(x) : x is a possible entity. the more complicated x is the less likely it is to exist controlling for other evidence.
(x): x is a possible entity. the more intelligent x the more complicated x is, controlling for other properties.
God is maximally intelligent.
:. God’s existence is maximally unlikely unless there is other evidence or unless it has other properties that make its existence maximally more likely.
(Assume intelligent to refer to the possession of general intelligence)
I think most theists will consent to (1), especially given that its implicit in some of their favorite arguments. (3) They consent to, unless they mean “God” as merely a cosmological constant, or first cause. In which case we’re having a completely different debate. So the issue is (2). I’m sure some of the cognitive science types can give evidence for why intelligence is necessarily complicated. There is however, definitive evidence for the correlation of intelligence and complexity. Human brains are vastly more complex than the brains of other animals. Computers get more complicated the more information they hold, etc. It might actually be worth making the distinction, between intelligence and the holding of data. It is a lot easier to see how the more information something contains the more complicated something is since one can just compare two sets of data, one bigger than the other, and see that one is more complicated. Presumably, God needs to contain information on everyone’s behavior, the the events that happen at any point in time, prayer requests etc.
Btw, is there a way for me to us symbolic logic notation in xml?
Click that link, and you’ll get a rendered png of the LaTeX expression I’ve placed after the ?. Replace that expression with another and, well, you’ll get that too. If you’re writing a top-level post, you can use this to pretty quickly embed equations. Not sure how to make it useful in a comment though.
I think you are looking at this from an evolutionary point of view? Then it makes sense to make statements like “more and more complex states are less likely” (i.e., they take more time) and “intelligence increases with the complexity” (of organisms).
Outside this context, though, I have trouble understanding what is meant by “complicated” or why “more intelligent” should be more complex. In fact, you could skip right from (1) to (3) -- most theists would be comfortable asserting that God is maximally complex. However, is response to (1) they might counter with—if something does exist, you can’t use its improbability to negate that it exists.
It is true that if something does exist you can’t use its improbability to negate its existence. But this option is allowed for in the argument; “unless there is other evidence or it has other properties that make its existence maximally more likely”. So if God is, say, necessary, then he is going to exist no matter his likelihood. What this argument does is set a really low prior for the probability that God exists. There is never going to be one argument that proves atheism because no argument is going to rule out the existence of evidence the other way. The best we can do is give a really low initial probability and wait to hear arguments that swing us the other way AND show that some conceptions of God are contradictory or impossible.
Edit- You’re right though, if you mean that there is a problem with the phrasing “maximally unlikely” if there is still a chance for its existence. Certainly “maximally unlikely” cannot mean “0”.
So
(x) : x is a possible entity. the more complicated x is the less likely it is to exist controlling for other evidence.
(x): x is a possible entity. the more intelligent x the more complicated x is, controlling for other properties.
God is maximally intelligent.
:. God’s existence is maximally unlikely unless there is other evidence or unless it has other properties that make its existence maximally more likely.
(Assume intelligent to refer to the possession of general intelligence)
I think most theists will consent to (1), especially given that its implicit in some of their favorite arguments. (3) They consent to, unless they mean “God” as merely a cosmological constant, or first cause. In which case we’re having a completely different debate. So the issue is (2). I’m sure some of the cognitive science types can give evidence for why intelligence is necessarily complicated. There is however, definitive evidence for the correlation of intelligence and complexity. Human brains are vastly more complex than the brains of other animals. Computers get more complicated the more information they hold, etc. It might actually be worth making the distinction, between intelligence and the holding of data. It is a lot easier to see how the more information something contains the more complicated something is since one can just compare two sets of data, one bigger than the other, and see that one is more complicated. Presumably, God needs to contain information on everyone’s behavior, the the events that happen at any point in time, prayer requests etc.
Btw, is there a way for me to us symbolic logic notation in xml?
hmm...if we can get embedded images to work, we’re set.
http://www.codecogs.com/png.latex?\int_a^b\frac{1}{\sqrt{x}}dx
Click that link, and you’ll get a rendered png of the LaTeX expression I’ve placed after the ?. Replace that expression with another and, well, you’ll get that too. If you’re writing a top-level post, you can use this to pretty quickly embed equations. Not sure how to make it useful in a comment though.
Here it is: ∫ba1√xdx
Source code:
(It was mentioned before.)
awesome =)
I think you are looking at this from an evolutionary point of view? Then it makes sense to make statements like “more and more complex states are less likely” (i.e., they take more time) and “intelligence increases with the complexity” (of organisms).
Outside this context, though, I have trouble understanding what is meant by “complicated” or why “more intelligent” should be more complex. In fact, you could skip right from (1) to (3) -- most theists would be comfortable asserting that God is maximally complex. However, is response to (1) they might counter with—if something does exist, you can’t use its improbability to negate that it exists.
I’m not sure most theists would be comfortable asserting that God is maximally complex.
The wikipedia article Complexity looks helpful.
It is true that if something does exist you can’t use its improbability to negate its existence. But this option is allowed for in the argument; “unless there is other evidence or it has other properties that make its existence maximally more likely”. So if God is, say, necessary, then he is going to exist no matter his likelihood. What this argument does is set a really low prior for the probability that God exists. There is never going to be one argument that proves atheism because no argument is going to rule out the existence of evidence the other way. The best we can do is give a really low initial probability and wait to hear arguments that swing us the other way AND show that some conceptions of God are contradictory or impossible.
Edit- You’re right though, if you mean that there is a problem with the phrasing “maximally unlikely” if there is still a chance for its existence. Certainly “maximally unlikely” cannot mean “0”.