theophilus

This is just an observation on Occam's Razor as often employed on this board.

First, William of Occan was a Chrsitian, so he could not have intended any dictum as a tool to deny God.

Second, there is apparently no evidence that Occam ever knew about his famous namesake.

Third, OR merely suggests (after all, it is not a law, is it) that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." Thus the famous Law of Parsimony.

This says nothing, however, about what constitutes necessity. The mere assertion of an idea does not automatically mean that that idea is adequate to explain a phenomenon. There must be some correlation between that idea and the phenomenon being explained.
Further, there must be knowledge that the theory is or, at least, could be true.

So, simply declaring that God is disqualified as the explanation of anything because there are simpler explanations begs both these questions.

First, merely positing evolution is meaningless unless it is known that evolution IS capable of explaining the phenomenon. This is clearly not true.

Second, and related, there is no way to evaluate if evolution is or could be true because it is untestable and unfalsifiable.

Third, it is not at all clear that evolution is a "simpler" explanation than God. Evolution is based on the confluance of an infinite number of potential events and constrained by time and space.

God, on the other hand is a "simple" being and is not constrained by time and space.

So, atheists should be careful to just whip out OC whenever they want an easy answer. They must first demonstrate that their alternative meets these tests.

Just_An_Atheist

"First, William of Occan was a Chrsitian, so he could not have intended any dictum as a tool to deny God."

So what? We're interested in how it could be used, period.

"Second, there is apparently no evidence that Occam ever knew about his famous namesake."

Again, so?

"The mere assertion of an idea does not automatically mean that that idea is adequate to explain a phenomenon."

The law is relevant only when all things are equal. If we have equal, or no evidence for two hypotheses then the simpler one tends to be correct.

"Third, it is not at all clear that evolution is a "simpler" explanation than God. Evolution is based on the confluance of an infinite number of potential events and constrained by time and space."

And God could have done it an infinite number of ways, so once again we are either stuck with just the universe or both God and the uviverse. Once again, naturalism wins.

"God, on the other hand is a "simple" being and is not constrained by time and space."

True, but your stuck with (so far) two things. Once again, I ask you: which is simpler, just a universe, or a universe plus God?

Just_An_Atheist

"Evolution is based on..."

When did he mention evolution!

Philosoft

Irrelevant. The worth of a philosophical tool is embedded in its usefulness, not the putative intentions of its creator.

Quote:

Second, and related, there is no way to evaluate if evolution is or could be true because it is untestable and unfalsifiable.

Falsifying evolution: show that organisms don't change over time; show that all offspring are perfect genetic mosaics of their parents. Falsifying neo-Darwinism: find a Homo erectus fossil in Cambrian strata.

Quote:

Third, it is not at all clear that evolution is a "simpler" explanation than God. Evolution is based on the confluance of an infinite number of potential events

You're conflating evolution and something else here. Evolution only precludes Creationism, not God.

What kind of objection is this?

Quote:

God, on the other hand is a "simple" being and is not constrained by time and space.

Man, you ought to be arrested for torturing logic and semantics. What does Occam have to do with time and space constraints?

Jobar

I'm going to take 3 official actions here.

1. Theophilus, you have hijacked this thread and dragged it off in a direction I'm sure CV did not mean it to go. It's a discussion about OR *and* multiple universes, and you just want to diss OR. Consider yourself whacked about the head and shoulders with a long-dead trout, theophilus.

2. I'm going to split this thread, and re-title all but the OP 'theophilus vs. Occam's Razor'. And I'm going to note that theo goes into this battle without even a rusty nail file, so my money's on William.

3. Comestible Venom, I've read that article, and a fascinating one it is, too. 4 possible levels of multiple universes- hell, my mind wasn't far enough out to conceive that even doing 'shrooms and acid simultaneously, back in the seventies. (Guess I should have added more drugs to the mix, hm?) But, it's not really a topic for EoG, so I'm moving it to S&S. Jobar.

Goober

Yeah, and the guy who discovered fission didn't intend for it to be used as a weapon, so that must mean all atom bombs are a fiction.

Or how about: The PoE was invented by Christian theologians, so they could not have intended it to be a tool to deny god. Therefore, any use of it to deny god is wrong, irrelevant of what to PoE atually says.

Why did you even bother to write this sentence? Can't you see how irrelevent it is?

JaeIsGod

*Gets the bandages*

Greater people then us have cut themselves with the Razor

bd-from-kg

theophilus:

What phenomenon are you referring to? Certainly the theory of evolution is capable of explaining the origin of species, but admittedly it�s incapable of explaining, say, radioactive decay.

If you knew even a little bit about science you�d know how ridiculous and ignorant this statement is. Creationism, on the other hand, really is untestable and unfalsifiable. Once you postulate an omnipotent, omniscience, unknowable being as the explanation of a phenomenon, anything goes. Absolutely nothing could falsify it.

The correct measure of the �simplicity� of a new theory is how much the existing framework has to be modified to accommodate it. Evolution postulates absolutely no new entities, no new physical laws, no mysterious coincidences. It fits very comfortably indeed into the pre-existing framework. If evolution isn�t �simpler� than God, no scientific theory is simpler than God. And if that means that the �God� hypothesis is to be preferred, we might as well abandon science altogether in favor of �Goddidit�. That�s a nice �simple� hypothesis that�s guaranteed to �explain� anything that might ever be discovered.

Besides, simplicity isn�t the only criterion for preferring one theory to another. Explanatory and predictive power is also very important, as is fruitfulness. The explanatory and predictive power of the �God hypothesis� is exactly zero, because it is consistent with absolutely any conceivable observations, past, present, or future. That means not only that any other hypothesis consistent with the facts is preferable, but that it isn�t a scientific hypothesis at all.

This is something that you consistently fail to understand. God-based hypotheses are consistently rejected (in fact ignored) by scientists, not because all scientists have some mysterious, unshakable �naturalistic bias�, but because such hypotheses lead nowhere. There�s no way to test them or make predictions based on them. They explain nothing. So they�re out of court immediately.

Finally, evolution has proven to be a very fruitful hypothesis. It has suggested theories based on its central ideas in other fields. It has been used to explain a great number of phenomena that formerly appeared to be totally inexplicable (such as �altruistic� behavior in many species). The �God hypothesis�, by contrast, again leads nowhere. �God did it? Oh, OK. That�s settled then.�

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

Oh, right. God is �simple�. An omniscient being, who knows the truth of even infinitely complicated propositions, is �simple�. A being who can effortlessly create an object so complicated that even unimaginably powerful creaturely intellects couldn�t understand it after studying it for quadrillions of years is �simple�. What sort of thing would you call �complex� if God is �simple�?

Yes, OR should be used with care. In most applications its correct application is so obvious that there�s no need to cite it and argue about what it �means�. Whenever it is necessary to do so one should be on guard: sophistry may be in the offing. On the other hand, your comments demonstrate an appalling lack of understanding of both Occam�s Razor and the nature of the scientific enterprise in general.

streamline

:notworthy
Biff! Blammy! Pow! Kaboom! And theophilus gets KO'd (again). Great post bd-from-kg. Your thoughts on what makes a good scientific theory, and the warning signs that there is an unscientific theory in one's midsts, sounds just like Schick and Vaughn's How to Think about Weird Things, which incidentally, I have been re-reading (again) lately, something I try to do regularly so I can keep the grey matter from atrophying.

EGGO

Theophilus, how many more blanks are you gonna shoot towards us?

You're already holding an empty clip.