Fine. Whether you use parsimony, simplicity, or economy it is still the general concept. Regardless, parsimony does not equal validity based on parsimony alone. That is the general problem with Occam's Razor. I am surprised actually to see anyone invoke its usage since with wide consensus it is considered fallacious in philosophy. (Since we are arguing philosophy NOT physics.) I am shocked anyone was taught it in an actual philosophy class as well, it is more a footnote about a quirky and interesting principle that arose in history (so best taught in Western Civ) but was quickly debunked because of the ridiculousness of its argument.
Case in point, or let's use a sciencey one! Gravitational constant is variable. Therefore, instead of it just being variable, come up with a different unknown and unproven reason for why it is variable. Indeed! (Don't take this to mean I am saying DM doesn't exist, because that isn't what this paragraph is saying!)
So again I say, there is no evidence that simplicity, parsimony or economy of idea/data is the equivalent of truth. Not to mention, determining whether something actually posseses parsimony or simplicity or economy is a subjective measurement/judgment/means to an end. Therefore, using it to prove or disprove or weigh two theories against one another is, as priorly stated, fallacious.
Moving on!
I actually would love to see your math. Not because I am arguing with you, but because I would honestly like it for its own sake.
But here again, you have failed to define it correctly. A deity is not the equivalent of X wherein X defines all that is in the universe, for the deity is again outside of the universe and unlike anything in the universe. (Though it can be expressed as having attributes similar to what is found in conceptual phenomena within the universe.) So when I said before that it is an invalid question to pose to people who say "All that begins has a cause and God is that cause," the key word to look at is "begins". Because the deity never began. Whether that is poor or not for a predicated principle could be determined but for the confines of the argument, the question isn't sound because of that principle. So it can't be X and X, it is D and X.
If you want an argument for that deity though, we could say back to the other post where we take the singularity and the abstract concepts, instead of the abstracts being inherent in the singularity, the now theoretically existant outside actor (deity) would be applying/adding them to the singularity and universe as it expands. Such a being would have to possess knowledge of what the universe needs to order it, possess direct knowledge of the universe itself and all its existence, therefore we say that being would be omniscient. Such a being would need to be omnipotent in order to create, add, and apply immaterial abstracts to another material and immaterial entity.
Let's move on more!
I stand by the question. Since the topical question presupposes that causality exists, which cannot be empirically proven. Therefore, it is relevant.
Now it seems you have misread my post, two of them to be precise.
Causality cannot be empirically proven to exist. You can observe things in relation to other things but you can't observe the cause itself. (Such as ball hits ball and second ball moves, wagon moves ball appears to move but doesn't actually move, car falling into frozen lake, etc. You don't see the concept of causality, you see two actions you relate to one another and your only reason for supposing it is causal is that you have seen the things in relation to each other before. But then to assign causality, you are relying on it being a constant- that something that happened previously will continue to happen in the future. But since you have know direct knowledge of the specific association of the phenomena you witness, you cannot suppose causality.) Therefore, for empiricists, it can't exist outside of the mind. I went on to say, however, you can establish its existence but not from an empirical perspective.
In addition, in the other post, I never said abstracts were things in and of themselves absolutely. I said they could be things in and of themselves. I used them for a specific purpose in an argument, that doesn't mean it was held to be objectively true. That would need establishment.
Also, you misused irony.
If you are an empiricist, which could be a presumptious assumption so if it is I am sorry, explain how the universe possesses observable causality.
Because I can demonstrate a universe without it empirically- this one. Bellissimo!
So again, it is relevant to the topic because-
A) The underlying assumption was things must have cause
B) We can't empirically say anything has a cause since we can't observe the cause itself
C) Thus, the topic is invalid because causality cannot be empirically proven. Therefore it isn't a legitimate question from an empiricist perspective because it, the supposition, defeats empiricism itself. Neither deity or universe need a cause to exist, therefore one could say that the question is pointless because it empirically is illogical.
Nope. Western Civ, but not taught in philosophy save as an example of a fallacious argument. I know physicists love it. Which is fine and dandy, one of my physics profs loved it but the thing about that is. .. just because you like something, doesn't make it correct. Yes yes, I understand, it is useful in equations, but we can all admit it is a shakey concept.
Well, at least I thought most people admitted that. I may have thought too much of most people!
OH MY GOODNESS!
That was essentially the point, it doesn't apply here! So it isn't a valid question. Thus, again!, to answer the topical question, "No."
And! To be fair, it wasn't phrased that way. You phrased it very differently.
"All things that have beginning must have a cause." But defining a deity with no beginning isn't a walk in the park, it isn't just a statement. The arguments that must be built to come to that conclusion are philisophically extensive. (As the arguments for why the universe exists are scientifically extensive.)
There isn't evidence for a being. I never said there was. I think you can make an argument for one, as I mentioned earlier but it isn't evidenciary. It is philosphical. But philosophy is fun and that is what we have been engaging in for the last page, that is the purpose of the forums! Philisophical open debate! So. . there's that!
Case in point, or let's use a sciencey one! Gravitational constant is variable. Therefore, instead of it just being variable, come up with a different unknown and unproven reason for why it is variable. Indeed! (Don't take this to mean I am saying DM doesn't exist, because that isn't what this paragraph is saying!)
So again I say, there is no evidence that simplicity, parsimony or economy of idea/data is the equivalent of truth. Not to mention, determining whether something actually posseses parsimony or simplicity or economy is a subjective measurement/judgment/means to an end. Therefore, using it to prove or disprove or weigh two theories against one another is, as priorly stated, fallacious.
borrofburi said:Incorrect. In first order logic they say:
∀x∃y Cause(y, x)
First we have to define "AncestorCause(y,x)" where:
AncestorCause(y,x) := Cause(y,x) OR (AncestorCause(y,z) AND Cause(z,x))
Then they say that we either have infinite:
∃g∀x AncestorCause(g, x) AND (,¬Ã¢Ë†Æ’y AncestorCause(y, g))
And that that g is "god" and that obviously that g is a sentient omnipotent omniscient being who is both the most complex being in existence AND is so perfectly simple that occam's razor doesn't count, and that this argument proves you should give their church 10% of your income.
The problem is that I can derive a contradiction (I won't bore you with the actual math unless you really want to see it):
∃g∀y ,¬Cause(y, g) AND Cause(y, g)
In simpler less rigorous terminology:
They say that for all X, there is something that caused it, but they also say that there is an X that was not caused. This is a contradiction. That you say "well they define it that way" is immaterial: if they define it that way then their argument is invalid.
Moving on!
I actually would love to see your math. Not because I am arguing with you, but because I would honestly like it for its own sake.
But here again, you have failed to define it correctly. A deity is not the equivalent of X wherein X defines all that is in the universe, for the deity is again outside of the universe and unlike anything in the universe. (Though it can be expressed as having attributes similar to what is found in conceptual phenomena within the universe.) So when I said before that it is an invalid question to pose to people who say "All that begins has a cause and God is that cause," the key word to look at is "begins". Because the deity never began. Whether that is poor or not for a predicated principle could be determined but for the confines of the argument, the question isn't sound because of that principle. So it can't be X and X, it is D and X.
If you want an argument for that deity though, we could say back to the other post where we take the singularity and the abstract concepts, instead of the abstracts being inherent in the singularity, the now theoretically existant outside actor (deity) would be applying/adding them to the singularity and universe as it expands. Such a being would have to possess knowledge of what the universe needs to order it, possess direct knowledge of the universe itself and all its existence, therefore we say that being would be omniscient. Such a being would need to be omnipotent in order to create, add, and apply immaterial abstracts to another material and immaterial entity.
Let's move on more!
borrofburi said:Your question has no more meaning than "why is there something rather than nothing?" or "why must the earth be so perfectly adapted to human life?" or the puddle's question "why does this hole fit me so well?"
I stand by the question. Since the topical question presupposes that causality exists, which cannot be empirically proven. Therefore, it is relevant.
borrofburi said:I find it horribly ironic that here you say causality is just an idea, while in another thread you argue that logic/math/love are non-material things that exist whether man is around to perceive them or not.
Now it seems you have misread my post, two of them to be precise.
Causality cannot be empirically proven to exist. You can observe things in relation to other things but you can't observe the cause itself. (Such as ball hits ball and second ball moves, wagon moves ball appears to move but doesn't actually move, car falling into frozen lake, etc. You don't see the concept of causality, you see two actions you relate to one another and your only reason for supposing it is causal is that you have seen the things in relation to each other before. But then to assign causality, you are relying on it being a constant- that something that happened previously will continue to happen in the future. But since you have know direct knowledge of the specific association of the phenomena you witness, you cannot suppose causality.) Therefore, for empiricists, it can't exist outside of the mind. I went on to say, however, you can establish its existence but not from an empirical perspective.
In addition, in the other post, I never said abstracts were things in and of themselves absolutely. I said they could be things in and of themselves. I used them for a specific purpose in an argument, that doesn't mean it was held to be objectively true. That would need establishment.
Also, you misused irony.
borrofburi said:Please demonstrate the possibility of the existence of a universe without causality. Also please demonstrate how that it is at all relevant to anything, especially more-so relevant than the idea that "it's not like the universe has to exist" or some other such "point".
If you are an empiricist, which could be a presumptious assumption so if it is I am sorry, explain how the universe possesses observable causality.
Because I can demonstrate a universe without it empirically- this one. Bellissimo!
So again, it is relevant to the topic because-
A) The underlying assumption was things must have cause
B) We can't empirically say anything has a cause since we can't observe the cause itself
C) Thus, the topic is invalid because causality cannot be empirically proven. Therefore it isn't a legitimate question from an empiricist perspective because it, the supposition, defeats empiricism itself. Neither deity or universe need a cause to exist, therefore one could say that the question is pointless because it empirically is illogical.
borrofburi said:Seriously, did you miss the class where they discussed Occam's Razor?
Nope. Western Civ, but not taught in philosophy save as an example of a fallacious argument. I know physicists love it. Which is fine and dandy, one of my physics profs loved it but the thing about that is. .. just because you like something, doesn't make it correct. Yes yes, I understand, it is useful in equations, but we can all admit it is a shakey concept.
Well, at least I thought most people admitted that. I may have thought too much of most people!
I also never ruled out the validity of, "I don't know." That is a valid answer. I was equating the concept of a universe just existing with no deity to the concept of a universe created by just an existing deity. They are both equally complex and equally simple.borrofburi said:Perhaps more importantly: you implicitly rule out the validity of the (often true) answer "I don't know" and the reality that "I don't know" can be the superior answer.
borrofburi said:While the topical question doesn't necessarily apply when someone says "all things except god must have a cause", it's hardly a better argument because it relies on special pleading even when phrased that way.
OH MY GOODNESS!
That was essentially the point, it doesn't apply here! So it isn't a valid question. Thus, again!, to answer the topical question, "No."
And! To be fair, it wasn't phrased that way. You phrased it very differently.
"All things that have beginning must have a cause." But defining a deity with no beginning isn't a walk in the park, it isn't just a statement. The arguments that must be built to come to that conclusion are philisophically extensive. (As the arguments for why the universe exists are scientifically extensive.)
borrofburi said:Certainly, but then of course we return to the very standard yet still unanswered question: what evidence is there for a being so far removed from the universe?
There isn't evidence for a being. I never said there was. I think you can make an argument for one, as I mentioned earlier but it isn't evidenciary. It is philosphical. But philosophy is fun and that is what we have been engaging in for the last page, that is the purpose of the forums! Philisophical open debate! So. . there's that!