TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Religious debate on Jews/Passion of the Christ
Pages (24): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24]

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Well now I�m really confused as to this interpretation of Occam�s Razor. Could you maybe clarify this a little more for me?

Well, the entire design argument is really targeted at the atheist who claims his belief of no God is more logically consistent/flawless than that of the theist, and who thinks that science provides truth. If you do not fit this category then argument's course is probably not that logical to you.
Anyway, I will try to describe what I meant in more detail, although I expect it to be hard: We could describe our observations of the universe as one (very) long list of "facts". However, science provides a compressed version of all these facts. That is, from the relations uncovered by science we can describe all of these observations to a degree of precision where the inaccuracy is deemed insignificant. The science fan would in other words consider the list of observations and the laws of science to be equivalent descriptors of our observations.
As long sequences of information goes, information theory tells us that there is a lot more of the completely random ones than the compressible ones. Therefore, we may say that we have a "rare case" on our hands. But a lot of other attributes of long sequences of information might be thought of, which would render other sequences "rare" and the one we are facing to be "common", in effect stating that there is nothing "special" about our universe. For the design argument to be succesful we therefore need to establish that a scientist *should* attribute significance to the compression measure rather than any other measure.
To do this we notice that, when all other things are equal, the scientist use simplicity (or compressibility) as a deciding factor when choosing between two theories explaining a series of observations, and we thus have the permission to accept as signigicant that our observations are compressible into "natural laws".
When asked why the scientist have this preference his answer would be "Occam's Razor". But, from a epistemological point of view Occam's Razor really has little justification, and must be classified as belonging to science's axioms, along with two-valued logic, induction, the maximum likelihood principle, etc. Therefore, the design argument needs its target to subscribe to Occam's Razor.
Hope I have been clear.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Again, on the most elementary level you�re right � no, randomness is not the most �simplest� means of an event creating a complex designed structure or phenomena. However, applying Occam�s Sword metaphysically directly involves the Conservation of Energy � this is essentially why entities or phenomena in an ontological sense can neither be multiplied, reduced, or eliminated because matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed (www.wikipedia.org). Agreed?

In the universe, yes. But when you go beyong the boundary of the universe (in time in this case), no such principle can be justified IMO.
But at this point, I would have to apologize if I have given the impression that the design argument builds on a temporal reasoning. The argument states that the universe is likely to have a designer, and claims nothing on whether this design was carried out "prior" to existence of the universe in some kind of supernatural temporal ordering.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Given this maxim for Occam, how can we apply a design argument, if by definition a designed entity or phenomena directly implies a designer, which at present cannot be detected in any manner? If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, how can we apply a conservation of energy principle that demands energy present and detected in some manner, yet this is exactly what we cannot do with a designer who designed a given entity, phenomena, or event?

Given what I wrote above, is this still an issue?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Yes, but how does one detect design? We have a myriad of evidence that demonstrates random events creating complex designs, yet we have no evidence for a designer deliberately creating a complex designed event in the natural world and universe. This is my problem with design theory utilizing, or rather abusing probability. We could argue any given random event (E) is highly unlikely to create complexity, despite the known evidence that demonstrates otherwise. But why must we therefore conclude a designed E as a result of random E being highly improbable without positive evidence to support a designed E occurring? IOW, why must we conclude a false positive for design, esp. when that is logically fallacious to do so?

But that is the maximum likelihood principle for you. It is totally fallacious, but *it is what scientists do*! You cannot state priors for competing theories, no matter the phenomena that is being explained. In an attempt at a response to this total ignorance scientists considers all theories equally likely a priori.
This goes back to my initial comment: The design argument is targeted at the atheistic scientist who for some reason believes he is discovering objective truth and therefore have no need for a god. If he knows that his house is build on nothing but unstable sand, and hence knows that his atheism is a *belief*, the design argument won't be of much interest to him.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I don�t think I�m quite grasping your analogy. Could you maybe elaborate on this a little more?

I was trying to give an example of a real-life situation where the probability of an outcome (me hearing a coin dropping) have a different likelihood when given a design (me telling the someone to drop it), than when no design is given. Probably it was a stupid example.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 But where and how did we start with an equal a priori probability based on data to begin with? To my knowledge, there is no data to support any detection of a designed E in the first place, so why would I give that equal footing to a random E?

The same reasoning as before. That's what scientists do.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 This might be a communication problem between us, and I freely admit my lack of depth in philosophical issues. If I am misunderstanding you, it is likely a result of my knowledge in science overtaking my ineptitude in philosophy, so I apologize if I am mixing the two up in advance. It is clearly unintentional.

If there is a communication problem, I guess the probable cause would be my non-native English, and the fact that I'm not a proponent of God-proofs in general and thus have been a little lazy in my argumentation. Furthermore, the argument tackles atheist with a scientifical belief, and if you do not fit the bill then there's bound to be trouble

Thanks for the info on Dembski. It seems that his agenda is a different one than the one I have described here. He wishes to prove God's existence, whereas the philosophical point I have tried to get across is that you cannot definately reject the existence of God unless you reject the spoils of science.

Renegade, I have tried to cover your points in my response to MisterOpus. As should be evident I agree with you that Occam's Razor should only be applied when the competing hypothesises explain observation equally well. In my argumentation I do not use Occam's Razor, but argues that it is logically inconsistent for a scientist *not* to apply it for the given claim.
As to your example on Newton vs. later theories, I would add that the application of Occam's Razor is dependent upon your historical point of view: When Newton put forth his theories, observations were not so precise that you could distinguish between their match to Newton's predictions and to those of newer theories. Therefore and according to Occam Newton's theory would be the correct choice then.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Theory #1: God is the uncaused cause of the big-bang, which in turn is the cause of the universe. God -> Big Bang -> Universe (3 steps/pluralities) Theory #2: The big-bang is the uncaused cause of the universe. Big Bang -> Universe (2 steps/pluralities) Assuming the two theories are equally valid (they describe what we can observe equally well) and identical evidence has been used in the formation of each (neither is including or excluding evidence that other isn't) then we may invoke Occam's Razor and suggest that Theory #2 is the more preferable, because, all other things being equal, it requires the invokation of fewer pluralities.

As I stated in my response to MisterOpus I do not think that the design argument needs any notion of supernatural time, and hence the involvement of causality (which to me is little more than a vaguely defined compression technique of the human mind). I am aware that a "cause" explanation runs into a lot of problems.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I have a feeling that we disagree fundamentally on the meaning of the words "natural" and "supernatural". Could you please tell me your definition of these two concepts? I have a lot of comments to the rest of your post, but if the problem is a radical distance in understanding of these two terms, then I feel that they will be useless.

My definition pretty much goes hand in hand with the dictionary definition.

Natural - caused by a process that is in accordance with logic and existing physical relations of the universe which does not involve a divine entity.

Supernatural - caused by a divine entity that does not have to obey the laws of physics existing in this universe.

Crap, just saw your responses Trancaholic. Sorry but I won't have time to get to them today. I'll respond to you as much as I can tomorrow. It does seem that our definitions are somewhat different when it comes to Design Theory, which as I figured had much to do with crossing philosophy with scientific rationale. Still, I'm pretty interested in your interpretation on the matter.

I'll talk more later.

Opus

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 My definition pretty much goes hand in hand with the dictionary definition. Natural - caused by a process that is in accordance with logic and existing physical relations of the universe which does not involve a divine entity. Supernatural - caused by a divine entity that does not have to obey the laws of physics existing in this universe.

By these definitions, you have sort of pushed the argument onto the definition of "divine", which according to Merriam-Webster is something that involves a god. My question would therefore be: Wouldn't you consider a ghost to be supernatural? How about the concept of ESP? A werewolf?

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic By these definitions, you have sort of pushed the argument onto the definition of "divine", which according to Merriam-Webster is something that involves a god. My question would therefore be: Wouldn't you consider a ghost to be supernatural? How about the concept of ESP? A werewolf?

Heh, we could perpetuate this argument over and over to the point where we will realize that every definition of the word is tied only to definitions of other words, which basically means it's a closed system that uses circular logic.

Anyway, to answer your questions about ghosts, werewolves and similar phenomena...Well, duh, they're leftovers from the previous matrices .

Ok, ok, I'll be serious. We can hardly say that we know everything about the environment and the laws that govern it. If there exist such creatures and if they act in accordance to physical laws, or if the new discoveries can modify those laws so that they can allow for such creatures to exist, then I would not consider them supernatural. If there is no possible reasonable explanation about their existance and if they were obviously breaking the laws of physics, then there are two possible explanations. Either there is a natural being that has reached a level of technology where it is capable of molding the laws of physics to its own desire, or there indeed is a higher being which is somehow capable of controling every aspect of the universe and which has for a stragne reason created it.

On the other hand, even if there is a creator of the universe, it doesn't mean that the creator is capable of doing anything it pleases. For all we know, the universe may just be a scientific experiment of creatures greater than us, yet still forced to abide to laws enforced upon them by their own environment. Of course, the question then is, do the creators have the creator? Eventually, we must arrive at the point where there is either an all powerful being that is capable of everything or the universe{s} is(are) just here without a reason or a beginning. I guess you could say at this point that there can't be an all-powerful being by asking a question whether that creature can make a rock so heavy that it cannot lift it. Whichever way you go, it's not all-powerful. But, hell, who knows, maybe it's just like asking someone if his mom knows he's a gay. Whatever you answer you say that you're a gay, even if it is not correct. For all we know, the laws of logic may follow the same pattern, we may just be asking a silly question that is scratching the surface without knowing the essence that lies deeper within. Personally, I think we'll have a lot of evolution and research to do before we could answer those questions, or realize that they cannot be answered in a simplistic way.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Ok, ok, I'll be serious. We can hardly say that we know everything about the environment and the laws that govern it. If there exist such creatures and if they act in accordance to physical laws, or if the new discoveries can modify those laws so that they can allow for such creatures to exist, then I would not consider them supernatural. If there is no possible reasonable explanation about their existance and if they were obviously breaking the laws of physics, then there are two possible explanations. Either there is a natural being that has reached a level of technology where it is capable of molding the laws of physics to its own desire, or there indeed is a higher being which is somehow capable of controling every aspect of the universe and which has for a stragne reason created it.

LOL. After reading this I am even more in doubt as to whether you would call, say, the ghost supernatural, and how that is different from God, which seems to fit your last couple of lines.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that I find other universes obeying different laws (or none at all) and so far being undetectable to science, as just as supernatural as a God obeying different laws (or none at all) and so far being undetectable to science. If you disagree then I cannot see any means of persuading you that the "many universes"-theory is just as outrageous an explanation as the "God"-theory.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 On the other hand, even if there is a creator of the universe, it doesn't mean that the creator is capable of doing anything it pleases. For all we know, the universe may just be a scientific experiment of creatures greater than us, yet still forced to abide to laws enforced upon them by their own environment.

Yes, I agree fully. My point has not been to convince anyone that they should believe in the christian God and everything in the bible or which they hear in church. My beef is with atheists who say that their conviction is not a belief since they have all the scientific facts on their side.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic LOL. After reading this I am even more in doubt as to whether you would call, say, the ghost supernatural, and how that is different from God, which seems to fit your last couple of lines.

Well, the primary difference is that the natural creatures would originate from this universe, while the supernatural ones would originate from, how shall I put it, outside of all existance. The hypothetical aliens I mentioned who live outside of our universe and can do with it anything they like but are still obliged to follow some other laws would not be truly supernatural. They would be some sort of quasisupernatural demigods on a local level. A truly supernatural being should be outside of all existance and incomprehensible using any possible means of understanding.

quote:

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that I find other universes obeying different laws (or none at all) and so far being undetectable to science, as just as supernatural as a God obeying different laws (or none at all) and so far being undetectable to science. If you disagree then I cannot see any means of persuading you that the "many universes"-theory is just as outrageous an explanation as the "God"-theory.

Other universes would obey laws that are not so much different in essence than they are different in form. Cosmological constants would be different, maybe numbers of dimensions as well. The difference between other universes and a god is that other universes would have to obide to at least some laws, while god obides to none. Besides, having one universe around shows that the existance of a universe is possible, maybe even likely. Having no gods around that we know of does not mean that such existance is impossible, but it means that the impossibility of it is possible. Take for example a horse and an invisible pink unicorn. You've seen a horse, and from that you know that at least one exist. If there is one in existance, it means that nature allows for such creature to exist, and that there could be others as well. You haven't seen an invisible pink unicorn (or detected it in some other way, as it is invisible after all), and although you can not firmly conclude that there are no invisible pink unicornes in existance in this universe, the scenario is quite possible.

quote:

Yes, I agree fully. My point has not been to convince anyone that they should believe in the christian God and everything in the bible or which they hear in church. My beef is with atheists who say that their conviction is not a belief since they have all the scientific facts on their side.

Yeah, well, you really can't be to certain about anything. Whenever you start to dig deeper you realize that we do not know the essence of things, only their superficial relationship with other things.

Mind here that the god does not have to be outside the universe, we didn't mention the theory that the very universe itself could be a god. Using Occam's razor, the theory would be equally viable as the one that proposes that universe simply exists for no reason at all with no gods on the outside. It would use the least number of entities (1), and would incorporate both proposals. Infact, it would almost be equivalent with the second theory, as both theories propose that god/universe simply exists here without being able to explain the rationale behind it.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.