Ockham's Razor (sharpening it)

A universe without God is simpler, of course.

Why invent a magical entity to create the universe, when no such entity is needed to explain anything that science has discovered about the big bang?

Why do you suppose that a universe where a supreme creator exists who has the conscious intelligence, technical knowledge, mechanical ability, and inexplicable desire to create it, is simpler than the same universe without such a complicated and unnecessary being?

If we apply Occam's Razor, we find that God is superfluous.

What exactly is your point, irichc? This is the third thread that you've started, all of which merely propose a "proof" of God's existence. Are you looking for debate or simple confirmation? Are you planning to engage in any kind of discussion, or are you just interested in starting threads while leaving the heavy intellectual lifting to others? And should we expect that you'll eventually post every single proof of God's existence that anyone has ever proposed?

A single created universe has infinitely fewer parts than a single eternal universe, since the elements in the last one would have had an infinite amount of time for developing themselves. The more you develope yourself, the more you complicate yourself. On the other hand, God can't increase or decrease in time, as far as He is not in time and has no parts.

Plus, I'm adding an entity, but a necessary one. The Razor says: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" (Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity).

If the Universe was eternal, nothing could explain it as a whole (since it would be its own beginning and its own reason), and its parts would remain also unattainable (since they belong to an uncaused event). But as far as we can know plenty things about the Universe, this hypothesis is false. Thus, we must presuppose God.

Greetings.

Daniel.

So, how have you been, Terry? How's the weather in your neck of the woods? Seen any good movies lately?

Feh! Ya see Joe? You're just a big bully and no one wants to play with you! Ya big meenie head!

You must be joking. This is one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen. In fact, it barely makes sense and is strung together with complete conjecture. I'm joining Joe on the bully side.

fishin': I certainly wouldn't call it "bullying," but, in any event, irichc has shown that he can handle the rough-and-tumble of internet debate in other forums. For instance, on the Internet Infidels Discussion Forum, he started a thread on the "contingency argument" with the same post as he did on this forum. Likewise, on Keep It Real, he initiated the same thread on God's existence as provable from his non-existence, which he repeated (with, sadly, no responses) on Ahlul Bayt, a Moslem discussion board. And the analog of the current Ockham's Razor thread can be found on the MSN Atheist vs. God group (where it has attracted considerably more attention).

Indeed, a quick Google search revealed about a half-dozen other boards on which irichc has initiated threads with identical posts. All of this, it seems, is ultimately directed back toward his own personal website (the link for which I will not supply), so I would suppose that these posts would technically come under the heading of "spam," according to A2K's TOS.

irichc, why would you suppose that a created universe would have fewer parts than an evolved one? Is God severely limited in the amount of complexity he can create?

Where did you get the idea that the universe is eternal? It is only about 14 billion years old, and since the expansion seems to be accelerating, its life is most likely finite.

Where did you get the idea that God cannot increase or decrease over time? Surely the act of creating the universe changed God's expanse.

If a God could exist without a creator or cause, then neither is a creator or cause necessary for the universe to exist.

What is God necessary for, anyway? In all of science, not one single thing in Nature has been found to demonstrate God's necessary existence. No organism, galaxy, planet, chemical reaction, physical process, event, or anything else requires the hand of God to explain its existence. But thousands of species have flaws that point to mindless evolution, not intelligent design.

Hi Joe, I am writing this from a hospital bed, so things could be better (just tests, should go home tomorrow). At least I finally get to use some sick days. It is raining here, and I don't watch many movies. So how are things wih you?

Terry, really? Sorry that you're going through a tough time. Best wishes.

Terry: Sick and it's raining: that sucks. Hope things get better soon. As for me, I'm good. I haven't seen any movies lately either. Waiting for "Farenheit 9/11" to come out.

Any creation scenario really needs an infinite something to explain the presence of both the Universe and us as intelligent life within it capable of observing it.

Options theorised so far:

1) Infinite but self controlled / limited God
2) Infinite time - a big bang / big crunch - rebounding Universe theorum
3) Infinite Universes - Multiverse an by the anthropic principle we exist in one suited for our survival
4) Infinite Universes given an infinite time - M-Theory variant of 2) - tied to same anthropic principle to allow us to be here

5) Infinite luck - well really about a 1 : 10 ^ 42,000 chance against but we lucked in!

I rule 2 and 5 out, but lean towards 1 using 3 or 4 as a delivery mechanism.

I'm sorry, but using the word "simpler" in any description of the universe simply demonstrates an amazing lack of appreciation of the subject at hand. There is nothing "simple", let alone "simpler" about the universe. Even our best attempts at measuring the complexity of the universe are pathetically amateurish. And this is the very reason that Occam's Razor cannot be applied: unless one can actually assess the differential complexity of a given model, the Razor is only effective for self-injury. Let it rest.

jnhofzinser, welcome to A2K.

No one said that the universe is simple. But the question was whether this universe (that we observe to be complex) would be more complex without a god. Of course a God could create a simple universe with nothing more than one planet, a sun, moon and a sprinkling of lights in the sky. Why would a deity create billions of galaxies if it only needed one small planet for its desired lifeforms?

As I said, the addition of a supernatural deity (generally said to have the attributes of omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience) makes a given universe more complex than the same universe without a God.

sozobe and Joe, I am fine, thanks. All tests were negative so it's back to work today. More rain today.

g___day, I would also lean toward 3 or 4, but without 1. What makes you suspect that there is a limited God involved?

Hi Terry,

Thanks for the greeting and glad the tests all were negative.

You want to lean toward g_day's 3) or 4), which necessarily multiply the complexity of the multiverse by an infinity, but somehow you consider that to be LESS complex than a single universe with a deity. Hilarious.

Atheists use Occam's Razor like creationists use the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Neither is applicable as they attempt to use them. They are both like children armed with kitchen knives sallying forth to rid the hedge of its dragons -- and then returning oh-so-smug because the hedge is now without dragons altogether!

jnhofzinzer,

Apparently you cannot imagine how complex that a "Creator" must necessarily be

Second-- I beg to differ. The universe is not particularly complex. It is just big (relatively speaking ). The laws that govern all physical interactions are relatively simple but they are (perhaps) infinitely repeated.

In order for an intelligence to have "Created" this Universe the Creator would necessarily have to be much more complex than the Creation.


Since the physical laws, including QM, brane and string theories are similar being only differentiated by apparent sizes and densities no particular intelligence is necessary or indicated. That's the way it works, period.

Check my signature line

Mechsmith,

No doubt Ptolemeyans and Newtonians of equal calibre to yourself claimed "that's the way it works, period." Future generations will equally chortle at the pomposity of our present thinking on Physics. :wink: Whose String theory do you espouse, incidentally?

The non-complexity of the universe is an illusion. If the universe is so simple, when can we expect (from you?) solutions to world hunger, racism, poverty and child abuse? Humans are complex. Ergo, the universe is complex.

The complexity of the Creator is immaterial to the discussion. The Razor is inapplicable until the "why" (sig line noted) of the universe is demonstrably within the grasp of modern Physics. It is not. It is not close. For all we know (which, frankly, is not as much as you pretend) the active participation of the Creator may be continually necessary. The issue would vanish in a puff of reality.

jnhofzinser, what makes you think that a God-created universe must be single or finite? Why is your God so limited? If your God created billions of galaxies, how do you know that it didn't create billions of universes as well?

The universe as we observe it operates on relatively simple physical principles from which complexity arises naturally over time and a very large (if not infinite) volume of space. If there were a creator, it would not be limited to such simple laws and could break them at will. As far as we know the laws have never been broken or even bent, and life is not nearly as complex as you would expect if a designer was responsible (only 4 nucleotides in DNA and 20 or so amino acids).

As for human problems, they are solvable but most people are not willing to do what is required. What does that have to do with this discussion, anyway? Both universes under consideration are populated with the same human beings. The only issue is whether a Creator is involved. If so, why do you suppose that your God designed such flawed beings and refuses to step in and fix the problems caused by defective brains and shoddy programming?

To say that the complexity of a Creator immaterial to a discussion of whether a universe with such a being is less complex than one without a deity makes no sense at all. A being with the intelligence, ability and desire to create a universe must necessarily be complex itself.

Do you agree that a planetary system with life is more complex than the same planetary system without life? If so, how is a universe with a god less complex than the same universe without any infinite supreme beings?

We do not have to know everything about the universe to use Occam's Razor, and postulating a deity does not tell us anything except that it was all done by magic. "God did it" is the only answer we get to how, why, or out of what.

Given two theories about the origin of this universe, it is obvious that the one that adds a God to the equation is more complex than one that accomplishes exactly the same thing without resorting to inventing a supernatural being whose origins are less explicable than the universe it is supposed to have created.