3 ms·
Here 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
by joshuamcginnis 2y ago
Here 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.
- Vecr 2y agoYes? But I assume you aren't arguing for God-as-in-any-object-or-idea-that-meets-a-list-of-criteria, I assume you're arguing for God. God that's described in any book I've read appears to have a lot of complexity, and I don't think it's likely that nothing else that would meet the criteria would be simpler.
- joshuamcginnis 2y agoAh, great question. OK, if there is a "God" explanation for creation and its a logically sound argument, then how do we know who or what this God is? Many religions claim to know, but how we can differentiate them and use logic, reason, science, etc to find this one true God. Is that the question you're after?
- Vecr 2y agoNot exactly, my argument there was that there would be a huge number of individually more likely (due to being simpler) candidate objects for your criteria, that in combination entirely swamp every conception of God that has ever been written down in any book anywhere.
- copypasterepeat 2y agoBut wait a minute, by that logic wouldn't the fewest assumptions be that there was no cause that created the universe and that universe is a timeless, cause-less entity. Isn't that fewer assumptions than positing another entity that has those attributes.
- joshuamcginnis 2y agoThe logic posted was in answer to _what_ is the cause, not _if_ there is a cause. I already made the case for there being a cause in my original post. Nothing comes into existence without a cause. The cause being a singular timeless eternal entity requires fewer assumptions than the multi-modal explanation theory the other user suggested.
- Vecr 2y agoMaybe "alternative explanations" is better wording. If you don't think God fits into a simplicity detector, could a simplicity detector of some sort that's external to God and every other member of the set of God-like objects complete at least a stochastic (probabilistic) scan? That would in theory give priors for the probability of the "object" that fits the criteria given.
- joshuamcginnis 2y agoThe logical error in your question is in the "that's external to God". Going back to my first post, the "cause" must be eternal (since it was what started time in order for existence to begin). And because this eternal cause was not affected or constrained by physical space, it had to be all-encompassing. Because of this, there could be nothing external to the cause (God).
- Vecr 2y agoI don't think your argument follows. Assume there's an uncreated universe that is very suited to running simulations. Assume someone in that universe creates our universe, fully contained inside theirs. Yes, that person is outside our time, and started our time, but in their universe, they are 1) constrained by physical space 2) not all-encompassing at all 3) have a whole lot of stuff in there with them that is external to them. Sure, you can go into infinite regress arguments, but they hit both of our arguments just as hard.