Hacker News Reader

Comment by copypasterepeat | Hacker News Reader

But wait a minute, by that logic wouldn't the fewest assumptions be that there was no cause that created the universe and that universe is a timeless, cause-less entity. Isn't that fewer assumptions than positing another entity that has those attributes.

View on HN

The logic posted was in answer to _what_ is the cause, not _if_ there is a cause. I already made the case for there being a cause in my original post. Nothing comes into existence without a cause. The cause being a singular timeless eternal entity requires fewer assumptions than the multi-modal explanation theory the other user suggested.

Maybe "alternative explanations" is better wording. If you don't think God fits into a simplicity detector, could a simplicity detector of some sort that's external to God and every other member of the set of God-like objects complete at least a stochastic (probabilistic) scan?

That would in theory give priors for the probability of the "object" that fits the criteria given.

The logical error in your question is in the "that's external to God". Going back to my first post, the "cause" must be eternal (since it was what started time in order for existence to begin). And because this eternal cause was not affected or constrained by physical space, it had to be all-encompassing. Because of this, there could be nothing external to the cause (God).

I don't think your argument follows. Assume there's an uncreated universe that is very suited to running simulations. Assume someone in that universe creates our universe, fully contained inside theirs. Yes, that person is outside our time, and started our time, but in their universe, they are 1) constrained by physical space 2) not all-encompassing at all 3) have a whole lot of stuff in there with them that is external to them.

Sure, you can go into infinite regress arguments, but they hit both of our arguments just as hard.

One cannot just "assume there's an uncreated universe". There's no evidence for that. I'm not saying it's impossible, but if we're going to use it to make conclusions, there's has to be some logical or observable basis for it. My arguments are based on logic and observation. It would be impossible to find the truth if we just dream up any possible scenario without actually drawing conclusions from the evidence in front of us.

Assuming it only as part of that hypothesis, not assuming it for all reality. If it's not impossible, since we can't observe the evidence, its only detriment is complexity by either hypercomputational Simplicity priors (if we don't think we can fit it into logic) or extended Occam's priors (if we think we can).

As well as all the other hypotheses we can't meaningfully differentiate from it, almost none of them recognizable as your "God".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com