Divine Hiddenness

[Neo-Scholastic]

Is it truly that case that a universe without God, meaning the god of classical theism, is truly the simplest explanation? While it seems true that the god hypothesis posit one extra being, it also seems that the lack of some transcendent explanation for being itself leaves being itself unexplained. Now maybe being itself consitutes a brute fact, as Russell thought. Personally, I consider that tack special pleading. And I am not saying that is your position. My only point is that while I agree that parsimonious explanations are to be preferred, the application of Occam's razor involves more than just counting entities. William of Occam certainly never applied it to his own belief in God. That alone should give one pause.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Just because a person didn't apply their own standard to their own beliefs means nothing. And better no account than an unjustified extra entity, And no the brute fact of being would not be special pleading.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Is it truly that case that a universe without God, meaning the god of classical theism, is truly the simplest explanation? While it seems true that the god hypothesis posit one extra being, it also seems that the lack of some transcendent explanation for being itself leaves being itself unexplained. Now maybe being itself consitutes a brute fact, as Russell thought. Personally, I consider that tack special pleading. And I am not saying that is your position. My only point is that while I agree that parsimonious explanations are to be preferred, the application of Occam's razor involves more than just counting entities. William of Occam certainly never applied it to his own belief in God. That alone should give one pause.

Yes, I think it is the simpler explanation, if we take (most) theists at their word that God exists outside of space and time. We then have an additional entity (God).

I agree that a universe without God lacks a transcendent  explanation for its existence. So? Since the the universe is explicable with or without God, I can’t see that transcendence is terribly important.

Boru

[LadyForCamus]

We can’t (yet, or maybe ever) rule out that our universe has some cause which is separate from space-time itself, but even if we assume that this is the case for the sake of the argument, it doesn’t necessitate that the cause is a god. We currently have no way to investigate anything beyond the local presentation of our universe, so I can’t see any rational justification for multiplying entities (Occam’s Razor) in such a case.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is it truly that case that a universe without God, meaning the god of classical theism, is truly the simplest explanation? 

Yes.  Next.

[Brian37]

Siri Neo Gibberish Translator, "Wishful thinking is a far better tool than actually trying to figure out what is really going on."

Occam's Razor is a extremely solid guide to put oneself on the correct path to uncovering facts.

How stupid would you be if for example you bought blindly this following claim?

"I Brian37 am dating Angelina Jolie". 

I exist, she exists. But somehow, I think you rightfully dismiss that without much thought. 

There is evidence for Angelina Jolie, that is far more evidence a billion times more evidence than you have for your alleged deity. 

Occam's razor is the principle of considering probability and the attitude that the most likely answer is going to be the one that has the least baggage that is going to be most likely eventually to solve an problem.

Seriously, if I claim I am dating Angelina Jolie, and my argument is, "She is love", or "The world is complex so therefor Angelina Jolie loves me". But I have no pictures of myself with her, I have no physical evidence that I was with her? Are you stupidly going to blindly take my word for it?

Between the choices of a real god, pick any claimed word wide in human history, existing, or, humans simply make them up as a placebo. Between those two choices I think humans make gods up is a much more simple explanation than a all powerful God claim that triggers the problem of infinite regress.

You dating Ms Jolie is a terrible example of Occam’s Razor. It isn’t supposed to help you dismiss a ludicrous fact out of hand, but to help determine the likeliest explanation for an observed fact by not multiplying entities unnecessarily. Like this:

Observation: Brian37 is dating Angelina Jolie.

Explanation #1: Ms Jolie has legitimately fallen for Brian’s wit, charm, and devastatingly gorgeous face and figure.

Explanation #2: Ms Jolie has suffered a traumatic brain injury and follows Brian around in the expectation that he will explode in a shower of candy.

Occam’s Razor would indicate #2.

Boru

Gotta give you credit for this, and a far more likely scenario. But no, it does not negate the idea of dismissing an outrageous claim once one accepts that there is a HUGE difference between dismissing a claim based on probability and current information, and blindly clinging to the past "just in case".

I think you miss my point. No reasonable person in their right mind would blindly swallow my claim. 

Just like Galileo was right and the Church was wrong about the nature of our solar system. The widespread belief was that the sun went around the earth, but the truth was that the earth goes around the sun. The church in this example would be me, in my Angelina example. Galileo in that example would be "Brian, you are full of shit". 

I can make a bullshit fantasy claim about dating Angelina Jolie all I want. The only point I was making, is that once someone were to point out I was full of shit, why would anyone cling to that falsehood?

[Neo-Scholastic]

We can’t (yet, or maybe ever) rule out that our universe has some cause which is separate from space-time itself, but even if we assume that this is the case for the sake of the argument, it doesn’t necessitate that the cause is a god. We currently have no way to investigate anything beyond the local presentation of our universe, so I can’t see any rational justification for multiplying entities (Occam’s Razor) in such a case.

LFC, a parsimonious hypothesis makes the fewest assumptions while at the same time addressing the most phenomena. The second part insures that the simplest approach isn’t too simple. The most relevant phenomena needing explanation isn’t just that the world exists but that this particular world exists as it does.



As I see it there are three main approaches:



1) Brute fact – this world exists as it does and could not be any other way. No explanation required.



2) Contingency – many different worlds could have existed but this particular world exists for some reason.



3) Multiverse - many worlds exist and, by chance, we just happen to be in this one.



Bertrand Russell took the first approach. Leibnitz took the second in his proposed law of sufficient reason. The last finds philosophical expression in Jorge Louis Borges (in an infinite universe, all possibilities will be exhausted) and Nietzsche (and all possibilities not only occur, but keep happening). Each has its merits and deficiencies. The first is simple but IMHO explains too little. The second answers the question but raises other problems, which IMHO is normal. When has it ever been the case that answering one question didn’t raise others? The third avoids theological dilemmas but at the cost of multiplying entities to infinity. Pick your poison, I guess.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You dating Ms Jolie is a terrible example of Occam’s Razor. It isn’t supposed to help you dismiss a ludicrous fact out of hand, but to help determine the likeliest explanation for an observed fact by not multiplying entities unnecessarily. Like this:

Observation: Brian37 is dating Angelina Jolie.

Explanation #1: Ms Jolie has legitimately fallen for Brian’s wit, charm, and devastatingly gorgeous face and figure.

Explanation #2: Ms Jolie has suffered a traumatic brain injury and follows Brian around in the expectation that he will explode in a shower of candy.

Occam’s Razor would indicate #2.

Boru

Gotta give you credit for this, and a far more likely scenario. But no, it does not negate the idea of dismissing an outrageous claim once one accepts that there is a HUGE difference between dismissing a claim based on probability and current information, and blindly clinging to the past "just in case".

I think you miss my point. No reasonable person in their right mind would blindly swallow my claim. 

Just like Galileo was right and the Church was wrong about the nature of our solar system. The widespread belief was that the sun went around the earth, but the truth was that the earth goes around the sun. The church in this example would be me, in my Angelina example. Galileo in that example would be "Brian, you are full of shit". 

I can make a bullshit fantasy claim about dating Angelina Jolie all I want. The only point I was making, is that once someone were to point out I was full of shit, why would anyone cling to that falsehood?

But Occam's Razor is not about dismissing a claim, it is about evaluating competing theories that seek to explain the same fact (or set of facts). It says nothing about the facts being true, or which theory is correct, only which theory is more preferable.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

LFC, a parsimonious hypothesis makes the fewest assumptions while at the same time addressing the most phenomena. The second part insures that the simplest approach isn’t too simple. The most relevant phenomena needing explanation isn’t just that the world exists but that this particular world exists as it does.

Not simply that the world is sufficient by itself without any further need or explanation and admitting we don't know but at the same time deeming magic supermen one step too many is acceptable as well.

[LadyForCamus]

We can’t (yet, or maybe ever) rule out that our universe has some cause which is separate from space-time itself, but even if we assume that this is the case for the sake of the argument, it doesn’t necessitate that the cause is a god. We currently have no way to investigate anything beyond the local presentation of our universe, so I can’t see any rational justification for multiplying entities (Occam’s Razor) in such a case.

LFC, a parsimonious hypothesis makes the fewest assumptions while at the same time addressing the most phenomena. The second part insures that the simplest approach isn’t too simple. The most relevant phenomena needing explanation isn’t just that the world exists but that this particular world exists as it does.



As I see it there are three main approaches:



1) Brute fact – this world exists as it does and could not be any other way. No explanation required.



2) Contingency – many different worlds could have existed but this particular world exists for some reason.



3) Multiverse - many worlds exist and, by chance, we just happen to be in this one.



Bertrand Russell took the first approach. Leibnitz took the second in his proposed law of sufficient reason. The last finds philosophical expression in Jorge Louis Borges (in an infinite universe, all possibilities will be exhausted) and Nietzsche (and all possibilities not only occur, but keep happening). Each has its merits and deficiencies. The first is simple but IMHO explains too little. The second answers the question but raises other problems, which IMHO is normal. When has it ever been the case that answering one question didn’t raise others? The third avoids theological dilemmas but at the cost of multiplying entities to infinity. Pick your poison, I guess.

Sure. As I said before, I don’t think we are in a position to rule out any of those three possibilities. I’ve yet to “pick my poison,” so to speak. When I say that we don’t have a rational justification to multiply entities I was referring to the baggage that comes along with the notion of a conscious, thinking, personal god that interacts with its creation, intervenes in their lives, and has a divine plan.