What materialists sometimes miss about Occam's principle

[Athetotheist]

I was recently going through a thread from a while back in which a few of us were discussing the origin of the universe. Another poster took the position that it was possible for the universe to spring into being from nothing, as nothing has the potential to "act like something", while I was trying to explain why I find that position logically untenable. One argument the other poster kept coming back to was that their conclusion was more likely correct because it posited fewer entites than mine (granted, I was positing the existence of a cosmic creator).

Here we have to remember something important about Occam's principle. Occam's principle does not tell us to avoid multiplying entities; it tells us to avoid multiplying entities beyond necessity. Since it stands to reason that nothing could not produce something (by definition, there being nothing would mean no mechanism by which to produce anything----if there were such a mechanism there wouldn't be nothing), the postulation of something to produce something is necessary. The assumption of "something from nothing", therefore, fails to come out on top. To one extent or another, sometimes entities have to be multiplied.

[Goat]

I was recently going through a thread from a while back in which a few of us were discussing the origin of the universe. Another poster took the position that it was possible for the universe to spring into being from nothing, as nothing has the potential to "act like something", while I was trying to explain why I find that position logically untenable. One argument the other poster kept coming back to was that their conclusion was more likely correct because it posited fewer entites than mine (granted, I was positing the existence of a cosmic creator).

Here we have to remember something important about Occam's principle. Occam's principle does not tell us to avoid multiplying entities; it tells us to avoid multiplying entities beyond necessity. Since it stands to reason that nothing could not produce something (by definition, there being nothing would mean no mechanism by which to produce anything----if there were such a mechanism there wouldn't be nothing), the postulation of something to produce something is necessary. The assumption of "something from nothing", therefore, fails to come out on top. To one extent or another, sometimes entities have to be multiplied.

Of course, when it comes to avoiding multiplying entities, you can elminate the entity of God from the logic by assuming that what the universe emerged from is eternal, the 'quantum foam' so to speak.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Goat in post #2

Of course, when it comes to avoiding multiplying entities, you can elminate the entity of God from the logic by assuming that what the universe emerged from is eternal, the 'quantum foam' so to speak.

What justifies the assumption that the "quantum foam" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?

[Kylie]

[Replying to Goat in post #2

Of course, when it comes to avoiding multiplying entities, you can elminate the entity of God from the logic by assuming that what the universe emerged from is eternal, the 'quantum foam' so to speak.

What justifies the assumption that the "quantum foam" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?

What justifies the assumption that the "creator" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat in post #2

Of course, when it comes to avoiding multiplying entities, you can elminate the entity of God from the logic by assuming that what the universe emerged from is eternal, the 'quantum foam' so to speak.

What justifies the assumption that the "quantum foam" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?

Why, the field of theoretical physics and mathematics. Mind you , it's not 100% proof, but it shows that it is feasible, and worthy of further investigation.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quant ... verse.html

[Difflugia]

What justifies the assumption that the "quantum foam" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?

Keep in mind as well that your own discussion is about multiplying entities unnecessarily. Even if "something eternal" is necessary (as you assert), that doesn't mean that it's also necessary that the eternal thing is sentient or hates ham.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Goat in post #2

Of course, when it comes to avoiding multiplying entities, you can elminate the entity of God from the logic by assuming that what the universe emerged from is eternal, the 'quantum foam' so to speak.

What justifies the assumption that the "quantum foam" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?

What justifies the assumption that the "creator" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?

I remind you that you can't apply causality to a creator without applying it to the universe as well.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Goat in post #2

Of course, when it comes to avoiding multiplying entities, you can elminate the entity of God from the logic by assuming that what the universe emerged from is eternal, the 'quantum foam' so to speak.

What justifies the assumption that the "quantum foam" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?

Why, the field of theoretical physics and mathematics. Mind you , it's not 100% proof, but it shows that it is feasible, and worthy of further investigation.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quant ... verse.html

Justifying a basis for infinite regression doesn't help with the issue of infinite reduction. In other words, the universe having always existed doesn't explain why it has ever existed.

[Athetotheist]

What justifies the assumption that the "quantum foam" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?

Keep in mind as well that your own discussion is about multiplying entities unnecessarily. Even if "something eternal" is necessary (as you assert), that doesn't mean that it's also necessary that the eternal thing is sentient or hates ham.

I haven't speculated on the specific nature of a creator.

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat in post #2

Of course, when it comes to avoiding multiplying entities, you can elminate the entity of God from the logic by assuming that what the universe emerged from is eternal, the 'quantum foam' so to speak.

What justifies the assumption that the "quantum foam" is eternal without even raising the question of what underlies its existence?

Why, the field of theoretical physics and mathematics. Mind you , it's not 100% proof, but it shows that it is feasible, and worthy of further investigation.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quant ... verse.html

Justifying a basis for infinite regression doesn't help with the issue of infinite reduction. In other words, the universe having always existed doesn't explain why it has ever existed.

No, but then again, neither does any other proposed answer. Of course, 'why it ever existed' is assuming there is an answer to that question.