18 Jul 17
2 edits
Originally posted by moonbusAnd 'being preferred' in this context means that all else being equal, the given explanation is more likely to be accurate (than the other one). It is NOT a proof of the explanation, only an argument from probability. It is a very useful argument and should be taken seriously, but care should be taken in understanding it and its implications before invoking it.
Occham's Razor dictates nothing about the universe. It posits that of two explanations, the one which makes fewer assumptions is to be preferred.
19 Jul 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @twhiteheadAgreed. Simplicity by itself is no proof of validity. As H.L. Mencken once said, for every problem, there is a solution which is simple, clear, and wrong.
And 'being preferred' in this context means that all else being equal, the given explanation is more likely to be accurate (than the other one). It is NOT a proof of the explanation, only an argument from probability. It is a very useful argument and should be taken seriously, but care should be taken in understanding it and its implications before invoking it.
19 Jul 17
3 edits
Originally posted by @fabianfnasAs moonbus stated, Occam's Razor is about making the fewest assumptions, not about some vague notion of simplicity. Goddidit, includes a massive unwarranted assumption and is NOT the best solution according to Occam's Razor.
The simplest solution of most questions of the type 'why' - is "Goddidit".
According to the Occam's razor principle it is the correct solution. It is *not* !!!
Therefore care should always be taken into consideration!
(Goddidit is simple to say, but hardly a 'simple' explanation. Rather its a non-explanation, as it doesn't say HOW Goddidit. You might as well say 'because Physics' ).
Originally posted by @fabianfnasNO! "Goddidit" is the most complex solution thus disfavored by Occam's razor!
The simplest solution of most questions of the type 'why' - is "Goddidit".
According to the Occam's razor principle it is the correct solution. It is *not* !!!
This is because the hypothesis that there is a God is not just one hypothesis but can be validly viewed as being many in disguise including, depending on exactly which religion you would regard as most valid, there exists an object (lets call it 'God' ) that simultaneously has all the characteristics of :
A, being the creator of the whole universe
B, being immortal
C, having a mind (which in turn assumes an entity with all the characteristics that define it as being a mind)
D, being benevolent (which in turn assumes it has a mind)
E, being supernatural (which in turn assumes that there exists a supernatural)
F, there is only one such entity with all these above characteristics (i.e. there is only one God)
....etc.
Now, each of the above (A, B, C, ...) is a hypothesis within a hypothesis (the God hypothesis) of what attributes is attached to the same object (an object called 'God' in this case) so the prior probability of God existing must be the probability of A multiplied by the probability of B multiplied by the probability of C multiplied by the probability of D ….etc thus leading to a relatively low prior probability of there existing God because only one of those hypothesis within the God hypothesis needs to be false for there to be no God.
19 Jul 17
Originally posted by @humyEssentially, Occam's Razor would say that 'a God-like entity whose immortality is not known didit is a more likely than Goddidit'. ditto for each other aspect of God not required for universe creation or whatever it is being explained.
....
B, being immortal
.....
Now, each of the above (A, B, C, ...) is a hypothesis within a hypothesis (the God hypothesis) of what attributes is attached to the same object (an object called 'God' in this case) so the prior probability of God existing must be the probability of A multiplied by the probability of B multiplied by the probability of C mul ...[text shortened]... only one of those hypothesis within the God hypothesis needs to be false for there to be no God.
19 Jul 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @twhiteheadexactly! So if you seriously assert 'Goddidit', the prior probability of you being right depends on exactly how you define 'God' and, the more detail of attributes you insist that 'God' has, the more assumptive it is and the less probable it is. The only way I can see one can rationally give a 'Goddidit' a probability anywhere near as high as 50% is to give 'God' virtually no definable attributes and give it such a vague meaning as to render "God" and thus also 'Goddidit' meaningless.
Essentially, Occam's Razor would say that 'a God-like entity whose immortality is not known didit is a more likely than Goddidit'. ditto for each other aspect of God not required for universe creation or whatever it is being explained.