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?

[Flying Tiger Comics]

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.

Well at the risk of offending your obviously firmly held beliefs, how does one prove the existence of self-image? Or objective insanity? Or legal guilt?

By first establishing a reference frame and a baseline methodology.

If the reference frame is rigged to exclude strange phenomena, including those labelled according to religious beliefs, not only is the baseline methodology derived horribly unscientific, it's also nothing more than a confirmation bias factory.

Hence, the clear and manifest difference between the rent seekers and time wasters who fill so many universities and the pioneers who did, said and measured things free of scientific dogma. Big bang is nothing more than a different kind of ex nihilo, no amount of "mathematics" changes that.

A lot of religious beliefs contain a lot of logic and even scientific rigour, and equal numbers of atheists are howlingly irrational in their apparent dedication to cheap and false skepticism, which is not in fact skeptical, but simple contrarianism dressed in po-faced smugness.

I say this as a lapsed atheist of considerable po-faced smugness. What a joyless bunch of weirdos we were during so many debates.

[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.

Well at the risk of offending your obviously firmly held beliefs, how does one prove the existence of self-image? Or objective insanity? Or legal guilt?

By first establishing a reference frame and a baseline methodology.

If the reference frame is rigged to exclude strange phenomena, including those labelled according to religious beliefs, not only is the baseline methodology derived horribly unscientific, it's also nothing more than a confirmation bias factory.

Hence, the clear and manifest difference between the rent seekers and time wasters who fill so many universities and the pioneers who did, said and measured things free of scientific dogma. Big bang is nothing more than a different kind of ex nihilo, no amount of "mathematics" changes that.

A lot of religious beliefs contain a lot of logic and even scientific rigour, and equal numbers of atheists are howlingly irrational in their apparent dedication to cheap and false skepticism, which is not in fact skeptical, but simple contrarianism dressed in po-faced smugness.

I say this as a lapsed atheist of considerable po-faced smugness. What a joyless bunch of weirdos we were during so many debates.

There, I have to totally disagree with you. FOr example, when it comes to the phenomena that is known as the 'big bang' by the layman, we have this thing known as 'Empirical Evidence' .

As for 'scientific rigor' for a lot of religious beliefs.. .. Again, I am going to have to disagree. It goes into metaphysical claims.. .. and ontological arguments.. but 'scientific rigor'.. I have yet to see that. I see a lot of 'arguments' where they worked backwards from their untestable and unprovable conclusion, to come up with premises to lead them to that conclusion, and those premisis are equally untestable and unprovable. Then.. they make huge leaps of logic that are not justified.

But, scientific rigor.. Haven't seen it.

Maybe someone can surprise me, and show me an example of 'scientific rigor' that is well, real science, and not pseudoscience. I would love to see something better than the nonsense that is 'Shroud of Turin' or the ontological arguments that are so highly flawed.

Can you give substantial examples of this 'scientific rigor' that isn't double talk and nonsense?

[TheJackelantern]

Big bang is nothing more than a different kind of ex nihilo, no amount of "mathematics" changes that.

Incorrect. Big Bang has nothing to do with coming from literal nothing. It's an inflation of energy from it's source energy state. Science says the Universe came from the very energy it's made of. It's the fracturing of symmetry to which is where one force becomes four.. And understanding how that happened and how it works isn't the easy part. It's surprises me when I see theists who make arguments on subjects they know nothing about as if they do.

A lot of religious beliefs contain a lot of logic and even scientific rigour,

They can't even do that in archeology much less anything else.. You have got to be kidding me here.. I think you would have been better off saying that a lot of religious people have produced quality science and have shown scientific rigor. At least then your statement would hold some truth to it.. But the religious organization, and the religions themselves? Well, there might be some honest one's out there that accept science..But the others? Heh,.. not a chance! They have too much to lose.

[Awediot]

I have yet to find science offend my belief in God, or God conflict with our discovery of facts... But I'm a 'thank God for evolution' kind of guy...

Now, should I interpret innerancy or literalism from the Bible, then yes, science and forbidden fruit, cunning, eloquent serpents and trees which dare trap us into the need for morals, are all just Satanic...and my pearls of lazer focused wisdom just waste away among your brilliant but soulless swine-ishness... ( I'd add another notch to my crutch of faith, but it's whittled to a twig as it is... and right when I need to lean on it the most...)

The scientific method is simply the best way to be able to know things. It's elemental, lowest common denominator sense... 'Science' however, is the result of using that simply utility as a commodity, a philosophy, business and flip side to religion... It is an invaluable tool we'd still be on all fours without...

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 40:

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.//

Yet when it was requested anyway, you said...

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.

That's as near to excuse making as I've ever known.

...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 don't doubt many a theist is reticent to present their case where it can be examined by folks who haven't already bought into their notions.

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...

Ah, personal experience. I'm fully willing to admit that some personal experiences seem godly. I myself remember a time when I had the 'real' sensation of floating in the clouds and having a "mind meld" with a stereotypical looking "god". I don't immediately discount such, but have come to conclude that such events are merely a product of the mind.

I contend your reticence is likely based more on a subconscious understanding of how weak your evidence really is. That's NOT to imply nefarity, and I remind all I'm an amateur.

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

What part of "can you show you speak truth" ain't sincere?

I use that mostly as an example, and to illustrate the bind needy atheists put theists in...

That you consider it a "bind" speaks volumes.

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."

I do 'preciate that you admit to the weakness of your position.

...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...

So we see all that which can't be confirmed finds its comfort in the god concept.

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...

Which is why I like to debate the merits of claims.

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.

And I contend they're a dead end because they are unsubstantiable, where we find so much of such 'knowledge' in the god concept.

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)...

It seems to me you ask what someone would do so you can then say, "well that ain't logical", thus implying they are illogical in everything they say and do.

I find it a bit nefarious a tactic.

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?

I don't change my lifestyle for my old ladies, I don't see it happening because some god wants me to.

How much? And why? What would or wouldn't motivate you? (questions I used handle better stoned...not so much these days)...

But you didn't ask these questions at the time. All you asked is what I'd do.

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....

Yet you implied my response would be "illogical".

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.

Sounds like emotionalism to me. I don't doubt many theist thinks their notion of a god is so profound. I just wonder why they expect others to act as if they are.

If you discovered angels and demons were really in your room tonight, bowels would be the last thing on your mind...

Naw, I think I'd be thinking about how my bowels were reactin'!

Seriously though, on the bowl deal, I think you may misunderstand how profound I consider my "god" - smoking a bowl.

God doesn't allow us the power to do that to each other.

Indicative of a god who ain't there to begin with.

That is why evidence is nontransferable.

Again, I do 'preciate that you're upfront about the nature of your evidence.

He steps in when the time is right, not us.

All I've ever seen is theists "stepping into God", rather than a god stepping into anything.

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 care what you think of my sincerity.

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...

It is kinda "methodically going through the motions" to ask a theist to present their evidence - when they have none to present. Yet day after day, week after week, the claims continue to be put forth.

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.

If.

The unlocking of the god box to stuff more unknowns inside.

.. Don't depend on me or any of us to deliver God to you in any sort of correct or logical way...

I don't.

All I expect is for theists to keep on claiming, and keep on failing to show their claims are truth.

He blows minds and drives normal people onto soap boxes with signs they used to find pride in mocking.

I don't find pride in mocking.

I find hilarity.

You've nothing to prove to me, and you know how sincere you are...don't you? ...I don't...

Only in the world of the theist would one question another's sincerity for asking, "Can you show you speak truth". And then predicate such sincerity on offering to show, "Why, yes I can".

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 uses it to build a bridge back to Him.

And so I ask how we can know you've figured it all out.

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?

I propose a lot of this could be corrected if folks'd quit making claims they can't support, and especially to quite trying to force others to accept such unprovable beliefs. Alas, so many Christians think their love of such a narcissistic, egomaniacal God should be beholden on everybody.

[now, where'd that bowl go?]

I hear ya!


I do 'preciate that you so readily fessed up as to the nature of your stated or implied claims.

[Awediot]

I do 'preciate that you so readily fessed up as to the nature of your stated or implied claims.

.
Joey...have you never had a theist just admit 'I CAN'T'...provide you sufficient evidence, convince you of God or that I'm right? Do you approach these discussions thinking some theist may show you God Almighty one day?

My "fessing up" is my premise. We're used to the conversation dead ending there... This one just starts.

I KNOW the things which have amounted to my rational, logical belief won't work for you... It boggled my mind at times, tore it down and rebuilt it. It won't yours... Fully admit that... That's like the fifth time now...

Do you see that as evidence there is no God?

Maybe I'll bring up my Ghos sttory sometime and how it proved the world doesn't always work like I had been told and believed...or the 50 four leaf clovers I found at the perfect time...or the thick amber light a few days after my suicide attempt... What would any of that have to do with your disbelief?

If you can't clarify in the slightest what sort of "evidence" might work for you, that I might be able to provide, don't read too much into it when I'm less than enthusiastic in my efforts to even try... I'm not here to convert anybody. If you want to take that as weakness in my position, go for it... But be sure you understand my position first... I state what I find to be the truth so far as best I can because TRUTH is an intrinsic good. That happens to include making "claims" I fully admit I cannot support in the way people insist they be (namely scientific). The evidence has never come to Mankind that way, and if that is all you will accept, so be it. That is no reason for me to stop expressing myself. I can't "recruit" and God doesn't expect me to... Only Atheists do... It's weird that when I refuse to try, they try to make me, and use that as even more reason not to believe.

So, question is, where else do you have to look? If science is an ineffective tool (as it is for many things that are quite real), and theist's testimonies are logically unreliable, what other methods do you have to look for God? Or have you exhausted them and quit...figuring that special bowl needs Him to torch it up?

I don't change my lifestyle for my old ladies, I don't see it happening because some god wants me to.

...and that may be the bottom line... After all the talk, discovering God was real wouldn't really matter to you. So, why should He bother?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 45:

I reference your post Awediot, so you can see I read it, but really, I think there's no need to quote the pertinent parts. Also, I really do 'preciate that you're as upfront and honest as you can be - that indicates to me you have integrity, even if I may disagree with your conclusions.

I accept that you, and theists in general believe there's a god, and believe this god may even act here on this planet. What I never see though is any evidence beyond one's own incredulity.

Now, the reason I bring this up has to do with how I see the god concept. I contend it is borne of the unknown, the unanswerable, and yes, the incredulous. I propose that where one has become so vexed by a given situation, by a given problem, and where there is no immediate answer or resolution, the god concept will then be a container for this issue. So, what would otherwise be a problem of such concern that it would distract a person from their day to day activities, and where this problem is thought to be of such importance, the god concept allows an "out".

I would fully agree that the perception of the god's involvement would seem just as real as my own auditory hallucinations were once so real to me. The concept itself need not be "scientifically justified" or justified by any other evidentiary standard - but that as long as the issue remains vexing enough to cause the theist some discomfort, the god concept is there to provide that comfort. So, the "scientfic" need not apply, the "materialistic" need not apply in such vexing situations. The only solution that removes such a vexing problem is the god concept.

Why are we here? The scientist may say because we're a complex collection of biological chemicals and the scientist finds comfort enough the god concept need not be introduced. But, what of the more philosophically bent individual? He 'must' have some answer beyond the purely scientific, so he searches through various philosophical ideas until he comes on one that allows him to be not so vexed. Often, this idea is the god concept.

I propose that where the theist arrives at their conclusions - through honest and sincere searching of soul - they have simply come to the wrong conclusion. I do not doubt the sincerity of the theist, I do not doubt their motivations (even as I propose a possible motivation that need not imply nefarity).

Notice now, you admit that the evidence I seek - of which all I asked is "some" - causes you some distress, in that you doubt my sincerity and you doubt I'd even look at the evidence you may present. I propose that through no nefarity of your own that you have sub/consciously admitted that your evidence is weak (as relates to other folks, per your own admittance or implication). I propose this is a psychological defense mechanism - again, without nefarity - that allows the theist to not address the very weaknesses of their argument. It immediately puts the challenger on the defensive, where the thiest would be able to argue the merits of even challenging the claim, thus avoiding the real discussion about how weak that evidence really is.

We see this tactic often in these and other forooms, and I contend they provide compelling evidence to reasonably and logically conclude that the god concept is specifically for all that which is not known or for all that which can not be confirmed.

Thus, I contend that if the theist expects to be trusted when they make claims, they should be willing to present their evidence for examination, and not just jump to challenging the sincerity or such of the one who challenges them. I propose the observer is plenty wise enough to see right through such a tactic, to see that it is nothing more than a diversion.

I do NOT doubt the sincerity of your beliefs.

I just doubt your ability to show those beliefs are grounded in anything beyond your own incredulity or lack of confirmable knowledge.

The choice is yours as you meander through the debates on this site. You'll either expose yourself to the observer as an incredulous preacher, or you'll expose your evidence.

Either way, I contend your evidence, if put to the light of scrutiny, will be found to be nothing more than a fine display of incredulity.

It's not that discovering God wouldn't matter to me. It's that after all this time watching theists question my sincerity when I ask them how I can know they speak truth, I've come to the only conclusion I can possibly consider valid...

"God love 'em, but theist're full of it."

[Flail]

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?

I wonder if the BibleGod concept takes our 'eye off the ball'...just because so many people still believe in some version of a mythical first century deity doesn't necessarily mean that there are no 'Gods'. Perhaps atheists, agnostics and theists alike have been jumping to conclusions with the BibleGod, refusing or failing to consider other options entirely.

[Awediot]

I wonder if the BibleGod concept takes our 'eye off the ball'...just because so many people still believe in some version of a mythical first century deity doesn't necessarily mean that there are no 'Gods'. Perhaps atheists, agnostics and theists alike have been jumping to conclusions with the BibleGod, refusing or failing to consider other options entirely.

Many times I've seen people having a "crisis of faith"...which in contexts like this, are usually taken to mean as growing distant from Christianity/becoming more atheistic... It's always good to ask exactly what their beliefs are shifting from, and getting nearer to.... Was Jesus the only begotten sone of God manifest? Was He an enlightened Avatar, or a good man who got enshrined? Is the Bible inerrant, inspired, remarkable, just an invluable, historical document, a messy record of goat herders, the agenda that THE CHURCH uses to opiate and enslave the masses, wast of gilded edges? Is God a Being? A Creator? Watching or wandered off? Or is IT a force, principle symbol or meme it's high time we evolved beyond?...etc...etc... It's interesting how often even they haven't thought it through very well.

I believe faith is an inherent quality in human nature, and we can't "lose" it and more than we can lose fear, comfort, want or love. It just shifts to different things, for different reasons. It can feel like, and might be a crisis...or simply growing up. -

"Noah's ark is impossible therefor God is a myth" leaps over a whole universe of gray area.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[a comment on..]:

Ignostic
We cannot, with logical coherence, define the supernatural, let alone discern it. Supernatural beings, if existent, are beyond our knowing. Worshipping supernatural beings on dogma, without evidence, is trained superstition.

The supernatural cannot be defined or discerned. We cannot know supernatural beings even if they exist. Worshiping them without evidence is trained superstition...

Stating something is undefinable is in part defining it.
Stating a thing cannot be discerned could not be said if true. It's self-refuting.
Evidence of God that would make Him worthy of worship, is rendered impossible. It isn't merely left at disbelieved, but presumptuously disallowed...
All worship must be 'trained superstition'...

It's an increasingly common catch22 that's appearing in different forms these day... "There may be a God, but we are incapable of knowing anything about It." So any possible knowledge He may try to give us, is automatically disqualifed simply because it rings true...Your brilliance hinges on actively believing nothing.

[Awediot]

Joey...lets pick this up here > Evidence, schmevidence and the extraordinary