I've had this parsimony argument on my God argument list for a long time. I put it up on my boards as an experiment. It never satisfied me as a strong argument,so I don't argue it on message boards, but I still think it has a lot of potential but I just haven't quite developed it. It was answered by my friend and loyal atheist opponent Quantum Troll, who is one of the most intelligent atheists posters on my boards. I think I answered his answer pretty well, it makes a good point that should be noised about (yet the development of the best argument from this premise remains an unfinished task).
First My argument.
Meta:
I. God is the simplest Solution.
(1) nature of simplicity
Atheists often think that God is the more complicated solution. On discussion boards they will often argue that the Big Bang is much simpler than God because it comes from a singularity. So they are confusing size with simplicity. Apparently they think that an infinitesimally small thing is siple and an infinite thing is complex. But this is not at all true, which one can see with proper reflection. God is actually much simpler. The singularity has to be explained itself, it offers no real explanation but invites a cause for itself. And if it did contain matter and energy, which many skeptics seem to think but the real scientific theory doesn't say that, it would be even more complex because 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 of origin and meaning are solved.
A. 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.
B. 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 epistemology assumptions which cover a wide range of topics and offers certainty as to the ultimate form of knowledge.
5) Ultimate 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 simply posit no God and life as the result of dead matter and random chance alone leaves on in a confused state of disarray, with no central over arching theme that ties together all the problems of humanity. Themselves solves them all, especially does Christianity solve them all in one fell swoop. With atheism or materialism most of these problems are disconnected and require separate 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 important questions at once. That offers a strong indication in a probabilistic assumption that God is the nature of the case.
Now comes the debate when Quantum Troll answers:
by Quantum Troll on Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:06 pm
Meta on Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:56 amMetacrock, 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?
then I answer him
QuantumTroll wrote: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.
Two major observations to be learned from this exchange:
(1) The nature of "simple" is being used at cross purposes.
I was speaking of the simplicity of the fit of the answer within the framework of the question. I other words, it's a simpler solution to just understand being itself as the "divine" and see the basis of reality as this thing we call "God" than to try and piece together a fragmented world view from whatever bits of data can be gleaned through scinece while cutting off most of reality conceptually with modern reductionism. I wasn't talking about the actual nature of God as "simple." That's not really an issue anyway, for reasons stated above. So the argument QT makes, while good and must be answered is not really germiane to the nature of the argument I was trying to develop.
That's why the argument is not in contradiction to my answer. I was worried about the idea that I'm saying God is the simple answer and yet I'm also saying we can't compare concepts like simple and complex to God. If we can't say God is simple or complex, if that's not meaningful to apply to God, how can one make an argument that God is the simple solution? Well because it's in a different sense. One is talking about the nature of God the other about the way the concept of God fits into the equation of life as an explanation and basis for epistemology and metaphysics. Not God's specific nature but the nature of the God hypothesis in comparison with other ideas.
(2) Consciousness is not complex and need to be understood as such.
the Vedanta based Gaswamai is
they only see consciousness as complex because they use the biological model. Consciousness as it is known to us through biology requires and brain and brains are complex. Of course if you are speaking from within a biological life framework in temporal existence that's true. I'm not sure it would have any meaning if one is speaking through a larger framework of the foundation of reality. Comparing God to biological life is like having a room full of artifacts and a scale to weight them. If you have only one scale how can you weight the scale itself? The limit on that analogy is that the scale would have a finite weight and the mass of the scale would be known so we could compare the scale to some other object also weighed, but how could you do that if you could not see the scale and didn't know it's size or its mass or density?
God is off scale. God is the basis upon which all reality coheres so what meaning does it have to compare God with finite temporal biological life which for all we know is nothing more than a fleeting idea God had one day. Gaswamai is a physicist and he and many other physicists do not think of consciousness as exclusively produced by brains, not exclusively part of the domain of the finite or the temporal or the biological.
Moreover I put my argument in terms of "elegant" not "simple" as in no moving parts, but "elegant" as in the most adroitly fitted to the framework in which it is meaningful.
Goswami himself says:
The current worldview has it that everything is made of matter, and everything can be reduced to the elementary particles of matter, the basic constituents—building blocks—of matter. And cause arises from the interactions of these basic building blocks or elementary particles; elementary particles make atoms, atoms make molecules, molecules make cells, and cells make brain. But all the way, the ultimate cause is always the interactions between the elementary particles. This is the belief—all cause moves from the elementary particles. This is what we call "upward causation." So in this view, what human beings—you and I—think of as our free will does not really exist. It is only an epiphenomenon or secondary phenomenon, secondary to the causal power of matter. And any causal power that we seem to be able to exert on matter is just an illusion. This is the current paradigm.
Now, the opposite view is that everything starts with consciousness.That is, consciousness is the ground of all being. In this view, consciousness imposes "downward causation." In other words, our free will is real. When we act in the world we really are acting with causal power. This view does not deny that matter also has causal potency—it does not deny that there is causal power from elementary particles upward, so there is upward causation—but in addition it insists that there is also downward causation. It shows up in our creativity and acts of free will, or when we make moral decisions. In those occasions we are actually witnessing downward causation by consciousness.
Goswami actually says that consciousness is the ground of being. This is because the ground of being is what being is grounded in, and if that is consciousness, if the nature of existence is to be a thought in a mind, than the ground of being is consciousness.
Water is much less complex than the conduits we use to control it. Water is a simple di polar molecular structure that allows it to transform from solid (frozen) to gas to liquid. That structure is relatively simple when compared to the pumping stations and piping networks and water purification filters of New York City. QT is mistaking the sewage and drainage system for the thing itself. The brain is like the infrastructure of pipes and pumping and purification that makes New York's water system possible, and the water itself is like the consciousnesses being transferred through the brain.
When this is done in biological organisms it requires a complex brain. Who knows what is involved in pure consciousness as being itself, the basis of all reality?
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?"
No comments:
Post a Comment