A good reason not to believe in God

[theVOID]

This is one of the strongest arguments I've found for against the existence of God and is largely based on the work of Paul Almond and his research into hypotheses and information complexity, the basic idea is that the better hypothesis of competing hypotheses (and subsequently the one that should be believed) is the one that contains the least amount of information, the more information that exists in the hypothesis the lower the chances of that hypothesis being true relative to the more simple alternatives (this can also be demonstrated in Beysian terms).

This argument uses the complexity required at what you could call t0, the first state of affairs in existence (or some alternative infinite regression) and examines what is demanded to exist in two contexts, a theistic one and a naturalistic one.

For this post I'm only focusing on deities who are defined as being Omniscient (All knowing) as this single attribute alone is enough to determine that the existence of a deity at t0 is less likely than proposed naturalist alternatives.

The alternative hypothesis to consider for this comparison is one common to many natural theories of the origin of the universe, that of Quantum fluctuations (an effect that has been demonstrated time and time gain) changing the net energy of existence (Re: Lawrence Krauss, the net energy of the universe (or all things proposed) is equal to 0) in such a way as to cause an isolated region of spatial expansion. The information needed for this hypothesis is simply the existence of energy, the potential for instability (the fluctuation), and a feedback loop that, similarly to an algorithm, generates great and varied orders of complexity over time.

This argument does not suppose that either hypothesis is true, so don't look to this as some argument for the universe being caused by Quantum Fluctuations (that is another debate entirely), it is simply intended to demonstrate that the most common naturalist hypothesis for the origins of the universe is a great deal more likely than a hypothesis containing an omniscient deity.

Essentially, An omniscient deity is a being who knows everything that will ever happen in any given state of affairs throughout any sequence (and even worse, but not needed for this argument, any possible state of affairs in any possible sequence) - Given the nature of our universe even at the most reductionist level this deity knows (or to the extent it is possible to know for 'indeterminate deities') the position and momentum of every particle in the universe at every moment of time throughout existence.

For a deity to know the entirety of this reductionist picture of reality alone requires that inside the mind of the deity there is some mental map or meaningful collection of data that the deity has full access to in having awareness and knowledge about the state of affairs at every moment in existence, this is something that would be true with or without a material theory of mind.

It should be rather plain to see that the amount of information required to describe this reductionist picture alone is greatly more than needed to describe the event proposed by naturalists, thus in terms of the probability of the two origins hypotheses the naturalistic one is more likely to be true, thus we have more reason to believe the universe came about by some natural mechanism as opposed to the intervention of a deity.

[KichigaiNeko]

Reasonable. Will have to go and sus this one out.

Thanks V0iD

[theVOID]

Reasonable. Will have to go and sus this one out.

Thanks V0iD

Here's Almond's treasure trove of essays on AI, Information Theory, Game Theory, Religion, Rationality etc.

http://www.paul-almond.com/

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Fascinating Void,probably be even better once I understand it..

Are you arguing that God can be reasoned into or out of existence? A simple soul,untrained in philosophy, (I only had a year at university) that is not a position I'm able to accept, and why I only argued with a Catholic theologian once---and he wasn't even one of their top guys.

For the sake of my own sanity,I've been obliged to adopt a simple,but I think reasonable proposition; I demand supporting evidence before accepting any argument as more than possible/likely/probable.That a metaphysical proposition may be unprovable and unfalsifiable is not my problem. I have no problem with not knowing "the why" of something. I'm more interested in "the what"and my choices for dealing with things which effect me. In reality, I have [arguably] control over my own actions and very little else.

Perhaps I'm confused. My understanding is the notion of truth through reason alone comes from the so-called neo Platonists,and is favoured by apologists, from Augustine of Hippo onwards.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

PS the emoticons are not working for me

[theVOID]

Fascinating Void,probably be even better once I understand it..

Are you arguing that God can be reasoned into or out of existence? A simple soul,untrained in philosophy(,I only had a year at university),that is not a position I'm able to accept, and why I only argued with a Catholic theologian once---and he wasn't even one of their top guys).

No not at all, I'm simply saying that in terms of the amount of information that is required to describe the state of affairs at t0, naturalism requires far less, this should be reason to prefer naturalism over theism as far as explanations for the origin of the universe go - We aren't dealing with theories here, we're evaluating hypotheses.

Essentially, the more information that exists in either scenario the lower the chance of it being true, in this circumstance both explanations either exist spontaneously or as a matter of brute fact - This places them on equal footing. Next you look at the amount of information required to describe the states of affairs demanded by each scenario, under naturalism you need very little information to describe a quantum fluctuation, some imbalance and a feedback loop, under the theistic scenario you require much more information to describe everything that is at t0 - Including the knowledge this deity possesses.

For something to exist spontaneously or as a brute fact requires that all parts in the set exist simultaneously. The chances of say 5 parts existing simultaneously as a set is greater than the chances of 6 parts in a set existing simultaneously. Considering all of the independent facts contained within the mind of the omniscient deity, you have a set with an enormous numbers of parts, thus to describe the state of affairs at t0 in your hypothesis requires an absurd amount of information.

Because the best hypothesis is the one with the least amount of information that still describes all necessary phenomenon, Naturalism is to be preferred as the best hypothesis at describing the start of the universe.

For the sake of my own sanity,I've been obliged to adopt a simple,but I think reasonable proposition; I demand supporting evidence before accepting any argument as more than possible/likely/probable

As do I, supporting evidence (be it empirical or otherwise) lends credence to a hypothesis a posteriori, this evaluation of the hypotheses is a priori, before we have any evidence to lend weight to one or the other - All we can say based on this argument is what hypothesis we should prefer prior to having evidence for and against, this would be a technique used most frequently by investigators and scientists who have to determine how to allocate their resources in order to have the most successful outcome statistically.

Empiricism ultimately overrules the hypothesis, even if the fact of it having less information complexity is true. If we did for instance find evidence for the existence of God then we would prefer that despite the theory being ultimately more demanding in terms of the information needed to describe it.

Perhaps I'm confused. My understanding is the notion of truth through reason alone comes from the so-called neo Platonists,and is favoured by apologists, from Augustine of Hippo onwards.

That's a pretty jaded understanding pad, there are plenty of things we can establish through reason alone as being true, you've heard the 'socrates is moral' one before I would assume? Math is pure reason for instance, and we also have the option of finding probabilities of certain things being true.

But anyway, this argument is not for the truth of any proposition, it is a point about the nature of hypotheses and which ones we should prefer from competing hypotheses.

[Ryft]

Essentially, an omniscient deity is a being who knows everything that will ever happen in any given state of affairs throughout any sequence ...

Given this definition of omniscience, your argument ignores at least one omniscient deity—the God of Christianity, for whom the concept of "will happen" is inapplicable because that involves being temporally bounded. It is not as though God knows in sum "the position and momentum of every particle in the universe at every moment of time throughout existence" at the initial t0. God has no temporal locality, he is not temporally bounded. "In God there is no was or will be, but a continuous and unbroken is. In him, history and prophecy are one and the same" (Aiden Tozer). "With God there is no past, and can be no future ... What we call past, present, and future, he wraps up in one eternal now" (Charles Spurgeon).

[theVOID]

Given this definition of omniscience,

What definition do you prefer?

your argument ignores at least one omniscient deity—the God of Christianity, for whom the concept of "will happen" is inapplicable because that involves being temporally bounded.

Lets be careful here, are you saying that God exists in one states of affairs eternally? If that is the case how do you propose his thoughts work? After all thought is a process and common to all process there is necessarily more than one state of affairs.

The temporal issue is really a sideline here, I don't think it's overly important. God's existence prior to the creation of the universe is a state of affairs in which there was a knowledge about all things, for this deity to exist as a brute fact is far less likely than a natural alternative.

It is not as though God knows in sum "the position and momentum of every particle in the universe at every moment of time throughout existence" at the initial t0.

So he doesn't have knowledge of everything?

God has no temporal locality, he is not temporally bounded. "In God there is no was or will be, but a continuous and unbroken is.

So he experiences all states of affairs simultaneously, that does naught to change that he 1) existed in a state of affairs where the universe did not, 2) Caused the universe to exist 3) Is, because of his omniscience, a being who is extraordinarily complex .

When we examine the two alternative explanations for the origin of the universe, the hypothesis with the omniscient deity is still the one that demands more.

[fr0d0]

1. You're trying to shoe horn a scientific scenario onto a theological proposition. The two never fit and no useful conclusions can be drawn.
2. You don't show how the simple solution has to be the correct one.

Looking at the founding fathers model for First Cause, they propose ultimate simplicity: Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 6,7): "God is truly and absolutely simple." Your supposition denies this POV.

[theVOID]

1. You're trying to shoe horn a scientific scenario onto a theological proposition. The two never fit and no useful conclusions can be drawn.

Science, where? We aren't talking about testing hypotheses or the complete lack of the ability by theists to come up with a decent hypotheses to begin with, it's a 'Considering these circumstances, what hypotheses is more simple in terms of the amount of information needed to describe the state of affairs that is demanded' - That's philosophy, not science, it's all a priori.

And it's more like Theology is incompatible with reason, not just science.

2. You don't show how the simple solution has to be the correct one.

That's because the simple solution isn't necessarily the correct one, we should simply prefer the more simple hypothesis.

Looking at the founding fathers model for First Cause, they propose ultimate simplicity: Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 6,7): "God is truly and absolutely simple." Your supposition denies this POV.

Simply asserting it does not make it so.

Here's an example;

Fred and Tom are identical clones, Fred is taught 100 things, Tom is taught 1000 things. Who is the more complex of the two? Tom would be the more complex of the two as his mind contains 900 more pieces of information than that of Fred.

An omniscient deity has all the information that exists in his mind, that being is more complex still.

[Rayaan]

Essentially, the more information that exists in either scenario the lower the chance of it being true, in this circumstance both explanations either exist spontaneously or as a matter of brute fact - This places them on equal footing. Next you look at the amount of information required to describe the states of affairs demanded by each scenario, under naturalism you need very little information to describe a quantum fluctuation, some imbalance and a feedback loop, under the theistic scenario you require much more information to describe everything that is at t0 - Including the knowledge this deity possesses.

What if that "least amount of information" to describe everything IS God?

The information would be "omniscient" in a sense because it contains all the information about the state of the universe at t0. So, could that be a definition of omniscience?