Instigator / Pro
0
1487
rating
31
debates
35.48%
won
Topic
#3691
THBT: Ockham's razor is non-applicable to an all-powerful God.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1581
rating
38
debates
64.47%
won
Description
Definition of Occam's razor: a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.
Pro: Occam's razor is not applicable to an infinite interpretation of God
Con: Occam's razor is applicable to an infinite interpretation of God
Rules:
1. try to enjoy the conversation.
Round 1
I don't have much time on my hands, so i hope to make it quick. Con has previously said in the comments:
The incomprehensibility of infinite number sets is TOTALLY different from the incomprehensibility you're ascribing to God here. There are rules and theorems that allow me to know anything I want about any given number of that infinite set. Even whether a number is prime or not can be determined with enough time and computing power.
As con himself has said, we have direct experience with numbers (through the tutelage of logic itself) the laws of mathematics are a priori, meaning you necessarily have some concepts of division for as long as you are conscious. This isn't the case for An infinite God. Considering I think an infinite god is not only undetectable, considering he is not just infinite in continuity (like maths) it should then be wholly impossible to cut him up into parts, sections and "characteristics". Therefore its on Con to show that we can detect an infinite god to even be able to cut him into characteristics, once we know his characteristics (if that's even possible) its then on him to show we can come to conclusions (categorise) on his characteristics once we find them (which is a contradiction).
Con then precedes to say:
On the other hand, you claim that God is literally inscrutable to any efforts to fully understand It. Not that it's hard to understand, or expensive to calculate, LITERALLY INSCRUTABLE. Did you know that Lord Kelvin considered the mystery of how animals move "infinitely beyond the range of any scientific inquiry." and then we figured it out? Only nine weeks before the Kitty Hawk flight of the Wright brothers, the New York Times published an article estimating anywhere from another 1-10 million years to figure out the problem of flight. I see no reason to make the same mistake again and attribute some mysterious unknowability to something that I can't even say with any confidence exists.
The difference is the fact we can come to know maths through contradictions. We can validate if maths is correct or not depending on if there's a contradiction in the premise or conclusion. Considering you don't know the characteristics of an infinite god (we do know the characteristics of numbers) it should then be an upwards climb for con in this debate to show contradictions in his characteristics. Yet, if its true con is capable of finding contradictions. If God is infinite, is God truly strapped down to human logic? to deny him his ability over reason would be to say something infinite (in all manners) is subservient to something else.
All of this then means, through looking at the natural world, we cannot put any sort of likelihood, or unlikelihood on God existing or not. To apply Occam's razor against God is equivalent to getting an error pop up on the screen of your computer when putting in a new function.
The major symmetry breaker between the comparisons "of unsolvable mysteries" and god, is the fact that we have direct contact and understanding of the characteristics of these animals, we don't with god.
Voters should note that "Any awarded point(s) must be based on the content presented inside the debate rounds. Content from the comment section, other votes, forums, your personal experience, etcetera, is ineligible for point allotments."
-DART Voting Policy
Anything quoted by Pro from the comment section does not constitute an argument on my part. If I wish to use it in the debate, I will do so.
Definitions
Some definitions are left out for sake of brevity. If Pro would like to use a different definition for any, he may do so in R2, but I may contend if I feel the definition is inaccurate or applied incorrectly.
Occam's Razor or Ockham's Razor:
1. the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". [Wikipedia]
2. a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities. [Merriam-Webster]
applicable: capable of or suitable for being applied [M-W]
- apply: to put to use especially for some practical purpose [M-W]
infinite: 1. extending indefinitely; endless
2. extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large
3. characterized by an infinite number of elements or terms
God: the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe
or less commonly God : a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers
Arguments
I. What applying Occam's razor to God means
Pro states that
it[']s on Con to show that we can detect an infinite god to even be able to cut him into characteristics
This misunderstands the goal of Occam's Razor entirely. Before science/Occam's razor can be applied to determine the characteristics of "an infinite god", it must first be determined that it is reasonable to investigate any claims of God in the first place. In a similar example Occam's razor would apply when one finds a corpse with a massive hole in its stomach. While Occam's Razor doesn't eliminate other causes of death, the given evidence suggests that one should privilege this hypothesis before all others. One wouldn't see a massive hole in the corpse's stomach and immediately say, "have we considered the possibility he was poisoned?"
Now, it is entirely possible that a later autopsy report would find that the cause of death actually was poison, and the massive hole came about after he had died. However, until that report came back, based on only the observation of the massive hole, the most reasonable explanation as posited by Occam's Razor would be the massive hole, as a. there is a massive hole in the corpse's stomach, and b. massive holes in people's stomachs are fatal.
In the bounds of this debate, Occam's Razor would be applied to the hypothesis of an "infinite God" existing in the following ways.
II. Occam's Razor
What we know: 1. the observable universe behaves in predictable, consistent ways called laws that correspond to our best scientific predictions, which we developed with the scientific method through observation and testing. 2. These laws are universal. There isn't a part of the universe I can go to where the proton has different mass, or where infrared light has a longer wavelength than ultraviolet light.
What Pro suggests: 1. that there is a concept called "God" 2. "God" is infinite in some way (that Pro hasn't defined). 3. "an infinite god is [...] undetectable". 4. "we cannot put any sort of likelihood, or unlikelihood on God existing or not."
It's really 3 and 4 that disprove Pro's claim, so I'll focus on them. 3. claims that God is undetectable. Now, by definition, science has not found anything that is literally undetectable. Some things are very difficult to detect, like electrons, because their effects are too small to measure without special equipment. Others, like distant galaxies, require different equipment to detect because they are so far away. It is impossible for us to detect a single electron in a distant galaxy, but it's due to physical constraints, not due to an intrinsic "undetectable" property that electrons in that distant galaxy possess. Pro's concept of God appears to have this intrinsic undetectability, as there is supposedly no way to take and point our scientific equipment to detect it. In this way, Pro's argument of God parallels Carl Sagan's analogy of The Dragon in My Garage. When every attempt to verify the existence of the so-called dragon is met with "it's an invisible dragon," or some similar explanation of why there is no evidence of a dragon, one naturally applies Occam's Razor. There are two possibilities that you weigh on the Razor's edge. 1. there is an invisible, incorporeal dragon in my friend's garage that is intrinsically undetectable, or 2. there is no dragon at all. The obvious conclusion to draw is that there is no dragon, but to make it clear why, let's review the definition of Occam's Razor. The definition above states that "explanations of unknown phenomena [should] be sought first in terms of known quantities." The concept of intrinsic undetectability is not a known quantity, nor is a dragon. What is a known quantity, then? An empty garage. So when we look again at our two options, 1 has two unknown quantities, and 2 has zero.
Round 2
God is undetectable therefore less likely therefore applicable to occams razor.
It's really 3 and 4 that disprove Pro's claim, so I'll focus on them. 3. claims that God is undetectable. Now, by definition, science has not found anything that is literally undetectable.
Do you know what else science cant detect? consciousness. Consciousness is the entire thing and reason why you know you exist, yet science cannot find it anywhere or even prove how it should exist! can you solve the mind-body problem?
-
Thinkers frequently imagine Occam's razor in terms of two broad categories: syntactic and ontological. Syntactic refers to the elegance of a hypothesis, which implies that the actual hypothesis is brief, with fewer assumptions than other speculations. On the other hand, ontological investigations refers to the item that a hypothesis attempts to explain, specifically the item's straightforwardness as a peculiarity. In discussions, Occam's razor is frequently mentioned in relation to physicalism - the idea that everything, including our psychological state, can be reduced to actual things, cycles, or their properties. Rather than physicalism, dualism proposes that reality comprises of two particular components, brain and matter. Physicalism should be visible to act as an illustration of ontological stinginess, in light of the fact that the item it portrays — actual presence — requires a particular substance, rather than the two elements expected by dualism. Nonetheless, physicalism can likewise be deciphered as more intricate, than dualism, since it expects us to conceptualize what appear to be two essential sorts of elements as at last being one kind. As far as syntactic effortlessness, then, dualism should be visible as the more clear idea.
-
This demonstrates (through the tutelage of philosophy) Occam's razor has no say on the matters of dualism or things beyond the material. Occam's razor works perfectly fine on syntactic philosophy, but not ontological philosophy on things such as soul, etc. I hope you can find a way to overcome the mind-body problem in the next round, Michael. I imagine that's going to be very hard to do, considering idealism is still well and alive.
-
Cons definition's
Con has give us much to work with, with his definitions.
1. the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". [Wikipedia]2. a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities. [Merriam-Webster]applicable: capable of or suitable for being applied
If God is infinite, He is yet to prove God by definition (of being infinite) is the necessary itself.
Pro's concept of God appears to have this intrinsic undetectability, as there is supposedly no way to take and point our scientific equipment to detect it. In this way, Pro's argument of God parallels Carl Sagan's analogy of The Dragon in My Garage. When every attempt to verify the existence of the so-called dragon is met with "it's an invisible dragon," or some similar explanation of why there is no evidence of a dragon, one naturally applies Occam's Razor. There are two possibilities that you weigh on the Razor's edge. 1. there is an invisible, incorporeal dragon in my friend's garage that is intrinsically undetectable, or 2. there is no dragon at all. The obvious conclusion to draw is that there is no dragon, but to make it clear why, let's review the definition of Occam's Razor. The definition above states that "explanations of unknown phenomena [should] be sought first in terms of known quantities." The concept of intrinsic undetectability is not a known quantity, nor is a dragon. What is a known quantity, then? An empty garage. So when we look again at our two options, 1 has two unknown quantities, and 2 has zero.
I don't know if he's undetectable! I was just saying my own subjective opinion, which has nothing to actually do with this debate. I'm well aware I cannot fathom god, I refuse to claim anything of his nature. All I was saying in the previous round was simply empty words, with no meaning, therefore they're herby redacted and taken away from any argument you thought I may of made.
. Pro's concept of God appears to have this intrinsic undetectability, as there is supposedly no way to take and point our scientific equipment to detect it. In this way, Pro's argument of God parallels Carl Sagan's analogy of The Dragon in My Garage.
That's correct yes, if its mind and matter cannot be recollided (through philosophy or science) science cant see to do it, then it would be true Occam's razor is inapplicable to God, just as its inapplicable to consciousness. Any usage of Occam's razor against consciousness would necessarily be wrong. You cannot use Occam's razor on things in themselves, only phenomena, perceptions. By definition of being infinite God is the ultimate thing in itself.
there is an invisible, incorporeal dragon in my friend's garage that is intrinsically undetectable
Considering this dragon is only said to be incorporeal and undetectable, doesn't make it the same as God. Which by definition is the arbiter of what is logical and what is not. It seems you're still yet to argue against my main hitter: If God is infinite, is God truly strapped down to human logic? to deny him his ability over reason would be to say something infinite (in all manners) is subservient to something else.
When every attempt to verify the existence of the so-called dragon is met with "it's an invisible dragon," or some similar explanation of why there is no evidence of a dragon
Consciousness sounds very much like this invisible dragon too. You must over come mind-body duality next round, Michael. You must prove God is subservient to the human mind in the sense the invisible dragon is. God is not invisibile (he may be i dont know) he is truly infinite. You're yet to tell me what infinity would look in in all fashions and how you make it look less likely.
Conclusion
- Con has yet to solve the mind-body problem
- con has said time and time again that we can apply Occam's razor onto god through an analogy too an invisible dragon, but failed to show that God is not just invisible but infinite in all facets, he's yet to bridge this massive symmetry breaker. How does he apply what he did to the dragon to something beyond infinity itself?
- Con is yet to prove God is subservient to human logic
- Con is yet to prove how Occam's razor works on other undetectable things (such as consciousness)
- Con is yet to prove how Occam's razor applies to solipsism itself, yet if he does, that would then deny the fact that someone necessarily has a hole in their chest in his Occam's razor analogy.
- Considering that we know Dualism wins the battle against physicalism in an Occam's razor sense, this then means Con ought to say he doesn't exist, if he is to be consistent with his usage of Occam's razor against the undetectable. Yet if he does claim he knows he exists, he necessarily doesn't know this from Occam razor.
All I was saying in the previous round was simply empty words, with no meaning, therefore they're herby redacted and taken away from any argument you thought I may of made.
I extend all arguments.
Bump for last day to vote.
See; Your brain is like 100 billion mini-computers all working together by By Clare Wilson.
A neuroscientific explanation of consciousness adduces properties of the brain, typically the brain’s electrical properties. A salient phenomenon is neural signaling through action potentials or spikes. A spike is a large change in electrical potential across a neuron’s cellular membrane which can be transmitted between neurons that form a neural circuit. For a sensory neuron, the spikes it generates are tied to its receptive field. For example, in a visual neuron, its receptive field is understood in spatial terms and corresponds to that area of external space where an appropriate stimulus triggers the neuron to spike. Given this correlation between stimulus and spikes, the latter carries information about the former. Information processing in sensory systems involves processing of information regarding stimuli within receptive fields.
Only the brain is a source of consciousness. There is no mind-body problem.
pfff, you just gave up Michael! we should of had 3 rounds, my bad. It would of been interesting to see how you would of argued against dualism being more simplistic than physicalism. That was your only chance really, although its impossible for you to win (i think) after all, when we assume nothing the only thing we can be assured of is our own minds existence (therefore dualism).
Thank you for this debate Michael. My last round argument literally gave me an epiphany, the biggest epiphany of my life.
I must say, I think my sophistry is some of the best I've seen on the site within this round.
If you admit you know you exist, Michael. You automatically fall into a dualist position (since it cant be shown through physicalism as more likely through Occam's razor, or proven through science to exist). This then means I automatically win, if you say you know you exist.
I will become the greatest sophist on the site. If i debate a sophist, ill show them what sophist magic really is. Michael himself is a sophist (as is common of atheist leftists).
How high would you rate my sophistry? currently id give it about a 5. I plan to turn the magic up 3 notches in the last round. Ultimate sceptic is coming.
Enjoy my sophist magic, michael.
I just want to talk about if Occam's razor is applicable to God.
"I can say numbers are infinite and boundless without fully comprehending the significance of it."
The incomprehensibility of infinite number sets is TOTALLY different from the incomprehensibility you're ascribing to God here. There are rules and theorems that allow me to know anything I want about any given number of that infinite set. Even whether a number is prime or not can be determined with enough time and computing power. The incomprehensibility of infinity is that the human mind is incapable of performing the operations necessary to view more than a few thousand digits without the aid of computers.
On the other hand, you claim that God is literally inscrutable to any efforts to fully understand It. Not that it's hard to understand, or expensive to calculate, LITERALLY INSCRUTABLE. Did you know that Lord Kelvin considered the mystery of how animals move "infinitely beyond the range of any scientific inquiry." and then we figured it out? Only nine weeks before the Kitty Hawk flight of the Wright brothers, the New York Times published an article estimating anywhere from another 1-10 million years to figure out the problem of flight. I see no reason to make the same mistake again and attribute some mysterious unknowability to something that I can't even say with any confidence exists.
Edit: minor formatting for readability.
I suppose the only necessary thing for God to be "infinite" is simply that, boundless. I don't know what that looks like, i simply imagine that means him being able to do everything, but i could never comprehend what that looks like. So i was wrong to say i know he's infinitely powerful etc. I can say numbers are infinite and boundless without fully comprehending the significance of it.
well i don't know what infinity would look like! i don't actually have to assert or deny any of that. I simply have to assert that Occam's razor also doesn't work.
Is he also infinitely nonexistent? infinitely boring? infinitely horny? infinitely evil? If not, why can you apply the concept of infinity to power, presence, and knowledge when referring to god but not those?
Infinite in the sense of being omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. I don't get notifs if you don't @me
If God is infinite only fractions of him could be comprehendible to the human mind. In the same sense that numbers in theory are infinite, yet we can grasp some numbers.
Can't remember if you get notifs on your own debates without tagging or not, so here's a bump.
"infinite interpretation of God"
those words mean almost nothing to me in that order. Do you mean God is infinite? If so in what way? And is God something capable of interpretation?