Ockham's Razor (sharpening it)

[Anders]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ockham's Razor (sharpening it)

Then I guess you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Oh yes, I know exactly what I'm talking about, and as you didn't write which god YOU were talking about I took a wild guess and assumed it was the judean/christian god you referd to. Please let me know if it was another god you meant. There are a few others that you can pick, Thor, Ganesha, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Abraxas, etc, etc.

 

[Anders]

Eternity is not contingent upon time and space by the way. Eternity exists right here and now in the moment. So who's to say the moment has not always been?

 

[Iacchus]

I doubt that this will make any more sense, however, time and space sprang from Eternity.

Or, there's nothing to say time hasn't always existed either, except that without space there's no way of measuring it. So in that sense it's quite possible to say the moment has always existed.

Time and space comes together in the here and now! ... Which is here, there and everywhere, and always.

 

[Iacchus]

There is no *plan*. Basing your entire life on the hope for eternal resurrection does seem a little extreme when you don't know for sure that; there is a god; that there is an afterlife; that you're devoting your life to the correct god(s); that you're following the correct rule set for that particular god (set of gods).

And what might that life be? The one that begins with, and ends with, nothing? If that's the case, what difference would it make, besides any possible worthless sentimental reasons?

Ever try sitting in a boat without a rudder, or oars, or any other means by which to steer or propel it? LOL!

Why not instead try to live your life as a good humanist ? That's far more device agnostic

Are you absolutely certain that there is no plan? Because that also implies the existence of an absolute (yours) in which case there must be a plan. Now what were you saying about the absoluteness of humanism?

 

[Anders]

I doubt that this will make any more sense, however, time and space sprang from Eternity.

Or, there's nothing to say time hasn't always existed either, except that without space there's no way of measuring it. So in that sense it's quite possible to say the moment has always existed.

Time and space comes together in the here and now! ... Which is here, there and everywhere, and always.

Guess you're not a fan of modern physics, right. If you were you would know that space or indeed time is not that static. And there is also nothing that says that time did exist before big bang.

 

[Iacchus]

Or, how about this ... "Today is the first day of the rest of your life." Also ... "No matter where you go you're there." Indeed, these two things are contingent no matter what happens. So wouldn't it be fair to say that this is what gives rise to time and space and, in fact is their precursor and has always existed?

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ockham's Razor (sharpening it)

Oh yes, I know exactly what I'm talking about, ...

Then demonstrate it. Contrary to your puerile pedantry, my point had nothing to do with specifics and, in fact, is predicated upon the conviction that specifics are unknowable by any verifiable methodology. Put differently:

..., science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying:

• You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.

This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.

- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler

This is not a defense of theism or supernaturalism but, rather, an insistence that terms such as simplicity, complexity, and parsimony have meaning only when applied to the natural world.

Now go tilt at some other windmill.

 

[Anders]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ockham's Razor (sharpening it)

Then demonstrate it. ...... Put differently:This is not a defense of theism or supernaturalism but, rather, an insistence that terms such as simplicity, complexity, and parsimony have meaning only when applied to the natural world.

Now go tilt at some other windmill.

Hmm, I'm confused, are you really saying that there are two or more worlds, the natural world and a supernatural world?

Windmills yes, but in contast to Don Qijote's windmills, the monster are real. There are quite a few people out there still believing that there are gods and they have the propeties they have been assigned.

OK, I know I'm a pain in the ass, but still, it's for the greater good. I'm an athiest and I'm not giving up that. Every mentioning of any god here, I will struck down upon!

 

[Iacchus]

Then demonstrate it. Contrary to your puerile pedantry, my point had nothing to do with specifics and, in fact, is predicated upon the conviction that specifics are unknowable by any verifiable methodology. Put differently:This is not a defense of theism or supernaturalism but, rather, an insistence that terms such as simplicity, complexity, and parsimony have meaning only when applied to the natural world.

Now go tilt at some other windmill.

Of course that might change if Science understood that the very instrumentation by which to measure it is right in front of its face ... human beings. Indeed, human beings are quite capable of giving feedback about their experiences. In fact there are vast similarities in the reports people continue to come up with.

 

[RandFan]

Wasn't this Socrates' approach?

You miss the point. Questions alone don't make aswers.

I'm not asking you to assume anything, just question it.

As a skeptic who accepts nothing at face value I question everything.

This is called your "god of the gaps," not mine.

Sorry, I have an "athist of the gaps" which is defined as assuming that if we don't have an answer for something it is likely we will through science and if we don't get an answer for something it is very likely that it has nothing to do with god.

You assume that if we don't have an answer for something then god did it which is, by definition, god of the gaps.

 

[RandFan]

Of course that might change if Science understood that the very instrumentation by which to measure it is right in front of its face ... human beings. Indeed, human beings are quite capable of giving feedback about their experiences. In fact there are vast similarities in the reports people continue to come up with.

Like similarities in the reports of UFOs, aliens, lochness monster, big foot, el chupacabra, etc, etc.

 

[Tricky]

Actually it's more like reverse engineering on my part. In fact I'm working backwards, from the predication that God does exist. Neither is it based upon something which Science tells me mind you.

I'm not sure if your smilies meant you were joking, but what you have said concicely summarizes the position of the believer, which is "I have the answer. Now let's find the right evidence and ignore any that doesn't lead to that answer."

Do you believe in absolute truth?

Absolutely not.

And you think you know everything about that which you don't know about, right?

Again, I see you are jesting. I know practically nothing. I have some specialized knowledge about a very tiny part of the universe. And the more I learn, the more I realize what I don't know.

But let's get back to your "boat and rudder" analogy for a minute. You now have a way to determine the direction you travel. But do you know for sure where you are supposed to go? To do so, you would have to know the mind of God, and I'm guessing not even you claim to have that knowledge. So it doesn't matter if you can steer if you still don't know where to go.

Or conversely, you may say that God holds the rudder. But you don't know where He is going (unless you claim to know the mind of God) so in this situation, you are in a boat over which you have no control, which is no different from a rudderless boat.

So however you follow your analogy, it fails, unless you know the same things God knows. Of course, most religions will try to tell you that they know what God wants. Oddly, though, they often say very different things. One thing I have learned is never to trust anyone who says "I've been speaking to God, and He told me to tell you..." If God exists, He can speak for Himself.

 

[Iacchus]

You miss the point. Questions alone don't make aswers.

Except the questions facillitate the answers.

As a skeptic who accepts nothing at face value I question everything.

Well I'm a skeptic of Science. So how do you like that?

Sorry, I have an "athist of the gaps" which is defined as assuming that if we don't have an answer for something it is likely we will through science and if we don't get an answer for something it is very likely that it has nothing to do with god.

You assume that if we don't have an answer for something then god did it which is, by definition, god of the gaps.

The thing is, my understanding of God is not contingent upon this "god of the gaps" stuff, so if it appears that I'm trying to fill in the gaps, this is only for your benefit, not mine.

So why is that everything you think, say and do is predicated upon His non-existence? If you understood that He does exist wouldn't you approach it a bit differently? And how do you know that I don't know? And if I do, then you're certainly no allowing me that benefit which, is the same benefit you expect from me and everyone else. Hey, at least you have Science to back you up. I don't, and neither am I a great fan of religious proceedings. So in that sense I'm a big fat nothing in most people's eyes. Which, is fine by me, because I could care less what other people think.

 

[EGarrett]

Well I'm a skeptic of Science. So how do you like that?

That's like being skeptical of the stop light you're about to run.

Science is the result of our collective observations...and it's very unwise to ignore what your eyes and ears tell you. VERY unwise.

The thing is, my understanding of God is not contingent upon this "god of the gaps" stuff, so if it appears that I'm trying to fill in the gaps, this is only for your benefit, not mine.

Do you accept that the Earth revolves around the sun? That we're part of a solar system? Modern medicine?

If you accept science's logical explanations for everyday events then you DO subscribe to the god of the gaps. People just won't realize how ridiculous Christian beliefs of the moment are until a few hundred years down the road.

So why is that everything you think, say and do is predicated upon His non-existence? If you understood that He does exist wouldn't you approach it a bit differently? And how do you know that I don't know?

Probably because he honestly considered both positions, THEN arrived at his conclusion and now operates from it.

He doesn't know that you don't know...but like one person driving with his eyes and another closing his eyes and praying for a safe arrival...his method is a lot more sensible than yours.

So in that sense I'm a big fat nothing in most people's eyes. Which, is fine by me, because I could care less what other people think.

If you were a big fat nothing, we wouldn't be replying to you. If you didn't care what other people thought, you wouldn't be replying to us.

 

[RandFan]

Except the questions facillitate the answers.

Fine, but don't substitute the inability to answer with an answer.

Just because I can't tell you what happened before the big bang is no reason to assume god did anything.

Well I'm a skeptic of Science. So how do you like that?

I like it just fine. Being a skeptic I have not problems with any skepticism. Except of course the kind that is skeptical of skepticism. I assume that if you are skeptical of objective means of finding truth that you are also skeptical of subjective means of finding truth?

The thing is, my understanding of God is not contingent upon this "god of the gaps" stuff, so if it appears that I'm trying to fill in the gaps, this is only for your benefit, not mine.

You are making an argument. That argument is a "god of the gaps" argument.

So why is that everything you think, say and do is predicated upon His non-existence?

It is not any more predicated upon god's non-existence than upon invisible pink unicorns. I am neutral to god since there is no objective evidence that he does or does not exist.

If you understood that He does exist wouldn't you approach it a bit differently?

For the first 20 years of my life, 4 years of seminary and two years preaching the gospel I approached it very differently. Your point?

And how do you know that I don't know?

It follows from my past posts that I don't know.

And if I do, then you're certainly no allowing me that benefit which, is the same benefit you expect from me and everyone else.

I only expect you to use logic and reason when discussing anything in a skeptics forum. I have no problem with believers or religion. I have problems with those who try and make arguments that are specious, invalid by form or simply fallacious.

Hey, at least you have Science to back you up. I don't, and neither am I a great fan of religious proceedings. So in that sense I'm a big fat nothing in most people's eyes. Which, is fine by me, because I could care less what other people think.

Cool, by all means whatever makes you happy. I mean that with all sincerity. I only want you to understand that I am going to discuss and or debate that which I find illogical. I find the arguments made in this thread that support a diving creator to be illogical.

 

[Iacchus]

I'm not sure if your smilies meant you were joking, but what you have said concicely summarizes the position of the believer, which is "I have the answer. Now let's find the right evidence and ignore any that doesn't lead to that answer."

What other position would you expect someone to take if they actually knew something about it?

Absolutely not.

Absolutely, huh?

Again, I see you are jesting. I know practically nothing. I have some specialized knowledge about a very tiny part of the universe. And the more I learn, the more I realize what I don't know.

So, what do you need to know? That's really all I care about. Which by the way, can only be answered in the moment. Everything else is non-existent.

But let's get back to your "boat and rudder" analogy for a minute. You now have a way to determine the direction you travel. But do you know for sure where you are supposed to go? To do so, you would have to know the mind of God, and I'm guessing not even you claim to have that knowledge. So it doesn't matter if you can steer if you still don't know where to go.

Well you better have an idea where you're going, otherwise what's the point in getting in the boat?

Or conversely, you may say that God holds the rudder. But you don't know where He is going (unless you claim to know the mind of God) so in this situation, you are in a boat over which you have no control, which is no different from a rudderless boat.

The boat is my life. The rudder is what helps me deterimine what I do with it.

So, however you follow your analogy, it fails, unless you know the same things God knows. Of course, most religions will try to tell you that they know what God wants. Oddly, though, they often say very different things. One thing I have learned is never to trust anyone who says "I've been speaking to God, and He told me to tell you..." If God exists, He can speak for Himself.

Ultimately yes, He must reveal Himself to us individually, otherwise how would we ever know? Why call Him a personal God then?

 

[Iacchus]

That's like being skeptical of the stop light you're about to run.

Science is the result of our collective observations...and it's very unwise to ignore what your eyes and ears tell you. VERY unwise.

My problem with Science is that there's so much that it can't -- or won't -- explain. And it isn't the problem with Science so much as it's with those who profess to know what they're talking about, when in fact they don't.

Do you accept that the Earth revolves around the sun? That we're part of a solar system? Modern medicine?

Irrelevant ...

If you accept science's logical explanations for everyday events then you DO subscribe to the god of the gaps. People just won't realize how ridiculous Christian beliefs of the moment are until a few hundred years down the road.

Irrelevant ...

Probably because he honestly considered both positions, THEN arrived at his conclusion and now operates from it.

Irrelevant ... And what makes you think I haven't considered the position from both sides? Because I have, and still do.

He doesn't know that you don't know...but like one person driving with his eyes and another closing his eyes and praying for a safe arrival...his method is a lot more sensible than yours.

Irrelevant ...

If you were a big fat nothing, we wouldn't be replying to you. If you didn't care what other people thought, you wouldn't be replying to us.

No, I don't care about what people think, in as much as I care about the things that I do -- i.e., meaning or reason. So no, chances are people are not going to change my mind any time soon. While I'm sure the same thing could be said about you and your views.

 

[Iacchus]

Fine, but don't substitute the inability to answer with an answer.

Just because I can't tell you what happened before the big bang is no reason to assume god did anything.

Assuming God doesn't exist, right?

I like it just fine. Being a skeptic I have not problems with any skepticism. Except of course the kind that is skeptical of skepticism. I assume that if you are skeptical of objective means of finding truth that you are also skeptical of subjective means of finding truth?

I'm just as interested in finding the truth as the next person.

You are making an argument. That argument is a "god of the gaps" argument.

If you wish to define it as such that's your business. It doesn't mean a thing to me.

It is not any more predicated upon god's non-existence than upon invisible pink unicorns. I am neutral to god since there is no objective evidence that he does or does not exist.

This is clearly an expression of bias here.

For the first 20 years of my life, 4 years of seminary and two years preaching the gospel I approached it very differently. Your point?

It follows from my past posts that I don't know.

So why did you profess to know in the first place?

I only expect you to use logic and reason when discussing anything in a skeptics forum. I have no problem with believers or religion. I have problems with those who try and make arguments that are specious, invalid by form or simply fallacious.

You should be careful about what you expect from others, because quite often you may not realize what you ask.

Cool, by all means whatever makes you happy. I mean that with all sincerity. I only want you to understand that I am going to discuss and or debate that which I find illogical. I find the arguments made in this thread that support a diving creator to be illogical.

Well that clearly states one of us is being illogical then. If so, should I be expected to get into an argument with you over that? No.

 

[Tricky]

What other position would you expect someone to take if they actually knew something about it?

But you don't actually know if there is a God. If you did, you could produce evidence. You merely believe it.

Absolutely, huh?

Ah, you got the joke. The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know anything for sure.

So, what do you need to know? That's really all I care about. Which by the way, can only be answered in the moment. Everything else is non-existent.

There's lots of stuff I need to know, such as a marketable skill, but I want to know as much as possible, especially about the world we live in. I hope I never reach the point where I no longer wish to know anything else. That would be intellectual death.

Well you better have an idea where you're going, otherwise what's the point in getting in the boat?

The only way you have an idea where you're going is if you are steering. I'm doing my own steering. But I'm also willing to try out unmapped territory, simply for the joy of finding something new. I'll make new maps as I go so others can follow.

If somebody else is steering, then you really don't know where you're going, do you?

The boat is my life. The rudder is what helps me deterimine what I do with it.

This analogy presents a situation which does not require a God. You control the rudder, not vice versa.

Ultimately yes, He must reveal Himself to us individually, otherwise how would we ever know? Why call Him a personal God then?

So there isn't one God, but many, and each person has their own version of him? What's the point, then? What if God reveals one "truth" to you, but the exact opposite of that "truth" to another? This looks like a good argument for the absence of any kind of absolute truth. Each person has his own. Which, of course, is what I believe.

 

[RandFan]

Assuming God doesn't exist, right?

Assuming that there is no evidence one way or the other.

I'm just as interested in finding the truth as the next person.

Would not an objective aproach be the best one?

If you wish to define it as such that's your business. It doesn't mean a thing to me.

It is what it is. Whether or not it means anything to you is besides the point. If I point out the moon the meaning of it to you is really irelevant.

This is clearly an expression of bias here.

Why?

So why did you profess to know in the first place?

I didn't. Citation please.

You should be careful about what you expect from others, because quite often you may not realize what you ask.

Sorry, not a clue what you are getting at. I ask for objectivity. I have no reason to fear such a request.

Well that clearly states one of us is being illogical then. If so, should I be expected to get into an argument with you over that? No.

The arguments made are demonstrably illogical. If you choose not to accept or debate that then it is up to you.