Argument from Parsimony: Eligance of God hypothesis

[Metacrock]

I've tried to make a parsimony argument many times in different ways. This one is real old. I am not satisfied with it. I just realized one major problem this is really set out in terms of the "guy in the sky" kind of theism rather than being itself.

But let's discuss it. read it, see what you think, let's do some argument around it.



(1) decision making paradigm embraces the simpelist and most elegant idea
(2) God is the simple solution

(3) Solves all other problems



Elegant Solution

searchWebServices.com Definitions - powered by whatis.com

The word elegant, in general, is an adjective meaning of fine quality. Refinement and simplicity are implied, rather than fussiness, or ostentation. An elegant solution, often referred to in relation to problems in disciplines such as mathematics, engineering, and programming, is one in which the maximum desired effect is achieved with the smallest, or simplest effort. Engineers, for example, seek the elegant solution as a means of solving a problem with the least possible waste of materials and effort. The elegant solution is also likely to be accomplished with appropriate methods and materials - according to the Elegant Solution Organization, duct tape is not likely to be part of an elegant solution, unless, of course, the problem involves taping ducts.




This scientific principle is derived from Occam's Razor, but it is not Occam's Razor.The Razor is always misquoted. The popular notion is that it says "take the simpelist solution." Actually it doesn't. Occam never said that. He said do not multiply entities beyond necessity. But it is, nevertheless understood that the simplest and most eleigant solution is to be prefurrred.

God is not a scientific concpet, and thus cannot be Parsimonious, and doesnt' need to be. But elegant solutions exist at all levels of problem solving. While Gdo is not a scinetific concpet, God is an elegant solution to all our crational needs. Alvin Plantinga (Lecture Notes--26 Theistic arguments)

Quote:

"According to Swinburne, simplicity is a prime determinant of intrinsic probability. That seems to me doubtful, mainly because there is probably no such thing in general as intrinsic (logical) probability. Still we certainly do favor simplicity; and we are inclined to think that simple explanations and hypotheses are more likely to be true than complicated epicyclic ones. So suppose you think that simplicity is a mark of truth (for hypotheses). If theism is true, then some reason to think the more simple has a better chance of being true than the less simple; for God has created both us and our theoretical preferences and the world; and it is reasonable to think that he would adapt the one to the other. (If he himself favored anti-simplicity, then no doubt he would have created us in such a way that we would too.) If theism is not true, however, there would seem to be no reason to think that the simple is more likely to be true than the complex."



B. God is the simpelist Solution.

(1) nature of simplicity

Atheists often think that God is the more complicated solution. On discusson boards they will often argue that the Big Bang is much simpler than God becasue it comes from a singularity. So they are confussing size with simplicity. Apparently they think that an infintessimally small thing is siple and an infinte thing is complex. But this is not at all true, which one can see with proper reflection. God is actually much simpler. The singulaity has to be expalined itself, it offers no real expalination but ivintes a cause for itself. And if it did contan matter and energy, which many sketpics seem to think but the real scientific theory doesn't say that, it would be even more complex becase that would require an explanation as to how infinitely dense matter got in there in the first place.

2) Theism simpler hypothesis- in terms of origin.

As Duns Scotus put it, there is an infinite distance between being and non-being, and theism posits the origin of being by being, whereas atheism posits the origin of being from non-being.

Edmund Whitaker, a British physicist, wrote a book entitled The Beginning and End of the World, in which he said, "There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity?" Whitaker concluded, "It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo--Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness." [cited in Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 111-12.]

Physicist Barry Parker agrees: "We do, of course, have an alternative. We could say that there was no creation, and that the universe has always been here. But this is even more difficult to accept than creation."[Barry Parker, Creation--The Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe (New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988) p. 202.]

II. Through this one simple notion all problems are solved.

(1) The God Hypothesis forms basis for modern science

Appeal to God as metaphysical construct helped build modern sicence.

*
Whitehead

christepher C. Warren

"Can Science Exist Without Faiht?"

(Oxford educated biochemist)

Einstein said: "Belief in an external world, independent of the perceiving subject, is the basis of all natural science. Without the belief that it is possible to grasp reality without theoretical constructions, without the belief in the inner harmony of our world, there could be no science. This belief is and always will remain the fundamental motive for all scientific creation."

Oppenheimer said: "We cannot make much progress without a faith that in the bewildering field of human experience there is a unique and necessary order."

Whitehead said: "The belief in a personal Creator is implanted in the European mind -- the inexpungeable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definable manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labours of scientists would be without hope. It is this instinctive conviction, vividly poised before the imagination, which is the motive power of research: that there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. This faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology."




*
Newton


Reductionism, Clockwork Universe

The Physical world

Open University


Newton's three laws of motion and his principle of universal gravitation sufficed to regulate the new cosmos, but only, Newton believed, with the help of God. Gravity, he more than once hinted, was direct divine action, as were all forces for order and vitality. Absolute space, for Newton, was essential, because space was the "sensorium of God," and the divine abode must necessarily be the ultimate coordinate system.


(2) The Elegant Solution.

God is sipmler by far, espeicially Tllich's notion of God as the ground of being or the Thomistic concept of a God whose existence is his essence. This is the most eleigant solution in the world. God is on a par with Being itself and his essence is to be. That is elegant becasue it means just this: Being has to be, and what being does is merely eixst, thus if God's existence (the fact that he is) is his essence (the thing that he is) than it means that Being itself is merely doing what it is supposse to do, merely being and through its own being allowing the beings to come into existence.



1) The problem of existence.

In terms of the ultimate question of origin this is solved in the God hypothesis in the logic of the final cause. The assumption of an infinite regress of causes is ultimately illogical and the chain of cause and effect must stop some place.

2) The human problematic.

All world religions seek to define a human problematic, the human condition, the centeral dilemma at the core of being human. They all define it in different terms but they all do recognize that there is one. Some think of it as sin, some as imbalance, some as being alienated from nature and the universe, but all have some notion of a problematic.

Athesits approach the notion of God and what God wants as though merely dealing witht a big bully in the sky. God is just another guy and he has his opinion and we have ours. It doesn't matter that he' s more powerful, most bullies usually are, but that doesn't make him right. This view is so silly, shallow, and short sighted and yet it will be the basis of most responses given. They often say things like "how does having a first principle help you? " or "so what if God thinks this?" IT is not merely a matter of God' s "opinion" if God exists God is a priori the dterminate of all truth and justice and all meaning and judgement simpley by virtue of the fact that God not only created all that is, but that even potential existence must originate in the will of God. That means God makes things true! That being the case, all the problems involved in the human probelmatic are bound up in God.

a) Problem of meaning.

Without God all meaning is merely relative and subjective. Any meaning that can be had on those terms is pretend meaning. With the concept of God meaning is wirtten into the fabric of the universe because it stemms form being itself. Meaning is just a matter of interpriation, but God interprits from the ultimate univresal persective. He knows all and sees from every vantage point. Since God is eternal, true meaning is that which registers on the eternal scale of values. God's scale of values is absolute, so if God assigns meaning it is universally true and valid for all eternity. Thus, the deaths of unknown martyrs are always already more meaningfull and better known where it counts than the most famous events in history, even if no one on earth knows about them. This is far more "meaningful" than what you or I can think or pretned about our lives.

b) The moral problem.

Consult the moral problem, argument no. 8 two pages back. The explainitory value of the argument shows why we have moral motions and why we are not able to live up to them. With God this problem is exaplained as well but with materialism it must either be ignored or reduced to something else.Now atheists have this habit of reducing God's will to mere whim. Thus they argue that God's will in terms of ethical mandates is nothing more than argbitrary. But that is foolish. If God exists than his will is paramount, it is the defining factor, not in an arbitrary way, but because God is synonimous with the good. The good is based upon God's character. This is a logical necessity based upon the fact that God is the ground of being. Thus, it is not a mere whim that creates the good, but the openess of being which creates the essence of all rational ethical choices, the will for the good of the other, giving opening up to, in short, love. This forms the essence of all valuations and makes moral that which is merely factual, or immoral that which is merely factual.

4) Epistemologial problems.

God gives us epistemologicaly assumptions which cover a wide range of topics and offers certainty as to the ultimate form of knowledge.

5) Ultiamte Concerns.

Hunaties ultiamte concerns which are meaning and death are wrapped up in the nature of God's existence. God gives meaning and satisfies ultimate concerns thorugh transformation.

D.The Atheist Hypothesis is comparitvely contradictory.

Yes, there is no "atheist hypothesis" per se, other than that God doesn't exist. But that is juts the point. To simpley posit no God and life as the result of dead matter and random chance alone leaves on in a confussed state of disaray, with no central over arching theme that ties together all the provblems of humanity. Themeism solves them all, espeicially does Christianity solve them all in one fell swoop. With atheism or materialism most of these probelms are disconnected and require seperate solutions. With God they are all resolved in the one simple answer of God's existence. This makes belief in God the simplest and most eligant solution because it resolves all of our most imporant questions at once. That offers a strong indication in a probablistic assumption that God is the nature of the case.

[QuantumTroll]

Metacrock, let's discuss this argument. Especially the part where you claim that God is simpler than atheist theories of existence. I claim that God is complex and not as simple as a purely physical theory.

My argument is as follows:

1. Complexity can be measured as the length of the shortest string of text that describes something.
2. God is generally taken to be indescribable and infinite.
3. Therefore God has infinite complexity.
4. The physical laws of the universe are generally taken to be fundamentally very simple (see e.g. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature).
5. Therefore even a complete physical theory will probably be very elegant and simple.
6. Therefore the principle of parsimony falls on the side of the atheists.

You might take issue with step 2, since you sometimes describe God as "Being itself", which is quite short. However, I've already written at length in other threads about how and why I think your idea of God is really much more than only that. For example, "Being itself" doesn't imply (to me, at least), intelligence and a capability of actually doing anything, let alone answer human prayers and get a woman pregnant with a perfect male human. So that's my defense of point #2.

What are your thoughts?

[Metacrock]

Metacrock, let's discuss this argument. Especially the part where you claim that God is simpler than atheist theories of existence. I claim that God is complex and not as simple as a purely physical theory.

OK sure, but before we do that you have understand that (and this does screw my argument, I have to re think, so you know this is an experimental argument.) but I don't think concepts like simple or complex are meaningful in relation to God. As far as the argument goes what is simple is not God per se but the understanding we have of his relation to the world. the reason I think terms like that don't apply is God is the basis of relaity. How can you compare God to concepts like that if the whole concept we have of existence per se is just a thought in the mind of God?


The impulse to do that, to compare God to our concepts of complexity, is based upon the Dawkensian notion that God can be case in terms of a biological model. You probably want to accept he notion that our model of psychical is the only for that existence can ever take and that biological life is the only form of life or consciousness, while none of these ideas can be supported I'm using you probably accepting them on some automatic level just because they fit so easily with a scientific world view (no offense).


btw I'm discussing the notion of the TS in that other thread precisely because you said you thought i didn't understand signifier and signified so you should go over there and defend your supposition.

My argument is as follows:

1. Complexity can be measured as the length of the shortest string of text that describes something.

that's a biological definition. How do you know, what do you compare to? So if I say "God is the primary act of existence" Aquinas thought that was the ultimate in simplicity, how do you know it's not, after all it lacks anything to do with DNA.

2. God is generally taken to be indescribable and infinite.

But not a biological organism or a product of DNA

3. Therefore God has infinite complexity.

that assertion is supported. It's at cross purposes with the concepts. It stems from a biological model and God infinite nature is more of a mathematical model. Mathematical infinity can be very simple. A line can be infinite, a circle can infinite, neither is complex.

4. The physical laws of the universe are generally taken to be fundamentally very simple (see e.g. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature).
5. Therefore even a complete physical theory will probably be very elegant and simple.

God is elegant and simple, exhypothosai.

6. Therefore the principle of parsimony falls on the side of the atheists.

Only if you assume Dawkin's biological mode which contradicts every concept of God in all of organized religion.

You might take issue with step 2, since you sometimes describe God as "Being itself", which is quite short. However, I've already written at length in other threads about how and why I think your idea of God is really much more than only that. For example, "Being itself" doesn't imply (to me, at least), intelligence and a capability of actually doing anything, let alone answer human prayers and get a woman pregnant with a perfect male human. So that's my defense of point #2.

What are your thoughts?

according to Gaswamai God is is being itself and being itself is the basis of consciousness and is simple and elegant.

[QuantumTroll]

Metacrock, let's discuss this argument. Especially the part where you claim that God is simpler than atheist theories of existence. I claim that God is complex and not as simple as a purely physical theory.

OK sure, but before we do that you have understand that (and this does screw my argument, I have to re think, so you know this is an experimental argument.) but I don't think concepts like simple or complex are meaningful in relation to God.

Alright, well, that's something you need to figure out or else your argument doesn't hold water even in your own eyes. Without a metric of simplicity or complexity, parsimoniousness doesn't exist. So for the sake of the argument, let's assume that we can talk about the complexity of God in some fashion.

As far as the argument goes what is simple is not God per se but the understanding we have of his relation to the world. the reason I think terms like that don't apply is God is the basis of relaity. How can you compare God to concepts like that if the whole concept we have of existence per se is just a thought in the mind of God?

I'll come back to this at the end of the post.

The impulse to do that, to compare God to our concepts of complexity, is based upon the Dawkensian notion that God can be case in terms of a biological model. You probably want to accept he notion that our model of psychical is the only for that existence can ever take and that biological life is the only form of life or consciousness, while none of these ideas can be supported I'm using you probably accepting them on some automatic level just because they fit so easily with a scientific world view (no offense).

Since you keep returning to this point throughout your rebuttal, I'll address this now. I'm a mathematician first, a biologist second. Consciousness isn't necessarily biological, but it is necessarily computational. Why computational? Because a consciousness minimally must take in information and return other information, and this is computation. If a "consciousness" does not do this, then I'd ask in what sense it can be considered consciousness at all.

btw I'm discussing the notion of the TS in that other thread precisely because you said you thought i didn't understand signifier and signified so you should go over there and defend your supposition.

Right, sorry for not having done that. It's a tricky/messy discussion and I'm just not in a good position to properly involve myself in it right now. Later, perhaps?

My argument is as follows:

1. Complexity can be measured as the length of the shortest string of text that describes something.

that's a biological definition. How do you know, what do you compare to? So if I say "God is the primary act of existence" Aquinas thought that was the ultimate in simplicity, how do you know it's not, after all it lacks anything to do with DNA.

As I described above, I'm not working from a biological standpoint. More a mathematical/philosophical one. If you have another definition (or metric) of complexity, I'm open to it, but this is a simple mathematical definition that I think works quite well.

2. God is generally taken to be indescribable and infinite.

But not a biological organism or a product of DNA.

Nope, nor do I imply that that's necessary for my argument. Let me belabor this point a bit more with these three supporting arguments:
2a. God is sometimes described as all-encompassing. A superset of all that is. Then He embodies all the complexity that exists plus that which is unique to Him. A book is more complex than the pages between its covers.
2b. God is sometimes taken to be literally indescribable. You can't write on a finite ream of paper everything that God is. So His description is larger than finite, i.e. transfinite or infinite.
2c. A "proof by contradiction": Suppose God is not infinitely complex. Then you can in theory build a machine that reproduces Him with a finite number of parts. Since I don't think that's consistent with any concept of God, He must be infinitely complex.

3. Therefore God has infinite complexity.

that assertion is supported. It's at cross purposes with the concepts. It stems from a biological model and God infinite nature is more of a mathematical model. Mathematical infinity can be very simple. A line can be infinite, a circle can infinite, neither is complex.

I assume you typo'd and meant unsupported, but I think I've supported it quite well now. It doesn't stem from anything biological, and God's infinite nature isn't a simple ∞ or anything like infinite variety in the digits of sqrt(2). sqrt(2) can obviously be expressed very simply, whereas God cannot be.

4. The physical laws of the universe are generally taken to be fundamentally very simple (see e.g. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature).
5. Therefore even a complete physical theory will probably be very elegant and simple.

God is elegant and simple, exhypothosai.

I don't understand what you mean by this. What is "exhypothosai"? God is more than a physical theory, more than a set of equations.

6. Therefore the principle of parsimony falls on the side of the atheists.

Only if you assume Dawkin's biological mode which contradicts every concept of God in all of organized religion.

Nope, I've got nothing to do with Dawkins or biology.

You might take issue with step 2, since you sometimes describe God as "Being itself", which is quite short. However, I've already written at length in other threads about how and why I think your idea of God is really much more than only that. For example, "Being itself" doesn't imply (to me, at least), intelligence and a capability of actually doing anything, let alone answer human prayers and get a woman pregnant with a perfect male human. So that's my defense of point #2.

What are your thoughts?

according to Gaswamai God is is being itself and being itself is the basis of consciousness and is simple and elegant.

The basis of consciousness isn't conscious itself. The foundation of a house isn't a proper home — there's no roof or walls! God can (reportedly) talk to people, impregnate women, make judgments, heal, inspire literature, etc. Therefore God isn't just the basis of consciousness, He is also conscious. I can make the same argument for God as "being itself". I'll grant you that the basis of consciousness and being may be very very simple, but God is much more than that.

[Metacrock]

Alright, well, that's something you need to figure out or else your argument doesn't hold water even in your own eyes. Without a metric of simplicity or complexity, parsimoniousness doesn't exist. So for the sake of the argument, let's assume that we can talk about the complexity of God in some fashion.

wrong. If you are going to try to say anything parsimonious has to be scientific then there can't be a parsimonious argument for God. I don't think using that term necessitates that the parsimony be a scientific hypothesis per se. AS I said the concept is elegant, the nature of God does not have to be simple for the concept of God work simply and elegantly within a system.

There are different types of parsimony. it does not mean whatever is parsimonious has to have few working parts or whatever.

Meta:As far as the argument goes what is simple is not God per se but the understanding we have of his relation to the world. the reason I think terms like that don't apply is God is the basis of reality. How can you compare God to concepts like that if the whole concept we have of existence per se is just a thought in the mind of God?

QT:I'll come back to this at the end of the post.

MetaThe impulse to do that, to compare God to our concepts of complexity, is based upon the Dawkensian notion that God can be case in terms of a biological model. You probably want to accept he notion that our model of psychical is the only for that existence can ever take and that biological life is the only form of life or consciousness, while none of these ideas can be supported I'm using you probably accepting them on some automatic level just because they fit so easily with a scientific world view (no offense).

QT:Since you keep returning to this point throughout your rebuttal, I'll address this now. I'm a mathematician first, a biologist second. Consciousness isn't necessarily biological, but it is necessarily computational. Why computational? Because a consciousness minimally must take in information and return other information, and this is computation. If a "consciousness" does not do this, then I'd ask in what sense it can be considered consciousness at all.

But you are assuming that works the same way for all forms of consciousness. so all consciousness is like biological consciousness. you do not know what other forms may exist. you have no way of arguing that biological is the only model we can use.

you are doing the bait and switch that the reductionists do. you are assuming that consciousness is brain function. Science does not know that and you do not know that! you are begging the question by asserting standards not in evidence.

Meta:btw I'm discussing the notion of the TS in that other thread precisely because you said you thought i didn't understand signifier and signified so you should go over there and defend your supposition.

QTRight, sorry for not having done that. It's a tricky/messy discussion and I'm just not in a good position to properly involve myself in it right now. Later, perhaps?

that's cool, the board will be here

My argument is as follows:

1. Complexity can be measured as the length of the shortest string of text that describes something.

Metathat's a biological definition. How do you know, what do you compare to? So if I say "God is the primary act of existence" Aquinas thought that was the ultimate in simplicity, how do you know it's not, after all it lacks anything to do with DNA.

QT:As I described above, I'm not working from a biological standpoint. More a mathematical/philosophical one. If you have another definition (or metric) of complexity, I'm open to it, but this is a simple mathematical definition that I think works quite well.

Your assertion is arbitrary. you cant' show me what that means in relation to the foundation of all reality. It's only meaningful in a limited sense dealing with human understanding and our tiny little tinny sample of the universe that we have been exposed to. It also makes question begging assumptions about the nature of consciousness. That has not been sorted out. I also feel you are substituting brain function for consciousness.

2. God is generally taken to be indescribable and infinite.

But not a biological organism or a product of DNA.

Nope, nor do I imply that that's necessary for my argument. Let me belabor this point a bit more with these three supporting arguments:
2a. God is sometimes described as all-encompassing. A superset of all that is. Then He embodies all the complexity that exists plus that which is unique to Him. A book is more complex than the pages between its covers.
2b. God is sometimes taken to be literally indescribable. You can't write on a finite ream of paper everything that God is. So His description is larger than finite, i.e. transfinite or infinite.
2c. A "proof by contradiction": Suppose God is not infinitely complex. Then you can in theory build a machine that reproduces Him with a finite number of parts. Since I don't think that's consistent with any concept of God, He must be infinitely complex.

3. Therefore God has infinite complexity.

that assertion is supported. It's at cross purposes with the concepts. It stems from a biological model and God infinite nature is more of a mathematical model. Mathematical infinity can be very simple. A line can be infinite, a circle can infinite, neither is complex.

I assume you typo'd and meant unsupported, but I think I've supported it quite well now. It doesn't stem from anything biological, and God's infinite nature isn't a simple ∞ or anything like infinite variety in the digits of sqrt(2). sqrt(2) can obviously be expressed very simply, whereas God cannot be.

with what? all you have said something that assumes

(1) you understand conscoiusness

(2) that's it's limited to our understanding of the universe

(3) assumeing there's nothign more beyond what we know

(4) it assumes biolgoical organism

(5) substitues brain functino for conscoius awareness.

(6) it has no empirical data of any kind to back it up

(7) assumes it's reduceable to brain function

(8) assumes there's only one model for conscious awareness.

4. The physical laws of the universe are generally taken to be fundamentally very simple (see e.g. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature).
5. Therefore even a complete physical theory will probably be very elegant and simple.

based upon our limited understanding all that other stuff indicating we don't know squat. You are trying to pin down the mother fucking basis of all things based upon th same we have form this planet and we have never even set foot on another planet.

God is elegant and simple, exhypothosai.

I don't understand what you mean by this. What is "exhypothosai"? God is more than a physical theory, more than a set of equations.

"from the hypothesis." it's Latin, sort of. I had a typo, should be ex hypothosai. that's still probably spelled wrong.

6. Therefore the principle of parsimony falls on the side of the atheists.

Only if you assume Dawkin's biological mode which contradicts every concept of God in all of organized religion.

Nope, I've got nothing to do with Dawkins or biology.

you are assuming biology. you may not be thinking of Dawkins and you may call it "mathematical" but you are still assuming that consciousness is done by brains and you can't have it without one. no? come on! you know you are!

You might take issue with step 2, since you sometimes describe God as "Being itself", which is quite short. However, I've already written at length in other threads about how and why I think your idea of God is really much more than only that. For example, "Being itself" doesn't imply (to me, at least), intelligence and a capability of actually doing anything, let alone answer human prayers and get a woman pregnant with a perfect male human. So that's my defense of point #2.

What are your thoughts?

according to Gaswamai God is is being itself and being itself is the basis of consciousness and is simple and elegant.

The basis of consciousness isn't conscious itself.

yes it is. you don't know that. how could you could you possibly know that? It makes sense to think it would be. you are arguing form analogy because water molecules aren't wet. But that doesn't mean that consciousness isn't aware.

The foundation of a house isn't a proper home — there's no roof or walls! God can (reportedly) talk to people, impregnate women, make judgments, heal, inspire literature, etc.

argument from analogy. proves nothing. you can't compare the basis of the conscious to a house.

Therefore God isn't just the basis of consciousness, He is also conscious.

Yea but his conscious awareness stems from the his nature as the basis of reality, which means he is both conscious and the basis of consciousness.

I can make the same argument for God as "being itself". I'll grant you that the basis of consciousness and being may be very very simple, but God is much more than that.

You haven't not even addressed the most crucial of the whole debate, that you can't make comparisons like that meaningful in relation o the foundation of all things.

That's saying heaven is up and not down. If you have no base line of comparison how can you say which way is which? You are litterly trying to say there's up and down in deep space. What meaning does the term "simple" have in a context where the simple thing is also the basis of complex? If there is only God and nothing else, what do you compare God to say he's "simple" or "complex?"

[QuantumTroll]

Alright, well, that's something you need to figure out or else your argument doesn't hold water even in your own eyes. Without a metric of simplicity or complexity, parsimoniousness doesn't exist. So for the sake of the argument, let's assume that we can talk about the complexity of God in some fashion.

wrong. If you are going to try to say anything parsimonious has to be scientific then there can't be a parsimonious argument for God. I don't think using that term necessitates that the parsimony be a scientific hypothesis per se. AS I said the concept is elegant, the nature of God does not have to be simple for the concept of God work simply and elegantly within a system.

There are different types of parsimony. it does not mean whatever is parsimonious has to have few working parts or whatever.

I invited you to give an alternative definition of parsimony. You haven't done that. We need to define terms if we're to have a sensible discussion. How can we say that one thing is more parsimonious than something else if you refuse to set a standard or metric of complexity?

QT:Since you keep returning to this point throughout your rebuttal, I'll address this now. I'm a mathematician first, a biologist second. Consciousness isn't necessarily biological, but it is necessarily computational. Why computational? Because a consciousness minimally must take in information and return other information, and this is computation. If a "consciousness" does not do this, then I'd ask in what sense it can be considered consciousness at all.

But you are assuming that works the same way for all forms of consciousness. so all consciousness is like biological consciousness. you do not know what other forms may exist. you have no way of arguing that biological is the only model we can use.

you are doing the bait and switch that the reductionists do. you are assuming that consciousness is brain function. Science does not know that and you do not know that! you are begging the question by asserting standards not in evidence.

Again, we need to define terms. I firmly believe in a definition of consciousness that requires the processing of data. If something doesn't process data, then you can't talk to it and get a sensible reply, it can't change its opinion or course of action once it gets going, it can't perceive or communicate anything at all. This isn't biology, this is a basic requirement of consciousness. If you can't talk to it and it isn't affected by changes in its environment, then in what sense can something be conscious? I'm not begging the question, I'm working from the definition of consciousness itself. What is consciousness to you?

My argument is as follows:

[quote

QT:As I described above, I'm not working from a biological standpoint. More a mathematical/philosophical one. If you have another definition (or metric) of complexity, I'm open to it, but this is a simple mathematical definition that I think works quite well.

Your assertion is arbitrary. you cant' show me what that means in relation to the foundation of all reality. It's only meaningful in a limited sense dealing with human understanding and our tiny little tinny sample of the universe that we have been exposed to. It also makes question begging assumptions about the nature of consciousness. That has not been sorted out. I also feel you are substituting brain function for consciousness.

Well, what is your alternative definition of complexity? You can't have an argument if you won't define the terms in the argument. The one I use is quite common and is associated with information theory and physics.

with what? all you have said something that assumes

(1) you understand conscoiusness
(2) that's it's limited to our understanding of the universe
(3) assumeing there's nothign more beyond what we know
(4) it assumes biolgoical organism
(5) substitues brain functino for conscoius awareness.
(6) it has no empirical data of any kind to back it up
(7) assumes it's reduceable to brain function
(8) assumes there's only one model for conscious awareness.

I don't think you're being fair. I'm working with what we know, with mathematics. I don't claim #1, #3, #4, #5, #6 is irrelevant, #7, or #8.

4. The physical laws of the universe are generally taken to be fundamentally very simple (see e.g. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature).
5. Therefore even a complete physical theory will probably be very elegant and simple.

based upon our limited understanding all that other stuff indicating we don't know squat. You are trying to pin down the mother fucking basis of all things based upon th same we have form this planet and we have never even set foot on another planet.

Who needs to set foot there when the light from other galaxies comes to us?

God is elegant and simple, exhypothosai.

I don't understand what you mean by this. What is "exhypothosai"? God is more than a physical theory, more than a set of equations.

"from the hypothesis." it's Latin, sort of. I had a typo, should be ex hypothosai. that's still probably spelled wrong.

Which hypothesis? You haven't addressed my arguments for God's high complexity.

you are assuming biology. you may not be thinking of Dawkins and you may call it "mathematical" but you are still assuming that consciousness is done by brains and you can't have it without one. no? come on! you know you are!

Tell me what consciousness is and what it does. I've given my perspective on that and work from that. It's consistent and might be consistent with reality (i.e. true). Brains have nothing to do with it, showing an awareness of things does.

The basis of consciousness isn't conscious itself.

yes it is. you don't know that. how could you could you possibly know that? It makes sense to think it would be. you are arguing form analogy because water molecules aren't wet. But that doesn't mean that consciousness isn't aware.

The foundation of a house isn't a proper home — there's no roof or walls! God can (reportedly) talk to people, impregnate women, make judgments, heal, inspire literature, etc.

argument from analogy. proves nothing. you can't compare the basis of the conscious to a house.

Nuh uh! . Why don't you try to tell me why the basis of consciousness must be conscious as well?

I can make the same argument for God as "being itself". I'll grant you that the basis of consciousness and being may be very very simple, but God is much more than that.

You haven't not even addressed the most crucial of the whole debate, that you can't make comparisons like that meaningful in relation o the foundation of all things.

That's saying heaven is up and not down. If you have no base line of comparison how can you say which way is which? You are litterly trying to say there's up and down in deep space. What meaning does the term "simple" have in a context where the simple thing is also the basis of complex? If there is only God and nothing else, what do you compare God to say he's "simple" or "complex?"

Hey, you're the one who started this argument from parsimony. If you don't like my working definitions of "simple" or "complex" then you can supply your own. If you're saying you can't, then why are you trying to make this argument? You're contradicting yourself by making this argument while telling me you can't say whether God is simple or complex.

[Metacrock]

Here's an analogy about what I'm saying. On the Simpsons the kids notice their parents have become distracted, glazed eyes, not concentrating, not making dinner for them, its really becuase they are having sex more. I don't remember why.

Bart and MIllhouse decide Its' because they've taken over by Aliens. Lisa says take the simplest explanation. For her that means they are working more so they are tired. Of course Bart decides "hey that means they are not only taken over by aliens but they have also become vampire aliens").

So Liza was using a form of Parsimony. Yet her explanation doe snot involve the adults doing simpler tasks. the same things aliens might have them doing could be done in their work by their bosses. So it's not simple in the sense that the actual work itself is simpler. The explanation is simpler because one has to make fewer assumptions.

We can make fewer assumptions to assume God than to try and find scientific explanations for everything including morality that don't reduce morality to merely chemical motivations and behavior.

The real thrust of the argument is not that God is simpler but that God as the focal point of everything gives us less to have to cover and is more elegant in that regard, and it prevents having to chuck our value system.

[Metacrock]

I invited you to give an alternative definition of parsimony. You haven't done that. We need to define terms if we're to have a sensible discussion. How can we say that one thing is more parsimonious than something else if you refuse to set a standard or metric of complexity?

yes I did: Elegant rather than "simple." It would be epistemic and axiological forms of parsimony. My references to elegance were my definition.

Again, we need to define terms. I firmly believe in a definition of consciousness that requires the processing of data. If something doesn't process data, then you can't talk to it and get a sensible reply, it can't change its opinion or course of action once it gets going, it can't perceive or communicate anything at all. This isn't biology, this is a basic requirement of consciousness. If you can't talk to it and it isn't affected by changes in its environment, then in what sense can something be conscious? I'm not begging the question, I'm working from the definition of consciousness itself. What is consciousness to you?

you are assuming that "process data" means biological brain. You are assuming that's the only form of data process that can be in all of reality. Reality is a big place, lots of stuff we don't know. you don't know that you can't assume that. It's a way of sneaking the biological model in the back door, no offense.

[/b]Meta[/b]Your assertion is arbitrary. you cant' show me what that means in relation to the foundation of all reality. It's only meaningful in a limited sense dealing with human understanding and our tiny little tinny sample of the universe that we have been exposed to. It also makes question begging assumptions about the nature of consciousness. That has not been sorted out. I also feel you are substituting brain function for consciousness.

QT:Well, what is your alternative definition of complexity? You can't have an argument if you won't define the terms in the argument. The one I use is quite common and is associated with information theory and physics.

We are not on the same page here. I am saying things that pertains to these ideas and you not getting them becuase our assumptions are so different you don't understand when I'm addressing it and I am lax about spelling it out.

you are working form a totally different assumption about what has to be simple/complex. I am assuming simple = elegant. Simple does not necessarily mean fewer parts it means it's place in the argument is simpler because it requires fewer assumptions, or at least more reasonable and likely one's. Also I am going by the relation of the ideas to the overall point of the argument, you want to focus upon the nature of the primary agency of action in the argument (ie God)> So that means you think "God must be simple for this work" Is ay "God's function must simplify our understanding" that doesn't necessarily translate into fewer parts. not that God has parts but it's not a question of parts.

there's probably some key way of expressing it that I'm just not getting because we are coming from different kinds of concerns.

But that's my "definition" of simple/complex. Not fewer parts or more parts but the Elegance fo the hypothesis in terms of making ideas work.

Meta:based upon our limited understanding all that other stuff indicating we don't know squat. You are trying to pin down the mother fucking basis of all things based upon th same we have form this planet and we have never even set foot on another planet.

QT:Who needs to set foot there when the light from other galaxies comes to us?

Not the light of other galaxies (some) not the light of other universes, other dimension, other realm of reality we know not of, other plans existence we can only dream of in the most absurd science fiction. you really are assuming we know everyting aren't you? you are really assuming we can know its all it's all coming to us there's nothing out there beyond your notice aren't you?

we don't even understand ourselves. We don't' even have a scientific definition of consciousness.

Which hypothesis? You haven't addressed my arguments for God's high complexity.

Mine obviously. that's what one says after an argument, like QED, it means "I' have proven this--this is an aspect of my argument that I have just proved."

hey its just vabrado. no need to have a cow man.

you are assuming biology. you may not be thinking of Dawkins and you may call it "mathematical" but you are still assuming that consciousness is done by brains and you can't have it without one. no? come on! you know you are!

Tell me what consciousness is and what it does. I've given my perspective on that and work from that. It's consistent and might be consistent with reality (i.e. true). Brains have nothing to do with it, showing an awareness of things does.

you are the one who introduced consciousness. It's your argument that God can't be conscoius. my position is that we have no good definition. I usually use the term to mean awareness, I and thou awareness of one's self in relation to the rest of the universe. I don't know that my argument depends upon pulling that issue. God could well be impersonal.

Nuh uh! . Why don't you try to tell me why the basis of consciousness must be conscious as well?

you can't tell me why it can't be. Why does my argument have to include a personal aspect of God? why can't God be impersonal?



You haven't not even addressed the most crucial of the whole debate, that you can't make comparisons like that meaningful in relation o the foundation of all things.

Hey, you're the one who started this argument from parsimony. If you don't like my working definitions of "simple" or "complex" then you can supply your own. If you're saying you can't, then why are you trying to make this argument? You're contradicting yourself by making this argument while telling me you can't say whether God is simple or complex.

my argument did not include a specifically personal notion of God either. Nothing in my argument turns upon proving God is personal.

[QuantumTroll]

I invited you to give an alternative definition of parsimony. You haven't done that. We need to define terms if we're to have a sensible discussion. How can we say that one thing is more parsimonious than something else if you refuse to set a standard or metric of complexity?

yes I did: Elegant rather than "simple." It would be epistemic and axiological forms of parsimony. My references to elegance were my definition.

Aren't you just pushing the crux of the issue back? What is elegance? More crucially, how do we establish what is more elegant? Saying it's "epistemic and axiomatic forms of parsimony" doesn't help us actually determine anything.

you are assuming that "process data" means biological brain. You are assuming that's the only form of data process that can be in all of reality. Reality is a big place, lots of stuff we don't know. you don't know that you can't assume that. It's a way of sneaking the biological model in the back door, no offense.

Stop telling me that I assume things that I don't, it's really very rude. Computation or information processing is a mathematical concept, not a biological one. You're not addressing what I'm saying at all. What is consciousness without information processing? Seems to me that it's not consciousness at all. Try convincing me of your point of view instead of just telling me that I'm wrong.

QT:Well, what is your alternative definition of complexity? You can't have an argument if you won't define the terms in the argument. The one I use is quite common and is associated with information theory and physics.

We are not on the same page here. I am saying things that pertains to these ideas and you not getting them becuase our assumptions are so different you don't understand when I'm addressing it and I am lax about spelling it out.

you are working form a totally different assumption about what has to be simple/complex. I am assuming simple = elegant. Simple does not necessarily mean fewer parts it means it's place in the argument is simpler because it requires fewer assumptions, or at least more reasonable and likely one's. Also I am going by the relation of the ideas to the overall point of the argument, you want to focus upon the nature of the primary agency of action in the argument (ie God)> So that means you think "God must be simple for this work" Is ay "God's function must simplify our understanding" that doesn't necessarily translate into fewer parts. not that God has parts but it's not a question of parts.

there's probably some key way of expressing it that I'm just not getting because we are coming from different kinds of concerns.

But that's my "definition" of simple/complex. Not fewer parts or more parts but the Elegance fo the hypothesis in terms of making ideas work.

Ah, now I get it. I think this is an important thing to make clear in the formulation of your argument. You're not talking about whether God is simple as much as whether God is a simple answer. Is that right? If so, then I have some rethinking to do, while you have some rewriting to do

Not the light of other galaxies (some) not the light of other universes, other dimension, other realm of reality we know not of, other plans existence we can only dream of in the most absurd science fiction. you really are assuming we know everyting aren't you? you are really assuming we can know its all it's all coming to us there's nothing out there beyond your notice aren't you?

we don't even understand ourselves. We don't' even have a scientific definition of consciousness.

You know perfectly well that I don't assume that we know everything. But it seems you're assuming that we know almost nothing, whereas I think we do know some things. I focus on what we know, and work from there. If what I'm saying about consciousness is wrong, then please tell me how a consciousness that doesn't process any information can be considered conscious.

Let's take an analogy: communication or information transfer. It requires at least two participants who are distinct from one another, and some non-zero amount of information to be transferred. Without these parts, we can't call it communication. It doesn't matter how many other dimensions and negaverses might exist, this is just what communication is. I think consciousness requires information processing in much the same way. But hey, this is all a big side-track. Oops!

you are assuming biology. you may not be thinking of Dawkins and you may call it "mathematical" but you are still assuming that consciousness is done by brains and you can't have it without one. no? come on! you know you are!

Tell me what consciousness is and what it does. I've given my perspective on that and work from that. It's consistent and might be consistent with reality (i.e. true). Brains have nothing to do with it, showing an awareness of things does.

you are the one who introduced consciousness. It's your argument that God can't be conscoius. my position is that we have no good definition. I usually use the term to mean awareness, I and thou awareness of one's self in relation to the rest of the universe. I don't know that my argument depends upon pulling that issue. God could well be impersonal.[/quote]
Alright, fair enough. Perhaps consciousness is too hairy an issue to be pulling into this discussion. My point was only that God is quite a complex idea/concept/thing once you account for all the stuff He allegedly does. The debate about whether God is a personal and conscious being is a related aside... but I'm curious to hear how an impersonal and unconscious God can have a son and communicate with and heal people.

Nuh uh! . Why don't you try to tell me why the basis of consciousness must be conscious as well?

you can't tell me why it can't be. Why does my argument have to include a personal aspect of God? why can't God be impersonal?

I made an argument from analogy to show that the basis of something isn't necessarily the same something. In other words, if you don't have a good reason for thinking that the basis of consciousness is conscious, then it's likely not so. That's why I asked for your reason, to give you an opportunity of informing me so I would have cause to change my mind. But again, this is tangential and we might as well drop this part of the discussion .

You haven't not even addressed the most crucial of the whole debate, that you can't make comparisons like that meaningful in relation o the foundation of all things.

You make this comparison when you try to make your argument from parsimony. If you don't think it's a meaningful comparison, then drop the argument and close this thread. You can't attack my counter-argument for assuming the same thing your argument assumes...

[KR Wordgazer]

FWIW, I understood from the beginning of Metacrock's argument that he was saying God is a simple answer, not that God is simple.

But then I've never been convinced that the simplest explanation is always the most likely one, particularly when we're dealing with consciousness. For example, in matters of law/justice, we understand that human motivations are often very complex, and they often don't do things for simple reasons. (Which is why detective stories are exciting, n'est-ce pas? If the simplest answer to "Who Dunnit?" were always the right one, why bother to read the book? ) The complexity of God is necessary to answer questions like "Why was person A healed by an apparent miracle, while person B died?" If God is conscious, then God can have complex motivations. So in what way is God simple?

As Metacrock's argument states, God as God is the simple (elegant) answer to the needs of the human heart for answers to the big questions--"the human problematic," or the dilemma of being self-aware. But that doesn't mean "God did it" is what we're looking for in terms of explaining physical phenomena, and I think that that's where many non-theists are going to assume the argument is going.

To me what needs to be made clear about the"God is the elegant explanation" argument is that this is NOT what non-theists are talking about when they say humanity invented "God" as an explanation for unexplained physical phenomena (as in "God did it").

I think, Joe, that you ought to start out by disclaiming that you are talking about "God did it" as an answer to questions about physical phenomena-- or you're probably going to end up talking at cross-purposes to most non-theists you try to discuss this with. They may claim that "God" as the answer is a cop-out, so you don't have to think or reason. And that's not what this is about.

But I don't think the issue is, "If God is the simple answer, God has to be simple." To do that takes one too easily in the direction of God having to be impersonal, which I don't think God is. I'm all for God arguments that simply talk about there needing to be Something "out there," and leave the issue of the simplicity or complexity of that Something for later arguments. But I don't see any point in making an argument that HAS to assume God is impersonal in order to work. And I don't think this "elegance" argument needs to do that.