Saturday

Occam's Chainsaw

I don't want to come across as all pretentiously existential here, but I'm pretty sure, something exists.

As our understanding of the universe has increased, what appears to be complex has been broken down into simpler and smaller parts. Animals to cells, cells to molecules, molecules to atoms, and so on. Existence ultimately must* be made from building blocks of irreducible complexity.

But where did these irreducibly complex building blocks come from? How do they exist. How does anything exist? Existence appears impossible, but is possible because it does exists. It's a mind blowing paradox.

Whats the answer to all this?

God of course. An all powerful, all knowing, all encompassing creator of the universe. However, even a small child can ask the next logical question; "But who created God?" Well, dear child, you see, God has always existed, he's eternal. He's the alpha the omega. Ah, no worries then, I can sleep soundly tonight.

Not so fast. How does something being eternal help us? We are still left with the question of how it exists. But wait, matter is eternal too, it can neither be created or destroyed. In using God to explain the universe, haven't we just invented, by definition, the most complex thing ever to exist, only to leave us right back at square one? Much much worse than square one even. It's going to take a hell of a lot more to explain God. You'd have to be a small child or completely blinded by faith to go with the God explanation on this one. Never has Occam's razor been needed more in the history of logic! This is the ULTIMATE divide between simplicity (the simplest thing possible in the universe), and complexity (God being infinitely complex).

But back to the impossible sounding question at hand. Just because I cannot comprehend a possible explanation, doesn't mean there isn't one, but I can't even make one up here! My wildest, craziest, fevered dreams don't have an answer. The question of "why does anything exist" is unique in that sense. Magical fairies can at least be used to explain everything else. Anyway, in the end, it doesn't matter if you're religious or a freethinker, the fact that something exist is just totally freaky. I'm freaked out. Really, I am.

*If the universe isn't made of building blocks that are irreducable, then they must be infinitely reducible, which means again infinite complexity.
DiggIt!
By Infidel at 10:13 PM

29 comments:

  2. Yeah, that's right, you go and get all freaked out too.

    Is that Occam's Chainsaw in your profile pic? :P
    ReplyDelete
  3. I swear, I'm not trying to be a nuisance, but what is your basis for using logic to understand the universe or to invalidate the existence of God? By what means have you proved logic to be a thing that can prove things?

    You are assuming that an universal non-material absolute exists (logic and the laws of logic) and then you are attempting to use it to prove that only material is absolute.

    In other words, I'm asking you to stop appealing to logic as an authority until you can account for it in your materialistic worldview.
    ReplyDelete
  4. Reason and Science have proven to be the most reliable tools we have when trying to understand the universe. It's as simple as that, or do you disagree with me on that fundamental point?

    A naturalistic world view can be reached through reason. If I had reached a supernatural world view it would have been through the same way. You're asking me to make a circular argument. You have to start somewhere. What do you propose we use instead of reason? By what means do you validate your belief in God?

    Just so we are clear, I'm not claiming proof that God does not exist. I'm making an argument for how improbable his existence is.
    ReplyDelete
  5. "A naturalistic world view can be reached through reason."

    No, a naturalistic world view can be reached if you start from a naturalistic world view. Reason by itself does not lead inevitably to a naturalistic world view.

    A theistic world view can be reached if you start from a theistic world view. Your world view is a matter of choice.

    God is not less likely to exist just because "It's going to take a hell of a lot more to explain God". But _if God exists_, then his existence can provide simple answers to a hell of a lot of questions.

    If he doesn't then it can't.
    ReplyDelete
  6. Believer said... "No, a naturalistic world view can be reached if you start from a naturalistic world view."
    ----
    That doesn't make any sense, it's completely circular. I'd hope most of us don't just pick our views out from a hat! Although unfortunately many of us pick our world views based on our religious upbringing, which might as well be out of a hat!

    Of course your world view is a matter of choice. Are you saying reason isn't a tool we should use to make that choice?

    "God is not less likely to exist just because It's going to take a hell of a lot more to explain God"
    -----
    Why is the more complex answer not less likely? Especially considering the lack of evidence for it.

    God is a completely useless explanation. He's the equivalent of attributing something to magic. Science and all its benefits would not exist if we had been content attributing everything to God.
    ReplyDelete
  7. That doesn't make any sense, it's completely circular.

    Yes, that's precisely my point! I was picking up on your statement "A naturalistic world view can be reached through reason" (I assume an "alone" is implied at the end).

    I don't think that's true. I think that if you end up with a naturalistic world view it's because you start out with one. Reason helps you to draw conclusions from assumptions and observations. It will confirm whatever your world view you start with because your world view feeds into your assumptions. Of course, as I pointed out, the same is true of theists.

    "Are you saying reason isn't a tool we should use to make that choice?"

    No, I'm not. You're implying that a "naturalistic" (i.e. atheistic) world view can be attained through reason alone. Reason is an important tool, but I'm simply saying it doesn't do what you say it does.

    "Why is the more complex answer not less likely?"

    The complexity of a idea bears no relationship whatsoever to its truth, or its "likelihood" (however you define that). Sometimes scientists start with simple models of systems, and then discover that the reality is much more complex than they thought; other times, it is simpler than they thought. Pursuing the simpler answer is a rule of thumb that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't, not a universal principle.

    Besides, as I mentioned, from a different perspective, saying God created the universe could be viewed as the "simpler" answer. Changing our perspective does not change the truth (or "likelihood") of any idea, merely our perception of it.

    "God is a completely useless explanation. He's the equivalent of attributing something to magic. Science and all its benefits would not exist if we had been content attributing everything to God."

    These statements cannot be proven, are are therefore statements of belief.
    ReplyDelete
  8. "God is a completely useless explanation. He's the equivalent of attributing something to magic. Science and all its benefits would not exist if we had been content attributing everything to God."

    Actually, on second thought, I think these statements are highly biased, and untrue as stated. Allow me to demonstrate.

    I'll take the third one first: "Science and all its benefits would not exist if we had been content attributing everything to God."

    This exhibits black or white thinking, "either you believe in God or you believe in Science." Actually, many of the great names in science believed in God (Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Faraday, Mendel). This did not prevent them from making great scientific discoveries. Even today, there are productive scientists who have a sincere belief in God. Your statement claims that all religious people lack the curiosity and imagination required to pursue science. Clearly, that is false.

    "God is a completely useless explanation": I'm not sure exactly what you mean by useless. I imagine you mean "unnecessary", since there exist explanations for the existence of life, the universe and everything which do not appeal to the existence of God.

    The mere fact that such explanations exist does not automatically mean that they are true. Your statement implies that there exists an explanation that does not involve the existence of God that is to be preferred to any explanation that does. This is only true if you have prejudged the matter. That's why I said it's a statement of belief (not necessarily false, but not necessarily true either).

    (Remember that there are many different conceptions of God. Max Planck believed that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols". Einstein believed in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." Perhaps such less traditional formulations may have something valuable to say about the nature of the universe.)

    "[God is] the equivalent of attributing something to magic.": Surely few people have been more opposed to attributing observed phenomena to "magic" than Albert Einstein. And yet, as I noted above, he found it suitable to label the harmony of the universe with the word "God". Even the traditional Christian conception of God is very different from any definition you might hold for the word "magic" (except in the case of adherents who have a very superficial understanding of their faith).
    ReplyDelete
  9. Believer - quite amazingly nearly all your arguments are straw man fallacies.

    If you like I'll explain why, but I'd prefer you just re-read my arguments and avoid substituting in your own words.
    ReplyDelete
  10. Please do explain.
    ReplyDelete
  11. I must have misunderstood your point, because I didn't intend to make straw man arguments. Please explain your statements so I can understand.
    ReplyDelete
  12. “You're implying that a "naturalistic" (i.e. atheistic) world view can be attained through reason alone”
    -----
    No. I chose the word “can” carefully to leave room for having started with such a view. I was also careful to note that a supernatural world view could have been reached the same way.


    “God created the universe could be viewed as the "simpler" answer.”
    -----
    When I say “simple”, I don't mean the easiest to understand. The principal of Occam's razor states: When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. So in this case I use the word simple to mean “fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities”.


    “Sometimes scientists start with simple models of systems, and then discover that the reality is much more complex than they thought; other times, it is simpler than they thought.”.
    -----
    I'm not saying complex explanations can't turn out to be true. I am saying that more complex explanations are less likely as far as the principal of Occam's razor takes it. For example, if you saw some blinking moving lights in the sky, would you find it being aliens from outer space just as likely as it being a plane? Of course things can turn out to be more complex than we thought, it could even turn out to be aliens, but given two otherwise equal hypothesis, the simplest one is preferred.


    "either you believe in God or you believe in Science.".
    -----
    I neither said or implied that – I said "Science and all its benefits would not exist if we had been content attributing everything to God". I did not say that scientists cannot believe in God. Of course there are great scientists who believed in God, although clearly they were not content attributing everything too him or they would not have made the discoveries they did.


    By “useless” I don't mean "unnecessary"”. I mean useless, as in, without a use. Even if God existed, using him to explain how someone died of coughing doesn't help us, but explaining it with science and discovering it's tuberculosis does. How would we have started using science if God was the answer we were content with? Every inquiry would have dead ended with God.


    “Remember that there are many different conceptions of God “
    -----
    I defined God as “An all powerful, all knowing, all encompassing creator of the universe”. I wasn't making an argument against other less traditional formulations of Gods.
    ReplyDelete
  13. Infidel, my point has always been this. You are using logic, an immaterial and universal thing to attempt to prove that only material things exist. You say you have to start somewhere and this I agree with, but please start with something that makes sense within your worldview.
    ReplyDelete
  14. @gymbrall: I'm not sure why you're arguing against the use of logic. Surely we use logic every day, and I'm sure logic makes sense within Infidel's worldview.

    The problem with logic is that it requires you to start with assumptions, and the truth of an argument often hinges on the truth of the assumptions (explicit and implicit) that you start with. But logic itself is a good thing. You have nothing to replace it with.
    ReplyDelete
  15. Believer,
    I'm not arguing against the use of logic. I'm arguing against the inclusion of logic in a materialistic worldview (because logic is not material). And if the atheistic response is that logic is just a construct of the mind, them they must disallow the use of logic to disprove anything outside of their own mind. (How can a construct of their mind be used to disprove something out in the universe?)

    Almost all atheists believe in the laws of logic, a universal, invariant, abstract entity, and yet they believe in a material universe. What I'm saying is that they are borrowing something from my worldview to then turn around and try to disprove my worldview.

    A Christian can believe in logic and the laws of logic in a manner consistent with their worldview because they believe that logic is the manifestation of God's ordered and consistent nature on the universe.
    ReplyDelete
  16. gymbrall,
    I must admit, I find your argument bizarre, but I'll attempt to address it further.

    We both agree that reason is useful for understanding the world. In my view our ability to reason comes from natural processes, in this case evolution, and in yours it comes from God. Where it came from makes no difference to how proven useful it has been.

    To define my naturalistic world view: the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science.

    Nowhere in that view does it exclude the use of reason or thought as a tool to understand the world.

    If you are saying atheists can't know with absolute certainty that reason works because God didn't give it to them, then you are right.

    I'm not claiming absolute certainty.
    ReplyDelete
  17. Would you mind defining what you mean by the laws of science?
    ReplyDelete
  18. It's just another way of saying all phenomena can be explained without resorting to supernatural/teleological explanations.
    ReplyDelete
  19. But I'm asking if you say that the use of reason or logic is the only valid way to examine a statement which claims to be factual?

    Are there other equally valid means of determining truth?
    ReplyDelete
  20. gymbrall,

    Like I said before, Reason (logic, science, etc, being subsets of that) is the most reliable way of determining the truth of a statement. In contrast, faith & superstition have proven to be very unreliable.

    What are you getting at?
    ReplyDelete
  21. Of course there are great scientists who believed in God, although clearly they were not content attributing everything too him or they would not have made the discoveries they did.
    - - - - - - -
    Mr. Logic,
    Where did this assumption come from that belief in God removes all curiosity about how things work? Do you mean if it weren't for godless endeavors we would not have the Space Shuttle and the printing press?
    ReplyDelete
  22. Science can be a perfectly valid way to understand God's creations, I'm not arguing against that.
    ReplyDelete
  23. Hey, isn't existentialism the belief that nothing exists except yourself and that life has no meaning? So you're not being 'pretentiously existentialist'.
    Yeah that's my input.
    ReplyDelete
  24. Existential, not existentialist, so in this case meaning just "pertaining to existence".
    ReplyDelete
  25. I find Gymbrall and Believer's arguments to be grasping at straws, big time...

    Arguing against the use of logic? Sure, I've done that in Philosophy classes in the past for the sake of practice and debate, but it's not something you take seriously. I find it bizarre that anyone would use those arguments to argue against someone else's argument, because in practice arguing against the use of logic is essentially arguing against listening to you (since you are necessarily using logic to attempt to disprove logic). If you want to show logic up, make it self-contradictory.

    Believer, your arguments depended on the suffix "alone" which was not what Infidel said. Infidel, I'm sure, uses logic in combination with empirical evidence (such as observation) in order to make the use of logic, well, useful.
    ReplyDelete
  26. I realize that I haven't been here in a long time (work's been crazy) and that I probably won't have the time to pick this back up to commit to a good discussion but I did want to respond to Phil's post above.

    My argument was not against logic or the existence and use of logic. Instead it was against the use of logic by a pure materialist. I believe in logic, but then I believe in non-material things. A materialist does not, but then uses logic (a non-material thing) to refute (or at least attempt to refute) the existence of non-material things. This is fundamentally inconsistent.
    ReplyDelete
  27. I recognize that this is a very old topic, but what makes logic immaterial? The fact that it is a mental process? Logic is our ability to draw conclusions about the material world using material processes which we comprehend in our material brains. It would seem that anyone with logic would necessarily refute the existence of the immaterial (god), as it can not be examined logically.
    ReplyDelete
  28. There are quite a few spelling errors in this (raiser =/= razor, allot =/= a lot, etc.) but I found the overall message well delivered.
    ReplyDelete
  29. Thanks Anonymous for pointing out the errors, and for looking past them : ). Corrections made.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)