Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!seismo!nbires!hao!hplabs!tektronix!tekcrl!vice!tekfdi!bobb
From: bobb@tekfdi.UUCP (Robert Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: God and Occam (was Re: the cosmological argument)
Message-ID: <496@tekfdi.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Sep-86 01:00:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekfdi.496
Posted: Mon Sep  8 01:00:57 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Sep-86 04:22:23 EDT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR
Lines: 39

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.

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.

> . . .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 -- ?

     Bob Bales
     Tektronix