Logical proofs for God

Playboy

Fysh wrote:

You can argue that, yes, it is. This goes back to the whole mind-body problem, which still does not have an adequate resolution. You can choose to believe that I existed before the debate, as I can choose to believe you did. However, in the way of actual proof....well, you could trust the boards database and view my post history. But that could be faked. Or you could trust the government database and check my birth cert or passport. But that could also be faked. Ultimately, it can be argued, you haven't seen it yourself therefore you don't have proof.".

I didnt say ever that I have proof for God's existence. I said that you dont have proof that he does not exist. Either way we dont know for sure.

Fysh wrote:

I'm seriously starting to think that you're stupid here. I have been saying the above for several posts now, and you keep missing the point. Go read about Occam's razor, then look at the post earlier on where I said "this is why I don't think it's logical to believe in something without proof". Then, maybe, you'll start to feel a bit silly for dictating to me how I should be using logical tools, when I've been mentioning specifics and you keep being vague saying "but you can't because I say so".

Occam's Razor is a scientific tool that states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. I believe that an asummption about the origin of our existence is an asumption that is essential to every human being.

Wikipedia wrote:

When deciding between two models which make equivalent predictions, choose the simpler one".
Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.
The simplest explanation is usually the best.

What model do we have that makes a statisfactory prediction about the nature of our existence?

Fysh wrote:

I know this, and I genuinely think you're either being thick or just not reading my posts for the fact that you still keep wittering on about it. I have said, repeatedly, that I do not thing there is a God based on current evidence. I don't know how many more times I have to say it before it sinks in for you; maybe you want it spoken to you from a burning tree or something, I don't know.


I choose to believe that my senses are not being tricked or manipulated and that the world I perceive is sufficiently similar to the objectively real world for me to build models of how it functions that can make accurate predictions. So right there I have an example that proves that I understand what you mean by "believing in something you don't have proof for". My reason for believing is that, frankly, I have no alternative that provides me a workable way of living.

However, even acepting this subjective reality as being reasonably faithful to the real world, I personally have not seen evidence that convinces me there is a god. Try to understand this. See the "I personally" qualifier? Yes? It means I'm not making sweeping generalisations about what everyone things. It means I'm talking about me. I have not seen evidence pointing to God's existence. You apparently have, and that's fine. But nothing you've said has made me change my mind, and you have to accept that or start providing new arguments or evidence. Otherwise we're just sitting here going in circles getting on each other's nerves.



My problem is this : you freely accept that we don't know everything, as do I. I state that, given what we do know at the moment, there's no conclusive evidence for god. There may be at a later stage, but not now. So at the time, it does not make sense to believe in God.

Whereas you say "I'm going to define something we've got no evidence for. And since you don't know everything, you can't say for definite that I'm wrong", and think that this lends weight to your theory. But the actual situation is : I cannot prove conclusively that your theory is incorrect, but you can't offer me one shred of evidence that it exists. Except by using this conveniently undefined thing as an answer to any question you have about the universe around you, but that doesn't work - you haven't defined it, so it's not a proper answer that can be tested, therefore it's not a logical response to the question. I mean, I can make the exact same arguments in favour of the existence of the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.

As I have stated many times. It is logical to assume the existence of something as long as you dont try and define it. When you say Santa Claus or the tooth fairy you are defining something. I have never stated that God is a being. I have stated b4 that God is the mystery. I think you are the one who is not understanding me. I have always stated that my belief is just that, a belief. As far as logic is concerned my point is that logic does not offer us any answers on the existence or non existence of God.

Fysh wrote:

Put it this way : imagine you go back in time to, say, the 15th century. You try to explain to someone vaguely scientifically minded about subatomic particles. They ask you to prove it and you talk about energy levels and particle collisions. But they want to see the evidence. Without a particle accelerator, you can't perform experiments that might demonstrate the validity of your theory by showing your predictions to be correct. So as far as the 15th century person is concerned, there's no real reason to believe your theory. It doesn't make the theory any more or less right; it just means that the available evidence cannot substantiate the claims. And the scientific method says that you can't accept just any theory with no evidence to substantiate it. You have to question things, try and break the theory, see if you can find holes in it. Only when you can't break it should you accept it.

This is quite similar to the point I was making earlier. There might be no real reason to believe that the theory is correct but is not the onus on science to disprove a theory. If it falls outside the ability of science to disprove a theory then who is to say that it is correct or incorrect?All that you can say is that we have not got the scienctific or intellectual ability to validate or invalidate that theory at the present time. You can then say that you choose not to believe the theory or you choose to believe the theory. You cannot say the theory is wrong. The scientific method might say that you cant accept any theory without any evidence to validate it but how can you apply the scientific method to something that falls outside the realm of science?

Fysh wrote:

So coming back to your claims about God. You say "well, the evolution of life on this planet is a mystery and we don't understand it, therefore maybe God was behind it". And that's fine. God is technically a maybe theory for me as well.

But you've already said we don't know everything, so how do you know the explanation won't turn out to be something completely different. How do you know that, for example, it won't turn out that the universe itself is one enormous sentient being which we are parasitic or symbiotic parts of, and that we evolved as part of the evolution of this greater creature? How do you know for certain that there must be an external creature behind our evolution, if you accept that you don't know everything? How do you know for certain that it wasn't just random chance over millions of planets that led to us evolving? I mean, we only see the planet where we evolved succesfully. We don't know if homo sapiens has evolved on other planets, or what the ratio is between planets where intelligent life evolves and planets that remain barren.

So, in light of all that, you tell me that I'm arrogant for not concluding that God must be there? Hah. Nice one. I'm saying "so far it doesn't look like there's a god, and I'll refrain from passing judgement on whether evolution had a helping hand or not until we've got a better idea about the possibilities of life evolving on other planets".

I have said that Im not trying to define what God is. It could be the example you gave of a sentient being of which we are parasitic or symbiotic parts of. Who am I to say you are wrong when I can't prove or disprove your theory? I don't believe it was random chance. I stated that God is the mystery of the nature of our existence. You said in you previous post:

Fysh wrote:

The "mind boggling mystery of life"? Put it this way - for every planet I've set foot on so far, life has emerged. 100% success rate over a relevant time frame so far. We've not got enough information about other planets in our own galaxy, never mind planets in other galaxies, to start talking in any definitive way about how mysterious and improbable (or otherwise) life is. We don't "think" there's life on the other planets, but hell - only one species on this planet has, as far as we know, developed global communications networks and the means to get offplanet. Even if there is life on one of the other planets orbiting the sun, that doesn't mean it would have to have evolved sufficient intelligence to get to that stage of development at a similar time frame to us. Nor is our own understanding of intelligence and communication the only one possible.

Am am wrong for assuming here that you did not think that the "mind boggling mystery of life" was not a mystery?

and tbh on a last point why do have to drag the debate down to a level where you are name calling. When posting on a topic such as this it is very easy for two people to misunderstand each other. You have misunderstood me as I have misunderstood you. It does not mean either of us are "stupid" or "thick"

Fysh

Playboy wrote:

I didnt say ever that I have proof for God's existence. I said that you dont have proof that he does not exist. Either way we dont know for sure.

The general tone of your posts has suggested so far that me not having conclusive proof of God's inexistence automatically lends weight to the idea of his existence. I agree that we don't know, but the fact that there is an idea referred to as God does not necessarily have any bearing on whether this idea is an accurate description of an aspect of the universe.

Playboy wrote:

Occam's Razor is a scientific tool that states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. I believe that an asummption about the origin of our existence is an asumption that is essential to every human being.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. An assumption or attempt at understanding our existence is one thing. Who says we need one that makes use of a happily undefined entity and which does not offer any way of testing itself?

Playboy wrote:

What model do we have that makes a statisfactory prediction about the nature of our existence?

I never said we did have one, but that doesn't make the God idea any more satisfactory, since it makes no predictions and is therefore not even a proper theory, all things considered.

Playboy wrote:

As I have stated many times. It is logical to assume the existence of something as long as you dont try and define it. When you say Santa Claus or the tooth fairy you are defining something. I have never stated that God is a being. I have stated b4 that God is the mystery. I think you are the one who is not understanding me. I have always stated that my belief is just that, a belief. As far as logic is concerned my point is that logic does not offer us any answers on the existence or non existence of God.

I don't understand why you think it's logical to assume something exists, but make no attempt to define or further understand it. I mean, what's the point? It's just like taking everything we don't understand, putting it in a big box, and labelling it God, and then whenever anything comes up that we don't understand saying "Ah, but that's just the mystery of God". I mean, all well and good, but it tells us bugger all at the end of the day. Hence my not accepting "God" as a theory (at least not an undefined god) and thus opting not to accept it via Occam's Razor.

Playboy wrote:

This is quite similar to the point I was making earlier. There might be no real reason to believe that the theory is correct but is not the onus on science to disprove a theory. If it falls outside the ability of science to disprove a theory then who is to say that it is correct or incorrect?All that you can say is that we have not got the scienctific or intellectual ability to validate or invalidate that theory at the present time. You can then say that you choose not to believe the theory or you choose to believe the theory. You cannot say the theory is wrong. The scientific method might say that you cant accept any theory without any evidence to validate it but how can you apply the scientific method to something that falls outside the realm of science?

I take issue with the notion of your idea of God even being a theory, because it doesn't make any predictions as such and avoids doing anything so controversial as making a specific statement about the universe we're in. There's absolutely no way of actually "testing" your suggestion either way, especially not when you're trying to say that your undefined God should fall outside of the realm of science.

Playboy wrote:

I have said that Im not trying to define what God is. It could be the example you gave of a sentient being of which we are parasitic or symbiotic parts of. Who am I to say you are wrong when I can't prove or disprove your theory? I don't believe it was random chance. I stated that God is the mystery of the nature of our existence.

Am I wrong for assuming here that you did not think that the "mind boggling mystery of life" was not a mystery?

Where we appear to differ quite largely is that I am quite happy to accept that our origin could be down to probability. Maybe this is the result of doing a physics degree, with a large part of the syllabus focusing on quantum mechanics and the probabilistic nature of the microscopic-scale world. But while there is a "mystery" in that we don't know how life started, I don't see the emergence of life as indicating the necessary existence of a higher intelligence. Technically, if I did, I would then expect God to have such worries as well, at which point we'd get the case of the infinitely recursive God. Unless part of your mysterious and undefined God is the ability to self-create, which would be a bit too convenient tbh.

Dades

Something to relieve the monotony...

Playboy wrote:

You cannot say that something does not exist because you don’t have evidence for its existence. That is an illogical statement. I didn’t have any evidence for your existence b4 I started this conversation with you. Is it logical then to say that you didn’t exist b4 this debate?

Well then lets take a step back.

I suggest there is a boards user called Thaddeus. I've never seem him here, and I haven't looked at the name database. Is it logical for you to believe he exists? Of course he might exist, nobody could suggest otherwise, but is it logical to assume he does?

I now say that Thaddeus is Welsh, and works as a shepherd. Is it any more or less logical to believe in the existance of Thaddeus?

So what if we now find out there is a user called Thaddeus? Did you believe in the Thaddeus that exists or just the concept of one? If it turns out he is not Welsh and actually works in marketing how does that affect your belief?

Playboy

I got involved in this debate because the point was made that a belief in God (whatever that may be) is illogical. My point of view is that unless you try and define what God is then it is not illogical. To clarify this point of view I can say that I do not believe that our existence was a result of probability. If our existence was not a result of probability then for me what we are left with is an infinite number of explanations. My label for this unknowable thing is God. I do not attach any definition to what it is. I do think that a belief or non belief in something like this is important to a person. Do I have any evidence to prove this? No I don’t. Does science have any evidence to prove the opposite? Not yet anyway. Quantum mechanics does point in the direction that probability could be a possible explanation with theories such as that at the most basic level the laws of causality break down. But quantum is by no means a complete or infallible theory. Science doesn’t seem to be anywhere close to a theory of everything, not to mention a testable theory of everything. Quantum and relativity have completely different descriptions of how the universe operates but they both hold up as theories under intense experimentation. Therefore my reasoning is that logic and science at this time is not an adequate way of explaining where we came from and what our purpose (if any?) is. Then I would logically assume that to assume that life was a result of probability is just as logical or illogical as to assume that life was not a result of probability. I do not believe that Occam's Razor is applicable here because I do not believe that either explanation is a simpler one.

I hope this clears things up a bit.

Fysh

But if you discard the notion of an unassisted evolution of life, you're clearly discarding a whole swathe of possible origins for us. And since we don't yet know everything, to do so means you might discard what turns out to be the actual origin of life on our planet.

I also find it hard to understand how you dismiss science for being incomplete and thus put your faith into a notion of guided evolution, even though you happily admit you don't have any evidence for God and don't ultimately know anything about him/her/it other than God = unknown. I mean, it seems that you're basically assuming that out there, in the nebulous unknown, there's an intellect who cares about us and "made" us. Would this be right?

Where I disagree is in two things:
1) I don't see why our origin has to be special or meaningful, and
2) I don't see why we should expect to find any higher purpose to our existence.

Playboy

For me the answers to both your questions is not easy to explain. Certain things happen in everybody's life at some stage that seem a little bit too unusual. Im not going to go into any details but for me certain experiences I have had point me in the direction that it was not all a result of probability. Im fully aware that this is a belief and I do not try and force my view on anybody else as I think someone's spirituality is a very personal thing. I am fully aware also that I might be wrong and my mind might be playing tricks on me. Also Fysh what God may be for me may not be a higher intellect .. as I said b4 it could be anything .. I dont think that we would be able to define in our terms what 'God' is. You might say then whats the point in believing in it?.. well Im afraid I dont really have an answer that would satisfy you there either except that I find it important to the way I feel about the world and my life.

On a side note fysh, are you familiar with the many worlds and the many minds interpretation of quantum physics and do they have any bearing on your atheism?

EamonnKeane

It'd be impossible for the centre of the earth to be made of cheese. The consistency of cheese would never stand up to the intense pressures down there. More likely some kind of molten rock core.

Actually it's made of solid iron and nickel, which gives the earth its magnetic field. It couldn't be liquid, because of the incredible pressure.

Catsmokinpot

lads sorry haven't conversed in a while,

fysh sorry didn't know u were taking the piss wouldn't have lashed out at ya otherwise in retrospect anal fisting dwarves was quite funny but they cant be used as a comparison because you aren't charging them with the creation/shaping of the universe the force that binds us together.... if you were i suppose i do believe in them.....

Phil_321 wrote:

Incorrect, you are assuming that it's standard cheddar cheese we're talking about here. That is an illogical assumption because as you have learned from this thread, everything exists until proven otherwise; As the world around us is such amazing place and everything "works like clockwork", there is a high probability that a super heat resistant cheese resides in the centre of the earth.

lads im sorry but trivialising such a matter is stupid. phil_321 your an idiot! this core made of cheese.... super heat resistant cheese doesn't exist cheese by its nature isn't heat resistant therefore creating a heat resistant cheese is impossible..... look at a volcano does it spew out cheese? no. it spews out lava, the origin of a volcano is directly below us from under the surface of the earth... which points me to the obvious conclusion that the earths core is rock and metal, even though we cant prove what the core is made of we can come to the non idiotic conclusion that it is made of either metal or rock...... cheese is a man made creation, + where are all the cows that made the milk to make this cheese are you suggesting that there's a huge farm underground which produces all of this cheese? and huge meadows that feed the cows so they can produce the cheese.... and also perhaps a big kilmeaden factory? please so this means the centre of the earth is made of fields with cows in them, lots of cheese and a kilmeaden factory

again if you were charging this huge hunk of cheese with the creation/shaping of the universe then i believe you...

now, AGAIN, ONCE MORE, science hasn't even pointed to the conclusion that god doesn't exist but their are plenty of facts that lead me to the conclusion that you are in fact an idiot

at least anal fisting dwarves were a small bit more believable.....

Edit: making a comparison between pink unicorns, huge hunks of cheese, anal fisting dwarves and god is laughable

at the end of the day you don't know so how can you or anyone say that it is illogical. don't talk to me about proving it cause i know i cant and also you know you cant prove im wrong..... AGAIN IM NOT SAYING BELIEVE ME or IM RIGHT. WE DONT KNOW, and if WE DONT KNOW and we most likely will never have any proof either way, we cant come to any logical conclusion either way....... that is what im saying and that is what playboy is saying

Edit: and where's all this evidence that says god doesn't exist?

simu

I think Phil_321 was joking there. Anyway, Catsmokingpot, personal insults aren't appreciated on this forum. If you call other posters idiots or any such name again, you'll get a ban. Same for anyone else who engages in this practice.

tabatha

i think believe in what you want but at the end of the day when you are dead you are dead like everything in this world. all insects, animals, people etc....when your gone your gone. replenished back into the earth.

Fysh

*sigh*

What I have been saying, all along, is that:

1)We don't have all the evidence available, so a final conclusive statement is not possible, *but*
2)On the current scientifically available evidence (which is incomplete) I am not aware of any factor which points solely at the idea of a god existing outside of our universe as the solution. There are things we don't understand (see 1), but there is no compelling evidence that God is the only possible solution. And, given the option between the solution being something we can test, within our own universe, or the solution being some vague undefined thing that we define as being "unknowable", I will go with the former until further evidence is available. I believe this to be a rational decision operationg by the principles of logical reasoning combined with Occam's Razor.

Saying "we don't know" is all very well, but the fact that we have incomplete evidence does not mean that one cannot attempt a logical interpretation. It just means that it may not be the same as a final conclusive interpretation.

As for the anal-fisting dwarves - are you seriously suggesting that you'd find the idea believable if I claimed that they'd made the universe? Even if I'm not offering anything to back this up with except my own word?

Back to the core/cheese nonsense; firstly, I'd like to know what experience of cheese at high temperatures you have to claim that molten cheese does not exist. (Ever had a toasted cheese sandwich that was in the oven a bit too long?) Secondly, the core is believed to be a smallish lump of solid super-pressurised rock/metal surrounded by a larger level of liquid magma. The fact that a volcano spits out lava would actually suggest that the core contains liqiud, not solid - it was attempts to understand the earth's magnetic field that pointed towards a small solid core. Thirdly, I suspect the comment was (again) tongue in cheek, and you (again) have thrown a wobbly about it after failing to see the joke. Well done. It wouldn't be so funny if you hadn't just finished apologising to me for over-reacting when you started on against Phil_321.

Evidence that God does not exist? Well, for a start, look at the major religions (christianity, catholicism, judaeism, islam, etc). Look at the claims in their holy books, and look at the number of scientifically verified occurences of those same claims. Not many of the latter, are there? Or there's the fact that we live in an enormous universe, populated by thousands of galaxies, each one potentially containing loads of star systems and planets. Now, if life evolves on even one of those other planets, it means we aren't unique. It lends weight to the suggestion that life will emerge where conditions allow for it, as opposed to making our existence special. The chances of not one single planet apart from Earth having conditions which allow life to evolve across the lifetime of the universe are staggeringly small, and it is only in that case that I would consider the involvement of a higher being to be a viable and probable solution.

Dades

tabatha wrote:

i think believe in what you want but at the end of the day when you are dead you are dead like everything in this world. all insects, animals, people etc....when your gone your gone. replenished back into the earth.

I agree.

Though I think we are replenishing the earth rather than replenished into it.

Playboy

Fysh wrote:

*sigh*

What I have been saying, all along, is that:

1)We don't have all the evidence available, so a final conclusive statement is not possible, *but*
2)On the current scientifically available evidence (which is incomplete) I am not aware of any factor which points solely at the idea of a god existing outside of our universe as the solution. There are things we don't understand (see 1), but there is no compelling evidence that God is the only possible solution. And, given the option between the solution being something we can test, within our own universe, or the solution being some vague undefined thing that we define as being "unknowable", I will go with the former until further evidence is available. I believe this to be a rational decision operationg by the principles of logical reasoning combined with Occam's Razor.

Saying "we don't know" is all very well, but the fact that we have incomplete evidence does not mean that one cannot attempt a logical interpretation. It just means that it may not be the same as a final conclusive interpretation.

As for the anal-fisting dwarves - are you seriously suggesting that you'd find the idea believable if I claimed that they'd made the universe? Even if I'm not offering anything to back this up with except my own word?

Back to the core/cheese nonsense; firstly, I'd like to know what experience of cheese at high temperatures you have to claim that molten cheese does not exist. (Ever had a toasted cheese sandwich that was in the oven a bit too long?) Secondly, the core is believed to be a smallish lump of solid super-pressurised rock/metal surrounded by a larger level of liquid magma. The fact that a volcano spits out lava would actually suggest that the core contains liqiud, not solid - it was attempts to understand the earth's magnetic field that pointed towards a small solid core. Thirdly, I suspect the comment was (again) tongue in cheek, and you (again) have thrown a wobbly about it after failing to see the joke. Well done. It wouldn't be so funny if you hadn't just finished apologising to me for over-reacting when you started on against Phil_321.

Evidence that God does not exist? Well, for a start, look at the major religions (christianity, catholicism, judaeism, islam, etc). Look at the claims in their holy books, and look at the number of scientifically verified occurences of those same claims. Not many of the latter, are there? Or there's the fact that we live in an enormous universe, populated by thousands of galaxies, each one potentially containing loads of star systems and planets. Now, if life evolves on even one of those other planets, it means we aren't unique. It lends weight to the suggestion that life will emerge where conditions allow for it, as opposed to making our existence special. The chances of not one single planet apart from Earth having conditions which allow life to evolve across the lifetime of the universe are staggeringly small, and it is only in that case that I would consider the involvement of a higher being to be a viable and probable solution.

What difference does it make if there is life on other planets are not? Cannot God have created multiple life forms on multiple planets? It may go against the ideas of certain organised religions but it doesnt contradict the idea of God in general.

Also you say you are using Occam's Razor to validate your reasoning. We have no suitable explanation for the origin of life or the structure of the universe so how can it apply? If we dont have any solution how can you pick a simpler one? You cannot use the big bang as a valid theory for the origin of our existence as it doesnt explain what structured the laws of the universe or where the material for the big bang originated.

Catsmokinpot

simu wrote:

I think Phil_321 was joking there. Anyway, Catsmokingpot, personal insults aren't appreciated on this forum. If you call other posters idiots or any such name again, you'll get a ban. Same for anyone else who engages in this practice.

i think idiotic was a perfactly reasonable way to describe someone who was comparing a hunk of cheese at the centre of the earth to the belief in someone who created/shaped the universe if id have called him a ****in idiot i would find that offensive as far as i know were in ireland, and in ireland people curse every 5 seconds so if i said something insulting maybe i should have cursed at him and it would have been less offensive?

simu

Catsmokinpot wrote:

i think idiotic was a perfactly reasonable way to describe someone who was comparing a hunk of cheese at the centre of the earth to the belief in someone who created/shaped the universe if id have called him a ****in idiot i would find that offensive as far as i know were in ireland, and in ireland people curse every 5 seconds so if i said something insulting maybe i should have cursed at him and it would have been less offensive?

This isn't the place to complain - if you were unhappy with those posts, you should have reported them, or PM'd me or even made a complaint in feedback. Take a 3 day ban and calm down.

Fysh

Playboy wrote:

What difference does it make if there is life on other planets are not? Cannot God have created multiple life forms on multiple planets? It may go against the ideas of certain organised religions but it doesnt contradict the idea of God in general.

Also you say you are using Occam's Razor to validate your reasoning. We have no suitable explanation for the origin of life or the structure of the universe so how can it apply? If we dont have any solution how can you pick a simpler one? You cannot use the big bang as a valid theory for the origin of our existence as it doesnt explain what structured the laws of the universe or where the material for the big bang originated.

Well, the argument regarding the existence or otherwise of God gets rather difficult when someone like you decides to insist on the existence of something whose only quality is their lack of any defining attributes. And since it's very difficult to argue with the frankly baffling belief that there's something (but I neither know what nor claim to be able to find out anything about it) out there, I've presented arguments against the more common interpretations of God.

Anyway, yes, the idea of life emerging on various planets. God could have created life on other planets, or he could have created the universe such that life could evolve. The point I was trying to make is that, if the evidence we perceive suggests that life is quite common and diverse, and is therefore not rare to the point of near-uniqueness nor standardised, then God seems less of a requirement, as it were. He could still be there, but the emergence of life would be less mysterious in and of itself if it had happened all over the place.

As for Occam...see here for a more accurate phrasing. It's not to do with simpler explanations exactly, a more accurate phrasing would be "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything".

Applying this on a basic level to the idea of the origins of life and the universe, the notion of an as-yet-undefined explanation dependent on aspects of the universe that we live within that can be tested using evidence again from the universe we live within strikes me as requiring less entities than an explanation (also undefined) requiring an entity outside of the universe we live in, since that explanation requires:

a)for there to be an outside of the universe, which we don't know yet
b)for there to be something out there
c)for that something to have been able to create the universe
d)for that something to be able to guide events within the universe without leaving any tell-tale physical evidence that we are aware of so far

tabatha

i think there are to many big words and big ideas going on here. to many people with the head buired in books rather than opening there eyes to what really is happening. life is life and get...lets get on with it as it is to short to quibble over is there a god or isnt there. facts speak for themselves.

simu

tabatha wrote:

i think there are to many big words and big ideas going on here. to many people with the head buired in books rather than opening there eyes to what really is happening. life is life and get...lets get on with it as it is to short to quibble over is there a god or isnt there. facts speak for themselves.

That's the second irrelavant post you've made in this thread - please keep to the thread topic in future. If you want to discuss some other topic, start a new thread.

Playboy

Fysh wrote:

Well, the argument regarding the existence or otherwise of God gets rather difficult when someone like you decides to insist on the existence of something whose only quality is their lack of any defining attributes. And since it's very difficult to argue with the frankly baffling belief that there's something (but I neither know what nor claim to be able to find out anything about it) out there, I've presented arguments against the more common interpretations of God.

Anyway, yes, the idea of life emerging on various planets. God could have created life on other planets, or he could have created the universe such that life could evolve. The point I was trying to make is that, if the evidence we perceive suggests that life is quite common and diverse, and is therefore not rare to the point of near-uniqueness nor standardised, then God seems less of a requirement, as it were. He could still be there, but the emergence of life would be less mysterious in and of itself if it had happened all over the place.

As for Occam...see here for a more accurate phrasing. It's not to do with simpler explanations exactly, a more accurate phrasing would be "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything".

Applying this on a basic level to the idea of the origins of life and the universe, the notion of an as-yet-undefined explanation dependent on aspects of the universe that we live within that can be tested using evidence again from the universe we live within strikes me as requiring less entities than an explanation (also undefined) requiring an entity outside of the universe we live in, since that explanation requires:

a)for there to be an outside of the universe, which we don't know yet
b)for there to be something out there
c)for that something to have been able to create the universe
d)for that something to be able to guide events within the universe without leaving any tell-tale physical evidence that we are aware of so far

But science does not have any theories to the explain the origin of life. And how do you dismiss someone's spirituality as unnecessary using Occam's Razor. Tbh Fysh do you think Occam really meant for his idea to be applied to God and spirituality or was it meant for something else?




In the philosophy of religion Occam's Razor is sometimes used to challenge arguments for the existence of God. None of these applications has been considered definitive because the competing assumptions are not (and perhaps cannot be) precisely defined. Also, it should be added that the principle is only a guide to the best theory based on current knowledge, not to the "truth".

Galileo Galilei lampooned the misuse of Occam's Razor in his Dialogue. The principle is represented in the dialogue by Simplicio. The telling point that Galileo presented ironically was that if you really wanted to start from a small number of entities, you could always consider the letters of the alphabet as the fundamental entities, since you could certainly construct the whole of human knowledge out of them (a view that Abraham Abulafia presented much more expansively).

Adding another layer of irony, many modern scientists and mathematicians seriously propose that the basic "entities" of reality may be "bits of information", for example, the digits of binary code, in which case the entities of William of Ockham might be seen as foreshadowing the logic of George Boole and modern computing.

It is argued that Ockham was an intellectual forefather of the Scientific Method because he argued for a degree of intellectual freedom in a time of dogmatic belief. He can also, however, be seen as an apologist for Divine Omnipotence, since he was concerned to demonstrate that creation was contingent and the Creator free to change the rules at will. Thus, if God is free to make an infinity of worlds with completely different rules from those which prevail in our world, then we are free to imagine such worlds and their logical and practical consequences.

Perhaps the best formulation of Occam's Razor is the one which states that, of equally good explanations for a phenomenon, the best one is the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts.

Creationists sometimes attempt to apply Occam's Razor in defence of geogenesis, claiming that theirs is the simpler theory as compared with evolution. However, there is the question of whether a creator with sufficient intelligence and forethought is simpler than a model in which complexity spontaneously generates over geological timescales. In addition there is the question of whether Creationism actually accounts for the physical evidence; the fossil record and evidence of the age of the Earth and solar system appear to falsify the story of divine creation (as described in the book of Genesis). Some people claim that attempting to apply Occam's Razor to the past where it can only be applied retrospectively is erroneous; however, Occam's razor is used extensively and successfully in data sets collected in both archeology and astronomy.

taken from here

Fysh

Playboy wrote:

But science does not have any theories to the explain the origin of life. And how do you dismiss someone's spirituality as unnecessary using Occam's Razor. Tbh Fysh do you think Occam really meant for his idea to be applied to God and spirituality or was it meant for something else?

Well, you apparently don't and I do. As far as I'm concerned the scientific method, of which Occam's razor is a part, is a methodology for understanding the world around us, including our origins and where we might be headed in the future. Frankly, I'm not particularly pushed if Occam wanted his idea to be applied to God - hell, Einstein didn't believe that quantum theory could be correct at first because "god does not play dice" as he famously wrote to Schrodinger (who promptly replied "stop telling God what to do"). I can't help but think that all this complaining about how you can't examine the idea of god from a scientific perspective lends weight to my original point : that it is not possible to prove God's existence logically. Whether that is down to a limitation in the idea and definition of God, or a limitation in logic, can be argued. Of the two I would argue that logic has given us more tangible benefits.

As for science not having theories to explain the origin of life : evolutionary processes over geological timescales don't count as a theory now? I know it lacks the intent that you seem to crave in any explanation of the world, but that doesn't stop it being a possible explanation of life on this planet. As for the origins of the universe, well, no, there isn't yet a fully formulated theory. But then, as you've kept on pointing out, we don't have all the evidence yet. So you can't really hold that against science now, can you?

Playboy

Dont think you read these parts of the post:


In the philosophy of religion Occam's Razor is sometimes used to challenge arguments for the existence of God. None of these applications has been considered definitive because the competing assumptions are not (and perhaps cannot be) precisely defined. Also, it should be added that the principle is only a guide to the best theory based on current knowledge, not to the "truth".

Perhaps the best formulation of Occam's Razor is the one which states that, of equally good explanations for a phenomenon, the best one is the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts.



which seem to be a direct contradiction to what you said earlier and if I remember correctly you told me I would feel silly when I looked up Occam's Razor and found out how it was applied.

Also I had come across Occam's Razor b4 but I couldnt remeber where. If you scroll down on the same article it will tell you Berkeley used Occam's Razor to try and prove his theory against the existence of matter. So it seems this rule can applied depending on your perspective. So in that case
I really wouldnt use the rule in any of my arguments

Fysh

Well, I'm not sure why that part suggests a contradiction between what I was saying, when it contains:

"Also, it should be added that the principle is only a guide to the best theory based on current knowledge, not to the "truth""

which is what I have stated I was trying to find using logical reasoning. If anything, that suggests the same interpretation of Occam's Razor that I have already been using.

However, the comment about its usefulness when faced with theories which cannot be defined is important. Personally, I'm wary of theories that require accepting something that is completely outside our ability to investigate or explore, because as explanations go it's not much more than "we don't know" but given a nice name in an attempt to make it seem like we do know something. Which is one objection I have against the notion of a creator entity. Another is the notion that the idea of God should be considered a theory comparable to whatever science offers up even though it is accepted as being basically undefined by many of those who espouse it. I don't see why science should be expected to recognize a theory that doesn't meet any of its requirements.

As for Berkeley...well, I don't doubt that the Razor has been applied to many ideas (I've seen suggestions that Occam tried to use it to prove the existence of God); it's not really an argument in itself, just a way of choosing between theories. As such the validity of decisions made using Occam's razor, as with pretty much any decision, depends on the assumptions that the theories themselves are based on. It would be fully possible to postulate a theory by which everything in the world happens by magic and have it validated by Occam's razor compared to the scientific method - provided you were willing to accept "magic" as a viable aspect of the theory to begin with.

Playboy

Fysh wrote:

Well, you apparently don't and I do. As far as I'm concerned the scientific method, of which Occam's razor is a part, is a methodology for understanding the world around us, including our origins and where we might be headed in the future. Frankly, I'm not particularly pushed if Occam wanted his idea to be applied to God - hell, Einstein didn't believe that quantum theory could be correct at first because "god does not play dice" as he famously wrote to Schrodinger (who promptly replied "stop telling God what to do"). I can't help but think that all this complaining about how you can't examine the idea of god from a scientific perspective lends weight to my original point : that it is not possible to prove God's existence logically. Whether that is down to a limitation in the idea and definition of God, or a limitation in logic, can be argued. Of the two I would argue that logic has given us more tangible benefits.

How do you know it’s not possible to prove God's existence logically? Maybe not now but maybe one day it will be possible. When it comes to the question of God you can use logic to infer his existence or use logic to infer his non existence. The fact is like I said before the only factual and logical conclusion any person can make when it comes to the question of God is that we don’t know.

Fysh wrote:

As for science not having theories to explain the origin of life : evolutionary processes over geological timescales don't count as a theory now? I know it lacks the intent that you seem to crave in any explanation of the world, but that doesn't stop it being a possible explanation of life on this planet. As for the origins of the universe, well, no, there isn't yet a fully formulated theory. But then, as you've kept on pointing out, we don't have all the evidence yet. So you can't really hold that against science now, can you?

I don’t hold anything against science. I think science is a great thing and it’s benefited the world tremendously. My point is that we may never have all the evidence, and what are we supposed to do until we get all the evidence? Its not going to happen in either of our lifetimes so making an assumption upon what might be out there is a perfectly natural thing to do. There are more aspects to a person than their cognitive or reasoning ability. If you as a person explore these aspects of yourself then you might come up with your own theory of what its all about that might make perfect sense to you. You might not be able to apply the scientific method to it but so what ... If it works for you then people should respect that.

Playboy

Fysh wrote:

Well, I'm not sure why that part suggests a contradiction between what I was saying, when it contains:

"Also, it should be added that the principle is only a guide to the best theory based on current knowledge, not to the "truth""

which is what I have stated I was trying to find using logical reasoning. If anything, that suggests the same interpretation of Occam's Razor that I have already been using.

I think you are misinterpreting that statement:

current knowledge implies that it should be used as a guide when deciding between two theories such as two scientific theories.

[,not to the "truth"] implies that it should not be used when discussing the notion of truth. A discussion about God would be considered philosophically a discussion on truth therefore you should not use Occam's Razor.

You cannot use Occam's Razor when trying to decide between a philosophical point of view (philosophy being considered the search for truth) and a scientific point of view.

Fysh

And what is science, if not the search for an understanding of the universe we live in through the devising of models which accurately predict the behaviour of entities within that universe?

I think we're playing with definitions here. What is "truth" to you, that science can't have a say in it? Truth, to me, is a boolean aspect of one thing (whether it be a theory, an account of a series of events, or whatever) when compared to another thing from which we derive our standards. So, for example, one could say of a cube that it is not true if our source of truth is a pyramid. Likewise if I tell you a story about where I grew up, and you later find out out that my childhood is entirely different to the story I tell you, that story is not true when compared to the actual sequence of events comprising my childhood.

So, taking as our subject of study either the origin of life on this planet, or the origin and nature of the universe itself, and you have a source of truth against which you can compare scientific theories.

TBH I'm wary of people who start claiming that the truth is some great thing or sacred - the truth, as I've described it, serves a purpose, in that an accurate understanding of how the world works means that you can find a way of realising your wants, whatever they may be. Beyond that, things get a bit fuzzy for me.

So, what do you mean by "truth", and why does this definition indicate a defining boundary between philosophy and science?

Playboy

There are many types of truth of which science may be one:

Philosophers are interested in a constellation of issues involving the concept of truth. A preliminary issue, although somewhat subsidiary, is to decide what sorts of things can be true. Is truth a property of sentences (which are linguistic entities in some language or other), or is truth a property of propositions (nonlinguistic, abstract and timeless entities)? The principal issue is: What is truth? It is the problem of being clear about what you are saying when you say some claim or other is true. The most important theories of truth are the Correspondence Theory, the Semantic Theory, the Deflationary Theory, the Coherence Theory, and the Pragmatic Theory. They are explained and compared here. Whichever theory of truth is advanced to settle the principal issue, there are a number of additional issues to be addressed:
1. Can claims about the future be true now?
2. Can there be some algorithm for finding truth – some recipe or procedure for deciding, for any claim in the system of, say, arithmetic, whether the claim is true?
3. Can the predicate "is true" be completely defined in other terms so that it can be eliminated, without loss of meaning, from any context in which it occurs?
4. To what extent do theories of truth avoid paradox?
5. Is the goal of scientific research to achieve truth?

5. Except in special cases, most scientific researchers would agree that their results are only approximately true. Nevertheless, to make sense of this, philosophers need adopt no special concept such as "approximate truth." Instead, it suffices to say that the researchers' goal is to achieve truth, but they achieve this goal only approximately, or only to some approximation.

Other philosophers believe it's a mistake to say the researchers' goal is to achieve truth. These 'scientific anti-realists' recommend saying that research in, for example, physics, economics, and meteorology, aims only for usefulness. When they aren't overtly identifying truth with usefulness, the instrumentalists Peirce, James and Schlick take this anti-realist route, as does Kuhn. They would say atomic theory isn't true or false but rather is useful for predicting outcomes of experiments and for explaining current data. Giere recommends saying science aims for the best available 'representation', in the same sense that maps are representations of the landscape. Maps aren't true; rather, they fit to a better or worse degree. Similarly, scientific theories are designed to fit the world. Scientists should not aim to create true theories; they should aim to construct theories whose models are representations of the world.

Very good article on it can be found here

tabatha

simu wrote:

That's the second irrelavant post you've made in this thread - please keep to the thread topic in future. If you want to discuss some other topic, start a new thread.

just because i dont agree with you simu doesnt mean i cant have an opinion. might be irrelavant to you but not me. i have lost my son and my dad and i havent seen any proof of there being a god. i wanted to give my opinion and i did.