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?

[BryanBADD]

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.

That would also have to include God. Just because science can't explain God at this exact moment doesn't mean He doesn't exist. The fact is that science seems to say that if we can't explain God or the things of God, then He obviously doesn't exist.

Thank you for making our point.

[BryanBADD]

Uh.... no.

Could you really be saying that information, before the creation of the technology of the written word, was always passed by oral tradition with complete accuracy?

No -- although the reference to the device, telephone, would not have existed, the principle was that same. Information passed from one person to another gets changed along the way. Always has, always will.

I did't say that it was passed on with complete accuracy, simply that the people in that time were much better at it than we are. God, working through the writers ensured complete accuracy.

Please prove your last statement holds true in biblical times.

[Goat]

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.

That would also have to include God. Just because science can't explain God at this exact moment doesn't mean He doesn't exist. The fact is that science seems to say that if we can't explain God or the things of God, then He obviously doesn't exist.

Thank you for making our point.

Of course, when it comes to the entire 'God concept', each of these people who believe have such DIFFERENT concepts for it.. and there is absolutely zero empirical evidence for this God.

Now, if someone could come up with a methodology for testing if a deity actually exists, rather than playing word games, that would be something.

[Oldfarmhouse]

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.

That would also have to include God. Just because science can't explain God at this exact moment doesn't mean He doesn't exist. The fact is that science seems to say that if we can't explain God or the things of God, then He obviously doesn't exist.

Thank you for making our point.

Of course, when it comes to the entire 'God concept', each of these people who believe have such DIFFERENT concepts for it.. and there is absolutely zero empirical evidence for this God.

Now, if someone could come up with a methodology for testing if a deity actually exists, rather than playing word games, that would be something.

I imagine a big complicated contraption -- something that would make Rube Goldberg's most outrageous look like a paperclip. A guaranteed deity detector.

Put an end to this once and for all.

Then what would we do? Talk about football?

[BryanBADD]

Of course, when it comes to the entire 'God concept', each of these people who believe have such DIFFERENT concepts for it.. and there is absolutely zero empirical evidence for this God.

Now, if someone could come up with a methodology for testing if a deity actually exists, rather than playing word games, that would be something.

The OP speaks of the Bible and it's validity, therefor we are only talking about one God and I would argue that each and every individual that lives is empirical evidence for God. I am sorry, but there is just no way that the complexity of the human body can miraculously develop from what was once nothing until there was some big explosion, or whatever else you might believe started the universe. Show me empirical evidence of this development.

[Awediot]

A couple questions...

What would amount to 'sufficient enough evidence' to convince *you* God was real? How would you know it wasn't Aliens, the Chinese, a really bad bit of Taco Bell or a tumor driving you mad?

If something did convince you tonight (only you)...then what would be your next step?


[personally, I no longer even try to present "evidence", as I've learned it is in the eye of the beholder. What moved me is nontransferable and would do little for you... I wonder though, why people still persistently ask. A box of proof that can remove all doubt about God has never existed. It debuting in some internet forum before your eyes is about as likely as...well, you're the scientists...

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 21:

That would also have to include God. Just because science can't explain God at this exact moment doesn't mean He doesn't exist. The fact is that science seems to say that if we can't explain God or the things of God, then He obviously doesn't exist.

That scientific methods can't support the various claims of those who claim to know the properties of a god should be a pretty good indicator that claimant doesn't possess the knowledge he claims to possess.

That's the beauty of the god concept; if science supports it - however remotely - some are all on it, but when it doesn't support it, they resort to the realm of the unknown, as if that's some kind of support.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 26:

A couple questions...

What would amount to 'sufficient enough evidence' to convince *you* God was real?

Some.

Got any?

How would you know it wasn't Aliens, the Chinese, a really bad bit of Taco Bell or a tumor driving you mad?

Exactly.

If something did convince you tonight (only you)...then what would be your next step?

Smokin' a bowl for Jesus!

[personally, I no longer even try to present "evidence", as I've learned it is in the eye of the beholder. What moved me is nontransferable and would do little for you...

Indicative of an emotionally based position.

I wonder though, why people still persistently ask. A box of proof that can remove all doubt about God has never existed. It debuting in some internet forum before your eyes is about as likely as...well, you're the scientists... Wink

We can ask the same of such folks who continue to restrict the rights of others based on their unprovable claims to possess knowledge regarding the properties of a god they can't show exists.

When (some) Christians (or other theists) quit trying to turn the planet into a theocracy, perhaps there'll be little reason to ask them if they speak truth regarding the wants and wishes of their favored god.

[BryanBADD]

From Post 21:

That scientific methods can't support the various claims of those who claim to know the properties of a god should be a pretty good indicator that claimant doesn't possess the knowledge he claims to possess.

That's the beauty of the god concept; if science supports it - however remotely - some are all on it, but when it doesn't support it, they resort to the realm of the unknown, as if that's some kind of support.

The same then must hold true for anything that scientific methods can't support. Science does the same. The only difference is that, at least in the case of myself, I admit that I don't understand everything of God. Scripture tells us that we are incapable of this. Science, on the other hand, throws out theories as facts when they don't understand. The big bang theory and evolution are two examples of theories, taught as fact in our schools (at least evolution is) that have not been proven definitively.

[Goat]

Of course, when it comes to the entire 'God concept', each of these people who believe have such DIFFERENT concepts for it.. and there is absolutely zero empirical evidence for this God.

Now, if someone could come up with a methodology for testing if a deity actually exists, rather than playing word games, that would be something.

The OP speaks of the Bible and it's validity, therefor we are only talking about one God and I would argue that each and every individual that lives is empirical evidence for God. I am sorry, but there is just no way that the complexity of the human body can miraculously develop from what was once nothing until there was some big explosion, or whatever else you might believe started the universe. Show me empirical evidence of this development.

Well, when i say there are different concepts of God, that is from people who claim to be Christian. Now, the 'there is just no way the human body can 'xxxx' is just one big logical fallacy known as 'the argument from personal incredulity'.