Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc3!za56
From: za56@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Brian McNeill)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: God and Occam (was Re: the cosmological argument)
Message-ID: <3576@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>
Date: Wed, 10-Sep-86 15:23:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcc3.3576
Posted: Wed Sep 10 15:23:02 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Sep-86 02:51:46 EDT
References: <496@tekfdi.UUCP>
Reply-To: za56@sdcc3.UUCP (Brian McNeill)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Distribution: na
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 105
Keywords: Occam wins again
Summary: God is *NOT* the simpler answer

In article <496@tekfdi.UUCP> bobb@tekfdi.UUCP (Robert Bales) writes:
>In article <3542@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>, Brian McNeill writes:
>
>> If we assume that not everything is causal, the first causers don't have a
>> leg to stand on, since it is more likely (Occam's razor) that the universe
>> doesn't need a cause, rather than assuming a further step, saying that
>> "well, the universe needs a cause, but of course, our God is self creating
>> by definition" which, as we can see, is rather suspect reasoning.
>
>
>I disagree. I contend that Occam's razor choses God as being the simpler
>explanation. We have two competing explanations: an uncaused universe, and
>an uncaused God. In the universe, everything that we can see has a cause. (I
>know that there has been discussion whether or not this is true,
>quantum-mechanically speaking. However, at least every bit of mass/energy
>comes from something -- other mass/energy.) Hence, the postulated property
>of the universe -- that it can exist without a cause -- is unlike all other
>known properties of the universe. There is nothing in what we can observe
>that would make us think that such a property exists. In short, a universe
>without a cause is inconsistent.
>

However, if you assume a God, you must assume that there IS a
spiritual world for him to dwell (around)(within)(whatever), adding
a whole additional jungle to the problem, then you must contend with
causality...my argument still stands...if everything needs a cause,
then God gets you nowhere, and if not, why not the Universe?
Because of "inconsistancy"?  BS...everything INSIDE the Universe
seems to need a cause (even this is debateable, but), which does
not mean the Universe needs a cause...again, we are left with,
"But God is a special case"...right...the Universe cannot include
itself, therefore, it is not being inconsistant in being acausal...
One could also argue that, since God created the Universe, which
is causal, therefore he must also be causal (yes I recog. the
fallacy here, just trying to point out that it also applies above).
Overall, I think Occam's razor still points to the universe alone as
being the most probable version.

>One could consider that something without a cause is outside of what (from
>everything we can tell) is natural. In other words, "supernatural." However,
>God, whether the Judeo-Christian God or most other gods, is, almost by
>definition, supernatural. In short, a God without a cause is consistent.
>

Oh come on...if there is a supernatural realm, we have no knowledge
of whether causality applies in this supernatural realm...and there
is no way you can possibly draw a conclusion from nonexistant
evidence...if there is a supernatural realm, there is a fair chance
of it being just as causal as our material world, just with
different rules...there is no way you can possibly draw the
conclusion that the supernatural world is acausal, therefore your
assertion that an acausal God is consistent lacks a foundation.

>> . . .I do acknowledge the POSSIBILITY of a God...I do NOT acknowledge the
>> infinitesmal possibility (in my opinion) that the (if any) God is as
>> Christians believe...I like to think that if there is one, it is more
>> likely that He wears a white lab coat :^) and conducts experiments on
>> evolution (with us as guniea pigs) :) :) :)
>
>If we attempt to choose between these two: In favor of the Christian God, we
>have a book which states that it was inspired by that God, a book which makes
>specific claims as to what God will do for any individual. These claims have
>been verified by millions. In favor of the "God in the white lab coat," we
>have -- ?

Of course...as EVERY RELIGION THAT HAS EVER EXISTED HAS BEEN
VERIFIED BY MILLIONS!  Your book states that it was inspired by
God...seems circular as a hula hoop to me...Buddhistic beliefs have
also been verified by millions, over a period of time that has
lasted longer than Xianity, and with better results (no major wars
attributable to them, nor purges, witchhunts, crusades, etc.)...I am
not pointing out two choices...I am pointing out an infinity of
choices!  Your book (I have read it) is one of the most
contradictory books ever written, with more authors than any
anthology ever published...for every positive claim in the Bible, I
can find a negative, and so on.  It is largely how you chose to 
"interpret" it.  I have noticed (and pointed out before) that 
what religion you are seems to be primarily dependent on where
you grew up and were educated.  If you grew up in a Mormon
household, you are most likely to be Mormon...similarly, if you
grew up in India, in a Hindu household, you are most likely to
be Hindu...none of the modern religions are consistent with 
each other, Hindu is polytheistic, Buddhism is atheistic in some,
polytheistic in other forms, monotheistic in a few, Xianity and
Judaism, as well as Islam are all monotheistic, but have severe 
differences in doctrine, etc.  Very different indeed!  If there were
a "right" religion, don't you think that it would be independent of
such a mundane thing as geography?   I see this as evidence that it
is primarily your enviroment that influences your choice of
religion, and therefore see it as unlikely that any of the current
religions is the "right" one, thus my white lab-coat God...


>
>     Bob Bales
>     Tektronix

/-----------------------------------------------------------\
| Brian McNeill        ARPA :           za56@sdcc3.ucsd.edu |
| HASA "A" Division    UUCP :  ...!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc3!za56 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
! Quote for the day: "Civilization will take its first great!
!   step forward when the last stone from the last church   !
!   falls on the head of the last priest," -- Emile Zola    !
\-----------------------------------------------------------/