Need debate help - Creationism, Occam's Razor

[johnaries]

OK, let's start with some background: I have a very liberal, very intelligent friend at work who is very well-versed on the latest science. He is also a Science Fiction fanatic as I am, especially in the Classic Authors (Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, Heinlein, etc. All of the outrageous flaming liberal Sci-Fi authors.) So, this guy is no slouch. He is well versed in Physics and History. We agree 99.9% of the time. He is a Christian, but a tolerant one and has no problem with me being a Taoist. We are often involved in "just for fun" political email debates at work with other employees, which tend to alternate between "serious" debate and a contest to see who can crack the worst joke.

The current debate came about after an email I had distributed among our "debate circle" about the most recent "Intelligent Design" fiasco. My afore-mentioned friend, Al, lamented that it was so unfortunate that such idiots had "hijacked" the concept of Intelligent Design, because if one allowed for Natural Selection and the Big Bang theory, he could logically prove the existence of a Creator.

I replied that I personally agreed with the concept of a Creator, but that it was a matter of Faith and could not be "logically proven". We agree that our current universe is a wondrous place with many seeming "coincidences" where things seem to happen "just right". My argument is that it is possible (for the sake of logical argument) that the universe has gone through many Big Bangs and been reborn many times, and by the concept of "given enough time, whatever can happen will happen" logically explains the current universe.

So, after much debate, we have come down to 2 possible theories:

1. Multi-universe.
2. Omnipotent Creator.

Now, my friend argues that Occam's Razor favors the Omnipotent Creator theory. My argument is that Occam's Razor actually favors the Multiverse theory.

So, which theory do you think Occam's Razor favors, and why? And don't be afraid to have fun...

[youngdem]

1. how in the hell does natural selection seem more complicated than

An invisible force (which no one can even prove exists) created the entire world by itself in a week then told someone about it a few thousand years ago?

Compare with:

Bird is born with longer beak than usual. Small change proves beneficial. He lives. Friend without change doesn't. Soon, more birds have longer beaks, no?

[johnaries]

11. Oh, we're way past Natural Selection. we both agree on NS.

Go back to the origins of the universe itself. To the basic "laws of physics".

[unpossibles]

2. I would say neither, only because neither is a simple answer, BUT

logically I'd have to go with (1) Multi-universe but I'd say that's just a single infinite and cyclical universe. Infinite in every sense, including temporally, as you said.

Perhaps because I did not hear his version of the debate, but I fail to see how a matter of faith suddenly becomes logically provable. It just doesn't work, by the definitions of the words alone. Proving something that requires faith is a paradox.

Grok?

[johnaries]

15. I Grok! Actually I referenced Heinlein's Number of the Beast

just as an "example" of the old "what can happen will happen" theory.

And I was just as perplexed as you. To me, the concept of a Creator was always a matter of faith. I couldn't understand how this person that I greatly respect for his logical mind should suddenly feel that it could be "logically proven".

Of course, his argument is that it does not require faith, and therefore is not a paradox.

While we're at it, I might as well mention that my own Daoist philosophy allows and accepts paradoxes. In Daoist philosophy, it only "seems" paradoxically because of our limited perception and the human need to "pigeon-hole" everything; it is not truly paradoxical in nature.

[unpossibles]

39. I could agree with the lack of paradox

and I suppose if anything, the very idea of "what can happen will happen" could very well preclude the idea of paradox.

That said, I can't really wrap my brain around the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-being god being something which can be logically provable, or even allowing itself to be provable were it to exist. My Optimistic Agnosticism makes me doubt the existence of any such god, but allows that such a being could exist, so..... I suppose by the "what can happen will happen" then perhaps somewhere/when in the multiverse such a God could exist. I'm not sure that's logic though, other than circular. You could use the exact same argument to disprove God as well, could you not, where "what can happen" is a universe with no God?


And I think my own personal theory on what "God" is could be coloring my thoughts. If anything, I believe that the thing which humans call god is in fact the summation of everything, but is not a being unto itself. This Summation, therefore, is not a creator in the least, but is also perhaps not created by us either, but just is (I amsk what I amsk), and we've spent the last few thousands of years killing each other trying to better describe it, give it a name, and put it on display for all to see.

As an analogy, I guess you could liken my idea of "god" to an AI composed of the internet; being the sum of all computers, like specialized cells in a body, if that makes sense. Thus, such an Everything is by definition literally omnipresent, but beyond the humanity of it's/our individual humans (cells), does not necessarily have "love" or "jealousy" or other human traits ascribed to gods since we started describing gods.

This idea is nothing new, and borrows heavily from a variety of sources, from fiction authors to religions. Heinlein was onto a lot of really interesting and valid concepts on this subject, while we're on the subject. We are all God if god exists at all, because we are all a piece of the infinite Summation, and every piece of the whole contains the Whole (Fractology? lol).

In fact, I've wondered (as a side note) if the alleged bet between Hubbard and some other unknown scifi author to create a working religion, was not with Heinlein, or perhaps Herbert. Or maybe both, although I lean more toward the former. Supposedly this is how Scientology began, and it would crack me up to no end if true.

Damn it. I need more coffee.

[The Straight Story]

3. I vote for #3

We are all AI programs running on god's computer and the universe we see is a bunch of code.

I just hope there isn't a storm near god's house and his power goes out, or man are we all screwn.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. My Problem With The Big Bang, Though I Do Believe In It, Is That It Starts Too Late.

It never quite explains what initiated it or where any of 'it' came from, leaving the door open to the notion that there still needed to be some form of 'creator' even for the big bang to occur. Since if you step back one step of the big bang you are still left with the question of "but where'd it come from", Occam's razor can't really be applied since the explanation for both might in fact be the same thing.

That's the problem as I see it. The big bang isn't a logical theory on its own. It's a theory that only starts from a point of explanation, while omitting the pre-steps that have no explanation. It gets a 'head start', so to speak.

So in order for me to ever consider the big bang theory as an alternative equal to debate with creation, it would have to have a beginning that's logically explainable, which it does not yet have. While it doesn't, its very own explanation might still be quite simply rooted in 'creation' logic.

[Warpy]

7. There's more data piling up that would suggest the steady state

universe exists, constantly creating and destroying itself. It's an interesting possibility, at any rate.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Yet Still Has No Beginning.

But I agree with ya, it is fascinating. I love watching things about stuff like that. The universe fascinates me to no end. Just the sheer magnitude of it, wonderousness of it, awe of it, beauty of it. I wish so much sometimes I was able to live in an observatory and just spend my days exploring it. I just know I could figure out the dark matter mystery if only I acquired the education necessary to be up to speed on it. What mysteries are out there... it's just awe inspiring.

[Warpy]

12. I know, I wish I'd paid more attention to higher math

but it quickly became apparent to me that I loathed engineering school.

The observers find only part of the puzzle. It takes the mathematicians to offer the proof of what they've seen.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. Of All The Universal Mysteries Wanna Know The One I've Obsessed About For Years?

Gravity. Yup, gravity. It is one of the most fascinating concepts of physics I've ever come across. I've always had this weird feeling that gravity in and of itself is one of the most valuably misunderstood forces in the universe and the key to so many other things we do not yet know. I've made thousands of mental mappings of it and for years at times tried to figure out for myself what exactly makes it 'tick', so to speak. I'm convinced that it is so much more than we currently even can imagine it to be. I'm also convinced that somehow gravity itself can be tapped and used as a limitless supply of energy, I just haven't yet figured out what tangent of thought to use to deduce just how that might occur. But I just have this theory that it's possible.

[Warpy]

14. You and Tesla

who also had some thoughts along that line.

Keep at it. Maybe you can make it work.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. Forgive Me, Do You Mean Nikola Tesla?

I really have no idea and maybe shame on me for that. Personally, if that is who you meant I've never heard of him, but figured I'd quickly type Tesla into google and see if I could deduce who you might've been referring to. If it's him, on quick glance he seems fascinating. I might definitely have to check him out more.

[walldude]

20. Tesla is one of those people who got screwed over by U.S. history

giving all the credit for things like alternating current to Edison. Tesla and Edison were serious rivals, the VHS and Betamax of their time. Quite an interesting guy, if you want a short Hollywood idea of what he was like see the movie The Prestige. David Bowie plays him and although the movie isn't about him it does talk about some of the things he's done and his rivalry with Edison.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. Cool. Thanks! (I'm A Bowie Fan Too, So That's Even Cooler LOL)

[walldude]

23. Yeah and you won't be dissapointeed in the movie either

one of the best from last year. Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman and directed by Christopher Nolan who did Memento and Batman Begins...

and now back to our regularly scheduled thread... sorry for the hijack.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. LOVED Memento. Thought It Was Absolutely Brilliant.

Pissed me off that each time I watch it with a new group, they don't 'get it' LOL. Gets better each time I see it though.

[johnaries]

28. Don't apologize for the hijack, we were talking about that movie

the other day and couldn't remember the name of it. I had only seen the trailers and wanted to rent it. Now that I know the name, I can! Thanks!:hi:

[JackRiddler]

35. Well yeah... a great movie and performance!

But maybe not entirely accurate about this machine Tesla-Bowie invents, you figure?

[Greyhound]

37. One of, if not the, greatest minds humanity has ever produced.

Saying that got screwed is also one hell of an understatement as well. His greatest failing was in not recognizing the power of money in his adopted nation. Had he received his due during his life, we would be living in a much different, and likely much better, world today. If you love science and discovery an investigation into his discoveries and theories will change your entire outlook on the scientific establishment.

[johnaries]

21. Yep, perhaps the greatest mystery. An attractive force that is not

energy and displays none of the properties of energy. But can control energy, regardless.

That's why Einstein described it as a "warping" of the fabric of space, itself.

[unpossibles]

40. but could you not also say the same for God?

Creation also has no beginning. Who/what created God?

[Warren DeMontague]

33. And The Creation Story is so eminently logical, because "God's" origin is easily explained.

...eh?

I'd add that the Big Bang "Theory" is not intended to be a metaphysical answer for "where did everything come from and what about before that"? It's a scientific explanation for the data and evidence we have, namely, the visible history of the Universe including the 3 degrees of microwave background radiation. (One thing the Big Bang "Theory" has, that the Creation Myths don't- namely, scientific evidence)

Obviously, cosmologists are working on the questions regarding "where" and "how". Steven Hawking would say that it's meaningless to ask what came "before" the big bang, because space AND time expanded out of the original singularity. Just like it's meaningless to ask what is "north" of the north pole on the Earth, there is no "North", there is no "before".

Yeah, hard to wrap the old mind around.

Also, there's the theory of the Ekpyrotic Universe, some folks have been working on that in recent years.

There's also various theories involving multiverses, bubbling multiverses which branch off fractal-style into new multiverses via black holes & new big bangs, etc. etc. Personally, that sort of thing appeals to my sense of aesthetics pertaining to the general fractal nature of pretty much everything in reality. You could ask "what started it", but I would argue it could be a "turtles all the way down" situation. Certainly as "logical" as saying "God has always been here".

I actually think that, if an answer is found, the universe will be discovered to be a natural by-product of some underlying feature or fact of reality. It's just the way things ARE. We assume that the natural state of everything is nothing, so we act surprised when things are. Maybe the natural state of everything is, well, everything.

But to argue that no one - no scientist, that is - is working on "what came before" the big bang isn't really true. A lot of people are putting a lot of thought into the question, without falling back on that traditional inquiry-killing statement, "God did it, so stop asking about it"

[unpossibles]

42. great post and thanks for the cool link. n/t

[benddem]

5. who created the

ominipotent creator?

[Warpy]

6. Obviously, "God did it" is the simplest and most straightforward

explanation and it would seem to satisfy Occam's Razor except one is then stuck proving the existence of this god, quantifying its power, and proving it not only had the ability to create the universe(s) but actually did so. That's when it gets really sticky.

No one has ever really supplied this proof. Oh, they get poetic about sunrises and baby smiles and twinkling stars, but poetry is not proof and neither is simple, unjustified belief.

The simplest explanation, in this case, isn't necessarily the correct one as the basic premise can't be proven.

[IDemo]

9. The complexity of this universe isn't dependent on previous Big Bang misfires

There's no reason to believe that our universe could not have resulted from a single big bang event, versus finally getting it all together after several. The odds of flipping 'heads' on a coin toss are still 50-50 after the second flip or the millionth.

[iamjoy]

10. Neither, Or Both

both theories make a lot of assumptions, but let's not make the mistake of assuming everyone talking about "intelligent design" (or questioning evolution/natural selection) believes Genesis is to be taken literally.

Who is to say Occam's Razor is the right theory anyway? The simplest explanation is not always the right one. I could give some examples, but don't want to turn this into a political debate about stolen elections or other conspiracies.

Since you have already framed the debate in terms of Occam's Razor, however, here goes

You are making an assumption that the universe could have been created and destroyed several times and that our existence is pure serendipity. The odds for such a thing could in the billions, but, as you stated, given enough time, anything could happen.

Your friend assumes that some higher power helped this all happen.

When you strip away all the convuluted explanations of the theoriesand get right down to it the core assumption is either
"It just happened"
"A higher power made it happen."

Let's put a different spin on Occam's Razor, which is easier to explain to a four year old -
the big bang (but why? but why?) or an omnipotent creator who is anthropomorphized as a parent? Of course, when you anthropomorphize, you are making assumptions.

I'd say it's a wash.

BUT - to a person with no faith, nothing is satisfactory proof for the existence of a divine being.
To a person of faith, everything is satisfactory proof for the existence of a divine being.

[walldude]

17. Your freind is right about Occams Razor favoring the

Omnipotent Creator theory, however, the only reason it does is because the idea of there being a "creator" is all about faith and not science. If I'm not mistaken, the premise of Occams Razor is that all things being equal, the easiest answer is usually the correct one. Well when it comes to Religion and Science, nothing is equal. One is based on "prove it using scientific methods" and the other based on "trust me, god is real". It's not very equal to have one side have to actually prove it and the other just to say trust me.(and send me your social security check) You may want to tell your friend that if he could actually "logically prove" the existence of a creator, then he would destroy religion as we know it forever. The whole point of religion is to have faith. If God is proven to exist there would be no more need for faith, and wouldn't that throw a wrench into the whole works..

Laymans point of view.. if it weren't for Carl Sagan I wouldn't have even known what Occams Razor was ;)

BTW I like the thread, sometimes it's nice to get a little more existential.

[Liberal In Texas]

18. There are more than 2 possible theories.

Another one is the Holographic Universe, which I espouse.

Reality is a hologram. There is no other way to explain how human consciousness works.

Our brains are far too small to stuff all that we are in such a small space.

Holograms do it by interference patterns. Which I believe, is how the we interact and think.

Many things are stored, like a holo, in the brain with a million fold reach.

Holos play back the "interference patterns" on a glass plate when a light hits it. Break a glass plate of the holo and the entire image is resident on each shard, albeit missing part of the information.

As we are just small parts of the universe, expand that to how the universe operates. A GRAND Holographic system of infinite interference patterns.

It explains a lot. Time is immutable. As is matter. The past is the present and the future.

Holograms exist on these strange glass plates to not only tease us, but to give us insight into the vast unknown.

A good first primer:

http://www.amazon.com/Holographic-Universe-Michael-Talbot/dp/0060922583

-Boy was that deep...sorry

[provis99]

19. Occam's Razor isn't a principle; it isn't even scientific.

look at quantum mechanics, or the theory of relativity. Relativity theory is way more wordy and complex, and makes more assumptions, than Newton's theories, but Newton is plain wrong. So much for Occam's Razor.

[johnaries]

25. True, although it is an acceptable debate technique. But,

you gave me an idea from a "pure debate" point of view. One of his arguments was that the Universe was "too complex", and now he's going for the "simplest" explanation.

Hmmm, could make for some fun!

[JackRiddler]

34. Yeah, I was going to say...

Occam's razor is a heuristic (rule of thumb), useful in formulating hypotheses. It does not hold that "the simplest explanation is usually right," which is what so many people seem to think, but rather that the likeliest explanation (of those available) is the one that makes the fewest assumptions (to be tested) while still explaining the available facts. Until you start testing, that is.

Occam himself might be appalled at the now-daily invocation of his principle as some kind of argument-stopper, as though it was a natural law or proof of anything - especially at how it is regularly applied outside scientific discussions, in the realm of human affairs - where people who understand Occam's principle often set out to deceive each other. Or have you ever seen a rock falling off a cliff issue a press release announcing that the gravitational constant is anything other than 9.8 m/s/s?

The OP and his/her friend furthermore both (I presume) agree with the fossil record that the evolution of species actually happened over billions of years and that humans descended from other apes. Beyond that they're discussing the nature of the universe within which this all happened, whether it has a background creator, and that is going to be waaaaay beyond anything you can slice and dice using "Occam's razor."

Speaking of religious beliefs: the Big Bang qualifies!

[msongs]

26. sounds like a discussion in favor of reincarnation to me since the bible

is pretty much fiction anyhow when it comes to the religious concepts, although there is some evidence for the existance of some people named therein, excluding the main character of course :-)

Msongs
www.msongs.com

[johnaries]

29. Wait a minute, who IS the main character in the Bible?

I mean, the only character that seems to be repeated is "God", but otherwise it's not very much about him as it is about other different characters, is it?

[ComerPerro]

27. Look at it this way: If the simplest solution were usually true

couldn't we start using magical figures and dieties to explain everything in life?

After all, the explanation for how what I type now gets translated into words on my screen, which then are uploaded to DU's servers and are decoded to appear as readable english words, seems complex. Or, if it makes you more comfortable and you want to know how my post got from my computer to yours, we could just say God did it. But that wouldn't make it true. Just simple.

[LostInAnomie]

30. You have already made Occam's Razor invalid in this debate.

Occam's Razor requires that all things are to be equal when coming to a conclusion. By allowing "God" to enter the debate without any kind of proof of his existence you aren't making all things equal. If you had no scientific evidence for your arguments your friend certainly wouldn't accept your conclusions.

The debate is already stacked in his favor.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. I he proposing a creator that is also present in this universe, or one purely outside it?

A creator that can communicate with this universe (react to events in it, and affect them) is a very complicated concept - and one for which some evidence ought to be produced. I think that, in the absence of such evidence, Occam's Razor would say you don't put that forward as an answer to how the universe started.

If you're choosing between a multiverse and an intelligent creator, that remains outside the universe, I'd say there's no evidence either way, and we know nothing about existence outside the universe, so we can't say which seems more complicated or unlikely. It's a tie.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Saying "Nothing can happen unless a creator made it-- uh, except the creator" isn't logic. nt

[Larry Ogg]

36. I have my own theory and it’s simple to understand for those who aren’t sure.

God created Evolution! There now everybody can be right.

[Greyhound]

38. If Occam's razor is the criteria, I don't see how creation can even be considered.

Talk about unlikely.:eyes:

OTOH, you didn't give any info on how you arrived at the conclusion that multiple universes was at all likely either.

Since both theories are wildly unlikely, it would seem indicate that Occam's Razor is wholly inappropriate to this debate, but if I had to pick, I'd have to go with #1 as it is barely more likely.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. among the two choices offered

Occam's razor says:

"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."

So I'd say Occam's Razor favors the multiverse, as it removes the entity of a creator.

The popular interpretation of OR is that the simpler explanation is usually the right one. In this case, the multiverse wins again because the Creator theory requires not just the existence of a vastly complex universe, but also the existence of an even-more-complex Creator, capable of creating the vastly complex universe.

[libertypirate]

43. If you plan on using a concept of science to discuss a topic,

be sure that you are describing an observation. And not try to use it to simplify the difference between theories.

Occam's Razor is not intended for deliberation of different theories. It's meant for the deliberation of what can be observed.

You know that actual science part of science...