The most basic answer to any question

[Chaigidel]

I would like to discuss the topic of occams razor and existence/non-existence

or why is existence necessarily inferred in the cosmos--- just because we are here does it mean we were the most reasonable outcome or did some rare chance bring about our specific creation considering if any one of thousands of variables were off by minute fractions then everything we are as people and beings could be different.



remember the basics which is more likely and why--- i hope this makes sense ! :O

removed god from discussion-- discuss the likelihood of your own existence--- does this fit occams razor simply because it is happening--- or were you an unlikely outcome of an odd process?

[DarkKnight]

Well, Occams Razor isn't actually the "simplest" solution. Religious folk often interprete this as, "Which is more simple? A singularity which expanded all matter and energy that exists. Then star evolution created all of the stars and planets we see. Biological evolution created all of the life on Earth." Or, "God created everything."

The accurate translation of Occams Razor is "do not multiply terms beyond necessity." We have a given number of known terms. Those are our laws of physics. If you accept the notion that God created everything, you still must acknowledge that there are laws of physics. If something can be explained using only the terms that we know exist then it is more logical than explaining the same phenomenon by adding additional terms.

In the case mentioned above, according to Occams Razor, the first scenario is actually the "simplest". It adds no extraneous items while the second adds the unnecessary term, God.

[Chaigidel]

apply that question to existence and not just god--- does it work the same?

I mean our existence is a term multiplied beyond necessity.

or is it necessary factor simply because it occured?

[Curtana]

Are you talking about the anthropic principle? The universe's laws are just right for us to exist. That is why we are here talking about the probability of our existence. It does not matter whether it is a coincidence. If the universe's laws were any different we wouldn't be here discussing the issue. Perhaps in a million other universes with slightly different rules there would be no one present to discuss this. We just happen to be in this one. It is not necessary to infer a primary purpose or intent. Things are as they are and that is enough.

[Chaigidel]

no im not trying to prove anything im simply asking the question--- was our existence a necessary conclusion of the universe or was it an unlikely fluke, no purpose or intent-- simply asking

before we existed was our existing likely ?---or even absolute?

[mongoose]

Our existence was completely random, and I don't that the universe would notice or care if we stopped existing.

[Chaigidel]

oh I agree completely i just want contemplation of the fact that our existence was totally unlikely--- thus proving that occams razor cannot be brought into the god question if it cannot be brought into the question of our existence.

[mongoose]

I don't follow. How does our existince being random violate Ockham's Razor?

[Curtana]

oh I agree completely i just want contemplation of the fact that our existence was totally unlikely--- thus proving that occams razor cannot be brought into the god question if it cannot be brought into the question of our existence.

You could turn that around. We exist. Therefore our existence was not totally unlikely. That is the simplest explanation. We have insufficient information to determine the likelihood of our being here.

[DarkKnight]

oh I agree completely i just want contemplation of the fact that our existence was totally unlikely--- thus proving that occams razor cannot be brought into the god question if it cannot be brought into the question of our existence.

Occams Razor does not apply to terms we already know. We already know we exist, thus there is no need to apply Occams Razor. We can create the hypothetical situation of before we came into existance, still we cannot apply the Razor because we already know the solution.

Anyways, your entire premise is flawed. If you were to use Occams Razor to help you determine a specific, testable, outcome, and the opposite occured, it does nothing to your argument. Occams Razor proves nothing. It states the most logical conclusion from a set of conclusions.

Use an analogy of probability. Lets say there is a .00000001% chance of event A occuring and a 99.99999999% chance of event B occuring. Probability states overwhelmingly that event B will occur instead of event A, but not necessarily that event A will not occur. It's just that the probability of event A occuring is so miniscule that it would be foolish to put any money on it. A rational person would bet on event B.

Now lets say you place your bet on event B. However, event A occurs. Does that prove that you cannot apply probability to help determine your bet? Of course not. Probability does not say which will happen, it says which is most probable.

In the same way, Occams Razor does not say which is true. Occams Razor says which is the most logical. Another event may actually be true, but based on what you know, it isn't the most logical.

This is the problem with creating hypothetical situations where the outcome is already known, and that outcome goes against the prediction. You expect to say, "AH-HA! Gotcha! It was improbable for our existence to occur. But we exist. Therefore that means you can't say my God is illogical".

First of all, your argument mistakes probability with logic. Proving that something is unlikely is not a prerequisite of Occams Razor. Occams Razor is about eliminating unnecessary terms. Applying Occams Razor in that situation would be like applying the Razor right now, in order to determine if it is logical that a third arm will spawn out of my chest. It is irrelevent. That is a matter of probability, not logical parsimony.

Second of all, if I were to assume that you found a situation where Occams Razor dictated a false conclusion, that still does lead to your conclusion that we cannot apply Occams Razor to God. That would be like me looking in the news paper and finding the names of the mega-millions lottery winners. Then I say, "The fact of Joe Shmoe winning the lottery was totally unlikely-- Thus proving that probability cannot be brought into the question of whether I will win the next lottery".

Your argument assumes that there is only one solution which results in life. That is an assumption that we do not know. There could be significant number of solution which result in life. They may not produce the same result of life (ie: me and you and all other humans as we know them). But life may still be present.

Singling out life as we know it is like singling out Joe Shmoe in the lottery. There are plenty of winning lottery tickets, but only one will produce the specific result.

In conclusion, your argument is built upon faulty premises, incorrectly applies Occams Razor in an irrelevent situation, and even so does not arrive at the conclusion that you came to.

[Chaigidel]

well you could say that we were not the most likely thing that could have happened-- but you could say that since we exist we were the most likely---

but if you acknowledge that our existence which is now (since we exist) without doubt then you acknowledge that UNlikely things can be true and in fact violate the "simplest answer" or you open the razor to include all the facts you dont know and that basically includes everything again making the razor a useless tool.--- so to say we were random yes--- but was our existence the most likely random event? or were we just a rare chance---

if you accept that we were not the most likely result of the processes that went before then occams razor cannot be correct since it would have ruled our existence unlikely(though i admit the vapourous nature of this arguement since the razor doesnt necessary exclude simplely states what is most likely)

but on that point if you cannot continue to use the idea of occams razor as a direct way to disprove the existence of "god" because since we exist plainly the least likely of things can come to pass---even god.

and you can infer the likelihood of us existing as being very slim with the information we have.

[mongoose]

I think that you're misapplying Ockham's Razor. All it does is state that when describing something, you shouldn't add any details which aren't required or observed. Our existence is observed and does explain a great deal about the way that (for example) earth is, so therefore it doesn't contradict Ockham's Razor at all.

[Chaigidel]

ok then remove ockhams razor lets just go with probability forgive my misunderstanding


basically if you say that we were the most likely outcome of our universe and not a rare random chance then you are saying that things only occur if they are observable and likely---

if you say that we were an unlikely chance of our universe then you say that anything could happen everything being allowed for in probability even the most unlikely things

my confusion was thinking I could apply the razor to the conditions before we existed--- hypothetically speaking--- saying that humanity would have been an"uneccessary detail" according to the razor.

[Chaigidel]

actually I didnt assume anything other than the unlikely can happen--- I fully acknowledge there is a myriad ways for things to happen---

I understand your point and thanks for the clarifications, but I dont think this renders my arguement completely without relevance


because essentially I am saying that some things happen counter-intuitively against logic--- like many of our understood scientific observations about the meta and the micro--- laws change understanding changes your something can be illogical yet still exist-- even in creation since logic has no meaning for the processes of the universe

you see your using terms to disprove terms -- these terms only attempt to describe things but in the end they just do it to the best of ability--even though your words seem solid to you and your logic seems strong, and even your reasoning--- the world is not definable by your mind nor the cosmos

You cannot single out logic as a reason for why something cannot be-- since you have no power to determine what can or cannot be only the power to observe and create words to relate those observations.

[DarkKnight]

actually I didnt assume anything other than the unlikely can happen--- I fully acknowledge there is a myriad ways for things to happen---

I understand your point and thanks for the clarifications, but I dont think this renders my arguement completely without relevance


because essentially I am saying that some things happen counter-intuitively against logic--- like many of our understood scientific observations about the meta and the micro--- laws change understanding changes your something can be illogical yet still exist-- even in creation since logic has no meaning for the processes of the universe

you see your using terms to disprove terms -- these terms only attempt to describe things but in the end they just do it to the best of ability--even though your words seem solid to you and your logic seems strong, and even your reasoning--- the world is not definable by your mind nor the cosmos

You cannot single out logic as a reason for why something cannot be-- since you have no power to determine what can or cannot be only the power to observe and create words to relate those observations.

What I am interpreting from your post is this. We cannot conclude that God is not the most logical conclusion because the premise of our logic is only as certain as our ability to observe. Our observations can change. As we examine quantum physics we realize that our classic laws of physics do not necessarily always apply. Once our observations change, the logical conclusion changes. Therefore we cannot use logic, as the premises may change. Am I correct?

If so, then I still cannot come to the same conclusion as you. Let me give you another analogy. I am playing poker. I can count cards very well. There are six of us at the table, four have already folded. From what I know, I conclude that there is an 80% chance that my opponent is bluffing. The smartest move would then be to keep betting and call his bluff. However, there still a 20% chance that he has two spades in his hand to give him a straight flush.

Now that is based on what I know. However, my opponents who folded, none of them had a single spade in their hands. If I found out that information, then that would greatly increase the odds in my opponents favor. So while according to my knowledge I may have an 80% chance of having the better hand, if I knew my other opponents hands, I would realize that the odds are actually in favor of my opponent having the better hand.

However, I don't know that. Based on what I know, I am going to make the most educated action based on that. That is the most rational action.

The same applies to our argument. There may be more evidence out there that we don't know of yet, which will lead us to conclude that God probably created the universe. But until that evidence is presented, there is no reason to assume it exists. It is just as reasonable to assume that as it is to assume that we will find evidence proving God more unlikely.

So I conclude, that I will base my beliefs based on the observations I and humanity have made, to the best of our ability. From those observations I do not believe that a God exists because it is an unnecessary term. I understand that there is a possibility that God may exist. But based on the observations made to the best of my ability I see no reason to believe so.

[Chaigidel]

Oh I agree completely with that its undeniable--- and I respect your decision to operate on your observations(a good way to live actually)--- yes you did sum up what I was saying in your first paragraph quite correctly and I cannot deny what you followed with.--- I hope the discussion can continue despite my acknowledgements :o

[DarkKnight]

Oh I agree completely with that its undeniable--- and I respect your decision to operate on your observations(a good way to live actually)--- yes you did sum up what I was saying in your first paragraph quite correctly and I cannot deny what you followed with.--- I hope the discussion can continue despite my acknowledgements :o

This here is the difference between strong and weak atheism. I myself am a weak atheist. The best way to note the difference between the two is with the following statements.

A weak atheist would say:
"I have no belief in God".

A strong atheist would say:
"I do not believe in God".

The difference seems small, but it actually is quite large. Most strong atheists would not acknowlege the possibility of God's existence. I however acknowledge the fact that there is a possibility, but I percieve that possibility so small (near infinitely small) that I choose not to believe in such. I also recognize the fact that my percieved probability is based upon the observations made to the best of my ability. Others may see the probabilty higher, high enough that it merits belief in God. However, as I do not, I have no reason to believe in God, and therefore do not have belief in God.

I feel that we have come to an intellectual understanding between us and can respect our differences. As for the discussion, I am sure that there are plenty of strong atheists on this forum who will wish to carry the argument further to try to prove to you that God doesn't exist.

[Chaigidel]

well its not necessarily about proving or disproving to me--- its the process people go through when coming to conclusions that is fascinating and in these kinds of discussions about the god/no-god thing you find a persons mind at its most free- since we are all contemplating something amorphous to our minds and free floating--- a total uncertainty

many people would consider me an atheist since I dont think god cares about us and I dont think you retain awareness of yourself upon death-- but I do feel and know god exists , vast and unknowable a void falling in through the web of another void---

to the original point I am saying that if you believe you exist you acknowledge god could also exist--- the only way to be an atheist is to deny that anything exists. _discuss :O

[DarkKnight]

well its not necessarily about proving or disproving to me--- its the process people go through when coming to conclusions that is fascinating and in these kinds of discussions about the god/no-god thing you find a persons mind at its most free- since we are all contemplating something amorphous to our minds and free floating--- a total uncertainty

many people would consider me an atheist since I dont think god cares about us and I dont think you retain awareness of yourself upon death-- but I do feel and know god exists , vast and unknowable a void falling in through the web of another void---

to the original point I am saying that if you believe you exist you acknowledge god could also exist--- the only way to be an atheist is to deny that anything exists. _discuss :O

The flaw of the argument is in the final step. You state:
1. If you believe you exist you acknowlege God could exist. (Premise)
2. We exist. (Premise)
3. God exists (From 2 and falsely from 1)

The correct conclusion from your premise is as following:
1. If you believe you exist you acknowlege God could exist. (Premise)
2. We exist. (Premise)
3. God could exist (From 1 and 2)

Acknowledging an infitesimally small chance of Gods existence does not constitute belief. I acknowledge that if I buy a lottery ticket I could win. But I do not believe I will win the lottery.

[Amorphos]

chaigidel, hi

great post! and a good point made. it seams that our very existence is more conducive with occam’s beard than with the razor . it is still a very good tool though, perhaps we can say that in a universe that is so logical [in the main] and completely fits together like the ultimate jigsaw, it would take the most amazing mind to make such a thing. thus we could say that intelligent life is the most likely eventual evolution in a universe of such great complexity.

that doesn’t mean god necessarily, it just means that:
complexity = intelligence... eventually?

but i would go for an intelligent designer at least in terms of the laws by which the universe machine works. although if you begin with the simplest laws and natures of existence then as things unfold it can be said that it is all self creating. i just dont buy that view 'tis all.