Occam's Razor, Anyone?

Heresis · Post by **Heresis** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:00 pm

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 · Post by **BryanBADD** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:20 pm

Goat wrote:
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'.

Again, we are speaking of the validity of the Bible, not the concepts of God from people claiming to be Christians. The Bible presents only one concept of God.

Show proof that this view is fallacy. It is not 'personal incredulity', it is long careful study of a lot of things, including the human body. The mathematical odds of just the circuitry of the nervous system connecting in the correct way left to their own accord, are astronomical, and that is only one part of the development of the human body.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:28 pm

BryanBADD wrote:
Goat wrote:
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'.

Again, we are speaking of the validity of the Bible, not the concepts of God from people claiming to be Christians. The Bible presents only one concept of God.
No, not at all. the bible was written by dozens of different people , each one with their own concept of God.. and we can actually trace how the concept changed through the various books of the Jewish scriptures, and how the various different authors of the NT changed. If there was only 1 concept of God presented in the bible, you wouldn't get all these denominations that argue about it.

Show proof that this view is fallacy. It is not 'personal incredulity', it is long careful study of a lot of things, including the human body. The mathematical odds of just the circuitry of the nervous system connecting in the correct way left to their own accord, are astronomical, and that is only one part of the development of the human body.
Oh yes, the good old 'mathematical odd' logical fallacy, as well as the total misrepresentation of how the TOE works.

The biggest part of the conceptual issue for those logical fallacies is assuming that Man is a goal, rather than an occurrence that happened. And 'the nervious system' did not 'connect in the correct way to their own accord'. There was an accumulative process where there was variation, and then a filter applied (in the case of evolution, this filter was natural selection) that allowed for the complexity of the nervous system to develop.

Oldfarmhouse · Post by **Oldfarmhouse** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:03 am

BryanBADD wrote:
Goat wrote:
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'.

Again, we are speaking of the validity of the Bible, not the concepts of God from people claiming to be Christians. The Bible presents only one concept of God.

Show proof that this view is fallacy. It is not 'personal incredulity', it is long careful study of a lot of things, including the human body. The mathematical odds of just the circuitry of the nervous system connecting in the correct way left to their own accord, are astronomical, and that is only one part of the development of the human body.
There are over 30,000 different denomination of Christianity some so divers that they do not resemble the same religion at all. All of these people consider themselves to be Christians. THey are all getting their very different views of God from the Bible. Most real Christians don't care if you believe that they are a real Christian or not. Some of them are sure that you are not a real Christian,

Now, If your book were clear, consistent, unambiguous, and specific then we wouldn't have so many different Gods coming out of the same book.

Just giving you some pointers if you are planing on writing a sacred text that is better then the old Bible.

The nervous system did not have to just form together one day. That would be a creationists view on the matter. It gradually increased in complexity -- application for the probability for a complete human nervous system is pointless. It did not just 'happen' one day. You have biology confused with creationism.

So you can ask a creationist about that, Most creationists are Christian and Muslim. I would recommend asking a Musliim because they seem to be better at it considering the fact that Christian creationists are ripping of the Muslims' material -- I wont mention any Ray Comfort, --- uh, ..I mean names.

MyReality · Post by **MyReality** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:25 am

BryanBADD wrote:
Goat wrote:
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'.

Again, we are speaking of the validity of the Bible, not the concepts of God from people claiming to be Christians. The Bible presents only one concept of God.

Show proof that this view is fallacy. It is not 'personal incredulity', it is long careful study of a lot of things, including the human body. The mathematical odds of just the circuitry of the nervous system connecting in the correct way left to their own accord, are astronomical, and that is only one part of the development of the human body.
I find it funny that people still think that humans just popped out of the swamp in one piece, not that it took billions of years of painfully small steps to get us to where we are today. It also pains me to see that these same people will ask the person next to them for information on the subject when researching from a credible source pertaining to the subject at hand would be best.

Again i find funny that science is seen with such low regard despite the advancements in all area's of human life. Or that mathematics are flawed despite being able to launch satellites into orbit around other planets or build quantum computers.

It is amazing how people see word THEORY and than assume it means nothing. These people do not realize that the SCIENTIFIC THEORY is of a different caliber than the theory of Intelligent Design. ALL OF SCIENCE IS THEORIES, and yet look at the world today.

Scientific Theory such as the Big Bang, Evolution, Gravity, Plate Tectonics, Quantum Mechanics, States of Matter, Electromagnetism, Radioactive, Nuclear, Homeostasis, Germ theory, Cell theory, Thermodynamics, General Relativity, Molecular Bonds, Atomic, and lastly the theory of Matter and Energy (conservation of matter and energy.)

That is all from the top of my head there is much more. Without These THEORIES the world today would be drastically different.

Take for instance computers! How do you think scientists were able to create them? Do you think we made a whole computer on day one?

Try doing a little homework on how your computer screen is able to relay all the information to you? How do you think this technology has come about to exist? Try finding out what THEORIES are followed to make it work.

Fun little info video for the screens.
http://www.ehow.com/video_4973278_a-com ... -work.html

I also found a fun website that helps people understand just how different Scientific theory is.
http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

PLEASE RESEARCH AND STOP ASSUMING.

Awediot · Post by **Awediot** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:46 am

Some.

Some of what sort of evidence? If you request some, help me out by letting me know what might do the trick...

Got any?

I just might (see above)...but I kind of doubt you really want it... I need evidence that your desire is sincere... Convince me first.

Exactly.

I know...that's why I wrote it...

If your belief in God hinges on getting "some" "evidence" that you can't immediately describe, but might be any and every thing BUT God anyway... what short of a spiritual lobotomy where God destroys your ability to doubt Him, could ever get you to believe?

Smokin' a bowl for Jesus!

...and even IF that lobotomy were performed, the first thing you imagine you'd do is get stoned in honor of your newly realized Messiah... (and I never said it was Jesus)...

Indicative of an emotionally based position.

Versus the sharp logic behind "Smokin' a bowl for Jesus!"

The truth is the truth regardless of the vehicle that it arrives in... Your responses in this very post only goes to prove that the word "evidence" is part of the problem... The requestr for it, and then formulaic presentation of it is habitual in discussions like this. Neither person has the slightest expectation of changing the other's mind...but it's a familiar rut, and there doesn't seem any where else to go with it...

I see no reason to shut off my mind when praying to God..and there is no reason to dismiss my emotions in order to convey a truth... My brain has betrayed me just as bad as my gut has... My head rules my heart, but they work best as a couple.

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.

You can ask the same of them... I do occasionally... but it'd be nice if you did it after you tried to at least address the question first...otherwise it just looks like you're trying to change the subject.

...and I'm not sure what people (misusing IMO) their beliefs in God for political gain has to do with whether or not He exists, and how we might come to know it if He does.

I agree, and find no biblical justification for the way some Christians act. I won't defend them... It has nothing to do with the topic we were discussing though.

MyReality · Post by **MyReality** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:48 am

Sorry for posting back to back but i thought this would be good time to put in some links.

Evidence of how we diverged from the common ancestor of monkeys.

[youtube][/youtube]

This is one of a series of videos, also the music is great, i tend to listen to more than watch it anymore. Also starts off very complex.

[youtube][/youtube]

Now please do not take offense at the title it was originally made as a response video that later turned into one of my favorite extremely detailed videos. Its a very long series and i do not recommend watching it all in one sitting as you will get overloaded with information.

[youtube][/youtube]

Thanks for the tip TheJackelantern

TheJackelantern · Post by **TheJackelantern** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:00 am

MyReality wrote:Sorry for posting back to back but i thought this would be good time to put in some links.

Evidence of how we diverged from the common ancestor of monkeys.

This is one of a series of videos, also the music is great, i tend to listen to more than watch it anymore. Also starts off very complex.

Now please do not take offense at the title it was originally made as a response video that later turned into one of my favorite extremely detailed videos. Its a very long series and i do not recommend watching it all in one sitting as you will get overloaded with information.

If you edit your post and put the youtube tags on the videos, we can watch them withing the post

[youtube]your video link here[/youtube]

But you have to remove "Feature=fvsr", or any "Embedded" end tags.... So you get :

Result:

[youtube][/youtube]

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:38 am

From Post 35:

Awediot wrote: Some of what sort of evidence? If you request some, help me out by letting me know what might do the trick...

Why not present what ya have, and let's go from there?

Awediot wrote: I just might (see above)...but I kind of doubt you really want it...

Of course, the guy asking for evidence doesn't really want evidence.

Awediot wrote: I need evidence that your desire is sincere... Convince me first.

No.

Ya either have evidence or ya don't and you'll either present it or ya won't. Considering you've implied I didn't want to see the evidence I just there and asked to see and now in the next breath you question my sincerity, I'm getting the feeling you're seeking some excuse to not present your evidence.

Awediot wrote: If your belief in God hinges on getting "some" "evidence" that you can't immediately describe, but might be any and every thing BUT God anyway... what short of a spiritual lobotomy where God destroys your ability to doubt Him, could ever get you to believe?

I don't doubt it'd take a lobotomy to get me to accept claims you're trying so hard not to hafta support.

Awediot wrote: ...and even IF that lobotomy were performed, the first thing you imagine you'd do is get stoned in honor of your newly realized Messiah... (and I never said it was Jesus)..

Naw, I'd smoke a bowl before, during and after the lobotomy, regardless of whether this messiah was Jesus Christ or Clint Eastwood.

Awediot wrote: Versus the sharp logic behind "Smokin' a bowl for Jesus!"

You asked me what I'd do, you didn't say nothing about it having to be no logical thing to do.

Attempting to debate by asking someone what they'd do, and then getting onto 'em for it not being a logical thing to do - when you didn't even mention you was requirin' it be a logical thing to do, when ya was doing all that askin' - seems just a bit nefarious to me.

Awediot wrote: The truth is the truth regardless of the vehicle that it arrives in... Your responses in this very post only goes to prove that the word "evidence" is part of the problem... The requestr for it, and then formulaic presentation of it is habitual in discussions like this. Neither person has the slightest expectation of changing the other's mind...but it's a familiar rut, and there doesn't seem any where else to go with it...

How can you change someone's mind when you accuse them of not wanting to see the evidence they just sat there and asked to see, then you imply they're not sincere in their request so you won't present this evidence your just so all fired proud of, and then you go to mentioning how a lobotomy just might help 'em to start believing in this thing you're so obviously trying to not have to show your evidence for?

And you question the logic of smokin' a bowl?

Awediot wrote: I see no reason to shut off my mind when praying to God..and there is no reason to dismiss my emotions in order to convey a truth... My brain has betrayed me just as bad as my gut has... My head rules my heart, but they work best as a couple.

Then show us you actually are conveying a "truth".

Awediot wrote:
JoeyKnothead wrote: 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.
You can ask the same of them... I do occasionally... but it'd be nice if you did it after you tried to at least address the question first...otherwise it just looks like you're trying to change the subject.

Let's run 'er back and see what the question was...

Awediot, in Post 26 wrote: 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

Oh, there wasn't one.

Awediot wrote: ...and I'm not sure what people (misusing IMO) their beliefs in God for political gain has to do with whether or not He exists, and how we might come to know it if He does.

You're insistence that I first prove my sincerity before you'll offer your evidence indicates to me I ain't never gonna come to know if your god exists.

Awediot wrote: I agree, and find no biblical justification for the way some Christians act. I won't defend them... It has nothing to do with the topic we were discussing though.

Fair 'nuff. I'd add that some assumptions were made as this is the Christianity & Apologetics section of Debating Christianity. I'd also agree though that if you ain't arguing about it being all christiany, then yeah, my assumptions did kinda run on ahead of it.

Comrad3 · Post by **Comrad3** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:39 pm

BryanBADD wrote:You yourself say that mathematics is the means to the meaning for any "scientific explanation of the universe that we can't objectively prove." If we can't objectively prove something, is it not just a theory? And if a theory are the scientists not arguing in the logical just as you say the theologians are? It would appear that the two groups differ in only the perspective from which they argue.

Scientific theories are not "just theories" they are an explanation that makes sense from all angles; different areas of science all converge with wildly different findings to find an explanation that satisfies all available results. Yes, it is not proven; neither is the theory of gravity. Do you think gravitational pull is something that can just be written off? Should we laugh in Einstein's face because he was unable to comprehensively prove Relativity? Should we laugh in Newton's face because he was unable to comprehensively prove Mass? No. We take theories and build upon them.

Scientists look at the world around us and form theories based on evidence, experimentation, and empirical data. Theologians look at the evidence, experiments, and empirical data and find a reason for still believing in a higher power.

Yes, at least until the time of Moses, the Bible was probably passed on orally. However, that is how things were passed on in that time. Of course that would not work today because we have become accustomed to writing everything down. In that time, that was the only way to pass information from generation to generation and they would have been much better at it. The results of the game 'Telephone' are irrelevant to that time.

So because people were more accustomed to passing data on by word of mouth, it isn't logical to assume things were lost, added, and changed over time? The Human mind isn't a tape recorder.

So it is reliable to measure the stretch of space when we haven't even found the ends of space? Measuring background levels of radiation from the big bang assumes a couple of large things also. One must assume that there was a big bang, that the radiation came from said bang, and that the half-life and density of said radiation remained constant since that time (this is tough since the universe is stretching). They can't measure the distance that light has traveled. Tape measure is not long enough.javascript:emoticon(':D') To measure the amount of time that the light has traveled in order to arrive at that distance assumes that the speed of light is the same everywhere and always has been. A lot more assumptions here.

You don't need to find the ends of space to measure the distance something has traveled. If you can measure the distance that something has traveled over, say, a period of hundreds of years (such as star charts from early observers) and measure the changes in it's position in relation to other stars, you can measure the distance that the universe has stretched in that time. This gives you a rough idea about the timeline of the galaxy (I believe, anyway. I'm no Astronomer.)

The amount of background radiation has no other cause. It is present everywhere, even off-world. There has also been no observable change in it's level, and until there IS change, the only explanation available is the big bang.

The speed of light has been proven to be a reliable constant in the universe. There is nothing in the universe besides supermassive black holes that alter the speed of light, and it is dishonest to believe that all light that travels through the universe first passes through that before hitting our Earth. Watch this video:

How do you explain observable quasars in the universe? Assuming the Universe is 5000 years old, their existence is impossible. I think you're taking too many assumptions here, not me.

BryanBADD wrote:I can almost agree with the dishonesty part, except that their is no other way concerning the universe. If my faith and belief in a Creator makes me dishonest, then those that claim the big bang theory, or any other theory, as scientific fact are just as dishonest. After all, you said yourself that these things can not be objectively proven.

I don't really believe that. The universe could very well have began with the big bang, there is evidence to support this theory. There is no evidence of ID Theory, and even less of Creationism. Until god peaks out from behind the curtain, it is an irrational belief to believe in god.

Awediot · Post by **Awediot** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:49 am

Ya either have evidence or ya don't and you'll either present it or ya won't. Considering you've implied I didn't want to see the evidence I just there and asked to see and now in the next breath you question my sincerity, I'm getting the feeling you're seeking some excuse to not present your evidence.

No need for an excuse... I made it a point to let everyone know that...

//...personally, I no longer even try to present "evidence", as I've learned it is in the eye of the beholder.//

...and I haven't come to post such a statement right in the middle of this type of conversation, and in this type of group, easily... I mean it...

I have reasons, attached to events which stretch some 40 years that have compounded into evidence that tries to push me into declaring He has proven Himself to me, and I don't just believe, I know....but those are fanatical thoughts..., So yes, I have evidence, and no ...it's not that I won't, but I can't simply present it like an attachment. it doesn't work like that...

...neither does the evidence you may have that your request is sincere...

> I use that mostly as an example, and to illustrate the bind needy atheists put theists in... You ask us essentially to PROVE God to you, or else you're not about to believe on your own (generally speaking)... It should not be a revelation or confession to anyone when I shamelessly answer back "WE CAN'T." ...Nothing In this ordinary world ever has, and the extraordinary, can be anything from a Chinese secret weapon to food poisoning to a brain tumor or God... Providing it opens yet another can of worms where I then am expected to convince you of it's source... It's a blackhole... and I'm done with that approach...

The issue isn't about the supply or quantity or quality of any subjective "evidence". It is all about why you and I look at the exact same thing, and get such different things from it... I can't give you something which will signify God to you...but I can offer you a different way to look everything you think you have already examined enough... The predictable debates about specific bits put on display as having become one persons personal sign from God, are a dead end...every time.

You asked me what I'd do, you didn't say nothing about it having to be no logical thing to do.

I ask atheists that question, as well as what they'd accept as sufficient evidence all the time... They are pointed and intimate questions everyone's logic can have a field day with. They push us past having to be logical (but smoke a bowl?!...I suspect you're not waiting for God for that one... I wouldn't)...

There is a very logical train of thoughts and orderly reactions which should follow if you got what you casually ask for... 'God proves Himself to you. Then what?' [well, which God? - I didn't specify- What does He desire or demand of me? -you can ask Him/Her/It yourself now-...] Would you radically change you life if it displeased Him? How much? And why? What would or wouldn't motivate you? (questions I used handle better stoned...not so much these days)... It's meant to be a thought provoking hypothetical... I don't really care how logical what follows is, or if it's taken as purely rhetorical and not another word is said.... I just want people to seriously think it through...because signs from God that hit home have the tendancy of shattering the world you were living in, and dropping you onto an alien planet... If you discovered angels and demons were really in your room tonight, bowels would be the last thing on your mind...

God doesn't allow us the power to do that to each other... That is why evidence is nontransferable... He steps in when the time is right, not us.

You're insistence that I first prove my sincerity before you'll offer your evidence indicates to me I ain't never gonna come to know if your god exists.

How you answered those couple of questions is your indicator... You've yet to ask me why I might assume your want of evidence is insincere. I don't even know you. It's pretty rude of a newbie to be so bold and undebate-like...but you've not questioned my reasoning... It might be because I'm right, and your requests have become thoughtless and it's just methodically going through the motions again... But I don't know if that's true. I know it is true of some people though...

If a God would hinge revealing Himself to you on the ploy of some internet oddball 's behavior, I'm not sure He'd be worth finding, and I'd ask you kindly not to bogart the party favors... a puff would be heaven at that point... Don't depend on me or any of us to deliver God to you in any sort of correct or logical way... He blows minds and drives normal people onto soap boxes with signs they used to find pride in mocking... You've nothing to prove to me, and you know how sincere you are...don't you? ...I don't...

Food for thought...

Fair 'nuff. I'd add that some assumptions were made as this is the Christianity & Apologetics section of Debating Christianity. I'd also agree though that if you ain't arguing about it being all christiany, then yeah, my assumptions did kinda run on ahead of it.

I often argue theistic points before I nail the concept to the cross. I am what I think is a Christian because I believe Christ was and is the impression He meant to leave with us... The manifest God who let us treat Him worse than we ever would some poor animal...and then usews it to build a bridge back to Him... I try to undermine the (often justified) defense mechanism and wild stereotypes the word "Christian" triggers in people so we can talk with our guards down (but I'm guilty of doing it to "atheists" too... One of the most frustrating things in these groups is all the shadow boxing going on...and arguing against what we assume we've heard all before, despite the actual words we skim saying nothing like that...[and my wall sized posts don't help matters much] >but whatcha gonna do?

[now, where'd that bowl go?]