Occam's Razor, Anyone?

[Heresis]

Occam's Razor basically states that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." In scientific terms, this means that the simplest answer to a question, when faced with two or more possible answers, is the most accurate. Having said that, I find Christianity has very strange and enigmatic explanations for history and the world around us.

For instance, the story about Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why create such an incredible penalty for something that this god knew would happen? After all, it is all part of his plan in the first place being that he is omnipotent and omniscient. This is the explanation given for why "evil" happens. This could better be explained by the conclusion that there is no god, or, if there is, he is deistic rather than theistic, but, as LaPlace showed us, the model works fine without a god figure.

Another strange example from the Bible is the story of Noah and the ark. Are we actually supposed to believe that Noah actually had two of every animal on the ark with him and his family? This seems mildly plausible until one examines some other beliefs held in the Christian faith, such as the belief that humans were created before animals (Which then begs the question, were there also two of every type of dinosaur on the ark? How did that work? Also, the interbreeding taking place would have surely destroyed our species after several generations, unless it was condoned by god in which case, it would just be weird).

The widely held belief that the entire universe is only six thousand years old comes to mind, as well, even though science has been able to date it as far back as 14.5 billion years old.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that since none of these claims have been adequately explained or backed up by evidence (the Bible is hearsay and doesn't count), why believe them when science offers a totally rational alternative based on tested facts and absent superstitious, non-provable (or disprovable) beliefs?

[Moses Yoder]

Please provide a mathematical equation showing there is enough fuel in the sun for it to burn 14.5 billion years, and what size it would have been 14.5 billion years ago. Either that, or an explanation of how the earth came to be orbiting the sun, which could possibly have come into existence at some later date. I mean, how do you explain this? It seems to me that it takes a lot of faith to believe your 14.5 billion years.

[Heresis]

Please provide a mathematical equation showing there is enough fuel in the sun for it to burn 14.5 billion years, and what size it would have been 14.5 billion years ago. Either that, or an explanation of how the earth came to be orbiting the sun, which could possibly have come into existence at some later date. I mean, how do you explain this? It seems to me that it takes a lot of faith to believe your 14.5 billion years.

I'm no scientist, but just because science can't explain something at this exact moment doesn't mean it's not explainable, much less the product of a god. Where do people get this notion that science must know everything for it to be considered accurate? Guess what, science changes with the evidence. Religion changes on the whims of those in control of it.

I see from your usergroups that you are a Christian, but you don't believe in Santa Clause. Why's that? What more evidence for Christianity is there than for Santa Clause?

Either way, I still haven't received a coherent answer to my opening statements.

[Awediot]

The vast majority of all people that have ever existed, had some sense of a spiritual realm, and most, of a conscious Creator God...

Is it more likely that all of them were deluding themselves due to indoctrination or social pressure, the intolerable fear of death or ignorance...wishful thinking or moral blackmail from conspiring Churches...Or, that the minority of materialists and atheists are just missing something everyone else has?

The Razor is double edged sometimes.

[Haven]

The vast majority of all people that have ever existed, had some sense of a spiritual realm, and most, of a conscious Creator God...

Is it more likely that all of them were deluding themselves due to indoctrination or social pressure, the intolerable fear of death or ignorance...wishful thinking or moral blackmail from conspiring Churches...Or, that the minority of materialists and atheists are just missing something everyone else has?

The Razor is double edged sometimes.

Your post makes use of the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Something is not true because a majority of people believe it to be true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

[TheJackelantern]

Here is something that might make you think...

You were born a complete mute unable to hear, smell, see, feel, or sense the world outside of your mind. Hence, you don't even know you have a mother ect... However, this condition happened later in your development in the whom to where you did have a time period of experience. But once born, you can't experience the outer world, and the outer world can not experience your inner world. Here your mind creates the world you live in now from whatever information it gain from the experience in the whom. It's all you know, and it's all you can perceive to know...It's in its own universe.

So what happens if you suddenly gain back all those senses you lost at birth, and wake up to find a whole new world? You discover you have a mother, you discover you live on a planet in another massive Universe..And giving your experience, you question this new Universe..You ask yourself, will I wake up again?

[Awediot]

Your post makes use of the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Something is not true because a majority of people believe it to be true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

True... But if you were an outside, objective viewer...would you think it more reasonable to doubt the 90% or the 10%? Probability would say the best bet is on atheists lacking some '6th sense', not that the spiritual majority were all imagining similar things.

If one person tells you they saw a ghost, you will weigh whether or not to believe them on any number of factors... If even one more says they saw it too, those factors shift dramatically... If fifty agree and report seeing something as well, it gets harder to rationalize they are all wrong...

[I realize this is pushing reason and am not posing it as clinical evidence...because so far there is no such thing regarding the question of God. He won't be found by a spaceship any more than He will in a petri dish...or within a formal debate... Occams razor isn't a very good argument to use either.]

[Haven]

True... But if you were an outside, objective viewer...would you think it more reasonable to doubt the 90% or the 10%? Probability would say the best bet is on atheists lacking some '6th sense', not that the spiritual majority were all imagining similar things.

If I were an outside, objective observer, I would not even consider how many people believed. The reason ad pop is fallacious is because the number of people who believe is completely irrelevant to the truth value of a claim.

If one person tells you they saw a ghost, you will weigh whether or not to believe them on any number of factors... If even one more says they saw it too, those factors shift dramatically... If fifty agree and report seeing something as well, it gets harder to rationalize they are all wrong...

I would remain skeptical of their claims unless presented with strong evidence of their claim's veracity. It is, of course, possible that they all saw something, but rather than a ghost, it could have been some naturalistic phenomenon that was simply misidentified by the group.

I realize this is pushing reason and am not posing it as clinical evidence...because so far there is no such thing regarding the question of God. He won't be found by a spaceship any more than He will in a petri dish...or within a formal debate... Occams razor isn't a very good argument to use either.

I'm an evidentalist -- I lack belief in things until sufficient evidence for them is presented. Without evidence and/or logic, I see literally no reason to believe.

[TheJackelantern]

But if you were an outside, objective viewer...would you think it more reasonable to doubt the 90% or the 10%?

What people believe is irrelevant. All that actually really matters is what is.. Hence, not what we want to believe it to be.. Reality isn't going to bend to a belief.. And the empirical evidence holds the most weight..

[Awediot]

If I were an outside, objective observer, I would not even consider how many people believed.

So if you landed on Mars to find an advanced civilization, their collective beliefs would mean nothing to you until they provided hard evidence for every single alien anomaly you had not seen with your own eyes?

The reason ad pop is fallacious is because the number of people who believe is completely irrelevant to the truth value of a claim.

I take it as a reason to be skeptical...not just write it off because there are better tools to use in fact checking... Sometimes there isn't, and we have to utilize questionable means, or settle on waiting in limbo until something comes along to make our mind up for us... I understand the logic in not depending on popular belief, but I also find it is usually closer to right than completely off base. It does tell us something about reality.

I would remain skeptical of their claims unless presented with strong evidence of their claim's veracity. It is, of course, possible that they all saw something, but rather than a ghost, it could have been some naturalistic phenomenon that was simply misidentified by the group.

How would YOU know if you saw a ghost? Is your skepticism so strong that it would demand you find some other explanation? ...There is a difference between disbelief and dis-allowance. And it's not too difficult to slip from one to the other... It feels like confidence.

I'm an evidentalist -- I lack belief in things until sufficient evidence for them is presented. Without evidence and/or logic, I see literally no reason to believe.

The "sufficient" qualifier regarding "evidence" makes it a relative proposition... A smoking gun will appear very different in the hand of a friend than it would of an enemy... Our want of reality to be one way more than another plays havoc with what we will accept as "sufficient"...and even what we consider "evidence" worth giving a second thought to.

Reasons to believe need not come from a laboratory or be subject to rigorous testing... I'd bet you believe in many things science had little to do with based on personal evidence you know wouldn't convince anyone else..

When it comes to the question of the Christian God, believing doesn't save anyone anyway... Bowing does... What we believe says much less about us than what we want to be true does. And that is why where we place our faith is so important.

[Awediot]

What people believe is irrelevant. All that actually really matters is what is.. Hence, not what we want to believe it to be.. Reality isn't going to bend to a belief.. And the empirical evidence holds the most weight..

Ultimately yes... Truth will trump even God if it comes to that. We either conform, or are in error, whatever the truth turns out to be...

But we act on our beliefs, right and wrong... You fly a jet into a skyscraper because you believe that is what God wants, and you don't change the existent facts, but you can sure alter the future reality which has to accommodate the impact we can make.

Odd thing about "belief" is that it both forms from the truths which relentless pound it into knowledge, and it can form new truths at the same time... It is a motivator and instigator that can change some things into that which it believes should be... We can and do re-create God's Creation according to our will... It is just measured against His.