quote:Originally posted by Euripides: camus, what are these explanations which are more complex than an all-powerful god creating the universe?
Note that I said something. It doesn't need to be a specific god of a specific religion, and it doesn't need to be all-powerful. Although, I realize that ruins much of your argument.
I'm not sure how the idea of something spontaneously appearing out of nothing and then organizing itself into elements that also previously did not exist is somehow to be considered a "simple" explanation. You would then need to explain how something could arise from absolutely nothing, which we don't really have a precedent for. Whereas the idea of something creating something else is pretty well documented.
If a dirty shirt and a pile of wheat were to actually form a live mouse, then you would have to explain how that is even possible in the first place. So while the initial premise may sound simple at first, it really isn't that simple because it requires you to accept a completely new concept whereas the idea that the mouse came from another mouse which came from another mouse, etc., and was then attracted to the shirt and wheat is actually a simpler explanation although it involves new elements that are outside of the initial observation.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As to Matthew 5:18, I am no biblical scholar, all I've got is what my faith enlightens me towards, and that is that we should love God, and love our neighbors as we love God.
So (and I'm not ridiculing anybody here...Tresopax!) if "all you've got" is that God is to be loved, and your neighbors are to be loved as you love God, then there's nothing in your belief system about the creation of the universe, evolution vs. creationism, etc. and so forth. Is that correct?
After all, you most specifically state that your belief...
quote:adheres to the Bible, and believes it is God's word insofar as it has been accurately translated
So your belief system is based on the KJV (or the New Word, or whatever) until it is sufficiently challenged, at which point, you refer to the ancient pre-translated biblical texts. It also seems from what you wrote (in other words--I assume) that you have not personally read those pre-translated ancient texts, and that is why your belief in God boils down to those two previously mentioned precepts.
So you'll argue for what you believe, until you're challenged, and then you don't know what you believe except for those two things. (A derivative of the "How can we ever really know anything?" defense)
Treso,
I wasn't ridiculing anyone, I was injecting a touch of levity. I was not calling BB "simple." Thicken your skin up, dude.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You're still putting in an additional set of quite un-necessary entities; the evolved god still had to come from somewhere, so at some point you get back to the uncreated universe. Since that's exactly what you started with, why bother with the intermediate steps of gods?
Not at all. You are operating under the assumption that at one instant there was nothing and in another something. I just do not see how that could ever be possible.
Your total lack of imagination does not an argument make. In any case, why bother with the gods? You can just as easily have an infinite series of universes with no creators.
quote:I'm not sure how the idea of something spontaneously appearing out of nothing and then organizing itself into elements that also previously did not exist is somehow to be considered a "simple" explanation. You would then need to explain how something could arise from absolutely nothing, which we don't really have a precedent for.
(Sings) And where did this go-od come from?
Could you please pay attention? By putting in a god you have not solved this problem. You have moved it to a different place. That's why it's simpler not to assume a god; not because the explanation is simple in and of itself, but because it doesn't add any unnecessary complexity.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Could you please pay attention? By putting in a god you have not solved this problem. You have moved it to a different place. That's why it's simpler not to assume a god; not because the explanation is simple in and of itself, but because it doesn't add any unnecessary complexity.
Errr...no, they're not.
This comes up every time Tom and you and others do this, but you just keep ignoring it. The supernatural force that answers the "Where did the universe come from?" question is not necessarily bounded by space, time, or causality. As such, it doesn't have to come from anywhere. This is only a problem, an enormous, potentially paradigm destroying problem, for an explanation where everything is bound by these things, such as the materialist one that you are working from.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not all mosaic law conflicts with those commandments. Do you observe the ones that don't?
The reason the answer to this question is "no" has been answered many times, at length here. I'm always amused when people point this out as if no one noticed it for 2,000 years.
It was the subject of the very first ecumenical council and is described in detail in the Bible.
There was never a time when all people were commanded to obey Mosaic law. Your whole argument along this line is based on an inaccurate assumption.
quote:Are those commandments the essence of Christianity to you (only asking about your own views here)? If so, isn't your belief system is a highly selective and convenient mutation of Christian doctrine?
Not when Christ himself told us that on those two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The supernatural force that answers the "Where did the universe come from?" question is not necessarily bounded by space, time, or causality. As such, it doesn't have to come from anywhere.
I'm sorry, but this is meaningless noise, and also a composition fallacy. All the individual parts of the Universe are bound by time and causality, but the universe as a whole is not necessarily so bound. If your god doesn't have to come from somewhere, then neither does the universe. Exactly the same rules apply in either case.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I keep telling you that God = existence. Neither one has a beginning -- by definition. The only difference between theists and atheists is that they think existence operates without intent, like a machine, and we think It operates by intent. And has communicated with people.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:All the individual parts of the Universe are bound by time and causality, but the universe as a whole is not necessarily so bound.
Explain how. What does that even mean?
There has to be something to start a causal chain. Since the universe operates in a causal chain and it is sequential in both time and causality, it must, logically, have a starting point to these chains. This starting point cannot itself be caused or else the cause of that would be the starting point. I don't see how that works in a materialistic view. But perhaps you can explain.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard many people here, over the years, say that, "It's impossible to argue with faith." I believe this is false. Faith gets shattered all the time, by all sorts of things, even occasionally by logic and argumentation.
I think it more likely that it's impossible to argue with love. That damned chemical reaction in our brains that people have been going on about for years now. That's the thing that makes this whole mess so tricky.
If a God is based on fear and not love, it's pretty easy to shatter the faith of its followers. "Oh, you think your God will smite you down with lightning if you look into this box? Well, surprise! *opens the box!* ... Well, what do you know? We're not dead. Not so terrible now is he? His promise of punishment and failure to deliver pretty clearly show he's not real."
But a God based on love is so tricky, because you can't argue with love. If a person feels love toward there delusion of God (whatever delusion that may be) getting them to change their belief based on evidence and argument becomes extremely challenging, if not impossible. Because nothing you can say will stop them from feeling love toward something that's not even real.
Loving something that's not real is pretty easy, too. For example, it can never do you harm, because you love it and it loves you, and all those bad things in life can be blamed on something else, perhaps chaos or free will or Satan. Your imaginary love won't complain, it won't correct you, it's not even really there. And you can blame all of the good things in life on this imaginary thing you love, and it will never correct you. If more good things happen, just assume that's the imaginary thing thanking you! If bad things happen, your imaginary love didn't do it, or if they did do it, they surely had your best interest at heart, because they love you and you love them!
And no one can prove otherwise, because your delusion transcends science.
Love is like that. It transcends science and reason all of the time, in everyday situations. You don't have to love something fake to laugh in the face of scientific evidence, you just have to experience a little chemical reaction in your brain called 'love,' and science will fly right out the window.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, Dagonee. You stated that better than I would have. Euripedes, please consider his response to represent my opinion on your question, an irony indeed given our different sects
----------
quote:So (and I'm not ridiculing anybody here...Tresopax!) if "all you've got" is that God is to be loved, and your neighbors are to be loved as you love God, then there's nothing in your belief system about the creation of the universe, evolution vs. creationism, etc. and so forth. Is that correct?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'my belief system', but I do not believe the Bible has a specific, definitive answer to the question of what mechanisms the universe, and life on Earth, were created.
quote:So your belief system is based on the KJV (or the New Word, or whatever) until it is sufficiently challenged, at which point, you refer to the ancient pre-translated biblical texts. It also seems from what you wrote (in other words--I assume) that you have not personally read those pre-translated ancient texts, and that is why your belief in God boils down to those two previously mentioned precepts.
So you'll argue for what you believe, until you're challenged, and then you don't know what you believe except for those two things. (A derivative of the "How can we ever really know anything?" defense)
Obviously I have not read the pre-translated ancient texts. It becomes difficult to take your claims of no mockery seriously when you make a statement like that. And you're wrong about my belief system re: the KJV of the Bible.
Your claim becomes especially difficult to accept as sincere regarding the second paragraph I quoted. I argue for what I believe, so long as I continue to believe it. Sometimes I also argue for things I feel are not getting a fair shake. I don't appreciate the implications you're making-without mockery, right-so please stop making them, and ask me a question or make a statement plainly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:All the individual parts of the Universe are bound by time and causality, but the universe as a whole is not necessarily so bound.
Explain how. What does that even mean?
Like hell! You're the one who introduced entities which are "not bound by causality"; you can explain what it means. I called it "meaningless noise", and am therefore entitled not to explain it at all.
quote:There has to be something to start a causal chain. Since the universe operates in a causal chain and it is sequential in both time and causality, it must, logically, have a starting point to these chains. This starting point cannot itself be caused or else the cause of that would be the starting point. I don't see how that works in a materialistic view. But perhaps you can explain.
Each individual element of the universe is in a causal chain. The whole universe is not in a causal chain, since by definition it includes everything that exists; there is nothing 'outside' to affect it. That's what I meant by the fallacy of composition; in effect you are saying that because humans are composed of cells, humans are cells.
All our laws of causality and whatnot are derived from observing what happens inside the universe. You cannot extrapolate from that to apply the laws to the whole universe.
Finally, you should note that theists do not merely postulate a prime mover "outside of time", they give that prime mover intentions and highly anthropomorphic qualities. Now, that is un-necessary.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
You're right, I was unnecessarily snarky towards you. I apologize.
However, I believe that the original intent of this thread was to explore the atheist's view of evolution (creationism) and the birth of the universe (creation) juxtaposed against the religious viewpoint (primarily, but not, I would assume, restricted to Christianity).
As far as that goes, it only benefits us (the readers and writers of this thread) to put forth our beliefs insofar as they address those issues.
If you believe (or if anyone believes) that the Bible (whichever "current" variant) does not have answers to those issues, then that is point scored for Dawkins. Which was, I believe, the original intent of this topic.
If person "A" states that: "Dawkins says that the universe was able to be created without the intercession of a supernatural being, and he further states that life--and eventually humankind--developed from primitive molecules, also without divine intercession"
And if person "B" responds by saying: "I believe that God is love, and that we should love God and love our neighbors as we love God. But as far as the other stuff--I don't trust any current Biblical translations, and I haven't read any of the original texts" then he has failed to respond to the original question. What he says may or may not be true (there are always other threads for that pursuit), but it has nothing to do with the topic.
(My being snarky in earlier posts similarly has nothing to do with the topic...)
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also recognize that the Mormon system of beliefs accepts a universe without beginning, and a series of local gods shepherding their local systems. it does not (AFAIK) seek out any "Prime Mover."
(I am ready to be corrected on that, should I have gotten it wrong...)
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [QUOTE]Originally posted by MrSquicky: [qb] Finally, you should note that theists do not merely postulate a prime mover "outside of time", they give that prime mover intentions and highly anthropomorphic qualities. Now, that is un-necessary.
I have to agree with KOM here. Sure, if we accept Lisa's statement that God==Existence, then we can all pretty much agree that there is a god. Heck, I imagine that KOM could even agree to this as long as that was the entirety of the definition.
Of course, this isn't the definition of God. Pretty much all religions claim a significant number of other attributes to God, and proving this "god" would seem quite unlikely to do much to back the beliefs of Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, etc.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: the atheist's view of evolution (creationism) and the birth of the universe (creation)
You are distinguishing between "creation" and "creationism" in a way I have not seen before. Could you explain? Generally I have seen them used such that belief in "creation" means any belief that God created the universe, (which may or may not be compatible with current scientific understandings of evolution, etc.), and "creationism" as a specific set of beliefs that are incompatable with current scientific understandings of evolution, etc.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure how the idea of something spontaneously appearing out of nothing and then organizing itself into elements that also previously did not exist is somehow to be considered a "simple" explanation. You would then need to explain how something could arise from absolutely nothing, which we don't really have a precedent for. Whereas the idea of something creating something else is pretty well documented.
We do not have a single precedent for a supernatural entity; especially one so complex and powerful that it could create the universe. Also, by positing the existence of a creator, you are just pushing the question farther away. This has been explained by KoM.
'Outside time' and 'always existed' are not answers (which you haven't tried to use yourself; just pre-empting possible responses here); we most certainly don't have precedents for those, and if such an explanation is to be adequate for a god more complex than this universe, it should be sufficient for the universe itself. The god hypothesis there is unnecessary.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
This comes up every time Tom and you and others do this, but you just keep ignoring it. The supernatural force that answers the "Where did the universe come from?" question is not necessarily bounded by space, time, or causality. As such, it doesn't have to come from anywhere.
What KoM said.
If the answer to the question is not bounded by space, time, or causality (a massive assumption you've made based on nothing but our failure to understand what might lie 'outside the universe,' whatever that means), there is no need to posit a creator. No rational explanation is necessary, right?
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Not all mosaic law conflicts with those commandments. Do you observe the ones that don't?
The reason the answer to this question is "no" has been answered many times, at length here. I'm always amused when people point this out as if no one noticed it for 2,000 years.
It was the subject of the very first ecumenical council and is described in detail in the Bible.
Actually, ecumenical councils have not yet been brought up in this thread at all. Maybe by "here" you meant Hatrack.
Do you recognize the authority of an ecumenical council to alter or append clauses to the word of god? Which human institutions have this authority? It would be helpful if in arguing this point, theists who disagree stated which councils and figures of authority, if any, represent their beliefs.
The question was also asked of Rakeesh. It is curious that he would consider your argument applicable to his position, because the Church of LDS does not recognize the validity of any of the seven ecumenical councils. In fact, Mormons use the council as evidence of apostasy; of the fact that much of Christendom has fallen.
quote:There was never a time when all people were commanded to obey Mosaic law.
It was applicable to the early Christians when Moses handed them down, and according to Jesus' statements in the verse in Matthew I've quoted above, still applies. Again, this depends on what parts of the bible one wishes to follow.
I concede that this is a point of contention among Christians, and that many believe that Jesus, upon dying, released his followers from having to follow mosaic law; instead leaving them in the hands of the "law of Christ," which is described in less clear terms. In fact, if that means 'Christ's teachings', it would include his statement that the law is unchanging.
quote:
quote:Are those commandments the essence of Christianity to you (only asking about your own views here)? If so, isn't your belief system is a highly selective and convenient mutation of Christian doctrine?
Not when Christ himself told us that on those two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets.
I assume you're referring to Matt 22:37-40. "Hang on" is more accurately "directly contradicts much of". This is in the same book where Jesus states that mosaic law applies forever (or "till heaven and earth pass"), and "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17)
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
Love is like that. It transcends science and reason all of the time, in everyday situations. You don't have to love something fake to laugh in the face of scientific evidence, you just have to experience a little chemical reaction in your brain called 'love,' and science will fly right out the window.
I love. Therefore god exists and Jesus died for our sins et cetera?
You should point out to these people who try to use love as evidence for religion, that the two statements have nothing to do with each other. I can't say I've met anyone who's used such a weak argument.
quote:Do you recognize the authority of an ecumenical council to alter or append clauses to the word of god?
The "amendment" as you put it is in the word of God. It's in the Bible, right after the Gospels.
quote:The question was also asked of Rakeesh. It is curious that he would consider your argument applicable to his position, because the Church of LDS does not recognize the validity of any of the seven ecumenical councils. In fact, Mormons use the council as evidence of apostasy; of the fact that much of Christendom has fallen.
The council of Jerusalem - which was overseen by Peter and attended by the Twelve (including the replacement of Judas) plus Paul. Based on everything Mormons have posted about their beliefs here, I think this is recognized as authoritative. Rakeesh can confirm.
quote:It was applicable to the early Christians when Moses handed them down, even though that conflicts with Jesus' statements the verse in Matthew I've quoted above. Again, this depends on what parts of the bible one wishes to follow.
No, it doesn't. You have almost no idea what you are talking about. Mosaic law was given to the Jews to follow. There is absolutely nothing to support your contention that anyone who wishes to follow Jesus needs to follow Mosaic Law. At most, it would only apply to Jews who wish to follow Jesus. Yet the person who was explicitly given the keys to Heaven, by Christ himself, used the authority given to him by God to declare that your interpretation is inaccurate. Why on earth would I take yours over his, when yours is riddled with errors?
quote:In fact, if that means 'Christ's teachings', it would include his statement that the law is unchanging.
Yes, the law is unchanging. Yet it never applied to everyone. To have it apply to everyone would be to change it.
quote:I assume you're referring to Matt 22:37-40. "Hang on" is more accurately "directly contradicts much of".
No, it's not.
quote: This is in the same book where Jesus states that mosaic law applies forever (or "till heaven and earth pass"), and "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17)
The mosaic law applies forever. That doesn't mean it applies to all. It never did.
Your attempting to say that everything in Mosaic law should be followed by Christians is analogous to creationists who claim that entropy disproves evolution.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I was merely juxtaposing the scientific term for the religious term that "matched up" with it. Nothing more.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But they don't "match up" the way you are using them. You seem to be saying that "creation" is the initial event and "creationism" is an ongoing process. That isn't what the words mean.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you recognize the authority of an ecumenical council to alter or append clauses to the word of god?
The "amendment" as you put it is in the word of God. It's in the Bible, right after the Gospels.
A lot of theists I know argue that the bible is a collection of human stories and interpretations which help to reveal the word of god but aren't exactly. If the ecumenical councils gain divine mandate by virtue of being in the bible, then yes, the councils can overrule any conflicts.
quote:
quote:The question was also asked of Rakeesh. It is curious that he would consider your argument applicable to his position, because the Church of LDS does not recognize the validity of any of the seven ecumenical councils. In fact, Mormons use the council as evidence of apostasy; of the fact that much of Christendom has fallen.
The council of Jerusalem - which was overseen by Peter and attended by the Twelve (including the replacement of Judas) plus Paul. Based on everything Mormons have posted about their beliefs here, I think this is recognized as authoritative. Rakeesh can confirm.
The less than clear implication of that council is that sects within the church deemed it unnecessary to observe mosaic law. If the ruling is considered authoritative by Mormons (and I think you're correct that it is generally accepted), their stance on the seven ecumenical councils which often revolve around the same issue of mosaic law - that they were human deviations from god's word - runs counter to it.
quote:
quote:It was applicable to the early Christians when Moses handed them down, even though that conflicts with Jesus' statements the verse in Matthew I've quoted above. Again, this depends on what parts of the bible one wishes to follow.
No, it doesn't. You have almost no idea what you are talking about. Mosaic law was given to the Jews to follow. There is absolutely nothing to support your contention that anyone who wishes to follow Jesus needs to follow Mosaic Law. At most, it would only apply to Jews who wish to follow Jesus. Yet the person who was explicitly given the keys to Heaven, by Christ himself, used the authority given to him by God to declare that your interpretation is inaccurate. Why on earth would I take yours over his, when yours is riddled with errors?
Yes, god did give the law to the Israelites through Moses. I know that. Yet Christian doctrine is very much based on parts of that law; the ten commandments being the first set of imperatives laid down among Moses' teachings. I did not say that observance of mosaic law is requisite for following Jesus. Furthermore, if the bible is the word of god, Christians are more than just "followers of Jesus."
Also, doesn't it bother you that god's law, even if it was only given to his chosen race, prescribed the rules detailed in Leviticus and Deuteronomy?
quote:It doesn't state this. Occam's Razor doesn't say anything about what is or is not likely to be true.
It does very clearly by implication. Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity; don't make untried assumptions when trying to explain something. Obviously, because it renders you less likely to be accurate. Not a law, just a rule of thumb.
The reason Occam's Razor suggests entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity is not because complex theories are more likely to be inaccurate. Rather it is because those complicated theories are harder to work with yet add nothing to the predictive power of the theory. Like saying "(3-2)^5 + 8/4-1 = 2" instead of "1+1=2". The latter is not more likely to be true, but it is much easier to use.
Furthermore, if Occam's Razor were saying that complex theories are more likely to be false than simple theories, I think it is rather clear that Occam's Razor is a very bad rule of thumb. After all, history is littered with overly simple scientific theories being found false, only to be replaced with more complicated theories. Newton's physics for instance. The theory that the atom was the smalled unit of matter. The belief that the continents did not move. All of these are cases of simple theories that turned out to be too simple, and ended up being false - and there are countless more. Thus I don't see any evidence to conclude that simple theories are more likely to be true than false ones. Do you have any such evidence? If not, then either Occam's Razor is a very poor rule of thumb, or Occam's Razor doesn't imply simple theories are more likely to be true. Choose one or the other.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
The reason Occam's Razor suggests entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity is not because complex theories are more likely to be inaccurate. Rather it is because those complicated theories are harder to work with yet add nothing to the predictive power of the theory. Like saying "(3-2)^5 + 8/4-1 = 2" instead of "1+1=2". The latter is not more likely to be true, but it is much easier to use.
That was what Ockham meant when he wrote it down, but not the way the Razor is usually used or applied today. I was using it the way Jerrold Katz put it:
quote:If a hypothesis, H, explains the same evidence as a hypothesis G, but does so by postulating more entities than G, then, other things being equal, the evidence has to bear greater weight in the case of H than in the case of G, and hence the amount of support it gives H is proportionately less than it gives G.
If to you that is no longer Occam's Razor but a different theory, that's technical hair you could split. In the context of science most would disagree; when we say Occam's Razor, the above is what we mean.
quote:Thus I don't see any evidence to conclude that simple theories are more likely to be true than false ones. Do you have any such evidence?
Firstly, the scenarios you used were not necessarily effective counterexamples. Take the 'earth is solid and doesn't move' hypothesis. 'The continents don't move' definitely sounds simpler than 'the earth's crust is divided up into tectonic plates which move over a layer of molten rock called the mantle...' But that is a matter of wording and narrow scope. If the continents don't move, there must be an alternate explanation for earthquakes and fossil records showing similarities between animals on different continents, to name a couple of things. So another way to write your hypothesis is 'The continents don't move, and earthquakes are caused by __________ while the similarities in fossils are explained by __________' as opposed to 'the earth's crust is divided into tectonic plates which move over a layer of molten rock, occasionally causing earthquakes when the plates rub against each other and causing continents to move over long periods of time.'
Also, since positing the existence of a supernatural creator simply moves the question of origin one step further back, how is the god hypothesis not the equivalent of '+ (1-1)' in the equation '1 + 1 + (1-1) = 2'?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I'd just like to say a very large "Thank you."
I really hate having to go over that same thing over and over again. I was so relieved when I scrolled down and saw you'd already taken care of it.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That was what Ockham meant when he wrote it down, but not the way the Razor is usually used or applied today. I was using it the way Jerrold Katz put it:
I would argue that this is only because many people today use Occam's Razor wrongly. And this isn't just technical hair splitting, because if Occam's Razor means "complex theories are more likely to be false" then it is no longer a useful rule of thumb - because it would be false, or at least totally unproven!
Also, you weren't using it the way Katz's definition puts it. Katz's definition says nothing about G being more likely to be true than H.
quote:Firstly, the scenarios you used were not necessarily effective counterexamples. Take the 'earth is solid and doesn't move' hypothesis. 'The continents don't move' definitely sounds simpler than 'the earth's crust is divided up into tectonic plates which move over a layer of molten rock called the mantle...' But that is a matter of wording and narrow scope. If the continents don't move, there must be an alternate explanation for earthquakes and fossil records showing similarities between animals on different continents, to name a couple of things. So another way to write your hypothesis is 'The continents don't move, and earthquakes are caused by __________ while the similarities in fossils are explained by __________' as opposed to 'the earth's crust is divided into tectonic plates which move over a layer of molten rock, occasionally causing earthquakes when the plates rub against each other and causing continents to move over long periods of time.'
The "continents don't move" one still sounds simpler to me. Earthquakes can be caused by uneven heating and movement in deeper layers of the earth, and fossil similarities can be explained by the evolutionary neccessity of developing certain similar yet useful characteristics. This seems much simpler than developing a whole theory of moving plates, which then needs additional mechanisms to explain how and why they move, etc.
Note that although you didn't like my counterexample, you also didn't give me any evidence that complicated theories are more likely to be false than simple theories. Is there any such evidence to support a claim that more complicated theories are likely to be disproven in favor of more simple theories?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Katz's definition says nothing about G being more likely to be true than H.
"If a hypothesis, H, explains the same evidence as a hypothesis G, but does so by postulating more entities than G, then, other things being equal, the evidence has to bear greater weight in the case of H than in the case of G, and hence the amount of support it gives H is proportionately less than it gives G."
quote:The "continents don't move" one still sounds simpler to me. Earthquakes can be caused by uneven heating and movement in deeper layers of the earth, and fossil similarities can be explained by the evolutionary neccessity of developing certain similar yet useful characteristics. This seems much simpler than developing a whole theory of moving plates, which then needs additional mechanisms to explain how and why they move, etc.
Your theory involves the mechanisms of evolution and requires another explanation for the 'uneven heating'. Sorry, I don't see how your version is simpler.
quote:Note that although you didn't like my counterexample, you also didn't give me any evidence that complicated theories are more likely to be false than simple theories. Is there any such evidence to support a claim that more complicated theories are likely to be disproven in favor of more simple theories?
I don't have a statistical study at hand.
A small thought experiment is possible though. If I walk into a dark room and think I see something move without anything pushing or pulling it, there are many explanations I could advance. One would be that I imagined it, that my friends were pulling a trick on me and using strings, (so far very plausible; few assumptions) or maybe a poltergeist or a spirit of some kind. Maybe the spirit that moved the object has a specific name, and a certain agenda, et cetera. The more assumptions that are piled on, the less plausible the explanation appears.
In debates on religion, Occam's Razor is mainly useful in pointing out that theism posits many such assumptions.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [QUOTE]Originally posted by MrSquicky: [qb] Finally, you should note that theists do not merely postulate a prime mover "outside of time", they give that prime mover intentions and highly anthropomorphic qualities. Now, that is un-necessary.
I have to agree with KOM here. Sure, if we accept Lisa's statement that God==Existence, then we can all pretty much agree that there is a god. Heck, I imagine that KOM could even agree to this as long as that was the entirety of the definition.
Of course, this isn't the definition of God.
Says who? Just because we say that God/Existence has attributes such as Will and Intent doesn't mean that's not God. Or that it's not Existence.
I never claimed that that was the entirety of the definition. But it's a starting place. Don't you think it's better to try and find some common ground, rather than to look for all of the conflicts?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"If a hypothesis, H, explains the same evidence as a hypothesis G, but does so by postulating more entities than G, then, other things being equal, the evidence has to bear greater weight in the case of H than in the case of G, and hence the amount of support it gives H is proportionately less than it gives G."
And again, this says nothing about G being more likely to be true than H.
You seem to be assuming that if evidence gives proportioniately less "support" to a theory then the theory is less likely to be true, but I see no reason to think that assumption is correct (and I see no reason given to think Mr. Katz assumes it.)
quote:A small thought experiment is possible though. If I walk into a dark room and think I see something move without anything pushing or pulling it, there are many explanations I could advance. One would be that I imagined it, that my friends were pulling a trick on me and using strings, (so far very plausible; few assumptions) or maybe a poltergeist or a spirit of some kind. Maybe the spirit that moved the object has a specific name, and a certain agenda, et cetera. The more assumptions that are piled on, the less plausible the explanation appears
Why do you think that more assumptions would make it less plausible? Note that in your example the "very plausible" example involving your friends has no fewer assumptions than the possibility involving the poltergeist (since your friends also have specific names, a specific agenda, etc.) I'd say the reason you consider the poltergeist to be less plausible has nothing to do with the complixity of the theory, but rather because it involves a supernatural entity. And even more likely scenarios are far far more complicated than any of the three options you gave - for instance, the chance that a fusion reaction in the sun generated light which reflected off the moon into the window of your room, while being partially reflected by a cloud whose movement cause a shift in the amount of light entering your room, which in turn created an illusion in your mind that made you think something moved when in fact it was just a shift in the light. I'd say this scenario is far more likely than the one involving your friends, yet it is also far more complicated.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
You seem to be assuming that if evidence gives proportioniately less "support" to a theory then the theory is less likely to be true,
As a rule of thumb, yes. The more a theory is supported by evidence, the more stock I put in it. The more you assume, the farther you depart from known evidence.
quote:Why do you think that more assumptions would make it less plausible? Note that in your example the "very plausible" example involving your friends has no fewer assumptions than the possibility involving the poltergeist (since your friends also have specific names, a specific agenda, etc.)
The kind of assumptions that the friend scenario requires are trivial; e.g. that my friends would have had access to the room, that they would find such a prank funny, etc. The poltergeist scenario involves profound assumptions like 'supernatural entities exist' and 'supernatural entities can manipulate matter or exert force in the physical world.'
quote:I'd say this scenario is far more likely than the one involving your friends, yet it is also far more complicated.
Again, you worded the sunlight scenario to include a lot of science that the other scenarios would also have to explain. Further, that science has been tested and corroborated. To guess that it was a trick of the light makes trivial assumptions about circumstances.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:As a rule of thumb, yes. The more a theory is supported by evidence, the more stock I put in it.
That is not the same as saying "if evidence gives proportioniately less support to a theory then the theory is less likely to be true". The key word is "proportioniately".
If the proportion of evidence to "weight" is what matters (rather than just the amount of evidence itself), then you must not only assume that more evidence = more likely to be true, but you must ALSO assume that more weight = less likely to be true. It is that second assumption that I don't think you have a good reason to believe, even as a rule of thumb.
"Heavy" theories may be less useful, because their complexity makes them harder to work with - but I don't think "heavy" theories are less likely to be true.
quote:The kind of assumptions that the friend scenario requires are trivial; e.g. that my friends would have had access to the room, that they would find such a prank funny, etc. The poltergeist scenario involves profound assumptions like 'supernatural entities exist' and 'supernatural entities can manipulate matter or exert force in the physical world.'
quote:Again, you worded the sunlight scenario to include a lot of science that the other scenarios would also have to explain. Further, that science has been tested and corroborated. To guess that it was a trick of the light makes trivial assumptions about circumstances.
Based on both the above quotes, it sounds like it is not the NUMBER of assumptions that determines whether you find explanations plausible, but rather the degree to which you find the assumptions themselves plausible that determines whether you find the explanation plausible. A theory based on one unproven supernatural assumption is less plausible than a theory based on ten tested and corroborated assumptions, no?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Euripides: It honestly strikes me as ironic that you believe Jesus said something that is vehemently argued against in the New Testament.
YMMV but when Jesus speaks of "fulfilling not destroying." he is stating that he is the end of the law. The law was designed to prepare the Jewish people for the coming of the messiah, all things pointing to his coming. The sacrifice of the lamb without blemish being the most striking symbol of what God did when he sacrificed Jesus (a sinless man) to save mankind. Jesus followed the Law of Moses his entire life, he encouraged his followers to do the same. If Jesus was trying to destroy the law then he would be saying it was wrong or incorrect. By fulfilling it his ministry was more or less the concluding chapter to that law. The Law of Moses is by no means eternal. Every righteous man prior to Moses, men such as Abraham Isaac and Jacob (Israel) all had commandments that they followed and were unrelated to the law of moses. Were the law eternal God would have required righteous men and women in all ages to live it.
The counsel in Jerusalem is just one example of where the question of the law of Moses came up, and it was Peter who was hesitant to dismiss the law while Paul passionately "withstood Peter to his face" against clinging to the law.
Peter was given a list of all animals and told to "rise..kill and eat."
The lesson was in part a correction to Peter that the gospel should be extended to the Gentiles, but it was also a lesson that there was no such thing as clean and unclean anymore as God had "cleansed" them. If food could no longer be considered clean or unclean why should people be clean or unclean?
If there was no concept of clean or unclean the Law of Moses was clearly no longer in effect.
Jesus clearly explains that he has fulfilled all that the prophets including Moses stated he would do, the law that was designed to prepare people for Christs coming was finally fulfilled. Jesus' mission complete he proceeded to ascend into heaven.
The Book of Mormon has some masterfully crafted passages on the nature of the Law of Moses and the messiah but Ill keep my comments limited to the Bible. But if you are interested,
If you wish to continue reading Abinadi's wonderful sermon he continues by citing Isaiah verses that refer to the messiah as well as the relationship between Jesus and God the father and the nature of their oneness. He also explains how Jesus can accurately be called "The Son" but also be "Our Father."
A very concise and effective description of how the people of the Book of Mormon held the Law of Moses.
It is interesting that the NT people had trouble letting go of the Law of Moses whereas the people in the Book of Mormon actually almost jumped the gun in shedding the law and prophets had to correct the people into living the law until Jesus himself visited the people after his resurrection and declared the law fulfilled.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Euripides: It honestly strikes me as ironic that you believe Jesus said something that is vehemently argued against in the New Testament.
YMMV but when Jesus speaks of "fulfilling not destroying." he is stating that he is the end of the law. The law was designed to prepare the Jewish people for the coming of the messiah, all things pointing to his coming.
Except that God put no such conditions on the Law when He gave it to us. Instead, He said they were eternal statutes. And in fact, He even anticipated someone coming in His name and trying to claim that the Law had been abrogated. We were instructed to put such a one to death as a false prophet.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The sacrifice of the lamb without blemish being the most striking symbol of what God did when he sacrificed Jesus (a sinless man) to save mankind.
A lamb is a lamb. And incidentally, the pascal offering wasn't necessarily a lamb. It was a lamb or a kid. It certainly was not a person. The episode of the binding of Isaac was God's demonstration to us that He does not view the death of a person as a good thing, even if it's a sacrifice to Him.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Jesus followed the Law of Moses his entire life, he encouraged his followers to do the same.
Violating the Sabbath and excusing it with "The Sabbath was made for man -- not man for the Sabbath" is not following the Law. Saying that what comes out of a person's mouth is more important than what goes in, and using that aphorism to excuse violations of the Law... that's another example. Vandalizing the property of businessmen at the Temple, even if out of a sense of personal outrage, is yet another.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If Jesus was trying to destroy the law then he would be saying it was wrong or incorrect. By fulfilling it his ministry was more or less the concluding chapter to that law. The Law of Moses is by no means eternal.
Would you like me to sit down with a concordance and give you an exhaustive list of God's counterclaims on that point?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Every righteous man prior to Moses, men such as Abraham Isaac and Jacob (Israel) all had commandments that they followed and were unrelated to the law of moses. Were the law eternal God would have required righteous men and women in all ages to live it.
How does that follow? Sorry, that's a leading question. It doesn't follow. God gave it as an eternal statute. That means it has to be kept by us forever. From that point forward. Prior to Sinai, no one was bound by it.
It's a mistake to assume that you know the reason or reasons why God gave the Law. Some of the laws are moral issues, such as not murdering or stealing. But some have no inherent moral aspect to them at all, that we know of. Not eating pork, for example.
There were indeed laws that God gave to mankind even before Sinai. Laws which were binding on all men (not just Jews) from the time of Adam onwards. And which are still binding on all men today. The many additional requirements in the Law given at Sinai were given to a specific people, who did not exist as a people prior to that time. There were no Jews to be bound by the Law before Sinai. God created us at Sinai as He gave us His Law.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If there was no concept of clean or unclean the Law of Moses was clearly no longer in effect.
"If". But the concept continues to exist, and the Law continues to be binding. God gave many criteria for many laws. In no place did He ever give any laws conditioned to expire when the Messiah comes.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:the atheist's view of evolution (creationism) and the birth of the universe (creation)
I'm considering them as separate, like "Spokes on a wheel and how many fish I caught last Sunday" I'm not looking for any great relationship between them.
quote:And in fact, He even anticipated someone coming in His name and trying to claim that the Law had been abrogated. We were instructed to put such a one to death as a false prophet.
quote:I would argue that this is only because many people today use Occam's Razor wrongly. And this isn't just technical hair splitting, because if Occam's Razor means "complex theories are more likely to be false" then it is no longer a useful rule of thumb - because it would be false, or at least totally unproven!
In other words, the more "complicated" version of Occams Razor that you are proposing is false, while the simpler version that Euripides is promoting is true.
posted
Lisa: If you really want to join this conversation Ill have to politely decline to answer your excellent points until tomorrow.
But could I ask you to before then provide the passages you said that state the eternal nature of the Law of Moses. Particularly the passage you said states that if anybody were to come and say the law was concluded that they should be stoned.
Did you perchance read any of the passages I linked from the Book of Mormon?
edit: Also in retrospect I am not sure there is much point conversing unless you actually care to converse. I am not sure I am up to just trading carefully crafted point to point posts that do absolutely nothing. I greatly respect your knowledge of Judaism, and you have already helped me understand much of that religion. I can honestly say that you may very well say something that gives me something to think about if not actually accept, but I am not sure if there is anything I could say that you would actually take seriously.
If the proportion of evidence to "weight" is what matters (rather than just the amount of evidence itself), then you must not only assume that more evidence = more likely to be true, but you must ALSO assume that more weight = less likely to be true.
It was difficult for me to understand what you mean here. If I'm interpretting it correctly, assumptions like evolution or 'supernatural entities exist' are 'heavy' while assumptions like 'my friends would find this prank funny' are light.
The reason I say that a theory which relies on evolution as its premise is not rendered implausible by Occam's Razor is that evolution is so well supported by evidence. The poltergeist hypothesis isn't. I think it's about how many untried or ungrounded assumptions you make; and the less supported/more profound the untried assumption, the more your theory is guesswork.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
I've spent more time looking into the matter of mosaic law, and while there is still some controversy over what in the old testament applies to Christians today (and many Christians still draw moral guidance from the old testament), I believe I was wrong in suggesting that noncompliance with mosaic law by Christians today was a modification of traditional Christian doctrine. I hope you'll accept my sincere apology on getting such an important aspect of your belief system wrong.
For what it's worth, I believe my erroneous impression was conflated by the fact that mainstream Christianity still breathes deeply from the (usually more congenial parts of) the old testament, and by the fact that some Christians tread over the distinction when convenient.
Can I ask; how should Christians view what is in the old testament? Is it a legitimate source of moral guidance for Christians, and if so, in what way?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The lesson was in part a correction to Peter that the gospel should be extended to the Gentiles, but it was also a lesson that there was no such thing as clean and unclean anymore as God had "cleansed" them. If food could no longer be considered clean or unclean why should people be clean or unclean?
If there was no concept of clean or unclean the Law of Moses was clearly no longer in effect.
That passage seems only to apply to food. Why does it extend to all notions of purity and impurity (eg. the ritual impurities of coming into contact with semen or menstrual blood, or a chair if a menstruating woman sat on it)?
And wouldn't considering mosaic law moot for that reason be skipping a whole lot of other laws?
quote:Jesus clearly explains that he has fulfilled all that the prophets including Moses stated he would do, the law that was designed to prepare people for Christs coming was finally fulfilled. Jesus' mission complete he proceeded to ascend into heaven.
Honest question, because I don't know the answer: is Luke 24:44-45 the only passage that explicitly supports this interpretation? It seems vague at best to me on that point, and so much hinges on what exactly is meant by 'fulfilled'. I'd appreciate it if any one of our resident experts could shed light on it.
quote:The Book of Mormon has some masterfully crafted passages on the nature of the Law of Moses and the messiah but Ill keep my comments limited to the Bible. But if you are interested,
Is there anything in the bible to corroborate the following?
quote: 29 And now I say unto you that it was expedient that there should be a law given to the children of Israel, yea, even a very strict law; for they were a stiffnecked people, quick to do iniquity, and slow to remember the Lord their God; 30 Therefore there was a law given them, yea, a law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him.
The passage seems to read intent into the words of god (or perhaps Jesus); and conlcudes that observing mosaic law was a matter of expediency; that the reason mosaic law does not apply to king Noah and his people is because it's not expedient in their situation.
I concede that this could be more of an explanation for god choosing to give the law to the Israelites but not all Christians; rather than an argument against the application of mosaic law based solely on 'expediency' as interepreted by humanity.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In other words, the more "complicated" version of Occams Razor that you are proposing is false, while the simpler version that Euripides is promoting is true
No, if you read back in the thread it was Euripides who suggested Occam's Razor implies complex theories are more likely to be false. I don't agree with that.
quote:It was difficult for me to understand what you mean here. If I'm interpretting it correctly, assumptions like evolution or 'supernatural entities exist' are 'heavy' while assumptions like 'my friends would find this prank funny' are light.
No I was referring to the quote you gave from Mr. Katz, which introduced a concept of the "weight" of a theory. Katz said that the more assumptions a theory entailed, the greater the "weight" of a theory. So a "heavy" theory would be one that has more assumptions.
quote:The reason I say that a theory which relies on evolution as its premise is not rendered implausible by Occam's Razor is that evolution is so well supported by evidence.
But here's the thing: Occam's Razor is not about whether assumptions are plausible or not. Rather it is just about the NUMBER of assumptions, or entities, a theory entails. It says more entities equals an inferior theory.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
No, if you read back in the thread it was Euripides who suggested Occam's Razor implies complex theories are more likely to be false. I don't agree with that.
Come on, that's not what I said. If you posit highly specific untried assumptions to explain a phenomenon, it tends to be less likely to be true. In the case of the poltergeist, if I posited that the spirit was in fact an angel, my theory would be even less plausible.
quote:No I was referring to the quote you gave from Mr. Katz, which introduced a concept of the "weight" of a theory. Katz said that the more assumptions a theory entailed, the greater the "weight" of a theory. So a "heavy" theory would be one that has more assumptions.
Sorry, but I think you need to read the quote again.
quote:But here's the thing: Occam's Razor is not about whether assumptions are plausible or not. Rather it is just about the NUMBER of assumptions, or entities, a theory entails. It says more entities equals an inferior theory.
Technically, yes. Yet the more profound assumptions like 'there is a poltergeist in this house' tend to be shorthand for a whole set of 'entities' with far-reaching implications which also demand explanation.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Occam's Razor is not about whether assumptions are plausible or not. Rather it is just about the NUMBER of assumptions, or entities, a theory entails. It says more entities equals an inferior theory.
I interpret "assumptions" as hypothetical, unproven entities. In that case, an explanation based completely on well proven steps is "simpler" than one that relies on miracles (despite having perhaps more total steps or entities), because there are less unproven entities or assumptions. Granted, that may not be your definition, but communication is generally easier and clearer if everyone uses the same definition when discussing things.
Regarding the creation of the universe, the idea of a creator and the idea that the universe incredibly sprang into existence from nothing both rely on a hypothetical assumption. Since we cannot calculate the probability of the existence of a creator nor the probability of a universe appearing from the middle of nowhere, both of these explanations would be equal in terms of assumptions.
The idea that the universe came from something else, possibly a black hole or another universe, requires the assumption of the previous entity that created our universe as well as the entity creating that, and on and on until you get to the first cause, or the reason why a first cause isn't necessary. In either case, that requires at least two assumptions or hypothetical entities, whereas a creator only requires one. Of course, applying attributes to that creator would create more things that would need to be explained.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: If you really want to join this conversation Ill have to politely decline to answer your excellent points until tomorrow.
But could I ask you to before then provide the passages you said that state the eternal nature of the Law of Moses. Particularly the passage you said states that if anybody were to come and say the law was concluded that they should be stoned.
"If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, 'Let us follow other gods' (gods you have not known) 'and let us worship them,' you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you" (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NIV).
"But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.
"You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?' If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him" (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NIV).
Cut and pasted from Wikipedia (you can tell I'm being lazy when I do that).
Deut 6:25; Deut 30:11-14; Ps 19:7-8: Lev 16: 29 -34; Ezek 37:24
These are verses that refer to God's eternal statutes. The one in Ezekiel talks about how even in messianic times, we will keep those statutes. I copied that from http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/verses.html (sorry for all of the copying -- I have a migraine coming on).
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Did you perchance read any of the passages I linked from the Book of Mormon?
I didn't. I probably will, but you do realize that there's a lack of parity here, right? You do recognize Ezekiel and Leviticus and the like as holy scripture, while I don't recognize the Book of Mormon as being such. So while I may find the passages you cited interesting (which is why I'll probably read them), I don't consider them relevant to the issue at hand.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: edit: Also in retrospect I am not sure there is much point conversing unless you actually care to converse. I am not sure I am up to just trading carefully crafted point to point posts that do absolutely nothing. I greatly respect your knowledge of Judaism, and you have already helped me understand much of that religion. I can honestly say that you may very well say something that gives me something to think about if not actually accept, but I am not sure if there is anything I could say that you would actually take seriously.
Take seriously, yes. But maybe not in the sense that you mean. I hope you understand, though, that I had to post what I did. You posted statements phrased as a matter of fact which referred to Jews and to the Torah that God gave us. You did so without the caveat that what you were saying was only according to Mormonism. I felt a need to correct your statements, since they were misstatements about me and mine. I wasn't making statements about you and your religion.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, if you read back in the thread it was Euripides who suggested Occam's Razor implies complex theories are more likely to be false. I don't agree with that.
Come on, that's not what I said.
You said that Occam's Razor states "the more assumptions you make, the less likely your hypothesis is to be correct." That is a quote from your post earlier.
quote:
quote:No I was referring to the quote you gave from Mr. Katz, which introduced a concept of the "weight" of a theory. Katz said that the more assumptions a theory entailed, the greater the "weight" of a theory. So a "heavy" theory would be one that has more assumptions.
Sorry, but I think you need to read the quote again.
Katz said "If a hypothesis, H, explains the same evidence as a hypothesis G, but does so by postulating more entities than G, then, other things being equal, the evidence has to bear greater weight in the case of H than in the case of G, and hence the amount of support it gives H is proportionately less than it gives G." The entire argument is built around this concept of "weight", which stems from postulating more entities.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
You said that Occam's Razor states "the more assumptions you make, the less likely your hypothesis is to be correct." That is a quote from your post earlier.
How is "the more assumptions you make, the less likely your hypothesis is to be correct" the equivalent of "complex theories are more likely to be false"?
quote:
quote:
quote:No I was referring to the quote you gave from Mr. Katz, which introduced a concept of the "weight" of a theory. Katz said that the more assumptions a theory entailed, the greater the "weight" of a theory. So a "heavy" theory would be one that has more assumptions.
Sorry, but I think you need to read the quote again.
Katz said "If a hypothesis, H, explains the same evidence as a hypothesis G, but does so by postulating more entities than G, then, other things being equal, the evidence has to bear greater weight in the case of H than in the case of G, and hence the amount of support it gives H is proportionately less than it gives G." The entire argument is built around this concept of "weight", which stems from postulating more entities.
Ah, okay. I see what you mean, sorry.
It's actually an expression he's used to indicate that the evidence in the case of hypothesis H has to be used to explain more than it would be in the case of hypothesis G.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since we cannot calculate the probability of the existence of a creator nor the probability of a universe appearing from the middle of nowhere, both of these explanations would be equal in terms of assumptions.
No, not really. This is one of the common mistakes made by people trying to use Occam's Razor: they miss the invisible assumptions.
For example, if the universe appears from the middle of nowhere, there's one hidden assumption: that it did so by some mechanism. That's not a necessary assumption; we could say that the universe "just appeared," and that this happens all the time, etc. But if we assume there's a mechanism, we then have a whole bunch of other assumptions related to the mechanism.
A Creator is just another mechanism. If we assume a Creator, we STILL have to answer questions about the mechanism: how did the Creator do it? What's the Creator like? Was the universe a conscious act of creation? And so forth.
Saying that asserting the supernatural makes something "simpler" is only true if you don't really think about the supernatural much.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:A Creator is just another mechanism. If we assume a Creator, we STILL have to answer questions about the mechanism: how did the Creator do it? What's the Creator like? Was the universe a conscious act of creation? And so forth.
Why would we have to answer those questions?
I would grant the one additional assumption: How did he/it do it? I'm not sure that the other questions are necessarily relevant to the creation of the universe. Sure, it could have been a conscious act, but it didn't need to be, so there would be no need to make an assumption one way or the other.
You could also create invisible assumptions about any other theory. Is "nothing" completely devoid of rules? If universes are constanty springing into existence, are these bound by the same rules as our universe? What separates these universes from each other if neither time nor space exist outside of our universe? Can we detect them?
quote:Saying that asserting the supernatural makes something "simpler" is only true if you don't really think about the supernatural much.
My point is that the idea of some supernatural force is neither the most simple nor the most complicated theory out there. I'm able to accept the existence of an impersonal god/creator, if that is indeed what exists.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is "the more assumptions you make, the less likely your hypothesis is to be correct" the equivalent of "complex theories are more likely to be false"?
Complex theories = Theories that entail more assumptions More likely to be false = Less likely to be correct
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Complex theories = Theories that entail more assumptions
Nope. Theories that posit more premises, perhaps. That doesn't mean those premises are assumptions; they could be verified facts.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa/Euripides: I have been struck down by a sore throat and I got approximately 2 hours of sleep last night. Ill probably save the extensive posts for tomorrow as they can help pass the time at work.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
