Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Occam's razor

johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 8:01:35 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
The principle of Occam's razor is often used to argue against a more complex solution in favour of a more simple solution,

Eg; Attributing a more complex designer to the already complex universe is often used by Occam's razor advocates, In other words, We should assume complexity derives from the most simple rather than anything more complex.

But this argument fails, It is often argued that God can not be the designer simply because of Occam's razor and that we should not assume the answer to the origin of the universe is to be more complex than the universe.

This argument is silly and does not hold,
Take for example this thread, it has some complexity to it, and is sophisticated with all the letters arranged in order to be readable to the audience, are we to assume that the origin of this thread is more simpler than the actual thread? No, because there is more complexity from the origin of the thread than in the actual thread.

Case Closed.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 9:49:55 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 8:01:35 AM, johnlubba wrote:
The principle of Occam's razor is often used to argue against a more complex solution in favour of a more simple solution,


Eg; Attributing a more complex designer to the already complex universe is often used by Occam's razor advocates, In other words, We should assume complexity derives from the most simple rather than anything more complex.

But this argument fails, It is often argued that God can not be the designer simply because of Occam's razor and that we should not assume the answer to the origin of the universe is to be more complex than the universe.

This argument is silly and does not hold,
Take for example this thread, it has some complexity to it, and is sophisticated with all the letters arranged in order to be readable to the audience, are we to assume that the origin of this thread is more simpler than the actual thread? No, because there is more complexity from the origin of the thread than in the actual thread.

Case Closed.

Occam's razor only states that a solution which adds unnecessary assumptions is less likely to be correct. Given that God is always an unnecessary assumption to explain anything, then God is a less likely explanation for any set of stuff we have today.

Complexity or simplicity is irrelevant here.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 10:02:55 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 9:49:55 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/21/2016 8:01:35 AM, johnlubba wrote:
The principle of Occam's razor is often used to argue against a more complex solution in favour of a more simple solution,


Eg; Attributing a more complex designer to the already complex universe is often used by Occam's razor advocates, In other words, We should assume complexity derives from the most simple rather than anything more complex.

But this argument fails, It is often argued that God can not be the designer simply because of Occam's razor and that we should not assume the answer to the origin of the universe is to be more complex than the universe.

This argument is silly and does not hold,
Take for example this thread, it has some complexity to it, and is sophisticated with all the letters arranged in order to be readable to the audience, are we to assume that the origin of this thread is more simpler than the actual thread? No, because there is more complexity from the origin of the thread than in the actual thread.

Case Closed.

Occam's razor only states that a solution which adds unnecessary assumptions is less likely to be correct. Given that God is always an unnecessary assumption to explain anything, then God is a less likely explanation for any set of stuff we have today.

God is an unnecessary assumption?

You can only make that claim when you have everything necessary to explain an assumption, Seeing as you don't have a necessary explanation to the origin of the universe, you can not claim that God is un-necessary.
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 10:13:59 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 8:01:35 AM, johnlubba wrote:
The principle of Occam's razor is often used to argue against a more complex solution in favour of a more simple solution,

True

Eg; Attributing a more complex designer to the already complex universe is often used by Occam's razor advocates, In other words, We should assume complexity derives from the most simple rather than anything more complex.

Well, it's a principle to follow to eliminate unwarranted or unsupported assumptions.

But this argument fails, It is often argued that God can not be the designer simply because of Occam's razor and that we should not assume the answer to the origin of the universe is to be more complex than the universe.

Well if some atheists argue that, than I agree they are wrong, but not for the reasons you suggest. If a person is trying to answer a difficult questions, he must apply Occams Razor to eliminate answers with numerous unwarranted assumptions I.e. Answers with the most assumptions should be eliminated.

Though to say that God cannot be the designer of the universe because Occams Razor says so is wrong, Occams Razor does eliminate the "God did it" answer because that relies on too many unsupported assumptions. Until the assumptions can be supported, it will remain eliminated. It has nothing to do with the complexity of God himself though.

This argument is silly and does not hold,
Take for example this thread, it has some complexity to it, and is sophisticated with all the letters arranged in order to be readable to the audience, are we to assume that the origin of this thread is more simpler than the actual thread? No, because there is more complexity from the origin of the thread than in the actual thread.

Even though I tend to agree with you, this is not what Occam's razor says. If any atheists say this, then I agree, this is bad reasoning.

Nonetheless, please define what you mean by "the origin of the thread". Like, the coding?

Case Closed.

I guess so.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 10:39:55 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 10:13:59 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/21/2016 8:01:35 AM, johnlubba wrote:
The principle of Occam's razor is often used to argue against a more complex solution in favour of a more simple solution,

True

Eg; Attributing a more complex designer to the already complex universe is often used by Occam's razor advocates, In other words, We should assume complexity derives from the most simple rather than anything more complex.

Well, it's a principle to follow to eliminate unwarranted or unsupported assumptions.

But this argument fails, It is often argued that God can not be the designer simply because of Occam's razor and that we should not assume the answer to the origin of the universe is to be more complex than the universe.

Well if some atheists argue that, than I agree they are wrong, but not for the reasons you suggest. If a person is trying to answer a difficult questions, he must apply Occams Razor to eliminate answers with numerous unwarranted assumptions I.e. Answers with the most assumptions should be eliminated.

Though to say that God cannot be the designer of the universe because Occams Razor says so is wrong, Occams Razor does eliminate the "God did it" answer because that relies on too many unsupported assumptions.
Until the assumptions can be supported, it will remain eliminated. It has nothing to do with the complexity of God himself though.

I can't get my head around this contradiction, you claim that using Occam's razor to say God can not be the designer of the universe, is wrong, and then you go right ahead to use Occam's razor to argue that God can not be the designer of the universe.:

This argument is silly and does not hold,
Take for example this thread, it has some complexity to it, and is sophisticated with all the letters arranged in order to be readable to the audience, are we to assume that the origin of this thread is more simpler than the actual thread? No, because there is more complexity from the origin of the thread than in the actual thread.

Even though I tend to agree with you, this is not what Occam's razor says. If any atheists say this, then I agree, this is bad reasoning.

Nonetheless, please define what you mean by "the origin of the thread". Like, the coding?

No, I mean myself, Me. I am more complicated and sophisticated than this thread.

Case Closed.

I guess so.
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 11:14:15 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 10:39:55 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/21/2016 10:13:59 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/21/2016 8:01:35 AM, johnlubba wrote:
The principle of Occam's razor is often used to argue against a more complex solution in favour of a more simple solution,

True

Eg; Attributing a more complex designer to the already complex universe is often used by Occam's razor advocates, In other words, We should assume complexity derives from the most simple rather than anything more complex.

Well, it's a principle to follow to eliminate unwarranted or unsupported assumptions.

But this argument fails, It is often argued that God can not be the designer simply because of Occam's razor and that we should not assume the answer to the origin of the universe is to be more complex than the universe.

Well if some atheists argue that, than I agree they are wrong, but not for the reasons you suggest. If a person is trying to answer a difficult questions, he must apply Occams Razor to eliminate answers with numerous unwarranted assumptions I.e. Answers with the most assumptions should be eliminated.

Though to say that God cannot be the designer of the universe because Occams Razor says so is wrong, Occams Razor does eliminate the "God did it" answer because that relies on too many unsupported assumptions.
Until the assumptions can be supported, it will remain eliminated. It has nothing to do with the complexity of God himself though.

I can't get my head around this contradiction, you claim that using Occam's razor to say God can not be the designer of the universe, is wrong, and then you go right ahead to use Occam's razor to argue that God can not be the designer of the universe.:


Ok let me explain:

Occams Razor does NOT say "God did not create the universe".
Occams Razor DOES say "'God created the universe' is NOT a reasonable answer until the assumptions are supported".

They are different, trust me, I'm a philosopher...but not really...



This argument is silly and does not hold,
Take for example this thread, it has some complexity to it, and is sophisticated with all the letters arranged in order to be readable to the audience, are we to assume that the origin of this thread is more simpler than the actual thread? No, because there is more complexity from the origin of the thread than in the actual thread.

Even though I tend to agree with you, this is not what Occam's razor says. If any atheists say this, then I agree, this is bad reasoning.

Nonetheless, please define what you mean by "the origin of the thread". Like, the coding?

No, I mean myself, Me. I am more complicated and sophisticated than this thread.

Ohhh. Well, assuming that you exist is not an unreasonable assumption, so the explanation of "How did this thread get here" is based on the reasonable assumption that there is a human being typing and posting his/her thoughts.

Case Closed.

I guess so.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 11:21:09 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
It seems you don't understand the meaning of "complexity" and "simplicity" with regards to Occam's razor. The razor posits that, under two competing hypotheses, the one with least assumptions that aren't required as per current knowledge is most likely to be true a priori. No phenomena that have been observed so far require God -- as such theological hypotheses invoke one additional assumption. It's the same reason for monotheism being more justifiable than polytheism, etc.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 11:38:26 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 11:21:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
It seems you don't understand the meaning of "complexity" and "simplicity" with regards to Occam's razor. The razor posits that, under two competing hypotheses, the one with least assumptions that aren't required as per current knowledge is most likely to be true a priori. No phenomena that have been observed so far require God -- as such theological hypotheses invoke one additional assumption. It's the same reason for monotheism being more justifiable than polytheism, etc.

You can only claim that the phenomena we observe know as the universe or material cosmic manifestation does not require a God if you have a satisfactory answer for the origin of the universe, And seeing as I know you don't then it could indeed require a God.

We have no evidence of a machine that works without an operator, so behind the machinery of nature we can assume that there must be an operator.

Problem solved,
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 1:33:14 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 11:38:26 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/21/2016 11:21:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
It seems you don't understand the meaning of "complexity" and "simplicity" with regards to Occam's razor. The razor posits that, under two competing hypotheses, the one with least assumptions that aren't required as per current knowledge is most likely to be true a priori. No phenomena that have been observed so far require God -- as such theological hypotheses invoke one additional assumption. It's the same reason for monotheism being more justifiable than polytheism, etc.


You can only claim that the phenomena we observe know as the universe or material cosmic manifestation does not require a God if you have a satisfactory answer for the origin of the universe, And seeing as I know you don't then it could indeed require a God.

But, that is only one possible alternative, considering we don't have that answer, as yet. So, we can't jump to any conclusions about God if indeed other alternatives have not been eliminated or explored.

We have no evidence of a machine that works without an operator, so behind the machinery of nature we can assume that there must be an operator.

We also cannot conflate machines with nature as they are not the same thing at all, that is, unless all of nature was indeed created as it is today, then we might assume we are all machines, which would mean we are all pre-programmed automatons.


Problem solved,
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 2:46:03 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 10:02:55 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/21/2016 9:49:55 AM, Envisage wrote:
Occam's razor only states that a solution which adds unnecessary assumptions is less likely to be correct. Given that God is always an unnecessary assumption to explain anything, then God is a less likely explanation for any set of stuff we have today.


God is an unnecessary assumption?

As far as we see, yep.

You can only make that claim when you have everything necessary to explain an assumption.

And we do as far as we know.

Seeing as you don't have a necessary explanation to the origin of the universe, you can not claim that God is un-necessary.

Even allowing for the fact that the universe has an explanative origin (which you are light years away from proving) - there is nothing a priori that rules out a non-divine explanation. Because a non-divine explanation has not been in principle shown to be unable to explain it, then the position favoured by Occam's Razor holds, since it makes fewer assumptions than a divine explanation.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 6:17:05 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 8:01:35 AM, johnlubba wrote:
The principle of Occam's razor is often used to argue against a more complex solution in favour of a more simple solution,


Eg; Attributing a more complex designer to the already complex universe is often used by Occam's razor advocates, In other words, We should assume complexity derives from the most simple rather than anything more complex.

But this argument fails, It is often argued that God can not be the designer simply because of Occam's razor and that we should not assume the answer to the origin of the universe is to be more complex than the universe.

You don't understand the argument, and apparently nor Occam's Razor. OR is a tool for comparison, nothing more. It makes no assumptions outside of what the competing hypothesis already contain, and it does not assume one over the other, it only measures the process by which one came to accept one over the other.

God believers assert that Goddidit requires less assumptions to explain the origins of the universe than naturalistic explanations. What they fail to understand is that this hypothesis has to take God himself into account. Because we have no real actual evidence of a God, everything regarding a God (his existence, power, consciousness, etc.) must be added to the list of assumptions being measured by way of comparison. And they weigh quite a bit. Once you take that into account then the weight of the assumptions you just made far outweigh any assumptions made by those who accept naturalistic explanations.

Where people get confused about this is that they see goddidit as simpler. And it is simpler, in fact so simple that does not require any disciplined rational thought. But that's all because of the assumptions, it does not exclude the assumptions from scrutiny.

Take for example this thread, it has some complexity to it, and is sophisticated with all the letters arranged in order to be readable to the audience, are we to assume that the origin of this thread is more simpler than the actual thread?

We have knowledge of how threads pop up online, so no assumptions are necessary.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 3:23:45 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 9:49:55 AM, Envisage wrote:

Occam's razor only states that a solution which adds unnecessary assumptions is less likely to be correct. Given that God is always an unnecessary assumption to explain anything, then God is a less likely explanation for any set of stuff we have today.

- On the complete contrary.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 3:33:59 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 2:46:03 PM, Envisage wrote:

As far as we see, yep.

- As far as we see, nope.

And we do as far as we know.

- Yep, it's called God.

Even allowing for the fact that the universe has an explanative origin (which you are light years away from proving)

- More like 0 light years => Cosmological Argument.

- there is nothing a priori that rules out a non-divine explanation.

- Equivocation. The explanation IS divine, by definition. God is either one or more of these three things:
1. That which is the cosmological origin of the Universe.
2. That which is the effective dominator of the Universe.
3. That which is worshipped.

Because a non-divine explanation has not been in principle shown to be unable to explain it,

- It has, given the definition.

then the position favoured by Occam's Razor holds, since it makes fewer assumptions than a divine explanation.

- It makes instead nonsensical assumptions, such as 'nothing begets something'. Occam's Razor is most certainly for the concept of God than anything.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 12:05:51 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 1:33:14 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/21/2016 11:38:26 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/21/2016 11:21:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
It seems you don't understand the meaning of "complexity" and "simplicity" with regards to Occam's razor. The razor posits that, under two competing hypotheses, the one with least assumptions that aren't required as per current knowledge is most likely to be true a priori. No phenomena that have been observed so far require God -- as such theological hypotheses invoke one additional assumption. It's the same reason for monotheism being more justifiable than polytheism, etc.


You can only claim that the phenomena we observe know as the universe or material cosmic manifestation does not require a God if you have a satisfactory answer for the origin of the universe, And seeing as I know you don't then it could indeed require a God.

But, that is only one possible alternative, considering we don't have that answer, as yet. So, we can't jump to any conclusions about God if indeed other alternatives have not been eliminated or explored.

It's because we don't have any conclusive answer as of yet that it is exactly why we can jump to conclusions,

We have no evidence of a machine that works without an operator, so behind the machinery of nature we can assume that there must be an operator.

We also cannot conflate machines with nature as they are not the same thing at all, that is, unless all of nature was indeed created as it is today, then we might assume we are all machines, which would mean we are all pre-programmed automatons.

Best response so far on this thread, But I do believe you can conflate nature with working like a machine, the sun rises to the second and everything works like clock work, in-fact that how we measure time.


Problem solved,
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 12:09:07 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 2:46:03 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/21/2016 10:02:55 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/21/2016 9:49:55 AM, Envisage wrote:
Occam's razor only states that a solution which adds unnecessary assumptions is less likely to be correct. Given that God is always an unnecessary assumption to explain anything, then God is a less likely explanation for any set of stuff we have today.


God is an unnecessary assumption?

As far as we see, yep.

You can only make that claim when you have everything necessary to explain an assumption.

And we do as far as we know.

No you don't,

Don't kid yourself.

Seeing as you don't have a necessary explanation to the origin of the universe, you can not claim that God is un-necessary.

Even allowing for the fact that the universe has an explanative origin (which you are light years away from proving) - there is nothing a priori that rules out a non-divine explanation. Because a non-divine explanation has not been in principle shown to be unable to explain it, then the position favoured by Occam's Razor holds, since it makes fewer assumptions than a divine explanation.

Go ahead explain the fewer assumption than God did it.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 12:15:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 6:17:05 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/21/2016 8:01:35 AM, johnlubba wrote:
The principle of Occam's razor is often used to argue against a more complex solution in favour of a more simple solution,


Eg; Attributing a more complex designer to the already complex universe is often used by Occam's razor advocates, In other words, We should assume complexity derives from the most simple rather than anything more complex.

But this argument fails, It is often argued that God can not be the designer simply because of Occam's razor and that we should not assume the answer to the origin of the universe is to be more complex than the universe.

You don't understand the argument, and apparently nor Occam's Razor. OR is a tool for comparison, nothing more. It makes no assumptions outside of what the competing hypothesis already contain, and it does not assume one over the other, it only measures the process by which one came to accept one over the other.

I understand it all right.


God believers assert that Goddidit requires less assumptions to explain the origins of the universe than naturalistic explanations. What they fail to understand is that this hypothesis has to take God himself into account.

No it doesn't,

Because we have no real actual evidence of a God, everything regarding a God (his existence, power, consciousness, etc.)

God is self explanatory, God must have certain attributes to be God, otherwise he wouldn't be.

must be added to the list of assumptions being measured by way of comparison. And they weigh quite a bit.

Irrelevant.

Once you take that into account then the weight of the assumptions you just made far outweigh any assumptions made by those who accept naturalistic explanations.

Irrelevant

Where people get confused about this is that they see goddidit as simpler. And it is simpler, in fact so simple that does not require any disciplined rational thought.

Not at all, what an absurd accusation.

But that's all because of the assumptions, it does not exclude the assumptions from scrutiny.

Take for example this thread, it has some complexity to it, and is sophisticated with all the letters arranged in order to be readable to the audience, are we to assume that the origin of this thread is more simpler than the actual thread?

We have knowledge of how threads pop up online, so no assumptions are necessary.

Totally missed my point.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 1:52:16 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 12:15:58 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/21/2016 6:17:05 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/21/2016 8:01:35 AM, johnlubba wrote:
The principle of Occam's razor is often used to argue against a more complex solution in favour of a more simple solution,


Eg; Attributing a more complex designer to the already complex universe is often used by Occam's razor advocates, In other words, We should assume complexity derives from the most simple rather than anything more complex.

But this argument fails, It is often argued that God can not be the designer simply because of Occam's razor and that we should not assume the answer to the origin of the universe is to be more complex than the universe.

You don't understand the argument, and apparently nor Occam's Razor. OR is a tool for comparison, nothing more. It makes no assumptions outside of what the competing hypothesis already contain, and it does not assume one over the other, it only measures the process by which one came to accept one over the other.

I understand it all right.

Then please demonstrate that. Your one sentence responses throughout this post fail to do so.

God believers assert that Goddidit requires less assumptions to explain the origins of the universe than naturalistic explanations. What they fail to understand is that this hypothesis has to take God himself into account.

No it doesn't,

Care to elaborate? Point out the flaws with what I just said? Offer some alternative viewpoint?

Because we have no real actual evidence of a God, everything regarding a God (his existence, power, consciousness, etc.)

God is self explanatory, God must have certain attributes to be God, otherwise he wouldn't be.

God is not self explanatory. He is a magical powerful being that theists assume created the universe. That assumption is not based on logic stemming from premises that can be demonstrated in reality, so it must be tossed onto the scale.

must be added to the list of assumptions being measured by way of comparison. And they weigh quite a bit.

Irrelevant.

No, it's not.

Once you take that into account then the weight of the assumptions you just made far outweigh any assumptions made by those who accept naturalistic explanations.

Irrelevant

Now you have made it abundantly clear that you do not understand what Occam's razor is. Please read the following:
http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 2:04:58 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 12:05:51 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/21/2016 1:33:14 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/21/2016 11:38:26 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/21/2016 11:21:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
It seems you don't understand the meaning of "complexity" and "simplicity" with regards to Occam's razor. The razor posits that, under two competing hypotheses, the one with least assumptions that aren't required as per current knowledge is most likely to be true a priori. No phenomena that have been observed so far require God -- as such theological hypotheses invoke one additional assumption. It's the same reason for monotheism being more justifiable than polytheism, etc.


You can only claim that the phenomena we observe know as the universe or material cosmic manifestation does not require a God if you have a satisfactory answer for the origin of the universe, And seeing as I know you don't then it could indeed require a God.

But, that is only one possible alternative, considering we don't have that answer, as yet. So, we can't jump to any conclusions about God if indeed other alternatives have not been eliminated or explored.

It's because we don't have any conclusive answer as of yet that it is exactly why we can jump to conclusions,

You're probably right about that, John, lots of folks jump to conclusions about this topic, which is why there are so many different conclusions. Personally, I try not to do that if I have a choice.

We have no evidence of a machine that works without an operator, so behind the machinery of nature we can assume that there must be an operator.

We also cannot conflate machines with nature as they are not the same thing at all, that is, unless all of nature was indeed created as it is today, then we might assume we are all machines, which would mean we are all pre-programmed automatons.

Best response so far on this thread, But I do believe you can conflate nature with working like a machine, the sun rises to the second and everything works like clock work, in-fact that how we measure time.

Thanks John, for that most part, that's relatively true, except there are some perturbations to the orbits of planets, moons, etc. caused by the influence of gravity from other bodies, just slightly throwing off those measurements from year to year. Close enough for government, I guess.


Problem solved,
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 8:43:59 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Please first learn what Occam's Razor is really about and how it can be applied..[1]

Furthermore,

"... [One] basic assumption that is rather common in both enterprises is the assumption that in comparing different hypotheses that all equally explain the observations, the simpler hypotheses are more probable (Occam's razor or the law of parsimony). That is, explanations should be made as simple at possible (though no simpler, since then they would not explain what is observed)."[2]

For example, the questions that:

- How the universe (or the Big Bang() began?[3],
- Why the constants and properties are so finely tuned that makes it possible for life to exist?[4],
and one of the biggest questions
- Why there is something rather than nothing?*[5]
- etc.

are very complex (the complexities are beyond the limits of science) to have a simple explanation with only few assumptions.

So, it is a very hasty and close minded move to say that we should ignore the explanations for such questions because they are not simple or they have more assumptions (where we have first to consider if those assumptions are more than necessary or not) according to Occam's Razor. Saying so means that a person doesn't know what Occam's Razor is really about.

Occam's Razor is also based on an assumption that "the universe is simple".. What does "simple" mean is itself a complex issue, believe me or not, review the paper in Ref.[1] for explanation. For example, the problems like Quantum Entanglement, Wave Function Collapse, Black Holes, and Dark Matter + Dark Energy show that the universe may not be as simple as we thought before. Therefore, applying Occam's Razor is not that easy.

*Many may immediately think that Krauss's book "A universe from nothing, why there is something rather than nothing" has answered the question. But that is not really the answer of the question at all.

"Philosopher David Albert, a specialist in quantum theory, offers a more balanced assessment of Krauss's book in The New York Times Book Review. And by balanced assessment, I mean merciless smack down. Albert asks, "Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from?" Modern quantum field theories, Albert points out, "have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.""[5]

Sources

[1] http://www.ehu.eus...
[2] http://arxiv.org...
[3] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 8:52:28 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
The null hypothesis doesn't apply to the question of what/who created the universe (denying causality would self-defeat the concept). Atheism is straightforward an active rejection of a proposition.
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 9:00:57 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 8:52:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
The null hypothesis doesn't apply to the question of what/who created the universe (denying causality would self-defeat the concept)[1]. Atheism is straightforward an active rejection of a proposition[2].

[1] Why should we deny causality? What evidence do you have for denial of causality?
[2] To reject the existence of God you have to prove that God doesn't exist. If you cannot, then you cannot reject it. At most you can say that I don't accept it since I don't have any evidence for it.. But in order to reject it, what atheism does, you have to provide direct proof that establishes non-existence of God.
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 10:48:07 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 8:43:59 AM, ssadi wrote:
- How the universe (or the Big Bang() began?[3],
Why the constants and properties are so finely tuned that makes it possible for life to exist?[4],
and one of the biggest questions
- Why there is something rather than nothing?*[5]
- etc.
And now ask these questions from a position of non existence.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 10:50:18 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 8:52:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
The null hypothesis doesn't apply to the question of what/who created the universe (denying causality would self-defeat the concept). Atheism is straightforward an active rejection of a proposition.
It certainly is but do you know what proposition is being rejected?
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 11:16:40 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 10:48:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/23/2016 8:43:59 AM, ssadi wrote:
- How the universe (or the Big Bang() began?[3],
Why the constants and properties are so finely tuned that makes it possible for life to exist?[4],
and one of the biggest questions
- Why there is something rather than nothing?*[5]
- etc.
And now ask these questions from a position of non existence.

Non-existence of what?

You haven't got the point I was making!
These questions are the greatest questions from a scientific position. Have a look to the sources I provided!
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 6:36:32 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 8:01:35 AM, johnlubba wrote:
The principle of Occam's razor is often used to argue against a more complex solution in favour of a more simple solution,
But this argument fails, It is often argued that God can not be the designer simply because of Occam's razor and that we should not assume the answer to the origin of the universe is to be more complex than the universe.

That's correct, John. Ockham's razor is not evidence for or against anything. A philosophical principle borrowed from theologian William of Ockham, it's an heuristic to help find better models, but not a principle in the acceptance or evaluation of models.

There are better reasons to reject gods than Ockham's razor, and people who argue that principle (either for or against gods), are doing so in partial ignorance.