Science, Ockham’s Razor & God

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Impenitent
Posts: 4330
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God

Post by Impenitent »

did we "prove" the existence of the universe outside of the human mind?

-Imp
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God

Post by Scott Mayers »

BishBoshMcCosh wrote:
Trajk Logik wrote: So then "non-existent" and "supernatural" mean the same thing?
No. The former means that something doesn't exist, the latter means that something does exist but outside of the 'Natural' world. They're quite different in their meanings.
You are making a distinction without a difference here.

I see totality deriving from nothing. Yet this too is "non-existent existence", IF TRUE. To nothing, everything is possible which may include some 'god'. But the Ockham Razor (or parsimony, as it can be called too....I'm not a fan of granting people's names to something generically logical) is ABOUT PRACTICALITY and a CONTINGENT world we live in. So Trajk Logik's point holds.
Trajk Logik wrote:How can you define something that you have never experienced or observed?
Simple. Using theoretical deduction I can define a black hole but I've never experienced or observed one. Are you familiar with the idea of 'a priori' positions?
First principles REDUCES things to its simplest form. If you expect to assign "God" as a variable, then why not use "X"? I am confident that this was done in the past and actually is the origin of what became religions when people lost the root of the original arguments. "God" derives from the same word as "good" and does something MORE....it treats the origin of a universe as made with an evaluation bias FAVORABLE to our emotions...AND specifically to a 'human' preferential idea of 'good'.

So you CAN reduce things to an a priori argument but it would NOT be reduced if you allow it to have a value at the beginning. It would have to lack favor to a biased value that the "God" of religions presupposes.

As to whether science is mutually exclusive to 'god' depends on your particular religion. The concern that the 'New Atheists' raise using Ockham's Razor is about those who DO treat these inclusively where their beliefs collide with the science IN PRACTICE.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God

Post by Scott Mayers »

BishBoshMcCosh wrote:
uwot wrote: As I keep saying, we simply don't know if it is or isn't wrong. It isn't the role of logic to discover whether the premises are right or wrong, logic simply tells you whether an argument is valid or not.
I think that this is to misunderstand what logic is. It also helps you to reason your way to what is possible. The argument is valid and can therefore be part of a process of reasoning. Once we've established Validity, we can then assess the premises for truth, that's what I'm doing, in order to establish if the argument is Sound.
uwot wrote: Well, again, it is beyond the reach of logic to determine whether everything that exists has a cause. Of the premises in your argument, only P2 is sound, the 'universe' in some shape or form definitely exists. This has been known since Parmenides pointed it out two and a half thousand years ago. It is, in my view, what Kant thought impossible, an analytic a posteriori fact. That there is experience necessarily means that something exists, if only experience, which was essentially Descartes' point in I think therefore I am.
Nothing is 'beyond the reach of logic'.
uwot wrote: This just isn't logically necessary in itself, you are assuming the premise 'Everything that exists has a cause' is true. We don't know if that is so.
No I'm not, I'm trying to establish the truth of it.
I happen to agree that a priori logic CAN derive reality. uwot is correct about the validity thing. But you can treat the inputs that are treated as 'variable' as parts of prior conclusions that WERE valid as well. Then, taking a type of approach similar to how mathematical calculus operates, you can infer the limits of taking each 'proposition' as a conclusion of continuous arguments going back until you have a variable of least 'value'. To many in religion, this is usually a concept based on "oneness". But since we see that things are at least dualistic (having dual VALUES at least), your reasoning of assuming a 'God' is rational if you treat this Deistic only. Ironically, most people believe this even if they aren't religious. I take it one step further back to assume absolutely nothing as an original a priori reality/assumption. Certainly ANYTHING follows from that.
Interjectivist
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 1:51 pm

Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God

Post by Interjectivist »

creativesoul wrote:The article made the following claim...
"Whatever the merits of fine-tuning arguments, it should be clear that pointing to the mere possibility of a multiverse is inadequate as a response."
:?

All arguments for the existence of God are grounded upon logical possibility alone. If mere possibility(possibility alone) is inadequate ground and/or justification as a response, then surely it is just as inadequate for ground/justification. The article wholly depends upon possibility alone being worthy of further consideration and/or adequate argumentative ground. Why not also in the above situation???

Good point, creativesoul.

As for the adequacy of a multiverse theory in general my position is that it is on precisely the same footing as any theory which asserts there is only one universe. Pointing to what we know of our cosmic surroundings it is easy to conclude that there is at least one conglomeration of galaxies all of which seem to be accelerating away from a common origination point. Considering the distances involved in a putative multiverse, an inability to detect anything outside the residue of the particular big bang event where the viewer resides would be entirely consistent with either a multi- or exclusive- universe theory. There is no more evidence for the one supposition than for the other.
Interjectivist
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 1:51 pm

Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God

Post by Interjectivist »

Having now skimmed the article I have to ask whether the magazine associated with this forums is an apologist platform.

I'm more than happy to concede that there is no application for Occam's razor to 'disprove' God/gods based on the sufficiency of science. That is no knock on science. Science is awesome but it will never possess a level of completeness which would allow you to rule out anything it hasn't ruled in. So granted, for all we know based on science alone, all the mythical beings of every civilization that have ever existed in folklore may very well have had the hand in our origins that the ancient stories claim. Every single one of them. Those who take such things seriously needn't worry about science cutting them out of the world of ideas. Fanciful, unfalsifiable ideas aren't contradicted by science, they simply lack sufficient motivating reasons to be taken seriously. Likewise the God of the bible doesn't invalidate Krishna or Quetzalcoatl or Odin or Jupiter or any of the others any more than they can invalidate 'Him'. However, take anyone of those beings and it is very hard to make a case for believing such a thing to a fair and rational juror that isn't already indoctrinated to believe such a thing.
creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God

Post by creativesoul »

There are all kinds here. I'm not familiar enough with the magazine to pass any judgment. Apologists are welcome, in my eyes, along with all others. One must be careful about condemnation. It's too easy to forget lessons that history taught to our ancestors. Revisiting historical events can be discomforting, as it should be. That's the price of remembering. Forgetting costs much much more...

We've climbed the rungs of history. Let us not kick the ladder out from under ourselves...
osgart
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God

Post by osgart »

Theres endless possibilities of the eternal existence of intelligence inside and outside of nature.

I did not say god is even a knowable living entity.

Intelligence and life never endures to know existence intrinsically in a solely physical world such as this one. Yet we are created. Anyone who says we are not created by intellect is blind to simple proof. And dulled to reality.
Physics causing existence is backwards.
The rules of existence are not physical if anything intelligent created beings and it did. You existing proves their is an advanced intelligence operating on nature of enduring quality. This universe is none enduring to life. So anything intelligent must be eternal and thus enduring to create life on earth.
If you ignore that logic you are merely blinding yourself.
And the lusts of your intellectual pride blind you.
Death comes and goes, no big deal.
Even if ceasing to exist. Life is meant to be and the innocent will be the victors of life. So why worry one day of it either way secular or spiritual.
The justice of your heart is only what matters in the end.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Science, Ockham’s Razor & God

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

osgart wrote:Theres endless possibilities of the eternal existence of intelligence inside and outside of nature.

I.
This is so obviously false.
1) It is unlikely or even meaningless to say that there is anything outside of nature.
2) All things have limits.
3) Possibilities can be neither endless nor eternal. To claim other wise is not evident. and since your own life and your acquaintance with life is limited, you cannot know eternal, not endless.

This is not a poetry Forum; this is philosophy. The clue is in the title of the website.
Post Reply