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]

[Replying to Goat in post #39

That is making the assumption it is not dictated by physical laws. That is a false assumption, therefore the conclusion that it would be a mystical event is false.

If it comes by physical laws,

It has a physical cause.

Does it have a physical cause?? Or any cause at all? How do you know that?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Goat in post #41

That is making the assumption it is not dictated by physical laws.

Does it have a physical cause?? Or any cause at all? How do you know that?

If it doesn't have a physical cause, how is it dictated by physical laws?

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat in post #41

That is making the assumption it is not dictated by physical laws.

Does it have a physical cause?? Or any cause at all? How do you know that?

If it doesn't have a physical cause, how is it dictated by physical laws?

IT is an uncaused event, probablistic rather than causal.

[Kylie]

[Replying to Goat in post #39

That is making the assumption it is not dictated by physical laws. That is a false assumption, therefore the conclusion that it would be a mystical event is false.

If it comes by physical laws,

It has a physical cause.

We can predict the likelihood a particular atom has of decaying. But we can not predict exactly the moment when it will decay. All we can do is predict the behaviour of the entire mass of atoms as a whole. https://isaacphysics.org/concepts/cp_ra ... ?stage=all

Yes, I know it's counter-intuitive, but when we get to the subatomic scale we are entering the world of quantum mechanics, and such weirdness is common.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Goat in post #41

That is making the assumption it is not dictated by physical laws.

Does it have a physical cause?? Or any cause at all? How do you know that?

If it doesn't have a physical cause, how is it dictated by physical laws?

IT is an uncaused event, probablistic rather than causal.

Even an event which can't be predicted has to be caused in order to happen.

[Goat]

Even an event which can't be predicted has to be caused in order to happen.
[/quote]

How do you know that?

[Goat]

]Even an event which can't be predicted has to be caused in order to happen.

How do you know that?

[Goat]

]Even an event which can't be predicted has to be caused in order to happen.

How do you know that?

[Athetotheist]

]Even an event which can't be predicted has to be caused in order to happen.

How do you know that?

The probability of something happening is determined by how many potential causes are in place to make it happen.

Say that I own a movie theater and at 7:00 PM a movie is going to start. At 9:00 AM it's impossible for me to predict the age of the first person to come into the theater to see the movie but, whoever that person is, a chain of specific events has to cause a person of that age to be the first to come in.

The same with a coin toss. If I flip a coin in the air and let it fall onto a table, will it come up heads or tails or come to rest on its edge? I can't predict the outcome before tossing the coin but, once I do, the combination of the force of the toss and the angle of impact with the table will bring the coin to rest in a certain position. Whatever that position is, its appearance has been caused.

We can predict the likelihood a particular atom has of decaying. But we can not predict exactly the moment when it will decay.

At whatever moment it decays, something has caused it to decay at that moment.

[Goat]

]Even an event which can't be predicted has to be caused in order to happen.

How do you know that?

The probability of something happening is determined by how many potential causes are in place to make it happen.

Say that I own a movie theater and at 7:00 PM a movie is going to start. At 9:00 AM it's impossible for me to predict the age of the first person to come into the theater to see the movie but, whoever that person is, a chain of specific events has to cause a person of that age to be the first to come in.

The same with a coin toss. If I flip a coin in the air and let it fall onto a table, will it come up heads or tails or come to rest on its edge? I can't predict the outcome before tossing the coin but, once I do, the combination of the force of the toss and the angle of impact with the table will bring the coin to rest in a certain position. Whatever that position is, its appearance has been caused.

We can predict the likelihood a particular atom has of decaying. But we can not predict exactly the moment when it will decay.

At whatever moment it decays, something has caused it to decay at that moment.

That is just repeating more unsupported claims, and does not address 'how do you know that'. You are just making up a narrative that fits your preconception, but that narrative is not a model or a test that eliminates the assumption of hard physical causality. It appears that is your assumption, and that is what you propose, but your storyline does not show that an alternative is not possible