Which is more economical: theism or atheism?

[tonyrey]

                 Originally Posted by **Touchstone**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5739349#post5739349)                 
             *I think this misunderstands what is meant by "economy" in terms of parsimony. If we take some phenomena X, and offer two hypotheses:

1. A => B => C => D + E => F => *X

**2. God => *X

*It is not parsimonious to adopt 2, where we find A, B, C, D, E, and F to all be verifiable, extant agents or processes. You get big points in explanations for invoking explanatory resources that are actual, and the whole point of Ockham’s heuristic is to minimize new and dubious entitiies as the resource for explanation.
So, above, if A through F are all well attested phenomena, it’s a clearly more economical explanation, even though a half dozen agents are called upon. Why, because we don’t need to introduce any new and dubious entities. We aren’t multiplying entities unnecessary. We can explain the phenomena with available, known entities, and this makes 2, the invocation of an unseen, unknown, unavailable God gratuitous, even (and especially) though it is one magical agent.
-TS

Occam’s Razor:
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate
(Plurality ought never be posited without necessity)

You are making at least ten assumptions:

1. A is a **single **entity.
2. A is an **adequate **explanation of the entire process.
3. A is physical and eternal.
4. Each stage of the process is an adequate explanation of the following stage.
5. Seen entities are prior to unseen entities.
6. Purpose is a product of that which is purposeless.
7. Persons are the product of particles.
8. Rationality is the product of irrational processes.
9. Atomistic explanation is superior to holistic explanation.
10. A, B, C, D, E, and F are more economical than X.

 

[liquidpele]

Occam’s Razor:
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate
(Plurality ought never be posited without necessity)

You are making at least ten assumptions:

1. A is a **single **entity.
2. A is an **adequate **explanation of the entire process.
3. A is physical and eternal.
4. Each stage of the process is an adequate explanation of the following stage.
5. Seen entities are prior to unseen entities.
6. Purpose is a product of that which is purposeless.
7. Persons are the product of particles.
8. Rationality is the product of irrational processes.
9. Atomistic explanation is superior to holistic explanation.
10. A, B, C, D, E, and F are more economical than X.

You’re picking apart his example even though he only uses LETTERS for goodness sake! His point was that many processes can sill be the more simple solution than just one very complicated one or duplicated ones in regards to Occam’s Razor. Stop beating up the scarecrow, he had no brain, he can’t defend himself!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Occam’s Razor:
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate
(Plurality ought never be posited without necessity)

You are making at least ten assumptions:

1. A is a **single **entity.
2. A is an **adequate **explanation of the entire process.
3. A is physical and eternal.
4. Each stage of the process is an adequate explanation of the following stage.
5. Seen entities are prior to unseen entities.
6. Purpose is a product of that which is purposeless.
7. Persons are the product of particles.
8. Rationality is the product of irrational processes.
9. Atomistic explanation is superior to holistic explanation.
10. A, B, C, D, E, and F are more economical than X.

theist.

any theory not finding an ultimate explanation is incomplete requiring the postulation of further entities. it is not more economical, then to stop short of a full explanation. in the case of the universe, even a temporally infinite universe, it cannot explain its own existence. ergo, an explanation must necessarily transcend the mere physical, in order to be a complete explanation.

 

[wanstronian]

I think it’s clear that Touchstone’s point is concise and correct… for any situation, not just theological ones.

A one-step answer is no explanation if that step cannot itself be explained. It is all too easy to say that a one-word answer is more parsimonious than a ten thousand-word thesis, but this is clearly untrue if the one-word answer explains nothing. An answer is not necessarily an explanation, and this is where theism gets it badly wrong.

Saying, “God did it” just side-steps the question. Saying “God did it” should be satisfying to nobody except either the intellectually bereft or the catastrophically incurious.

I never fail to feel amazed that anybody can be satisfied with the “God did it” answer. Particularly as the inference is circular:

“How did all these amazing things come to pass?”
“God did it.”
“How do you know there’s a God?”
“Well, all these amazing things have come to pass.”

It’s clear that atheism is the more economical stance. The fact that it doesn’t confidently provide an answer to everything is no weakness; in fact it should be considered a strength from an intellectually independent viewpoint. It’s economical, but more than that - it’s honest.

 

[tonyrey]

You’re picking apart his example even though he only uses LETTERS for goodness sake! His point was that many processes can sill be the more simple solution than just one very complicated one or duplicated ones in regards to Occam’s Razor. Stop beating up the scarecrow, he had no brain, he can’t defend himself!

There is a difference between economy and simplicity…
Who is the poor scarecrow?

 

[liquidpele]

theist.

any theory not finding an ultimate explanation is incomplete requiring the postulation of further entities. it is not more economical, then to stop short of a full explanation. in the case of the universe, even a temporally infinite universe, it cannot explain its own existence. ergo, an explanation must necessarily transcend the mere physical, in order to be a complete explanation.

In that case, you were created by the magic invisible unicorn 5 seconds ago with all your memories intact. This has no logical holes it it, you can’t prove it’s not real, and it’s totally absurd. Point being, having full explanation means nothing in regards to what the explanation is.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

In that case, you were created by the magic invisible unicorn 5 seconds ago with all your memories intact. This has no logical holes it it, you can’t prove it’s not real, and it’s totally absurd. Point being, having full explanation means nothing in regards to what the explanation is.

in this case the complete answer is your unicorn here. and it seems that a an explanation of what a unicorn is, is self explanatory.

in our case, you go back far enough you come to G-d as the maximal state of being, pure existence, you cannot go back farther because then you hit “nothing” which has no form, shape, substance, or existence. therefore it is not even a possibility, it is impossible. you may ask what G-d is, and i will say the maximal state of being, or pure existence. obviously there is much more to be had in terms of explanations of how we reach that, but for simplicities sake.
there is not just a complete answer to be had, but we can also rationally find what that answer is.

 

[liquidpele]

in this case the complete answer is your unicorn here. and it seems that a an explanation of what a unicorn is, is self explanatory.

in our case, you go back far enough you come to G-d as the maximal state of being, pure existence, you cannot go back farther because then you hit “nothing” which has no form, shape, substance, or existence. therefore it is not even a possibility, it is impossible. you may ask what G-d is, and i will say the maximal state of being, or pure existence. obviously there is much more to be had in terms of explanations of how we reach that, but for simplicities sake.
there is not just a complete answer to be had, but we can also rationally find what that answer is.

You only think that because the invisible unicorn put those thoughts in your head.

 

[Touchstone]

theist.

any theory not finding an ultimate explanation is incomplete requiring the postulation of further entities. it is not more economical, then to stop short of a full explanation. in the case of the universe, even a temporally infinite universe, it cannot explain its own existence. ergo, an explanation must necessarily transcend the mere physical, in order to be a complete explanation.

All explanations are incomplete, necessarily, because the concept of “ultimate explanation” is undefined, intractable. To suggest that every explanation be an ultimate explanation is nullify the concept of explanation itself. The Wikipedia intro sentence on the subject capture this well:

An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts.

Given an existing context, it provides additional knowledge WITHIN THAT CONTEXT, utilizing the resources available in that context. So, for gravity, as an example, we have a set of facts and experiences available as the context for an explanation, and the idea that mass has in intrisic “pull” to it, and one that corresponds to a inverse square description of its “pull” as a function of distance and mass, provides clarity and additional knowledge to that context, which is proven out by testing the explanation.

If the theory of gravity had to explain where mass, energy, space and time come from, we’d not get any explanations off the ground, ever. It would all be theology!

As it is, explanations are local, and provide clarification and insight into the dynamics of a local context, hopefully in some verifiable way.

-TS

 

[tonyrey]

                 Originally Posted by **tonyrey**

 

[wanstronian]

A multiple-step answer is no explanation if the first step (A) cannot itself be explained. What does “The Universe” explain?
Precisely - like the word “Universe”.An answer is not necessarily an explanation, and this is where atheism gets it badly wrong.
Saying, “The universe just happened to exist” just side-steps the question. Saying “The universe just happened to exist” should be satisfying to nobody except either the intellectually bereft or the catastrophically incurious.
I never fail to feel amazed that anybody can be satisfied with the “Evolution by chance did it” answer. Particularly as the inference is circular.
“How did all these amazing things come to pass?”
“They are the result of evolution by chance.”
“How do you know they are the result of evolution by chance?”
“Well, all these amazing things have come to pass.”
It’s clear that theism is the more economical stance because it only postulates One Entity.The fact that theism doesn’t confidently provide an answer to everything about God is no weakness; in fact it should be considered a strength from an intellectually independent viewpoint. It’s economical, but more than that - it’s honest.

You are clearly unable to think up any counter-arguments and prefer to just swap my words around. Do you truly believe that your bastardised versions of my comments actually stand on their own merit? For example, “An answer is not necessarily an explanation, and this is where atheism gets it badly wrong” fails to recognise that atheism, unlike theism, doesn’t **pretend **to have all the answers. You are just making yourself look like an idiot. Probably because you are an idiot.

I honestly don’t know why you bother to post when you can’t even hold a conversation. Your straw man count is through the roof. When you have something worthwhile to say, please feel free to post. Until then, stop wasting everybody’s time. You are being intellectually dishonest (as always) and, frankly, infantile.

Why not go troll another site?

 

[wanstronian]

Just to demonstrate your stupidity, I will address your plagiaristic comments:

An answer is not necessarily an explanation, and this is where atheism gets it badly wrong.

Already answered - atheism does not claim to know the answer. Straw man.

Saying, “The universe just happened to exist” just side-steps the question. Saying “The universe just happened to exist” should be satisfying to nobody except either the intellectually bereft or the catastrophically incurious.

Atheism doesn’t claim that the universe just happened to exist. Straw Man.

I never fail to feel amazed that anybody can be satisfied with the “Evolution by chance did it” answer. Particularly as the inference is circular.

Yet again you demonstrate that you don’t know the first thing about evolution. Chance indeed. Straw Man.

It’s clear that theism is the more economical stance because it only postulates One Entity.

Hmmm… an infintely complex one. This one has had its butt kicked by Touchstone’s comment that you quote in your first post. Shame you can’t see the fallacy in your reasoning, but then that would take courage and intelligence, and you demonstrate neither.

The fact that theism doesn’t confidently provide an answer to everything about God is no weakness; in fact it should be considered a strength from an intellectually independent viewpoint.

You can’t even rip my comment off here, you have to add words to try and justify. What a joke you are. Straw man.

It’s economical, but more than that - it’s honest.

Shame you’re not. You can’t compete on even terms, so you have to lie to try and make your point.

 

[tonyrey]

                                                                  Originally Posted by **tonyrey**

Neither do theists. They believe God exists but they do not claim to understand how God exists.

Atheism doesn’t claim that the universe just happened to exist.

Atheists believe there is no reason why the universe exists or** purpose** for its existence.

Yet again you demonstrate that you don’t know the first thing about evolution. Chance indeed.

Yet again I have to point out that Chance means the absence of Design. Chance also refers to the theory that life originated as a fortuitous combination of molecules and the evolution of life occurred by random mutations and natural selection.

                                               It's clear that theism is the more economical stance because it only postulates One Entity.

… an infinitely complex one.

You are extremely complex but you are one entity…

The fact that theism doesn’t provide an answer to everything about God is no weakness; in fact it should be considered a strength from an intellectually independent viewpoint.

 

[tonyrey]

“An answer is not necessarily an explanation, and this is where atheism gets it badly wrong” fails to recognise that atheism, unlike theism, doesn’t **pretend **to have all the answers.

It is false to assert that theism **pretends **to have all the answers.

You are irritated because you cannot refute my statements and have to resort to abuse - which is always a sign of weakness. Sound reasoning does not need to be bolstered by irrelevant remarks…

 

[wanstronian]

Neither do theists. They believe God exists but they do not claim to understand how God exists.

And now you’re moving the goalposts, changing the problem for which we were debating the relative merits of theist and atheist answers. To remind you - we were talking about the answer to the Universe, not the nature of the entity postulated as an answer by theists.

Atheists believe there is no reason why the universe exists or** purpose** for its existence.

Again, you’re changing the conversation. Originally your bastardisation read, “Saying, “The universe just happened to exist” just side-steps the question.” That implies an absence of cause, which I don’t think you’ll find many atheists signing up to. Now you’re talking about reason and purpose, this is different from “happening to exist.” Cause and intent are not the same things.

Yet again I have to point out that Chance means the absence of Design. Chance also refers to the theory that life originated as a fortuitous combination of molecules and the evolution of life occurred by random mutations and natural selection.

Chance has many meanings, if you are going to use it to counter my comment you should be specific.Saying that evolution operates by chance is being nebulous and I’m sorry, but I don’t believe your choice of words was innocent.

You are extremely complex but you are one entity…

Yes, but I didn’t create the universe, and if I did, I wouldn’t expect people to say, “Oh, Wanstronian did that. Never mind how, you’ve got your answer.”

The fact that theism doesn’t provide an answer to everything about God is no weakness; in fact it should be considered a strength from an intellectually independent viewpoint.

Did you mean to repeat yourself? If I were you, I’d try and forget about the snide little reworkings of my posts, they don’t do you any favours.

 

[tonyrey]

To remind you - we were talking about the answer to the Universe, not the nature of the entity postulated as an answer by theists.

We are discussing which is more economical: theism or atheism. I pointed out that God - a single entity - is more economical than the universe - which is the starting point for the atheist. In neither case is the origin of God or the origin of the universe explained. Origin <> Nature.

Atheists believe there is no reason why the universe exists or purpose for its existence.
Now you’re talking about reason and purpose, this is different from “happening to exist.” Cause and intent are not the same things.

Intent is intelligent causality. It is arbitrary to limit causality to physical causality. If the universe happens to exist it is not intended to exist. If the universe happens to exist there is no reason for its existence even if there is a physical cause.

… Chance means the absence of Design. Chance also refers to the theory that life originated as a fortuitous combination of molecules and the evolution of life occurred by random mutations and natural selection.
Chance has many meanings, if you are going to use it to counter my comment you should be specific.Saying that evolution operates by chance is being nebulous…

I have given two definitions and specified “random mutations” as the source of variety on which evolution depends.

You are extremely complex but you are one entity…
Yes, but I didn’t create the universe, and if I did, I wouldn’t expect people to say, "Oh, Wanstronian did that.

The point is that complexity does not exclude simplicity and unity. Holism is more coherent than atomism.

 

[wanstronian]

We are discussing which is more economical: theism or atheism. I pointed out that God - a single entity - is more economical than the universe - which is the starting point for the atheist. In neither case is the origin of God or the origin of the universe explained. Origin <> Nature.

Okay then, let’s get back to brass tacks. I presume we can agree that the physical universe exists. In which case, how is “The physical universe” less economical than “The physical universe + God?”

Intent is intelligent causality. It is arbitrary to limit causality to physical causality. If the universe happens to exist it is not intended to exist. If the universe happens to exist there is no reason for its existence even if there is a physical cause.

Agreed - there is no reason, no purpose, for the universe. It seems we were in violent agreement…

I have given two definitions and specified “random mutations” as the source of variety on which evolution depends.

But equating evolution to chance (which you did in one of your infamous word-twists on my comments) is inconcise and, therefore, inaccurate; as a result, mocking it on that basis is dishonest.

The point is that complexity does not exclude simplicity and unity. Holism is more coherent than atomism.

Well, the two are not mutually incompatible. But to address your point - yes, a complex whole can be made up of simple units. That doesn’t mean that the whole is simple! That’s like saying that the Space Shuttle is simple because you know how a rivet works!

 

[tonyrey]

                           Quote:
                                                                  Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5763880#post5763880)                 
             *We are discussing which is more economical: theism or atheism. I pointed out that God - a single entity - is more economical than the universe - which is the starting point for the atheist. In neither case is the **origin*** of God or the **origin** of the universe explained. Origin <> Nature.

Okay then, let’s get back to brass tacks. I presume we can agree that the physical universe exists. In which case, how is “The physical universe” less economical than “The physical universe + God?”

The physical universe is less economical because it is thought to be either eternal - in which case it has multiple elements - or it has been produced by physical causes whereas God is **one **Creator.

               * Intent is intelligent causality. It is arbitrary to limit causality to physical causality. If the universe happens to exist it is not intended to exist. If the universe happens to exist there is no reason for its existence even if there is a physical cause.*

Agreed - there is no reason, no purpose, for the universe. It seems we were in violent agreement…

That makes a delightful change!

                                        I have given two definitions and specified "**random** mutations" as the source of variety on which evolution depends.

But equating evolution to chance (which you did in one of your infamous word-twists on my comments) is inconcise and, therefore, inaccurate; as a result, mocking it on that basis is dishonest.

I did not intend to mock but to demonstrate that the other side can adopt the same technique of adding irrelevant comments. I overdid it - for which I apologise - but I have not made any deprecatory remarks.

                                        The point is that complexity does not exclude simplicity and unity. Holism is more coherent than atomism.

Well, the two are not mutually incompatible. But to address your point - yes, a complex whole can be made up of simple units. That doesn’t mean that the whole is simple! That’s like saying that the Space Shuttle is simple because you know how a rivet works!

A Space Shuttle is a man-made entity whereas a person is an intangible entity that we cannot explain mechanistically in terms of its components. We regard the whole person as rational, emotional and responsible not his or her individual elements!

 

[wanstronian]

The physical universe is less economical because it is thought to be either eternal - in which case it has multiple elements - or it has been produced by physical causes whereas God is **one **Creator.

But you need to make assumptions to accommodate your conclusion! In the latter case, are you basing your idea of simplicity on the fact that there are likely multiple physical factors necessary, as opposed to just one God? Despite the fact that if God had created the universe, he would have had to create conditions at least equally complex… making him by necessity more complex, and less economical!

That makes a delightful change!

Indeed!

I did not intend to mock but to demonstrate that the other side can adopt the same technique of adding irrelevant comments. I overdid it - for which I apologise - but I have not made any deprecatory remarks.

Okay, let’s leave it there!

A Space Shuttle is a man-made entity whereas a person is an intangible entity that we cannot explain mechanistically in terms of its components. We regard the whole person as rational, emotional and responsible not his or her individual elements!

But we know that the person is made up of lots of components, right down to a particle level. It’s fallacious to say that make a person simple, just because there’s only one assembly. A human being is in fact the most complex organism known to man - not just by virtue of the number of components, but by the way those components work together. And a human is in no way capable of creating a universe, nor indeed anything more complex than itself. So if humans can’t do it, on what grounds should we speculate that God can? And if he can’t, we’re back to the fact that if he made the universe, he must be more complex than the universe… which means that he is a less economical explanation, all knowns considered.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey
The physical universe is less economical because it is thought to be either eternal - in which case it has multiple elements - or it has been produced by physical causes whereas God is one Creator.

But you need to make assumptions to accommodate your conclusion! In the latter case, are you basing your idea of simplicity on the fact that there are likely multiple physical factors necessary, as opposed to just one God?

I did think of that possibility but it struck me that one unknown physical factor is not very far removed from the concept of God! I say this because at the outset we don’t even know what physical factors are. All we know is that our thoughts exist and that doesn’t take us very far at all, does it? I’m beginning to think our conditions are not stringent enough but of course it depends on how basic we make our assumptions.

Despite the fact that if God had created the universe, he would have had to create conditions at least equally complex… making him by necessity more complex, and less economical!

You are assuming that creating the universe entails creating complex conditions. This is not self-evident. Nor is it self-evident that the act of creation makes God more complex - assuming that He is complex in the first place. A person remains one person even if he creates something - but that too is a conclusion. I don’t think we can proceed beyond simple numbers when we are dealing with assumptions and entities, can we?

A Space Shuttle is a man-made entity whereas a person is an intangible entity that we cannot explain mechanistically in terms of its components. We regard the whole person as rational, emotional and responsible not his or her individual elements!
But we know that the person is made up of lots of components, right down to a particle level. It’s fallacious to say that make a person simple, just because there’s only one assembly. A human being is in fact the most complex organism known to man - not just by virtue of the number of components, but by the way those components work together.

Here again we are in the world of conclusions far removed from our starting point. I shall be very interested to know how you deal with this problem. My point is that we regard a person as a single entity for all practical and theoretical purposes except when it comes to questions about the body. Intelligence and responsibility are attributed to one being. It is the unity of a person that makes a person a simpler and more economical explanation. This is where atomism fails miserably because reality consists of a hierarchy of entities ranging from an atomic particle to a molecule to a living cell to a multicellular organism to a person.
Why start at the beginning of the scale rather than the end? Temporal precedence is favoured by neoDarwinists but a person is not observable by the senses anyway. In fact the thoughts of a person are our starting point - or if you prefer, the thoughts of a thinker. Or do you regard a thinker as a conclusion?

And a human is in no way capable of creating a universe, nor indeed anything more complex than itself. So if humans can’t do it, on what grounds should we speculate that God can? And if he can’t, we’re to the fact that if he made the universe, he must be more complex than the universe… which means that he is a less economical explanation, all knowns considered.

If we are going to go this far - and we might as well, considering the number of conclusions we have already made, there is no reason to rule out the possibility of creation on the ground that human beings can’t do it. The primary definition of God is the Creator. Of course you will retort that this doesn’t fit into the initial set of assumptions but then neither does the universe! So where are we? There are only two alternatives: the universe is either self-created from nothing or it is eternal. Which do you favour?:coolinoff: Phew!