Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sandro17]

Hello there, its my first post on the forum.

I have a thought process that I just want to see if it's solid.

Argument:

1. God is an infinite being and therefore has infinite complexity.

2. The simpler the explanation the more likely it is better than a complex one (Occams razor)

3. Nothing is more complex than what is infinitely complex. Therefore all other things are less complex.

4. To place God as an explanation as a reason for anything is to place an infinitely complex reason into an equation.

Conclusion: Any and all other explanations are more likely than introducing God as a reason.

If my logic is correct, then does this mean that Athiesm is the most logical view of the world as it does not introduce infinite complexity into existence and therefore any other explanation or belief is more logical, rational and preffered?

In other words (And I don't mean to insult anyone as I am a thiest myself) an infinitely complex being is the least logical of all unproven beings to exist when Lochness monster, Bigfoot and Ghosts via occams razor.

Side note: As a thiest, this idea has been bothering me for quite some time and I'd love it if someone would prove me wrong. However, I also understand that truth and logic are integral to life and I highly value rationality and logic.

[Papus79]

I remember watching Neil deGrasse Tyson give a lecture on how the history of scientific discovery, particularly through the late renaissance and early enlightenment, was filled with scientists who were able to figure one or two things out, see something more complex and stop there with 'God' as the answer, and cease to do their work. The examples may or may not have been cherry-picked as I'd get the impression that there were a lot of people thinking of God in terms of the discovery of it's actions being a holy endeavor who probably would have kept going.

I think the point he was making though, which attempting the simplest explanation works toward, is that by the time we take in more complexity that we need or posit the infinitely complex to what we're studying the scientific process is in trouble if we're comfortable taking that as the answer of why someone is seeing a particular effect in the lab, in nature, etc.. OTOH I don't think this viewpoint can speak at all to whether there's a higher mind that either orchestrates the universe or is or in part is the universe, what it does mean is that appealing to that mind to understand causes is detrimental to the progress of science, humanity's understanding of itself, and at a minimum the scientific process cannot get along well with deposits and dogmas revolving around revealed books and likely will for some time at least look askance at people who take their deism, pantheism, or panentheism particularly seriously. Any or all of these could be true to varying degrees but they get in the way of what's being attempted which is the self-sufficiency of human knowledge.

I'd make a side proposal though - huge mistakes have been made in assuming that science could supplement or replace culture or, worse still, certain people assuming that culture was somehow irrelevant. We've taken a huge step forward in technology and we've got a long ways to go before our psychology and sociology catches up to that - the early 20th century seemed to show the worst of that and we have to hope that we can problem solve with psychology, sociology, even spirituality and religion in the right ways, to keep ourselves up with how difficult it will be for governments to hold prohibitions on us either for our own good or otherwise. The leverage one considerably unhappy and misanthropic person could have and the degree of damage they could do will likely continue to escalate which is very concerning to our future well being.

[Dark Matter]

Ever hear if "divine simplicity"?

[Ozymandias]

Hello there, its my first post on the forum.

I have a thought process that I just want to see if it's solid.

Argument:

1. God is an infinite being and therefore has infinite complexity.

2. The simpler the explanation the more likely it is better than a complex one (Occams razor)

3. Nothing is more complex than what is infinitely complex. Therefore all other things are less complex.

4. To place God as an explanation as a reason for anything is to place an infinitely complex reason into an equation.

Conclusion: Any and all other explanations are more likely than introducing God as a reason.

If my logic is correct, then does this mean that Athiesm is the most logical view of the world as it does not introduce infinite complexity into existence and therefore any other explanation or belief is more logical, rational and preffered?

In other words (And I don't mean to insult anyone as I am a thiest myself) an infinitely complex being is the least logical of all unproven beings to exist when Lochness monster, Bigfoot and Ghosts via occams razor.

Side note: As a thiest, this idea has been bothering me for quite some time and I'd love it if someone would prove me wrong. However, I also understand that truth and logic are integral to life and I highly value rationality and logic.

Don't worry about offending people by stating objective truths. If your goal is to encourage knowledge and fair discussion, and someone is offended by you, it was their choice and not yours
As a theist as well, I take no offense to arguments seeking to clarify the bridge between atheism and theism.

I can't really address your question, as I don't understand where you are deriving "infinitely complex". One might say the universe is infinitely complex, and that is more or less demonstrable. So if you apply Occam's razor that way, then the universe is not real. But it is, so could you clarify what you mean be "infinitely complex"?

[Sandro17]

Ever hear if "divine simplicity"?

The idea that certain characteristics are identical to God's being although not necessarily qualities that make up that being? Thats the definition I know...I'm not sure what that has to do with this argument though

It could also be that you're using that term in a way that it wasn't meant to be used? "The divine is simple"?. I'm not sure if that works here. I'm pretty sure that God isn't a simple being.

Don't worry about offending people by stating objective truths. If your goal is to encourage knowledge and fair discussion, and someone is offended by you, it was their choice and not yours
As a theist as well, I take no offense to arguments seeking to clarify the bridge between atheism and theism.

I can't really address your question, as I don't understand where you are deriving "infinitely complex". One might say the universe is infinitely complex, and that is more or less demonstrable. So if you apply Occam's razor that way, then the universe is not real. But it is, so could you clarify what you mean be "infinitely complex"?

I guess it is hard to define infinitely complex. Complexity afterall might even be only based on opinion. I only derived that God is infinitely complex as he is an infinite being and infinite beings should by their nature be infinitely complex (At least thats the conclusion I've come up with). Perhaps infinitely complex was the wrong term as it probably only has descriptions and not definitions. Lets use the idea of "An infinite being" and plug in the logic from there would you then be able to address the question then?

You make a great point there about the universe though. The universe can be demonstrated to be infinte, that is true. But I'm not thinking in terms of whether the universe is real or not, I'm thinking in terms of what the probabilities of nature are. To clarify, lets look at a scenario:

Say the year is 1000BC and we were trying to figure out the nature of existence. We know that the universe is either infinite or not infinite. Looking at the evidence we had at the time, by applying occams' razor, we would come to the conclusion that the univers is more likely to be finite than not infinite. Of course here we are 3000 years later understanding that our conclusion was wrong. My point is that I'm thinking in terms of odds and probabilities.

What I'm stating is that given the data we have so far about the nature of the universe, the probabilities of an infinite being existing (Like God) are the least probable of all conclusions.

-- Updated February 22nd, 2017, 9:23 pm to add the following --

I remember watching Neil deGrasse Tyson give a lecture on how the history of scientific discovery, particularly through the late renaissance and early enlightenment, was filled with scientists who were able to figure one or two things out, see something more complex and stop there with 'God' as the answer, and cease to do their work. The examples may or may not have been cherry-picked as I'd get the impression that there were a lot of people thinking of God in terms of the discovery of it's actions being a holy endeavor who probably would have kept going.

I think the point he was making though, which attempting the simplest explanation works toward, is that by the time we take in more complexity that we need or posit the infinitely complex to what we're studying the scientific process is in trouble if we're comfortable taking that as the answer of why someone is seeing a particular effect in the lab, in nature, etc.. OTOH I don't think this viewpoint can speak at all to whether there's a higher mind that either orchestrates the universe or is or in part is the universe, what it does mean is that appealing to that mind to understand causes is detrimental to the progress of science, humanity's understanding of itself, and at a minimum the scientific process cannot get along well with deposits and dogmas revolving around revealed books and likely will for some time at least look askance at people who take their deism, pantheism, or panentheism particularly seriously. Any or all of these could be true to varying degrees but they get in the way of what's being attempted which is the self-sufficiency of human knowledge.

I'd make a side proposal though - huge mistakes have been made in assuming that science could supplement or replace culture or, worse still, certain people assuming that culture was somehow irrelevant. We've taken a huge step forward in technology and we've got a long ways to go before our psychology and sociology catches up to that - the early 20th century seemed to show the worst of that and we have to hope that we can problem solve with psychology, sociology, even spirituality and religion in the right ways, to keep ourselves up with how difficult it will be for governments to hold prohibitions on us either for our own good or otherwise. The leverage one considerably unhappy and misanthropic person could have and the degree of damage they could do will likely continue to escalate which is very concerning to our future well being.

I'll admit that stating God is the answer to mysteries of the universe can be considered lazy thinking and can hinder science. I also do believe that an absolute reliance on using nothing but science or extreme cognitive rationality as a substitute for culture is extremely dangerous and from my understanding, not ideal.

However, the question becomes from an objective stand point, why place God into any equation or model of the universe/existence if it only makes the model more complex and that the model may not necessarily require God's existence? A simpler model for the universe can be used.

Not only that, but if simpler is better, then wouldn't any other explanation for the nature of the universe be preferred to an extremely complex being? I would believe that the creation of this universe via two strings colliding is a much simpler explanation than an infinite being making it.

Sidenote: I will say however that good model for what an amazing culture and a happy, moral human race though does require the belief in God (In my opinion).

[Papus79]

The better term perhaps might be maximally complex?

I'm not sure if its all that much better as opposed to infinite but it might right-size what we're looking at a little more, ie. the whole of things that we can participate in or be affected by vs. the absolute whole.

-- Updated February 22nd, 2017, 11:58 pm to add the following --

However, the question becomes from an objective stand point, why place God into any equation or model of the universe/existence if it only makes the model more complex and that the model may not necessarily require God's existence? A simpler model for the universe can be used.

Not only that, but if simpler is better, then wouldn't any other explanation for the nature of the universe be preferred to an extremely complex being? I would believe that the creation of this universe via two strings colliding is a much simpler explanation than an infinite being making it.

I think I'd have to separate out the need for creationism to be true from the desire or even need for prayer, reconciliation, and communion. With the two bound together the fate of the first determines the fate of the second, that's only a problem because they may really have little or nothing to do with each other.

-- Updated February 23rd, 2017, 12:01 am to add the following --

Oops, somehow I edited my last post instead of posting a new one. Still getting used to this site!

I think I made the suggestion of replacing infinitely complex with maximally complex, not that it's world's better but it might be less distracting.

[Ozymandias]

Ever hear if "divine simplicity"?

The idea that certain characteristics are identical to God's being although not necessarily qualities that make up that being? Thats the definition I know...I'm not sure what that has to do with this argument though

It could also be that you're using that term in a way that it wasn't meant to be used? "The divine is simple"?. I'm not sure if that works here. I'm pretty sure that God isn't a simple being.

Don't worry about offending people by stating objective truths. If your goal is to encourage knowledge and fair discussion, and someone is offended by you, it was their choice and not yours
As a theist as well, I take no offense to arguments seeking to clarify the bridge between atheism and theism.

I can't really address your question, as I don't understand where you are deriving "infinitely complex". One might say the universe is infinitely complex, and that is more or less demonstrable. So if you apply Occam's razor that way, then the universe is not real. But it is, so could you clarify what you mean be "infinitely complex"?

I guess it is hard to define infinitely complex. Complexity afterall might even be only based on opinion. I only derived that God is infinitely complex as he is an infinite being and infinite beings should by their nature be infinitely complex (At least thats the conclusion I've come up with). Perhaps infinitely complex was the wrong term as it probably only has descriptions and not definitions. Lets use the idea of "An infinite being" and plug in the logic from there would you then be able to address the question then?

You make a great point there about the universe though. The universe can be demonstrated to be infinte, that is true. But I'm not thinking in terms of whether the universe is real or not, I'm thinking in terms of what the probabilities of nature are. To clarify, lets look at a scenario:

Say the year is 1000BC and we were trying to figure out the nature of existence. We know that the universe is either infinite or not infinite. Looking at the evidence we had at the time, by applying occams' razor, we would come to the conclusion that the univers is more likely to be finite than not infinite. Of course here we are 3000 years later understanding that our conclusion was wrong. My point is that I'm thinking in terms of odds and probabilities.

What I'm stating is that given the data we have so far about the nature of the universe, the probabilities of an infinite being existing (Like God) are the least probable of all conclusions.

Seems to me like you've proven my point- if Occam's razor was incorrect about one matter of infinite being (the universe), why shouldn't it be wrong about the next (infinite god)? If anything, the simplest answer is that the universe's laws don't change from thing to thing and so it makes more sense for a god to be infinite. But this is pretty far- reaching conjecture. Occam's razor is for deciding how to approach a matter, it shouldn't be cited as proof of anything. It's Occam's razor, not Occam's axiom.

Also- concerning the Neil DeGrasse Tyson lecture, he explains that idea more fully in his essay "The Perimeter of Ignorance" (I actually just read it a few weeks ago so was excited to see it mentioned here!). He makes a very good observation that historically, people have used "God in the gaps" philosophy a lot, which is a scientific fallacy of sorts. But I don't think it's inherently wrong to assume their is a creator from the things we can't understand, it's not not scientifically rigorous or thorough. But science isn't everything.

[Sandro17]

Seems to me like you've proven my point- if Occam's razor was incorrect about one matter of infinite being (the universe), why shouldn't it be wrong about the next (infinite god)? If anything, the simplest answer is that the universe's laws don't change from thing to thing and so it makes more sense for a god to be infinite. But this is pretty far- reaching conjecture. Occam's razor is for deciding how to approach a matter, it shouldn't be cited as proof of anything. It's Occam's razor, not Occam's axiom.

While in the scenario we played out, obviously occam's razor was wrong, the question is, shouldn't we approach the problem using Occam's razor? Again, it's a question of maximising probabilities of attaining a proper conclusion, we may never have 100% proof that a God exists. However, we can use odds.

Also- concerning the Neil DeGrasse Tyson lecture, he explains that idea more fully in his essay "The Perimeter of Ignorance" (I actually just read it a few weeks ago so was excited to see it mentioned here!). He makes a very good observation that historically, people have used "God in the gaps" philosophy a lot, which is a scientific fallacy of sorts. But I don't think it's inherently wrong to assume their is a creator from the things we can't understand,it's not not scientifically rigorous or thorough. But science isn't everything.

That's an interesting idea, can you please explain more fully? It always appears as though intelligent design arguments or creationist arguments fall to the wayside.

[Aristocles]

Hello there, its my first post on the forum.

I have a thought process that I just want to see if it's solid.

Argument:

1. God is an infinite being and therefore has infinite complexity.

2. The simpler the explanation the more likely it is better than a complex one (Occams razor)

3. Nothing is more complex than what is infinitely complex. Therefore all other things are less complex.

4. To place God as an explanation as a reason for anything is to place an infinitely complex reason into an equation.

Conclusion: Any and all other explanations are more likely than introducing God as a reason.

If my logic is correct, then does this mean that Athiesm is the most logical view of the world as it does not introduce infinite complexity into existence and therefore any other explanation or belief is more logical, rational and preffered?

In other words (And I don't mean to insult anyone as I am a thiest myself) an infinitely complex being is the least logical of all unproven beings to exist when Lochness monster, Bigfoot and Ghosts via occams razor.

Side note: As a thiest, this idea has been bothering me for quite some time and I'd love it if someone would prove me wrong. However, I also understand that truth and logic are integral to life and I highly value rationality and logic.

I have deeper questions into the soundness of the 1-4 claims.... However, I think a closer conclusion from the idea of the claims is: All other explanations are more likely for humans to comprehend than god as a cause.

[Iapetus]

Reply to Sandro17:

Argument:

1. God is an infinite being and therefore has infinite complexity.

2. The simpler the explanation the more likely it is better than a complex one (Occams razor)

3. Nothing is more complex than what is infinitely complex. Therefore all other things are less complex.

4. To place God as an explanation as a reason for anything is to place an infinitely complex reason into an equation.

Conclusion: Any and all other explanations are more likely than introducing God as a reason.

Your argument is interesting but I think I think it may suffer from its semantics. Any similar argument is only as strong as the premises on which it is constructed.

1. Your suggestion that God even exists is not verifiable. Yet you have infered – on the basis of what? – that he, she or it is infinite and is therefore infinitely complex. Because some people have said so? What, in any case, does ‘infinitely complex’ mean? Complexities often involve contradictions. Does it follow that God must be infinitely contradictory? What if, instead, we assert that the universe is infinite and therefore infinitely complex? Is there a logical difference? And if it is an assertion which is not supported by convincing evidence, how is that acceptable as a workable premise in an argument?

2. Ozymandias has pointed out that, “Occam's razor is for deciding how to approach a matter, it shouldn't be cited as proof of anything. It's Occam's razor, not Occam's axiom”.

3. “Nothing is more complex than what is infinitely complex. Therefore all other things are less complex”. Saying that some things are more complex and some things are less complex follows from a definition of ‘complex’. Saying that something is infinitely complex is altogether different. I don’t know how you could demonstrate that such a concept is even possible, so I don’t see how it can fit into a line of logical argument.

4. “To place God as an explanation as a reason for anything is to place an infinitely complex reason into an equation”. As far as I can see, this simply confuses the line of argument. God has already been asserted but not verified or justified. Now there is an assumption that the God which has not been justified is an "explanation as a reason for anything". The ‘anything’ is not defined and the ‘infinitely’ has not been demonstrated.

If my logic is correct …

I don’t think that it follows.

“ …then does this mean that Athiesm is the most logical view of the world… ?

Certainly not, because atheism is not a view of the world. It is a non-belief. It is a rejection of claims to God and/or theism. That is all. I cannot think of any specific claims to belief which are required by the definition of atheism. Can you?

… as it does not introduce infinite complexity into existence and therefore any other explanation or belief is more logical, rational and preffered?

That could apply to any belief which does not “introduce infinite complexity into existence”.

In other words (And I don't mean to insult anyone as I am a thiest myself) an infinitely complex being is the least logical of all unproven beings to exist when Lochness monster, Bigfoot and Ghosts via occams razor.

I am not sure how relevant Occam’s Razor in this respect. It is frequently extremely difficult – at the very least – to prove the non-existence of something. With regard to the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot or ghosts there are, at least, some physical characteristics which could be sought for possible verification. If they exist, then they would manifest themselves in the physical world. If any definition of God – and there are, of course, endless possibilities for variation – includes the characteristic that he, she or it is beyond physical examination then, by definition, no physical examination is possible. That sets God apart if we have any pretention to logical argument.

-- Updated 23 Feb 2017, 15:29 to add the following --

Sorry, Sandro; welcome to the Forum.

[Ozymandias]

Iapetus pretty much covered everything I wanted to say, so I'll piggyback on that post. Also I apologize for the numerous typos in my last post (oops!).

Sandro, if you or anyone else wants to go deeper into Tysons essay, read it here http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/ ... -ignorance and we can start a new thread for it, it's not necessarily relevant here anymore (at least not regarding my response to it)

[Sandro17]

Thanks a lot guys

I'll look at Tyson's essay

[Dark Matter]

Ever hear if "divine simplicity"?

The idea that certain characteristics are identical to God's being although not necessarily qualities that make up that being? Thats the definition I know...I'm not sure what that has to do with this argument though

It could also be that you're using that term in a way that it wasn't meant to be used? "The divine is simple"?. I'm not sure if that works here. I'm pretty sure that God isn't a simple being.

Of course the doctrine of divine simplicity doesn't work here because if true, then the first premise in the OP is false.

[-1-]

Sandro: Occam's razor is not a law. Not a truism. Not a statistical truth. It is a hypothesis, and a false one at that.

That said, theism supports an Occam's razor explanation technique better than the scientific approach. "Why is the sky blue?" Religious answer: "Because God wills it that way." "Why do people fall down and not up when they trip?" "Because God wills it that way." "Why does the Sun shine during the day, and the moons shine during the night if it's not cloudy?" Because god wills it that way."

This is the ultimate Occam's razor of explanative philosophy: Because god wills it this way. No more argument, completely satisfying answer.

The stupid scientists, they start with a chronomatoscopic analysis of colours, then proceed to visual perception and its neurobiological explanation, finally admitting that perception is not explicable scientifically or any other way. THIS is complicated, and going against the Occam's Razor hypothesis.

[Sandro17]

Of course the doctrine of divine simplicity doesn't work here because if true, then the first premise in the OP is false.

No good sir, I simply really am not sure how it fits into a counter argument. Unless you're trying to say what -1- is saying

Sandro: Occam's razor is not a law. Not a truism. Not a statistical truth. It is a hypothesis, and a false one at that.

That said, theism supports an Occam's razor explanation technique better than the scientific approach. "Why is the sky blue?" Religious answer: "Because God wills it that way." "Why do people fall down and not up when they trip?" "Because God wills it that way." "Why does the Sun shine during the day, and the moons shine during the night if it's not cloudy?" Because god wills it that way."

This is the ultimate Occam's razor of explanative philosophy: Because god wills it this way. No more argument, completely satisfying answer.

The stupid scientists, they start with a chronomatoscopic analysis of colours, then proceed to visual perception and its neurobiological explanation, finally admitting that perception is not explicable scientifically or any other way. THIS is complicated, and going against the Occam's Razor hypothesis.

That was actually pretty insightful, I didn't think of it that way. Thanks