Occams razor=Athiesm is the most logical view of the world?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Occams razor=Athiesm is the most logical view of the wor

Post by Dark Matter »

Sandro17 wrote: No good sir, I simply really am not sure how it fits into a counter argument.
No problem, though I do recommend reading God Without Parts by James E. Dolezal.

-- Updated February 23rd, 2017, 8:57 pm to add the following --

From a review of the book:
The doctrine of divine simplicity has long played a crucial role in Western Christianity's understanding of God. It claimed that by denying that God is composed of parts Christians are able to account for his absolute self-sufficiency and his ultimate sufficiency as the absolute Creator of the world. If God were a composite being then something other than the Godhead itself would be required to explain or account for God. If this were the case then God would not be most absolute and would not be able to adequately know or account for himself without reference to something other than himself.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Occams razor=Athiesm is the most logical view of the wor

Post by Fooloso4 »

With regard to the question of divine simplicity, compound and complex are not interchangeable terms. Aquinas says that God:

“contains within Himself the whole perfection of being” (ST Ia 4.2).

Infinite complexity would then be an attribute of God according to Aquinas. See the IEP pages on divine simplicity: http://www.iep.utm.edu/div-simp/and Aquinas: http://www.iep.utm.edu/aq-ph-th/

I think the key issue here is the fourth step in the OP’s argument:
4. To place God as an explanation as a reason for anything is to place an infinitely complex reason into an equation.
The question is, what is to count as an explanation? If we are to think of an explanation in the scientific sense (both as used by Aristotle and modern science) then nothing that is unexplained can form part of an explanation. If God is infinitely complex then God is ineffable, inexplicable, and unknowable and thus God cannot be part of an explanation.

If God is simple then God cannot be rationally understood because rationality is based on ratios or the comparison of one thing to another, or understood dialectically, and so, God cannot serve as a rational explanation.

One might insist that God is the reason why there is anything, but that is an assertion not an explanation. We might accept the assertion but we do not come to understand what was not understood in terms of things that are understood. It is not a rational explanation.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Occams razor=Athiesm is the most logical view of the wor

Post by Felix »

Sandro, I'm really not sure what your question is... may a being or beings far more aware or intelligent than man exist? Obviously they could. But if they do exist, does it matter if we've never met them? I mean "meet them" in the broadest sense, physically if they are a material being or psychically (for lack of a better word) if they are immaterial. And until/unless that happens, does it make any sense to speculate about them?
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Dissimulation
Posts: 37
Joined: March 23rd, 2017, 12:38 pm

Re: Occams razor=Athiesm is the most logical view of the wor

Post by Dissimulation »

The argument presupposes both the existence of 'god' as infinite and ascribes finite (human) qualities and implies that the finite is capable of understanding the infinite. Atheism is't a world view or methodology its a term ascribed to individuals who recognize the fallacy in dogmatic or incorrect beliefs. Religion is prevalent and unfortunately the term atheism is used as a particular term to theological belief, atheism recognition of untruth.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Occams razor=Athiesm is the most logical view of the wor

Post by Eduk »

Sandro

You have not defined Occam's razor properly.
Occam's razor is not 'a simpler explanation is better than a complex one'. Otherwise Newton would be more correct than Einstein.
Occam's razor is 'the theory with the fewest assumptions is better'.
Occam's razor is not a proof, it is a guide, a theory with more assumptions may in fact turn out to be more correct than a theory with fewer assumptions. Although by the time you have proved that you have presumably done away with most of the assumptions :)

But to answer your question in the spirit I think it's intended then yes 'God' will always fail the Occam's razor test. God is the maximum amount of assumption to slightly rephrase what you said.
Unknown means unknown.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Occams razor=Athiesm is the most logical view of the wor

Post by Steve3007 »

...Otherwise Newton would be more correct than Einstein.
I don't think this is quite true, because before applying the principle of Occam's razor, all other differences between the competing theories have already been removed. It is an "other things being equal..." principle. In the example of Newton versus Einstein, the two theories do not equally accurately describe/predict the available observations with the same accuracy.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Occams razor=Athiesm is the most logical view of the wor

Post by -1- »

Eduk wrote:Sandro

Occam's razor is 'the theory with the fewest assumptions is better'.

But to answer your question in the spirit I think it's intended then yes 'God' will always fail the Occam's razor test. God is the maximum amount of assumption to slightly rephrase what you said.
Hm. God may be the biggest lie, and the most energy-consuming assumption for a thinker, but it is one, that is, 1 assumption. Occam's razor, according to a previous part of your post, quoted by me with its excess plumage removed, counts the number of assumptions, it does not rank them for bigness or smallness.

So God theory is the ultimate Occam's razor: it uses one assumption, "God's will" and it applies to everything. You can't get lower than 1 when it comes to positive integers, which is how assumptions are counted. Whereas in science Newton's physics uses a few assumptions, then Guillermo's chemistry uses a few different assumptions, then Stankovits's and Marx's economic theory uses quite a few assumptions; "god's will" is one assumption, and it takes care of everything in the universe.

In this Occam's razor debate I tend to agree with Sandro, esp. at the point of his thought development when he agreed with me.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Occams razor=Athiesm is the most logical view of the wor

Post by Eduk »

I don't think this is quite true, because before applying the principle of Occam's razor, all other differences between the competing theories have already been removed. It is an "other things being equal..." principle. In the example of Newton versus Einstein, the two theories do not equally accurately describe/predict the available observations with the same accuracy.
I'm not sure if you are agreeing with my definition or not? If not then I get your point that Occam's razor is supposed to be applied to two competing theories which are considered to be equal. It was meant as a scientific tool and it is probably misused quite a bit in general language.
But if you use Newton to predict the movement of a body on the surface of the earth falling in a vacuum and you use Einstein's theory then you'll get the same answer to a certain decimal place. So at this level, the level where Newton works, the two theories could be said to make the same predictions. At which point you can say Newton is simpler and therefore more likely to be right according to occam's razor. This is why I say occam's razor is not 'the simplest theory is more likely to be correct' but instead it is the 'theory with the least assumptions is more likely to be right'. Certainly this is the dictionary definition if not the commonly used definition. Also if you could argue that occam's razor was commonly used in terms of simplest then I would say this was a misuse and not helpful.
So God theory is the ultimate Occam's razor: it uses one assumption, "God's will" and it applies to everything.
As soon as you say 'God's will' then you create many assumptions. Who is God, what is God, what is his will, why is his will, where is God, when is God, who made God, why did they do that, what properties does God have? etc etc etc.

Technically as Steve points out two theories have to be somewhat equal to start with before it even makes sense to think about Occam's razor. A theory makes a falsifiable prediction starting with a hypothesis and then uses evidence to prove or disprove the theory. Saying God made it that way is not a competing theory, as no falsifiable predictions are made and no evidence can be found to prove or disprove. So the vast majority of the time Occam's razor is superfluous as it isn't the case that there are two competing theories.

Where you can use Occam's razor is in cases where the two theories are the same but theory A states God made it this way and theory B simply doesn't posit a cause. In these cases Occam's razor will remove the assumption of God as being likely.

Please note Occam's razor is in no way a proof, and is in no way meant to be a proof. It is meant to be a tool and like all tools can be misused.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Occams razor=Athiesm is the most logical view of the wor

Post by -1- »

Eduk wrote:
So God theory is the ultimate Occam's razor: it uses one assumption, "God's will" and it applies to everything.
As soon as you say 'God's will' then you create many assumptions. Who is God, what is God, what is his will, why is his will, where is God, when is God, who made God, why did they do that, what properties does God have? etc etc etc.
No. More assumptions are not created. Those are assumptions for what god is. But the one assumption is only one assumption.

Let me illustrate it this way: Everything happens because it's (strike god, substitute hydrogen atom)'s will.

There is no assumptions needed to realize that there is a hydrogen atom whose will makes everything happen.

Still not satisfied? Substitute anything in there. It is not the complexity or lack of the object whose will makes everything happen. Those are absolutely unnecessary assumptions. Not needed. Not used. NOT USED.

The only assumption needed and used is that it's god's will that makes everything happen. Occam's razor satisfied (least amount of assumptions.)

-- Updated 2017 March 28th, 5:50 pm to add the following --
Eduk wrote:
Technically as Steve points out two theories have to be somewhat equal to start with before it even makes sense to think about Occam's razor. A theory makes a falsifiable prediction STOP right there. You are now introducing a restriction that had not been stated in the original problem. Stop doing that: you must be more wary of yourself creating strawman fallacies in your arguments. NOBODY stipulated that the theory has to be falsifiable. It just asked for the theory with the least amount of assumptions. GET WITH THE PROGRAM, please, and PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE avoid uttering fallacies. starting with a hypothesis and then uses evidence to prove or disprove the theory. Saying God made it that way is not a competing theory, as no falsifiable predictions are made and no evidence can be found to prove or disprove. So the vast majority of the time Occam's razor is superfluous as it isn't the case that there are two competing theories.

-- Updated 2017 March 28th, 5:52 pm to add the following --
Eduk wrote:[
Where you can use Occam's razor is in cases where the two theories are the same but theory A states God made it this way and theory B simply doesn't posit a cause. In these cases Occam's razor will remove the assumption of God as being likely.
If the theory does not posit a cause, then it is not a theory. What you said was not a valid argument.

-- Updated 2017 March 28th, 5:56 pm to add the following --
Eduk wrote: Please note Occam's razor is in no way a proof, and is in no way meant to be a proof. It is meant to be a tool and like all tools can be misused.
I agree with this.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Occams razor=Athiesm is the most logical view of the wor

Post by Eduk »

In the same way that Occam's razor is not a proof, informal fallacies are also not proofs. It's not generally worth spending too much time in pointing out informal fallacies, other that to say, like Occam's razor, they point in a certain direction. Funnily enough there is the fallacy fallacy to be aware of also.

Oh and I was not trying to add restrictions I was saying what a 'scientific theory' is. And trying to point out that Occam's razor is not necessarily an appropriate tool unless you are talking about scientific theories.

Oh and lastly I'll give you an example of what I meant. Let's say theory A concerns the theory of evolution and theory B is the exact same theory of evolution except that 'God' created evolution to begin with. Theory A does not make assumptions on how evolution came into existence in the first place.

-- Updated March 28th, 2017, 7:01 pm to add the following --

oh and finally finally we will just have to agree to disagree on number of assumptions :) I could probably talk about the magnitude of the assumption too but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
Unknown means unknown.
Moreno
Posts: 150
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 7:23 pm

Re: Occams razor=Athiesm is the most logical view of the wor

Post by Moreno »

Sandro17 wrote:Hello there, its my first post on the forum.

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

Argument:

1. God is an infinite being and therefore has infinite complexity.
I am not sure this is the case nor do we need to assume that God is infinite. And further if the universe is infinite, it would have similar complexity.
2. The simpler the explanation the more likely it is better than a complex one (Occams razor)
This isn't really Occams' razor. It's more like if two explanations both adequately describe what we know than the simpler one is preferred. This is in situations where all parties agree that the two explanations in question cover all experiences/phenomena.
3. Nothing is more complex than what is infinitely complex. Therefore all other things are less complex.
This seems to be conflating the explanation with the thing itself (reality). To explain that the brain is made up of atoms and billions or trillions whatever it is, does not make the statement a complex one. It does posit a very complex entity - in this case the brain. When we evaluate explanations using occams' razor, we are evaluating the number of posited entities, the number of kinds really. To say everything is Brahma, for example, posits one entity.

Occam was of course a theist.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Occams razor=Athiesm is the most logical view of the wor

Post by LuckyR »

Sandro17 wrote:Hello there, its my first post on the forum.

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

Argument:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Side note: As a thiest, this idea has been bothering me for quite some time and I'd love it if someone would prove me wrong. However, I also understand that truth and logic are integral to life and I highly value rationality and logic.
Your post suffers because it is a post hoc argument. Back when the idea of gods was invented, it was Real Life that was complex. Science hadn't been invented yet, after all. So using the crutch of god to explain the (then) unexplainable was a SIMPLE device, not an "infinitely complex" one. Not unlike the device of putting sea monsters on the edge of maps beyond where the map maker's culture had discovered. Thus why (according to Occam's Razor) it is completely logical that primitive man would invent the idea of gods or the supernatural, regardless and separate from whether or not there actually are gods.
"As usual... it depends."
Moreno
Posts: 150
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 7:23 pm

Re: Occams razor=Athiesm is the most logical view of the wor

Post by Moreno »

LuckyR wrote:
Your post suffers because it is a post hoc argument. Back when the idea of gods was invented, it was Real Life that was complex. Science hadn't been invented yet, after all. So using the crutch of god to explain the (then) unexplainable was a SIMPLE device, not an "infinitely complex" one. Not unlike the device of putting sea monsters on the edge of maps beyond where the map maker's culture had discovered. Thus why (according to Occam's Razor) it is completely logical that primitive man would invent the idea of gods or the supernatural, regardless and separate from whether or not there actually are gods.
How does occam's razor explain why they posited a God (or sea monsters)? They could simply have described what was there? And wouldn't whatever reasoning that justifies this still hold? Why would scientific explanations now preclude what you are calling completely logical according to occam's razor? We still have unexplained origins.
Moreno
Posts: 150
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 7:23 pm

Re: Occams razor=Athiesm is the most logical view of the wor

Post by Moreno »

Eduk wrote:Sandro

You have not defined Occam's razor properly.
Occam's razor is not 'a simpler explanation is better than a complex one'. Otherwise Newton would be more correct than Einstein.
Occam's razor is 'the theory with the fewest assumptions is better'.
Occam's razor is not a proof, it is a guide, a theory with more assumptions may in fact turn out to be more correct than a theory with fewer assumptions. Although by the time you have proved that you have presumably done away with most of the assumptions :)

But to answer your question in the spirit I think it's intended then yes 'God' will always fail the Occam's razor test. God is the maximum amount of assumption to slightly rephrase what you said.
I don't think it is easy to determine the number of assumptions. There is no neutral ground from which one begins making assumptions. From one's metaphysics one decides what are assumptions, what are justified assumptions, what are not. For the materialist naturalist God presents a lot of assumptions - but his or her metaphysics has a lot of assumptions about what can be real, the only ways to gain knowledge, what can be known, what is precluded, etc. Occam's Razor works with people who come from the same paradigm. They can then work with agreed upon entities and see how many there are. If you are working with two paradigms bringing in occam's razor is a power play disguised as a logical argument. Occam's razor is precisely NOT an ontological claim. It is a methodological suggestion, one that works between people who agree about much of what is real and also about epistemology.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Occams razor=Athiesm is the most logical view of the wor

Post by Eduk »

There is no neutral ground from which one begins making assumptions.
Does there have to be? If two people disagree can one person be more right than another person? If the person who is more right fails to convince the person who is more wrong does that mean they are less right? If someone makes an assumption without realising does that mean they haven't made an assumption? Are some assumptions bigger/worse assumptions than other assumptions? Are some assumptions more reasonable than other assumptions?
Unknown means unknown.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021