Ask about Atheism

[Jedo the Jedi]

[extropalopakettle]

[BraveHat]

Sorry, I had actually thought I posted this a couple hours ago but turned out I was still in"review" mode when I checked my phone again:

[BraveHat]

[extropalopakettle]

[extropalopakettle]

More relevant food for thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit#Simplicity_of_God_and_materialist_assumptions

Is a god really a more complex assumption? (and more complex than what?) Here's where I'm not convinced, but it goes to my understanding of consciousness, as discussed elsewhere.

[Jedo the Jedi]

My complaint against Occam's Razor has always been its misapplication and overuse. Occam's Razor is used (in modern thought) to mean the simplest logical solution is preferable, but what is often left out is this is true only in the absence of further evidence and this solution may not be the truth. Just because the simplest logical solution (at present) for how things came to be is random chance does not mean that is the truth of how things came to be. Many people like to take that as the full stop, but it is more appropriately a pause until further evidence comes to light.

We can then debate about "simplest" and "evidence," and I think this is where the majority of hang-ups occur. I concede I am biased in some sense, but I think God is at least as simple of an explanation as random chance. I think extro's second link touches on my thoughts well. Then of course, we are arguing for different types of evidence which are really incompatible.

I do want to say I think Zag approaches the situation well. As far as I can tell, as a scientist, he is always prepared for new evidence to come to light which could change his current set of assumptions. If some evidence came forth which would overthrow quantum mechanics (or whatever has since superseded Newtonian physics), after evaluating that it was accurate and valid, Zag would adjust. I think the same would be true of God for Zag, though there has yet to be sufficient evidence. I can appreciate that, though as I mentioned above, I don't think there will ever be such evidence.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[bgg1996]

[extropalopakettle]

[Zag]

[BraveHat]

It seems Occam's Razor is a tool used for coming up with an explanation, but not necessarily a test of the explanation's truth value. It seems to me the actual test is the predictive powers it has or fails to have on further observations. It seems unreasonable to consider something likely while it's still at the hypothesis stage. If the observation is that people claim a god exists, and Occam's razor suggests we assume the claim is false in absence of any evidence, shouldn't one test the "claim is false" hypothesis somehow before considering it likely to be true? Otherwise, all you have is the simplicity. You shaved, but you haven't met up with anyone to see if you're attractive.

[extropalopakettle]

[BraveHat]

[Jedo the Jedi]

[BraveHat]

I understand why it's simpler to explain it as another false belief, but to go from a simple explanation to confidence in that explanation's truth value, I would think a test needs to be conducted

[bgg1996]

[Jedo the Jedi]

[bgg1996]

[Zag]

BraveHat, everything that science "knows" is still just hypothesis. Gravity, Maxwell's equations, the behavior of PNP junctions (i.e. the transistors that the computer you're using right now is made up of), etc. Our understanding of all those things are just theories and hypotheses, the simplest explanations for all the phenomena that we've observed, including what we've observed in many controlled experiments.

It's true that our theories become more reliable when they correctly predict things, but those things that they predict just become more observations after they have happened.

I'll make a prediction: If your sentient God exists, he will stop me from typing the following sentence in which I state that he doesn't, and if he does not exist, there is nothing that will stop me.

God does not exist.

Well, there you go, he didn't stop me. Hardly a conclusive experiment, but there's a prediction, fulfilled. It's just a working theory, mind you, but it's what I'm going on for now, until contradictory evidence comes to light.

(Hmmm, I've given Jedo moderator powers, so I know he can come in and change this. Don't be a wise guy. )

Jedo, simple means a set of rules that explain a phenomenon, or phenomena, that fit as closely as possible with the things we already understand in the universe (and can demonstrate by experiment). To say some being "exists" but isn't matter or any of the four types of energy that we understand, that isn't simple, it's just magic. It offers no formulae, no predictive value, nothing but throwing up your hands and saying it's all too hard to understand.

We understand how DNA works, how mutations can sometimes be beneficial and get passed on. We don't need to introduce another magical being to explain how it happens -- it is all explainable with the nuclear forces, and the probability that we already know.

For a different example, we understand how electric fields can cause electrons to move, and how electricity can be used to affect the light-modulating properties of the liquid crystal display that you're probably looking at right now. I could introduce invisible leprechauns which paint the picture, really fast, and say that this is how your computer screen works. It's so simple: the leprechains know what you're supposed to be seeing, so they put it there for you, and they just love to do it. They are otherwise undetectable, so you can't disprove this theory -- go ahead and try.

But it's a stupid theory. You know that they aren't there. Maybe you don't know the details of how a computer or an LCD display works, but you can bet that the leprechaun theory isn't it. That's stupidly complex and totally unnecessary. In reality, the people who invented LCD displays probably don't know exactly how they work, either, but they know enough about it to understand the neighborhood that reality is in. They know that the electricity excites the crystal, causing it to change its light-modifying properties, etc. They couldn't tell you WHY that particular liquid crystal works better than another one, they only know that it does, and that's enough. You could continue in the theory by saying that the leprechauns prefer to work with that type of chemical, though they are willing to work, somewhat less well, with other chemicals. Again, this theory can't be disproved, because it has been carefully made so as to be un-disprovable. But it's stupid nonetheless. There is just some property of some chemicals that cause them to react more quickly and reliably than others, so the engineers chose those to make the display out of.

The factors with which we are already familiar: reproduction of DNA, probability, the math of large numbers -- these are adequate to explain evolution from single-celled life to these creatures who play with computers and imagine that they are self-aware. There's no need to introduce leprechauns, I mean God, to explain any of it, that's a needless complication.

[BraveHat]

[BraveHat]

Wait, I take that back, Zag. Your prediction is a conjunction whose conjuncts are two conditionals. A conjunction can only be true if both conjuncts are true. We know the second conjunct is true because it's consequent is true. The truth value of the first conjunct, however, cannot be determined, because it's consequent is false and it's antecedent cannot be observed. So if the truth value of the prediction cannot be determined, in what way is it fulfilled?

[Zag]

My prediction is that there was no magical being who would stop me, and nothing did.

Of course, it doesn't prove that the magical being doesn't exist, but we've cleverly defined the pixel-painting leprechauns God such that it can never be shown that he doesn't exist. You were the one who objected to a hypothesis in the absence of experimental evidence. Do you have an experiment we can do?

[BraveHat]

[BraveHat]

But that doesn't mean planes don't exist no matter how cleverly or uncleverly they're defined.

[BraveHat]

[bgg1996]

[BraveHat]

Basically at this point I'm more interested in a case being made that theists are probably delusional than one that a god probably doesn't exist. It's true that no case can be made that a god probably doesn't exist, but that fact has become meaningless since the same can be said for the farting linguini troll.

[bgg1996]

God hasn't revealed himself credibly in thousands of years. Is it really likely that he revealed himself to some select chosen people a few thousand years ago, then did nothing, but the other religions did make their gods up, because they have conflicting religions?
_________________
The one member below 18

[BraveHat]

[Jedo the Jedi]

[bgg1996]

Let's say that we've observed the sun rise every day since recorded history. We also come up with a model to explain the sun's behavior that's simple, consistent with other known facts, and very closely models the observed data.
We can't give a proper frequentist probability that the sun will rise tomorrow, that is, the number of times the sun will rise divided by the number of days times 100%, but one would feel fairly justified in saying that the sun will rise tomorrow. (it will appear to rise, that is; I know that it's just the Earth rotating)
In the same way, I feel justified in saying that there is no god, even though I can't mathematically find the probability by taking the number of possible universes with a god divided by the total number of possible universes times 100%

[Zag]

[BraveHat]

[bgg1996]

[Jedo the Jedi]

[BraveHat]

[Zag]

[BraveHat]

[BraveHat]

If I am to be strictly logical about this, here's the argument I draw from the discussion thus far:

1. The explanation of observations that requires the least amount of assumptions is the most likely to be true.
2. A god's existence is an assumption

Therefore, adding anything to an explanation that requires a god's existence makes it less likely to be true.

I think I agree with premise 1, but I don't readily agree with premise 2. There is still a question of whether or not a god's existence is always an assumption and also whether the word "assumption" is being equivicated. Also I'm not sure if the conclusion necessarily follows.

[extropalopakettle]