How I rationalize my atheism

[PureX]

Criticisms and Opinions?

I should mention that I very much respect and appreciate that you have given these questions this much careful thought. And that you were willing to share them with us. I thank you for that, sincerely.

 

[Heyo]

Does occam's razor apply to all comparitive claims? If so, it would be good imho to include this in your argument. If not, it would be good to show why it applies in this context.

Occam's Razor applies to all claims based on assumptions. It simply says that the claim based on less assumptions is better and it is usually correct. Occam's razor proves nothing, it is simply a tool to pick a better hypothesis from a possible set.

 

[Kharisym]

I should mention that I very much respect and appreciate that you have given these questions this much careful thought. And that you were willing to share them with us. I thank you for that, sincerely.

Thank you! This is just the latest iteration in a proof that's been reformulated and challenged for many years. I regularly try to break it, and maybe once a year I brush it off and try to get other people to break it.

 

[firedragon]

Definitions:
God: An intelligent thing outside our universe with some power over our universe
Force: A non-intelligent thing outside our universe with some power over our universe
Universe: The region of existence with laws and structures contiguous with what we experience on earth--then can expand beyond the observable universe
Extraverse: Anything that is outside our universe, differentiated from a multiverse in that it does not make claims about the existence or not of additional universes. The extraverse can be null, in which there is nothing beyond our universe

Groundwork for my assumptions:

1) The extraverse can be any conceivable or inconceivable state of structure, laws, or existence
a) All measurements and verifiable experiences we have access to originate from inside this universe
b) Without some mechanism of measuring what's outside our universe, we cannot empirically discriminate between true and false claims regarding the extraverse
c) Because what exists outside our universe exists outside all laws and structures of our universe, the extraverse is not bound by the laws and observations of our universe

2) We can apply logic to the extraverse
a.I) All logic we have has been performed within our universe
a.II) All logic we've been able to verify has only be verified against our universe
a.III) However, we have no indications that logic itself is bound specifically to the laws or state of our universe

b.I) Any logical claim is logical within this universe
b.II) Any illogical claim contains aspects that are self negating
b.III) Any logical claim that could potentially exist outside our universe but not in our universe would be self negating
b.IV) If a logical claim is self negating then it isn't true
b.V) If a logical claim isn't true, then it cannot be a positive description of the system it represents
b.VI) If a logical claim cannot be a positive description of a system it represents, then no system can be represented by an illogical claim
b.VII) Therefore, no state of existence can exist that does not follow the basic guidelines of logic, this includes the extraverse

c.I) Godel's incompleteness theorem states that no logical system can be entirely self consistent
c.II) Godel's incompleteness theorem is, itself a logical claim
c.III) Godel's incompleteness theorem shows no indications that it is bound specifically to this universe
c.IV) Therefore Godel's incompleteness theorem does not bind logic specifically to this universe

3) Since we cannot know or measure what the extraverse is or composed of, but we can apply logic to the extraverse, then claims about what exists outside the universe can only be assessed and compared based entirely on the properties of those claims.

The argument:

The universe could have been created by a force, god, or nothing.

Nothing and force will be lumped into the catchall 'natural' simply as a convenience to differentiate it from a god. This does not imply that a natural cause of the universe has any relationship to anything natural within our universe

Because the extraverse could be anything with any set of laws, any mechanism employed by a natural cause could be employed by a godly cause, and vice versa

Any mechanism of creation is equally possible between the natural and godly categories because with no boundaries on the physics or structure of the extraverse, any conceivable structure of these mechanisms can be utilized by both natural and godly things.

If all mechanisms are equally plausible between godly and natural things, the only discriminating factor between natural and godly causes is the possession of intelligence

Since all mechanisms of creation are equally possible regardless of intelligence or non-intelligence, then intelligence becomes an extraneous, unnecessary claim

Per Occam's razor, we can establish that since intelligence is an unnecessary claim, this represents an unnecessary increase in complexity, therefore making the thing without intelligence the more likely cause

Therefore a natural cause is the most likely answer for the origin of the universe

Criticisms and Opinions?

Why is any logic only bound to the so called "laws" of this universe?

 

[questfortruth]

God: An intelligent thing outside our universe

Omnipresent God is inside Universe. Inside your brain.

 

[Heyo]

That's a fair criticism. I'll need to consider how it effects my logic later. If logic itself is a system and its trying to state that it, itself applies outside the universe, does incompleteness render that claim impossible to prove? Its an interesting question.

If incompleteness undermines that premise and nothing else can support it, then the entirety of my argument implodes.

I'm not sure if it would. It just says that in any powerful system there is at least one statement that can't be proven within the system (namely the statement with the Gödel number that says it can't be proven within the system). And that applies to statements within the universe and the universe is still here. Gödel didn't break logic, only the dream that everything can be proven by logic.
My guess is that it wouldn't have any effect.

 

[paradox]

@Kharisym

Suggested watch:

 

[PureX]

Criticisms and Opinions?

Might I make a suggestion?

Perhaps consider the issue from a platform of "realms" of existence manifesting from within each other. Starting with something akin to the realm of possibility/impossibility regulating the expression of energy, and causing it to manifest as motion, space, time, matter, gravity, light, heat, and so on through the "Big Bang". The realm of "rules" that limited what would have otherwise logically been abject chaos, and allowed for order to occur within that explosion of energy. Those "rules", however they happened, determined the nature of the physical universe that we inhabit. They provide the consistency that differentiates this from that and holds it all together in a balanced 'dance' of apparently conflicting forces.

Then from within that physical realm of balanced, conflicting forces, there arose yet another realm of existence. That is the realm of living things. Of complex, organized 'objects' that developed an ability to self-replicate, and self-motivate. Creating a whole new set of existential possibilities that did not and could not otherwise or previously, happen.

Then, from within THAT realm of existence, there developed yet another realm of existence in the form of consciousness. The realm of existential self-perception. Where the organized complexity manifesting from within that original set of "rules" limiting and governing the energy of the "Big Bang" finally becomes self/other-aware. And again a whole new realm of existential possibilities is manifesting that did not and could not have happened, previously.

Existence appears to me like a kind of flower that keeps on blooming from within itself, and each time into a whole new kind of flower with a whole new set of existential possibilities that then generate the capacity for it to happen again. How many of these manifestations are there? How many existential realms of being and possibility? Will we ever be able to finally know them all?

 

[Kharisym]

Omnipresent God is inside Universe. Inside your brain.

That was true at one time, then I had the goa'uld removed.

 

[PureX]

Thank you! This is just the latest iteration in a proof that's been reformulated and challenged for many years. I regularly try to break it, and maybe once a year I brush it off and try to get other people to break it.

I believe it's something that is in our human nature to grapple with. It's why we are the way we are. We are the universe looking back at itself, now, and wondering.

 

[Nakosis]

Definitions:
God: An intelligent thing outside our universe with some power over our universe
Force: A non-intelligent thing outside our universe with some power over our universe
Universe: The region of existence with laws and structures contiguous with what we experience on earth--then can expand beyond the observable universe
Extraverse: Anything that is outside our universe, differentiated from a multiverse in that it does not make claims about the existence or not of additional universes. The extraverse can be null, in which there is nothing beyond our universe

Groundwork for my assumptions:

1) The extraverse can be any conceivable or inconceivable state of structure, laws, or existence
a) All measurements and verifiable experiences we have access to originate from inside this universe
b) Without some mechanism of measuring what's outside our universe, we cannot empirically discriminate between true and false claims regarding the extraverse
c) Because what exists outside our universe exists outside all laws and structures of our universe, the extraverse is not bound by the laws and observations of our universe

2) We can apply logic to the extraverse
a.I) All logic we have has been performed within our universe
a.II) All logic we've been able to verify has only be verified against our universe
a.III) However, we have no indications that logic itself is bound specifically to the laws or state of our universe

b.I) Any logical claim is logical within this universe
b.II) Any illogical claim contains aspects that are self negating
b.III) Any logical claim that could potentially exist outside our universe but not in our universe would be self negating
b.IV) If a logical claim is self negating then it isn't true
b.V) If a logical claim isn't true, then it cannot be a positive description of the system it represents
b.VI) If a logical claim cannot be a positive description of a system it represents, then no system can be represented by an illogical claim
b.VII) Therefore, no state of existence can exist that does not follow the basic guidelines of logic, this includes the extraverse

c.I) Godel's incompleteness theorem states that no logical system can be entirely self consistent
c.II) Godel's incompleteness theorem is, itself a logical claim
c.III) Godel's incompleteness theorem shows no indications that it is bound specifically to this universe
c.IV) Therefore Godel's incompleteness theorem does not bind logic specifically to this universe

3) Since we cannot know or measure what the extraverse is or composed of, but we can apply logic to the extraverse, then claims about what exists outside the universe can only be assessed and compared based entirely on the properties of those claims.

The argument:

The universe could have been created by a force, god, or nothing.

Nothing and force will be lumped into the catchall 'natural' simply as a convenience to differentiate it from a god. This does not imply that a natural cause of the universe has any relationship to anything natural within our universe

Because the extraverse could be anything with any set of laws, any mechanism employed by a natural cause could be employed by a godly cause, and vice versa

Any mechanism of creation is equally possible between the natural and godly categories because with no boundaries on the physics or structure of the extraverse, any conceivable structure of these mechanisms can be utilized by both natural and godly things.

If all mechanisms are equally plausible between godly and natural things, the only discriminating factor between natural and godly causes is the possession of intelligence

Since all mechanisms of creation are equally possible regardless of intelligence or non-intelligence, then intelligence becomes an extraneous, unnecessary claim

Per Occam's razor, we can establish that since intelligence is an unnecessary claim, this represents an unnecessary increase in complexity, therefore making the thing without intelligence the more likely cause

Therefore a natural cause is the most likely answer for the origin of the universe

Criticisms and Opinions?

I decided not to invest in any belief about God because I could not rationally justify any beliefs about God.

To not have a position/belief about God because there is no rational reason to seems rational enough for me.

 

[sun rise]

God: An intelligent thing outside our universe with some power over our universe

That is not the only view of God's nature. Even if you prove that your definition of God does not exist, you've not proven that God does not exist.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Although I have, in the past, written on "Why I am an Atheist," I have to agree with @ChristineM in this thread -- there really is nothing to justify. I don't believe in gods for the same reason I don't believe in leprechauns -- outside of some amusing stories, there's simply no evidence whatsoever that would cause me to even consider the idea.

In fact, it's even worse than that -- if you spend enough time reviewing the progress of science (as a non-scientist myself, review is all I can do), you find that more and more and more we discover that nature appears to work by itself, and no magical, imcomprehensible "being" interfering at any point. Therefore, on what possible basis could I propose the existence of such an entity?

 

[dybmh]

Occam's Razor applies to all claims based on assumptions. It simply says that the claim based on less assumptions is better and it is usually correct. Occam's razor proves nothing, it is simply a tool to pick a better hypothesis from a possible set.

In this specific case, isn't it an assumption to conclude that existence occured as the result of the simplest explanation?

 

[HonestJoe]

I like to have a rational basis for my beliefs as much as is feasible, and try to keep self consistency within those beliefs. Therefore I feel I need to rationalize my atheism. I think it would be pretty silly and foolhardy for me to say I'm an atheist and not have a rational basis to that belief.

If you didn't have a rational basis you wouldn't believe it in the first place. I'd suggest that is distinct from actively trying to work out a detailed rationalisation for a belief you already hold.

 

[Heyo]

In this specific case, isn't it an assumption to conclude that existence occured as the result of the simplest explanation?

It is. And Occam's Razor doesn't say that it has to be right - only that it is more likely and we should review the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions first.

 

[firedragon]

@Kharisym

Suggested watch:

Though people keep saying "universe from nothing", they are trying to make a paradigm shift by inventing a new "nothing".

Nothing is not nothing anymore.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Occam's razor is a logical tool ...

Occam's razor is, to quote Wikipedia, an abductive heuristic that is far too easy to misunderstand and misapply.

 

[Audie]

Definitions:
God: An intelligent thing outside our universe with some power over our universe
Force: A non-intelligent thing outside our universe with some power over our universe
Universe: The region of existence with laws and structures contiguous with what we experience on earth--then can expand beyond the observable universe
Extraverse: Anything that is outside our universe, differentiated from a multiverse in that it does not make claims about the existence or not of additional universes. The extraverse can be null, in which there is nothing beyond our universe

Groundwork for my assumptions:

1) The extraverse can be any conceivable or inconceivable state of structure, laws, or existence
a) All measurements and verifiable experiences we have access to originate from inside this universe
b) Without some mechanism of measuring what's outside our universe, we cannot empirically discriminate between true and false claims regarding the extraverse
c) Because what exists outside our universe exists outside all laws and structures of our universe, the extraverse is not bound by the laws and observations of our universe

2) We can apply logic to the extraverse
a.I) All logic we have has been performed within our universe
a.II) All logic we've been able to verify has only be verified against our universe
a.III) However, we have no indications that logic itself is bound specifically to the laws or state of our universe

b.I) Any logical claim is logical within this universe
b.II) Any illogical claim contains aspects that are self negating
b.III) Any logical claim that could potentially exist outside our universe but not in our universe would be self negating
b.IV) If a logical claim is self negating then it isn't true
b.V) If a logical claim isn't true, then it cannot be a positive description of the system it represents
b.VI) If a logical claim cannot be a positive description of a system it represents, then no system can be represented by an illogical claim
b.VII) Therefore, no state of existence can exist that does not follow the basic guidelines of logic, this includes the extraverse

c.I) Godel's incompleteness theorem states that no logical system can be entirely self consistent
c.II) Godel's incompleteness theorem is, itself a logical claim
c.III) Godel's incompleteness theorem shows no indications that it is bound specifically to this universe
c.IV) Therefore Godel's incompleteness theorem does not bind logic specifically to this universe

3) Since we cannot know or measure what the extraverse is or composed of, but we can apply logic to the extraverse, then claims about what exists outside the universe can only be assessed and compared based entirely on the properties of those claims.

The argument:

The universe could have been created by a force, god, or nothing.

Nothing and force will be lumped into the catchall 'natural' simply as a convenience to differentiate it from a god. This does not imply that a natural cause of the universe has any relationship to anything natural within our universe

Because the extraverse could be anything with any set of laws, any mechanism employed by a natural cause could be employed by a godly cause, and vice versa

Any mechanism of creation is equally possible between the natural and godly categories because with no boundaries on the physics or structure of the extraverse, any conceivable structure of these mechanisms can be utilized by both natural and godly things.

If all mechanisms are equally plausible between godly and natural things, the only discriminating factor between natural and godly causes is the possession of intelligence

Since all mechanisms of creation are equally possible regardless of intelligence or non-intelligence, then intelligence becomes an extraneous, unnecessary claim

Per Occam's razor, we can establish that since intelligence is an unnecessary claim, this represents an unnecessary increase in complexity, therefore making the thing without intelligence the more likely cause

Therefore a natural cause is the most likely answer for the origin of the universe

Criticisms and Opinions?

Too complicated.

Re god, I just don't believe it

 

[joe1776]

...Since all mechanisms of creation are equally possible regardless of intelligence or non-intelligence, then intelligence becomes an extraneous, unnecessary claim
Per Occam's razor, we can establish that since intelligence is an unnecessary claim, this represents an unnecessary increase in complexity, therefore making the thing without intelligence the more likely cause.

I think you are misusing OR,

Using the example of crop circles, the explanation that they are the result of a creative hoax is a mundane explanation. We KNOW this explanation is possible. Therefore, applying Occam's Razor allows us to state that the mundane explanation is the most likely cause of crop circles and should be first in line for testing.

But you haven't created a mundane explanation when you state that a non-intelligent source is possible for creation. We don't know that an intelligent cause isn't essential. Therefore, IMO, you are misusing OR as a device to enforce your bias favoring the non-intelligent cause.