3 ms·
Well, if you accept the argument it only gets you to an infinite or at least very large number of objects that meet the stated requirements. Not one object in p
by Vecr 2y ago
Well, if you accept the argument it only gets you to an infinite or at least very large number of objects that meet the stated requirements. Not one object in particular.
And here "object" is quite vague, I would assume almost all of the specifications would be unrecognizable as such to a human.
- joshuamcginnis 2y agoI'm more than willing to volley these ideas with you but I'm not following. I didn't once use the word "object" so I don't follow your refutation here. Could you elaborate? Are you saying that my conclusion collapses to a single "cause" (which I'm calling God and you're calling an object?)
- Vecr 2y agoNo, by the Principle of Multiple Explanations, every "object" that satisfies your conditions is equally viable, everything being equal. You can slap a hypercomputational simplicity prior on that if you want, but that probably militates against the object being God, because I wouldn't expect God to be "simple" under that definition.
- joshuamcginnis 2y agoIt's possible there are multiple explanations, I give you that. No one can know for certain. The argument against it; however, is more logically coherent and parsimonious than the multiple theory. Happy to dig into why that is if you want to go deeper.
- Vecr 2y agoI'm not arguing against a single "actual" cause, just that you don't know what the "actual" cause is to the extent that you can exclude all but exactly one explanation. Multiple hypotheses fit the data (or in this case the criteria I accepted for the sake of the discussion).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- joshuamcginnis 2y agoI'm not claiming to know to an infinitesimal degree of certainty; I'm simply presenting the evidence and making my case. There are many truths that cannot be proven in the way you'd like. Prove to me that you won't commit a murder tomorrow. Prove to me that George Washington was a real person. Prove to me that you love your family.
- joshuamcginnis 2y agoHere is the argument for a singular cause vs a plurality of causes: 1. Occam's Razor favors explanations with the fewest entities. 2. A single cause requires fewer assumptions than multiple causes. 3. Therefore, a singular cause is more parsimonious than a plural cause. 4. A singular cause ensures consistent intentionality and unified purpose. 5. Multiple causes would necessitate coordination and could result in conflicting intentions. 6. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be singular.
- Vecr 2y agoOkay, accepting these new criteria (actually somewhat reasonable, if you accept the universe has a creator), intentionality restricts the objects that are acceptable, but if you accept extended Occam's priors that have the capability to contain God [0], then every "object" that meets the requirements and is simpler than God is a better explanation. [0]: Not the same as the previously mentioned simplicity priors, as you brought up Occam's you must think God fits into logic.
- joshuamcginnis 2y agoI accept the universe has a cause because of the logic I presented earlier. Humans have no reason to believe there is existence without cause (if you can find a single example of something being created without a cause, you would change the course of human history!)
- Vecr 2y agoYou deleted the other comment I was trying to respond to, but I'm interested in a response to the idea that an "object" that meets all the requirements you've given could be simpler than God, and therefore more likely by Occam priors.
- joshuamcginnis 2y agoMaybe the name is what you're hung up on? Whatever this simpler thing is would still need to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, possess intentionality, and decision-making capabilities.