

I just wanted to point out that there is an ambiguity in the word “causality”. Don’t forget to distinguish between an event on the one hand and an explanation on the other.

Earlier in the thread, an eternal universe was given as an example of an uncaused universe. Keeping in mind the distinction, it does seem very well probable that one could have an eternal universe that has an explanation; in that respect an eternal universe is caused.

This distinction is also invaluable when one evaluates Aquinas’ five ways, so that one doesn’t fall into numerous pits of “duh!”

With that said, I am very well okay with an event “causing” itself (though I’d hold out on that), but not in that it gives its own explanation.

peace,
Michael

 

[MindOverMatter]

With that said, I am very well okay with an event “causing” itself (though I’d hold out on that), but not in that it gives its own explanation.

peace,
Michael

Well, by definition of a thing coming “into” being, one is made aware of its cause. For a thing cannot have a nature out side of that which is nature, for it “acts” in accordance with there being such a things as being. It comes in to existence and has a nature, only because there is such a thing as existence. Secondly, “nothing”, is a negation of being, not a being in itself. Therefore there can never be such a thing as “absolute nothing”. Thus, being is fundamental and timeless. And so, any particular thing which begins to exist and changes, does so in respect of that which is existence. One can therefore say they have a cause, for they have no nature of being outside of existence. This is both true of an infinite or finite chain of cause and effect.