Occam's Razor

The argument is based on a philosophical idea called Occam's Razor, popularised by William of Occam in the 14th century.

In Latin it goes in English... "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily".

(I wonder if this applies to the ridiculous number of threads about the attempt to prove the bible is fact )

This is usually simplified to say that the simplest answer is the best answer.

The Atheist and Occam's Razor

So, says the atheist, since the entire universe, and all of creation can be explained by evolution and scientific cosmology, we don't need the existence of another entity called God.

Therefore God doesn't exist.
Does this prove God doesn't exist?

No it doesn't. It merely proves that the assumption that God exists isn't needed, and so can be abandoned.

What would William have said?
William of Occam would not have agreed; he was a Franciscan monk who never doubted the existence of God.

But in his century he wasn't breaking the rule named after him. 14th century science knew nothing about evolution or how the universe came into being. God was the only explanation available, and thus very necessary.

What William would think if he lived now is another matter ...

he would be glad he's a monk and doesn't have to talk to all these people.

It might be proof that nothing else is required if scientific cosmology were complete. However, that's not the case.

On the Big Bang and Getting Something From Nothing

I've currently been studying Alan Guth's Inflation theory of the Big Bang. I'm impressed that we can know as much as we do.

I'm totally sold on the Big Bang theory. It just fits together so well mathematically and even when run as a model it does indeed produce the universe we see.

And the major thing that Alan Guth was able to solve is how it came from 'nothing' (at least in physical terms). Alan Guth was able to show how the universe got around the energy conservation problem.

In other words, Alan Guth shows why the universe coming into existence from 'nothing' is not a violation of the laws of physics.

However, there's a slight catch. His 'nothingness' may have indeed started without any 'matter'. But it still did not start from 'nothing'.

His entire theory begins with the assumption that the laws of quantum physics exist.

In other words, Alan Guth shows how an entire physical universe can arise from a non-physical "quantum field".

That's an enormous achievement and the man deserves to get a Nobel prize for that baby!

However, on spiritual grounds he didn't show how it started from 'nothing'. He merely showed how it started from nothing 'physical'.

WOW!!!

What did he just prove? That non-physical things exist?

He may have inadvertently proven that the spirit world does indeed exist!

The non-physical properties of the quantum field may very well belong to the spiritual realm.

Is Evolution Happenstance?

Here's the other problem. A problem with claiming that because of evolution there is no need for a 'designer'.

Well with evolution there's certainly no need for a baby-sitter God. It's not necessary for an entity to stand over things and guide them.

However, evolution may not be just pure happenstance.

One thing people have a terrible mistake about is thinking backwards.

Don't look at the finished product (i.e. a human being), and try to imagine how it could have come to be like as if it was the GOAL of evolution.

Instead think of it this way,...

Imagine having a pair of dice. You can roll anything from snake eyes to boxcars, and any whole number in between. That 2 through 12 in only whole number increments. Now lets say that you roll the dice and a 7 comes up. Was that your goal? Well if it was you were just lucky then. Because combination could have come up.

Well this is the way with evolution. Atoms are the dice. Humans are one thing that can come up. In are case we aren't what came up. But that doesn't mean that we were the goal from the very get-go.

However, here's the scoop. We evolved because of the 'blueprints' encoded in DNA. However, DNA evolved because of the 'blueprints' encoded in the atoms, (in the carbon atom in particular). However, the atoms evolved because of the 'blueprints' encoded in the quantum field.

So it wasn't happenstance at all. Somewhere along the way someone put the dots on the dice. Someone put the blueprints in the quantum field.

Not necessarily blueprints that would determine things precisely. But just like dice. A controlled randomness. Some things can happen and some things can't. Humans are merely one of many things that can happen.

In that way, we are indeed happenstance. But certainly not a complete chaotic random accident.

Why do I say this?

Because the quantum field has very distinct PROPERTIES. Only certain things can emerge from the quantum field. Yes, it random, but controlled randomness just like dice. Someone painted the dots on the faces before they were rolled. You can't roll anything less than a 2 nor more than a 12, nor can you roll a fractional number between them.

Well the universe is much like dice. It has consistent PROPERTIES.

So your plea for atheism is incomplete unless you can explain why the quantum field has the properties that it has.

So I'm afraid you really need to step back to agnosticism and don't be so anxious to think that you've proven atheism.

The quantum field may very well be the spiritual essences of all existence. We arose from it. It is what we are. We are vibrations of the quantum field. Our true essence is that we are made of the quantum field. That is our true essences. The physical universe doesn't even exist. Ask Alan Guth.

The entire physical universe is a balance of energy and anti-energy.

The universe is like a rubber band stretched out of the quantum field. It only has existence because it is stretched. When it finally relaxes it will dissolve back into the quantum field. Back from whence it came.

~~~

Great Thread Belushi!

Keep em coming!

To explain the universe, you must explain what caused the universe.

The atheist would say "The universe was caused by a singularity (1) which expanded for some reason (2) and created a universe which is fine tuned for the existence of celestial bodies (3) and life (4)."

That belief includes four near impossibilities from a mathematical standpoint. The Anthropic Principle (which doesn't have to do with the big bang or evolution, but rather the fine tuning of the universe) shows the math behind these events.

Therefore, Occam's razor supports the belief in God, which is one entity which would explain all of the mathematically impossible events.

would a snail or a slug slither along a razor's edge?

nay, but for the salt!

and are two better than one?

well, then, it is a good thing that Jesus said, before Abraham was, I am.

which is what Occam might have meant.

No?

acccording to who?

by your own admission, less is more.

Here is the TRUTH - who can deny it?

As long as any part of any theory, that the human mind can create, remains open ended, humans will create possiblities to fill the open spaces.

The significant difference in the possibilities offered, is that some would fill the open spaces of a theory with that which can not be tested or proven "religious faith", while others seek to fill the space with ideas based on the history of previously accepted and proven knowledge.

Yes, those ideas need to be proven yet, but unlike "religious faith" the ideas of men based on previously proven knowledge can, and probably will, eventually, be proven or disproven.

That which the religious have faith in, can never be proven, or it can no long be faith driven, and we would no longer be a world concerned with science, would we?

As for the OP - As long as new poeple are introduced to the religion posts, the old religionists see an opportunity to convert.

Fortunately, as a recent "agenda" thread indicates, there are many who will not let the sheep be hearded without a fight to make those sheep hear another side.

Surely you aren't talking about my post. I simply corrected a misunderstanding on the part of the OP. Occam's Razor supports a theistic view of creation, based on sound science. The Anthropic Principle simply shows the probability that the universe could exist and addresses the "fine tuning" (the words of atheist physicists, not mine) that seems to exist. By the Anthropic Principle, the possibility and rationality of the existence of a god is made plain. The formulation of the theory caused one of the two atheist scientists involved to become a theist, he felt that the proof that God existed was undeniable.

If you were referring to my post, please explain to me how correcting a false statement can be seen as "an opportunity to convert"? Do you feel that the lack of mention of Jesus, the Bible and faith detracts from this theory that I was taking an "an opportunity to convert"?



So both "sides" are doing the same thing. You seem to make a judgement call that only the non-Christian "side" is doing the right thing. Interesting. You see, if Christians didn't give their "side" then the "sheep" would only get one side, yours.

No spider, not referring to you, although you can get quite persistant when it come to pushing YOUR information out there. (don't get paranoid, I'm teasing)

And you are right, there are two sides and we both put equally hard.

Occam's razor does not support the idea of an external God at all. On the contrary Occam's razor flatly rejects such a model without sufficient reasons to justify it. Occam's razor could never be used to support the Biblical account of God. The Biblical account of God flies in the face of reaons, logic, and most certainly it flies in the face of simplicity.

Any claim that Occam's razor supports or justifies the Biblical account of God is beyond lame.

On the contrary, Occam's razor would support pantheism over an external godhead. Pantheism is far more sensible in the face of what we know about the Big Bang and Evolution, than is the biblical story which flatly denies both.



The Anthropic Principle can't be used to support an external all-knowing God because the Anthropic Principle would need to apply to that God as well.

In other words, all the Anthropic Principle actually says is that the universe is to "well-designed" to have just happened by accident.

Yet, you'd have to believe that God just happened by accident.

It make not sense to use the idea of a "god" to explain the existence of a complex universe, then when asked how god came to be you just 'worm out' of the question by claiming that "god" always was and always will be.

That's just a cop-out that holds no water.

A pantheist could do the same thing with the quantum field. And just stop right there. The quantum field always was and always will be and we are it.

All of these scientific and mathematical ideas support pantheism and do not lend any credence to an external deity like is presented in ancient mythologies.

In fact if you want to use the mathematics of probability and chance you can ask yourself this, "Why would the real creator of this universe just coincidentally be like the Mediterranean mythologies. What's the Probably that God would just happen to be appeased by blood sacrifices just like almost ever manmade myth on the planet suggests (except non of them are precisely the same as to WHY the God needs to be appeased).

From a mathematical point of view, the Biblical account is clearly just another manmade myth, it simply isn't different enough from all the other manmade myths to be significant.

Therefore if you apply mathematics to the problem you can see that there is nothing special about the biblical story. You may as well point to Greek Mythology or any one of the other manmade myths on the entire planet.

Science and mathematics do not support the biblical picture of God in any way shape or form. Especially not Occam's Razor, nor the Anthropic Principle. Both of those ideas actually favor pantheism and denounce the Biblical picture as being extremely unlikely to the point of not even being worthy of consideration.

Trying to argue that mathematics and science support the biblical picture is truly an ill-informed joke.

Augments in this regard to try to support the biblical picture of God are truly nothing more than a clear sign of desperation that the religion cannot be sold on it’s own merit. Religious people will come out swinging to denounce evolution one day, and then come back the next day saying that it supports their religion.

Clearly they have no moral values at all when it comes to proselytizing their religion. They’ll make any claims they can dream up knowing full well that they are bogus, just for the sake of trying to support their unsupportable myths.

It’s truly sad and shows just how desperate they have become to try to save their dying religion.

They arguments they give for it are lame as can be. And as I've said, they come out one day arguing to that science is all wrong and then come out the next day arguing that science supports their religion.

They're clearly hopelessly desperate to try to claim anything at all even if it just contradicts what they said the day before.

That's not true at all. Occam's razor is used when proof is limited or unavailable.



Not true. The Anthropic Principle applies only to this universe. For God to create this universe, God would have to be not of this universe.



Not true. For the universe to exist, it must have been created from outside of time as we know it. To apply the word "happened" to the creation of the universe implies that time existed before the universe.

Occam's razor isn't even a scientific idea. It's just a philosophical idea that scientists often appeal to.

What Occam's razor basically says is that if something can be explain simply, then there's no reason to add additional complexity.

When applying to the creation of the universe, Occam's razor would actually favor atheism, or pantheism over the idea of making up a completely unseen Godhead as an explanation.

There is no way that you could use to Occam's razor to jump to the far-fetched conclusion that there is some external being that created the universe. That would fly in the very face of Occam's razor.

Applying Occam's razor to the creation of the universe would defintely favor Atheism or Pantheism over the totally unwarranted assumption that there exist external Godhead.

To argue otherwise is to completely misunderstand what Occam's razor is saying. It says that the simpler case is more likely, and that there is no reason to jump to more complicated explanations without sufficient reason to do so.



The Anthropic Principle can applied to anything you wish to apply it to, just like anything else. You're just focusing on how it has been applied to the physical universe.



Both Atheism and Pantheism are compeltely compatible with that idea. So once again there is nothing here that favors an external Godhead.

Besides, like I said before, how can anyone who supports the bibical picture of creation verbatim even consider these ideas?

One day you argue a literal interpretation of a 6-earth-day creation. The next day you denounce evolution and science.

And the next day you're here trying to use a 14 billion year old Big Bang and Evolution to support your myth that you insist must be taken verbatim?

There's credibilty for this kind of wishy-washy stance.

Pick a stance and stick to it. You'll be much happier.

HUM!!! Crass opportunism will not carry the day 'spider'.

You have again performed a quite stellar 'long jump to biblical conclusion', in these the days of Olympic records.

But the essential point is missed.

By 'jumping on the 'Atheist' opportunistic take on Occam's Razor, you plant your feet and fall flat back to the starting line.

The actual philosophical idea isn't partial in any way. It simply states a physical and philosophical perspective of reality.

At any given point in time, if 'A' addresses REALITY and its physicality better than 'B', than 'B' is no longer relevant in the equation.

In this case, Atheists and believers are of no importance. Furtehrmore, Occam's Razor is not about having a definitive 'answer'. It is all about better addressing the world's physical reality, from a philosophical (not religious) perspective.

It deals smack on with the uncrackable paradox of human beings essence: relating to 'reality' from a SELF CONSCIOUS REPRESENTATION (most imperfect image of the reality, never reality).

So we are stuck, obsessed, driven, primitively condemned by design (neo-cortex), to 'wonder' about US (our 'selves') first, in the context of reality. So we ask question for which we will most likely never have answers (fundamental 'I' questions, origin, purpose, immortality, etc.), and give it a 'representative' (false), neo-cortex answer (explanation), to appease our insecure and insignificant little 'selves'.

Ask the unuverse if it gives a damn?!?!?!

To which some will obsessively answer,

'oh well then you see, there is a god. The Universe doesn't care, but god does. That is why it is impossible for god not to exist, for then, no one, nor nothing would care about our little selves, and we couldn't have that now could we?!?!?...'

The least we could manage, as Occam's Razor suggests, is make our life a bit less paranoîd and COMPLICATED!!! Decipher a bit of the mystery!!! Give up complicated, when more accurate and 'simpler' show up.

Until science reached a certain critical mass, the most convenient man made idea that filled the void of those fundamental paranoid questions, was 'god'. Where do we come from??? Instead of going crazy, just say god.

But science did reach a critical mass. Some lagers will argue that it hasn't yet, and that god is still the only, ultimate, exclusive and irreplaceable answer, but their days are counted!!!

There is an alternative means of addressing the fundamental questions which we can't seem able to stop asking ourselves, and thus,

'... Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily...'

No need for 'two' (false) void answers which maskarade as answers.

The edge that science has always had on god, as a false security blanket, is that science has never claimed to be THE TRUTH FOR AND OF IT ALL, as so many have falsely claimed god to represent.

The good news there is that god might finally be free to be all that he is in the human experience, which we couldn't even start to imagine, rather than this false, man-made, subservient slave to our primitive 'ego' need for answers!!!

Abra,

You are very confused and have posted several falsehoods. I will assume that the falsehoods were applied due to your confusion and not out of an attempt to mislead.

Examples:



This isn't true. You offer no logic to explain why you come to this conclusion, you just seem to accept it as a given. If Pantheism is possible, you are still confronted with the question of "where did your god come from?". So to pretend that Pantheism offers answers which Christianity lacks is laughable. And as I have already shown, Atheism multiplies the number of entities necessary to create the universe.

You are correct that Occam's razor isn't scientific, but I'm not the one who brought it up. It is common sense, but in any cosmological discussion, it will always favor the theist.



The Anthropic Principle ONLY applies to this universe. It's based on a study of the forces at work in our universe. It cannot be applied to anything, that is blatantly false. Perhaps you are thinking of another theory?

I'm not sure why you are so confused about this topics. In one thread you claimed that the Anthropic Principle applies to the Big Bang and Evolution, they don't. Now you claim it can apply to whatever you want it to, it can't. It's very specific, it references the universe and the apparent fine tuning thereof.

In the philosophy of religion, Occam's razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God; if the concept of God does not help to explain the universe, it is argued, God is irrelevant and should be cut away (Schmitt 2005).

It is argued to imply that, in the absence of compelling reasons to believe in God, disbelief should be preferred.

Such arguments are based on the assertion that belief in God requires more and more complex assumptions to explain the universe than non-belief.

The history of theistic thought has produced many arguments attempting to show that this is not the case — that the difficulties encountered by a theory without God are equal to or greater than those encountered by a theory postulating one.

The cosmological argument, for example, states that the universe must be the result of a "first cause" and that that first cause must be God.

Similarly, the teleological argument credits the appearance of design and order in the universe to supernatural intelligence.

Many people believe in miracles or have what they call religious experiences, and creationists consider divine design to be more believable than naturalistic explanations for the diversity and history of life on earth.

The majority of the scientific community generally does not accept these arguments, and prefers to rely on explanations that deal with the same phenomena within the confines of existing scientific models.

Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, 72.2% expressed disbelief and 93% expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in a survey conducted in 1998
from Wiki

I can see where you are coming from Spider. We've been though this many times before. It will probably be impossible for us to ever agree on anything for this very reason.

You tend to be a semantic literalist. You demand precise and strict meanings to words and allow for no abstraction at all.

I am just the opposite of that. Words are nothing more that man's attempt to communicate via speak and writing. Words are nothing more than an attempt to convey concepts. This is why the meaning of words must be taken within the context of how they are being used.

When you speak of the "Anthropic Principle" you are referring to a particular "Theory".

What I am saying is that the principles that were used to construct that theory can indeed be applied to anything.

Taken within that more flexible abstraction notion, we can have many theories based on these same principles.

We could have the Anthropic Principle as it applies to the universe.

And we could have the Anthropic Principle as it applies to a supernatural being.

Basically the actual principle behind it is to look at the final product and ask, "What's the likelihood that this product just happened to exist without an intellectual cause?"

Well that same question can be asked of a God.

And time is irrelevant.

It doesn't matter whether it 'came into being' or whether it 'always existed'. It's irrelevant.

To claim that the universe needed to have an intelligent designer but God doesn't need to have an intelligent designer doesn't solve a thing. In fact, that flies in the face of Occam's Razor.

If the assumption is that God needs to exist without an intelligent creator then why not save a step and just assume that the universe can exist without an intelligent creator.

This is precisely what Occam's razor means. If you going to make assumptions make the simplest and fewest assumptions as possible.

Well, which is simpler?

1. The universe doesn't need an intelligent creator.

2. The universe requires an intelligent creator, but the creator that created the universe does not require an intelligent creator.

IMHO I would suggest that Occam's Razor says that the first choice is the simpler case and there is no reason to make it more complicated by demanding the second case when there is no evidence or reason to go there.

Occam's razor definitely favors case #1. Not case #2.

You are absolutely correct, except for two point: The Anthropic Principle, which makes the possibility of the universe having been created without God an impossibility. Secondly, the universe needs a necessary cause. The only two concepts humans have which are "necessary" (meaning they would exist unchanged in any conceivable universe) is God and numbers.

Well, again we run into the word "God" and its meaning. Unfortunately the very word "God" conjures up the idea of human-like deities sitting on thrones in some imagined heaven hurling lightening bolts at people or parting water for them so they can escape their enemies.

Those idea of "God" are archaic and misleading.

The real question is "Where did we come from, and what is our true nature".

Well, if science says that we arose from a quantum field then this is what we are. If that quantum field is "god" then we are most ceratainly a manifestation of "god".

This is the Pantheistic view.

Science at least supports this idea that we all arose from the same essence and we are all made from the same essence.

There is no indication whatsoever that we would in any way be seperate from the 'thing' that created us.

We we want to recognize that 'thing' as being a 'god' then we must also recognize that we are it.

There is no way that the information we have thus far suggests in any way that we are seperate from that which created us.

And the universe most certain did "create us".

The only question that remains is whether it unknowingly did it by accident. Or whether there is some kind of consciousness behind it. If there is a consciousness behind it than that consciousness is what we are attempting to call "god".

The real question is that if such a 'consciousness' exists is there any way to communicate with it? If so, how is that accomplished?

I think these could be valid scientific questions.

I also think that in the light of this view we must recognize that we are indeed the consciouness of the universe. At least in part.

One thing that we can see with absolutely certainty is that the universe is neither earth-centric, nor human-centric.

Therefore we can disregard any and all religions that imply this.

This is a clearly truth of the universe. The universe is not human-centric.

There's no question about that.

So Spider you have concluded that God is the simple answer?
Not so simple when you try to explain what God is and where he came from though. Where do you go from God?

Do you just say, "Oh this is all so complicated, so why don't we just choose the simple explanation and say that God did it."

Then you cease all inquiry about God.

I don't.

What is God? Where did God come from? How does he operate? I want the details. I am not satisfied with "God did it." Sorry, Spider, it is not that simple and God is not the simple answer.

Yes there may be an intelligent creator, but I want to know where that came from, and how that creator does things or causes things to manifest.

There could be more than one creator. Why do people think there is only one creator within this quantum field? Why do people think there is only one quantum field? Who decides these things?

JB