17 Jul '17 16:43>
Originally posted by Christopher AlbonYes, mostly it is.
Is the universe empty?
Originally posted by moonbusAnd 'being preferred' in this context means that all else being equal, the given explanation is more likely to be accurate (than the other one). It is NOT a proof of the explanation, only an argument from probability. It is a very useful argument and should be taken seriously, but care should be taken in understanding it and its implications before invoking it.
Occham's Razor dictates nothing about the universe. It posits that of two explanations, the one which makes fewer assumptions is to be preferred.
Originally posted by @twhiteheadAgreed. Simplicity by itself is no proof of validity. As H.L. Mencken once said, for every problem, there is a solution which is simple, clear, and wrong.
And 'being preferred' in this context means that all else being equal, the given explanation is more likely to be accurate (than the other one). It is NOT a proof of the explanation, only an argument from probability. It is a very useful argument and should be taken seriously, but care should be taken in understanding it and its implications before invoking it.
Originally posted by @fabianfnasAs moonbus stated, Occam's Razor is about making the fewest assumptions, not about some vague notion of simplicity. Goddidit, includes a massive unwarranted assumption and is NOT the best solution according to Occam's Razor.
The simplest solution of most questions of the type 'why' - is "Goddidit".
According to the Occam's razor principle it is the correct solution. It is *not* !!!
Therefore care should always be taken into consideration!
Originally posted by @fabianfnasNO! "Goddidit" is the most complex solution thus disfavored by Occam's razor!
The simplest solution of most questions of the type 'why' - is "Goddidit".
According to the Occam's razor principle it is the correct solution. It is *not* !!!
Originally posted by @humyEssentially, Occam's Razor would say that 'a God-like entity whose immortality is not known didit is a more likely than Goddidit'. ditto for each other aspect of God not required for universe creation or whatever it is being explained.
....
B, being immortal
.....
Now, each of the above (A, B, C, ...) is a hypothesis within a hypothesis (the God hypothesis) of what attributes is attached to the same object (an object called 'God' in this case) so the prior probability of God existing must be the probability of A multiplied by the probability of B multiplied by the probability of C mul ...[text shortened]... only one of those hypothesis within the God hypothesis needs to be false for there to be no God.
Originally posted by @twhiteheadexactly! So if you seriously assert 'Goddidit', the prior probability of you being right depends on exactly how you define 'God' and, the more detail of attributes you insist that 'God' has, the more assumptive it is and the less probable it is. The only way I can see one can rationally give a 'Goddidit' a probability anywhere near as high as 50% is to give 'God' virtually no definable attributes and give it such a vague meaning as to render "God" and thus also 'Goddidit' meaningless.
Essentially, Occam's Razor would say that 'a God-like entity whose immortality is not known didit is a more likely than Goddidit'. ditto for each other aspect of God not required for universe creation or whatever it is being explained.