"Which is simpler, God or no God?" has been a key pivot-point in apologetic debate for some time. This question stems from and is made significant by at least two principles. Therefore I have sought to define simplicity in as much detail as possible. See previous post 1, post 2, and post 3 (see section 3) on this. A major source of this post is an article from Stanford, along with the other linked wikipedia pages.
0) Principles
I) Occams razor is a principle advanced by the monk/philosopher William of Ockham in the 13th century. Basically it says that a simple explanation for something is superior to a more complex one. Two possible explanations for the beginning of universe, God and an eternally existent universe (unless it came out of virtually nothing where no scientific laws applied), could be argued as more or less simple than the other.
II) One response to the design argument for the existence of God brings up simplicity as well. Theists claim the universe is complex enough to beg a designer, and atheists respond "so who designed God?" Essentially, God has to be more complex than the universe, so he also begs a designer, and on an infinite regression. Some pose complexity arising from the big bang through natural selection as the more viable explanation.
1) Definitions by various people:
a) The original phrase from William of Ockham is "Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate," which translates as "Plurality must never be posited without necessity." This means a favor towards less quantity.
b) Newton focuses on reducing 'cause' and poses it as "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."
c) Russell (an agnostic/atheist) favors using things that are already known, "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."
d) Hitchens says "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." This does no apply to this debate because the design argument invokes evidence from the universe.
e) Aristotle, like Ockham, looks at number, "We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses."
f) Aquinas, quantity as well, "If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several; for we observe that nature does not employ two instruments where one suffices."
g) Einstein, quantity, "The grand aim of all science...is to cover the greatest possible number of empirical facts by logical deductions from the smallest possible number of hypotheses or axioms."
2) Simple in Abstract algebra: In abstract algebra 'simple' is something that cannot be divided by a smaller something of the same type. That is, something is 'simple' if it is not composed of multiple smaller things of the same type. In this sense, God qualifies as simple, and the universe is rather fuzzy on this point because they haven't arrived at a fundamental, indivisible particle or substance.
3) Simple in Mereology (study of categories in philosophy): A simple is something without proper parts. This means it cannot be divided, it is a single point in space without volume, and is continuous/homogenous. Depending on the results of science, the atheistic side may results in an enormous (probably over 10^100) amount of simples, or maybe just one or two. At the level of atoms, for instance, there are roughly 10^78 in the visible universe. The simplicity of God in this sense is debatable because he's not very physical.
4) Simple by the Stanford article:
a) Syntactic simplicity, elegance - the number and conciseness of the theory
b) Ontological simplicity, parsimony - the number of types of entities
5) Another option I came up with was the complexity or number of dimensions of the objects themselves.
So what does this all have to say about the decision between God and no God?
7) Lets look at the no-God side, which is easier to analyze.
a) The most clear thing I can say that as we understand it currently, the universe is not very simple. At the subatomic level there are at least several different particle types with innumerable occurrences throughout the universe.
b) The real simplicity of the universe is more debatable. Shall we find a single indivisible particle that explains everything? (Note we still run into problems about why it obeys any sort of physical law at this point, see my material argument for God). In this case the universe is only simple in parsimony, the types of entities, and not elegance. For elegance I cannot imagine how our whole experience could be derived from only one, single, indivisible particle, so I do not imagine the universe will ever pass that point.
8) Now let's look at God
a) The simplicity of God is quite fuzzy. This depends on whether or not he is composed of other, smaller objects. By abstract algebra he is simple because these smaller parts are not fully God. Yes, I know the trinity. The persons of the trinity are selected, simpler pictures of a more complex God, not identical in type to him. See my post on this. God is one type of object and cannot be divided as such.
b) God created the universe, which from a creationist standpoint is very complex. However prior to this there was no universe, just God. Neither was the universe was contained inside of God, he created it out of nothing. Some may argue that in some sense there must be an infinite amount of things inside God, for he has the capacity to create, artistically, without limit. I'm not certain about this. Is your potential to draw an innumerable amount of unique pictures something which adds to your complexity if you have not yet thought of them?
c) Most of the properties of God which we know are attitudes toward the created universe and man, and expressions of his independence and superiority over it. (Love, holiness, salvation, the omni bundle of power, knowledge, and presence, etc.) Therefore most of his complexity in this sense is lost in the time before he created. The main attribute of God remaining is that he is true to himself, wholly good, which is almost a truism and so a very small concept at that. Before all else came to be, God is God. I AM who I AM.
d) God is most certainly not composed of multiple identical objects.
9) I would venture that by these analyses, God is more simple than the universe. However, the primary purpose of this post is to provide possible explanations for simplicity and so I won't press it much.
No comments:
Post a Comment