Ockham's Razor (sharpening it)

[ReasonableDoubt]

ReasonableDoubt
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. ... 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.

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.

Indeed, you model the value of such feedback quite well.

In fact there are vast similarities in the reports people continue to come up with.

One might expect evolution to result in similar neurochemistry across the species. Despite this, it is clear (and predictable) that you neither define nor quantify the terms "vast" and "similarities", much less substantiate the vacuous claim of "vast simiarities". Nor do you demonstrate their probative value.

In fact, it is these "vast similarities" that have plagued us with an unending stream of ghost sightings, UFO encounters, Lock Ness reports, Past Life Regression claims, Astrology testimonials, and Daoine Sidhe tales. It is these "vast similarities" that have blessed us with such diverse responses as Deism, Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christianity. And it is these "vast similarities" that have left us with the gross problems known to be associated with eyewitness testimony.

Seeking something more comfortable and self-serving than methodological naturalism, you are left with nothing but "revelation", i.e., the silly assertion that "my guru says that my guru is better than your guru" which is, for the Christian, wholly reducible to the childishly absurd claim that "2 Timothy is inerrant because 2 Timothy implies that 2 Timothy is inerrant".

That you epitomize this flawed "instrumentation" is hardly cause for boast, and proves little beyond our species' continued susceptibiity to superstition.

 

[TAILGUNNER]

Well, the theory of a for ever inflating universe could be true, the astonomers are not sure about that. Anyway, we know that the universe is not eternal as we know when it was created, some 13-14 billion years ago. Well, created is perhaps the wrong word...

_______________________________________________

I'm fairly certain i saw/heard something that suggested the theory that the big bang was/is not a one off event and while this universe is expanding eventually there will be another bang and a whole new universe will begin again with another expansion

I'm not sure wether there was a collapse before the next big bang but the general lines of the theory i saw/heard was that this universe is as old as you have said but it came about by an original collapsing and giving rise to our big bang in the first place

I suppose running along the lines of everything in nature being a cycle creating growing and dying only to be created again

Maybe its just all gumpf but its how i interpreted what was being offered up as a possible

 

[Iacchus]

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

"The kingdom of heaven is within." So the evidence is there, you just have to see it for yourself ... primarily in how it affects you in your life.

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

Well if you know that much then you are capable of determining that absolutes do exist. Yes, how can we truly know, except when set against the backdrop of not knowing?

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.

I can't speak for you, but I only learn -- and hence validate -- from doing.

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.

Yes, that's part of the journey, and that's what meaning gives to it.

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

This is why I don't care to have other people tell me how to think.

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

It all depends on whether you want to associate God with meaning or not.

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.

Yes, there is only one sun in the sky, and we each relate to that sun a little bit differently. In which case, just like the plant (with all the diversity that entails), if it doesn't establish a relationship with the sun, it dies. Do you realize that people are capable of dying from a lack of meaning (aka truth) in their lives?

While obviously the sun does entail the absolute truth, with respect to life on this planet anyway.

 

[Iacchus]

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

Who's assuming anything?

Would not an objective aproach be the best one?

What good is it if you can't see if for yourself?

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.

Not if it's contingent upon the assumption that God doesn't exist.

Why?

Must have been something about the pink unicorns. That one always gets me. Of course I did read the part suggesting you were neutral about it, however it still reads like bias to me.

I didn't. Citation please.

Didn't you in fact say you were preaching the Gospel for two years? If so, then why preach about something you don't know about?

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

Well in effect you base everything upon the assumption that God doesn't exist, while asserting I have no basis to assume God does. And yet, what if I know better? So at this point it tells me there's really not much more to discuss.

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

Demonstrably illogical but not absurd right? Besides, your arguments have grown a little tiresome here (almost from the get-go actually), because they're not going anywhere.

 

[Iacchus]

Indeed, you model the value of such feedback quite well.

Thanks a lot! ... I guess?

One might expect evolution to result in similar neurochemistry across the species. Despite this, it is clear (and predictable) that you neither define nor quantify the terms "vast" and "similarities", much less substantiate the vacuous claim of "vast simiarities". Nor do you demonstrate their probative value.

Just because one radio is tuned into a different station than another, doesn't mean the radios don't function similarly.

In fact, it is these "vast similarities" that have plagued us with an unending stream of ghost sightings, UFO encounters, Lock Ness reports, Past Life Regression claims, Astrology testimonials, and Daoine Sidhe tales. It is these "vast similarities" that have blessed us with such diverse responses as Deism, Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christianity. And it is these "vast similarities" that have left us with the gross problems known to be associated with eyewitness testimony.

How does one actually know anything unless one can see it for themself? How do you know what Science validates is true if, you can't see it for yourself?

Seeking something more comfortable and self-serving than methodological naturalism, you are left with nothing but "revelation", i.e., the silly assertion that "my guru says that my guru is better than your guru" which is, for the Christian, wholly reducible to the childishly absurd claim that "2 Timothy is inerrant because 2 Timothy implies that 2 Timothy is inerrant".

I base most of what I say upon my own experience, not on what other people say. However, I don't understand what's so terribly wrong with the work of someone like Carl Jung or, perhaps even Joseph Campbell?

That you epitomize this flawed "instrumentation" is hardly cause for boast, and proves little beyond our species' continued susceptibiity to superstition.

While it's funny, because even scientists own a piece of the original equipment. Are you saying they're not capable of comparing notes?

 

[Tricky]

"The kingdom of heaven is within." So the evidence is there, you just have to see it for yourself ... primarily in how it affects you in your life.

Everyone sees something different within, so as evidence goes, this is probably the worst kind. Everybody has a different story. This wouldn't even hold up in a court of law where the rules of evidence are much less strict.

Well if you know that much then you are capable of determining that absolutes do exist. Yes, how can we truly know, except when set against the backdrop of not knowing?

I still only see you asserting that absolutes exist, but nothing you say convinces me of this. We start out knowing nothing. Every day, we learn a little more. Just as it is impossible to count to infinity, it is impossible to reach infinite knowledge. That is, unless you believe in magick. (Thrown in just to stir you up )

[BI can't speak for you, but I only learn -- and hence validate -- from doing. [/B]

Then you are admitting that you do not approach anything with an open mind. You start out with the criteria that it must validate what you already believe. I reject such a concept of "learning".

Yes, that's part of the journey, and that's what meaning gives to it.

Lots of us find plenty of meaning without having to rely on spiritual beings.

This is why I don't care to have other people tell me how to think.

Oh, that's odd. I thought you were a Christian. My mistake. Still I would venture to say that a lot of what you "know" about God is repeated myths. There is a certain familiar ring to your philosophy.

However, a slight nitpick. Each of us needs to be taught how to think. Learning to reason and choose between sensible and nonsensical is crucial. That is why all of us need to develop critical thinking skills. But you should not be taught what to think. But that's what you meant. I think.

[BIt all depends on whether you want to associate God with meaning or not.[/B]

This is probably one of the wisest things you have said. You want (not need) to associate God with meaning.

My belief is that people should find their own meaning. Even though an atheist, I have just oodles of meaning in my life, both near term and long term. I care about my family and all those who come after me. I care about trying to come closer to truth and knowledge. I can see how some need an overseeing consciousness to recognize what they have done in order to feel fullfilled as being meaningful, but to me, that is an unnecesary element. I know when I have done well, and that is enough for me. I don't require validation.

Yes, there is only one sun in the sky, and we each relate to that sun a little bit differently. In which case, just like the plant (with all the diversity that entails), if it doesn't establish a relationship with the sun, it dies.

The sun changes every day, and it is not eternal. In fact, it is darned capricious, we find as we learn more about it. And we can learn about it. It is difficult, but the increase in verifiable knowledge has taught us much about how it works. I expect we will learn more. If you are trying to compare the sun to God, well you are in good company, because it was one of humanities first deities, however, the sun is a physical, finite, changing thing, so the comparison does not hold.

Do you realize that people are capable of dying from a lack of meaning (aka truth) in their lives?

Possibly so. They are also capable of dying from too much meaning in their life (Martyrs, for one example). But all people die, whether they have "meaning" or not. It is true that many people give up when life becomes too difficult, but I think you would have a hard time correlating that with how much "meaning" they have. In fact, you could even say that the "meaning" they have found is that it is time to go.

While obviously the sun does entail the absolute truth, with respect to life on this planet anyway.

I'm sorry, but that is completely incorrect, although it does play a large part of it.

Here's something you probably never thought about. One of the big reasons for life on Earth is that water is such a unique substance. It can be in all three states of matter at normal temperatures* and it will dissolve almost anything at least to a small extent. But here's the most amazing part. Water, unlike almost every other compound in the universe, expands when it goes from liquid to solid state. "So what" you might say. Here's so what. Because ice is less dense than liquid water, it floats on the top, rather than sinking to the bottom. This provides an insulating barrier that prevents the whole body of water from freezing solid. If water did not have this property, it is unlikely that life could have evolved on Earth, because the oceans, where life began, would have frozen solid and remained that way, making Earth inhospitable as a nursery world.

Oh, yes. The properties of water have nothing to do with the sun. They are the same everywhere in the universe.

*I admit that the fact that we lie in an orbit of the sun that allows the three phases to to coexist at "normal" temperatures, but that too has nothing to do with the sun itself.

Okay, that ends the Gaiology lesson for the day.

 

[Iacchus]

Everyone sees something different within, so as evidence goes, this is probably the worst kind. Everybody has a different story. This wouldn't even hold up in a court of law where the rules of evidence are much less strict.

However, this is something which is only pertinent to you, in the sense that it needs to be assessed on a personal level, right? Otherwise you can only have a notion of an external God which, entails idolatry by the way.

So, how do you know what Science teaches is correct if, in fact you are unable to validate it for yourself? Isn't this kind of where the idea of learning begins, as well as ends?

I still only see you asserting that absolutes exist, but nothing you say convinces me of this. We start out knowing nothing. Every day, we learn a little more. Just as it is impossible to count to infinity, it is impossible to reach infinite knowledge. That is, unless you believe in magick. (Thrown in just to stir you up )

Absolutes must exist, even if only in principle. While the thing about absolutes is, if you say no, they don't exist, then that becomes an absolute statement itself, and testifies to the fact that absolutes do exist.

Then you are admitting that you do not approach anything with an open mind. You start out with the criteria that it must validate what you already believe. I reject such a concept of "learning".

To know something and to have knowledge of something are two separate things by the way.

Lots of us find plenty of meaning without having to rely on spiritual beings.

I see that it has more to do with your adversion to God than anything else.

Oh, that's odd. I thought you were a Christian. My mistake. Still I would venture to say that a lot of what you "know" about God is repeated myths. There is a certain familiar ring to your philosophy.

Much of what I know is due to firsthand experience, however I can't show you what it is that's in mind, not unless you knew me well enough to know I wasn't making it up.

However, a slight nitpick. Each of us needs to be taught how to think. Learning to reason and choose between sensible and nonsensical is crucial. That is why all of us need to develop critical thinking skills. But you should not be taught what to think. But that's what you meant. I think.

Yes, and once the pump is primed?

This is probably one of the wisest things you have said. You want (not need) to associate God with meaning.

Absolutely ...

My belief is that people should find their own meaning. Even though an atheist, I have just oodles of meaning in my life, both near term and long term. I care about my family and all those who come after me. I care about trying to come closer to truth and knowledge. I can see how some need an overseeing consciousness to recognize what they have done in order to feel fullfilled as being meaningful, but to me, that is an unnecesary element. I know when I have done well, and that is enough for me. I don't require validation.

Exactly. This is why I have such a problem when people say meaning doesn't exist, absolute or otherwise.

The sun changes every day, and it is not eternal. In fact, it is darned capricious, we find as we learn more about it. And we can learn about it. It is difficult, but the increase in verifiable knowledge has taught us much about how it works. I expect we will learn more. If you are trying to compare the sun to God, well you are in good company, because it was one of humanities first deities, however, the sun is a physical, finite, changing thing, so the comparison does not hold.

Did you know that God is represented as a Sun in Heaven?

Possibly so. They are also capable of dying from too much meaning in their life (Martyrs, for one example). But all people die, whether they have "meaning" or not. It is true that many people give up when life becomes too difficult, but I think you would have a hard time correlating that with how much "meaning" they have. In fact, you could even say that the "meaning" they have found is that it is time to go.

A lot of people commit suicide because they have no meaning in their lives or, the wrong kind.

I'm sorry, but that is completely incorrect, although it does play a large part of it.

And how can you be so sure? That almost implies an absolute now doesn't it?

Here's something you probably never thought about. One of the big reasons for life on Earth is that water is such a unique substance. It can be in all three states of matter at normal temperatures* and it will dissolve almost anything at least to a small extent. But here's the most amazing part. Water, unlike almost every other compound in the universe, expands when it goes from liquid to solid state. "So what" you might say. Here's so what. Because ice is less dense than liquid water, it floats on the top, rather than sinking to the bottom. This provides an insulating barrier that prevents the whole body of water from freezing solid. If water did not have this property, it is unlikely that life could have evolved on Earth, because the oceans, where life began, would have frozen solid and remained that way, making Earth inhospitable as a nursery world.

Ever see the film, Water, Birth, the Planet Earth, a Dutcher Films release? A great documentary!

Oh, yes. The properties of water have nothing to do with the sun. They are the same everywhere in the universe.

You have the constancy of the sun, The Father, and the diversity of the earth, The Mother.

*I admit that the fact that we lie in an orbit of the sun that allows the three phases to to coexist at "normal" temperatures, but that too has nothing to do with the sun itself.

Okay, that ends the Gaiology lesson for the day.

Without the relationship between the sun and the earth, there would be no life on this planet, period.

 

[RandFan]

Who's assuming anything?

You said "assuming god doesn't exist". I said "Assuming that there is no evidence one way or the other." It was YOUR use of the word ASSUME. So it makes no sense for you to now as "who's assuming anything?"

What good is it if you can't see if for yourself?

What are you talking about? Are you now just being obtuse?

Not if it's contingent upon the assumption that God doesn't exist.

This does not follow from what I said.

Must have been something about the pink unicorns. That one always gets me. Of course I did read the part suggesting you were neutral about it, however it still reads like bias to me.

"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest" --Paul Simon.

Didn't you in fact say you were preaching the Gospel for two years? If so, then why preach about something you don't know about?

A valid question. My apologies. I did not understand.

It's a common story actually, like fanatical Muslims or brainwashed cult followers (indoctrinated), Catholics, Jews, Evangelical Christians, Buddhists or any of the worlds many theological beliefs I had blind faith. My intuition and spiritual feelings reinforced my desire to believe.

Well in effect you base everything upon the assumption that God doesn't exist...

Incorect. I base everything on empirical data, logic and reason. There is simply no reason to base everything upon any such assumption. Just because you declare this to be true doesn't make it true. Do you have a logical argument as basis to make this true?

By your logic I base everything upon the assumption that the Cubs will never win the world series.

...while asserting I have no basis to assume God does.

Straw man. I have only said that there have been no logical arguments made in this threads that demonstrate the existence of god.

And yet, what if I know better?

Know better? Know what better?

So at this point it tells me there's really not much more to discuss.

Since there has been no data or reason advanced as to the existence of god then I suppose that you are right.

Demonstrably illogical but not absurd right?

You obviously missed the point. I do not see the likely hood of any event as absurd. Illogical arguments can be absurd.

All fords have tires
All cars have tires
All cars are fords

That is an absurd argument.

ab·surd ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-sûrd, -zûrd)
adj.
Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable

I do not see gods existence as ridiculous or unreasonable. I simply see it as extremely unlikely.

Besides, your arguments have grown a little tiresome here (almost from the get-go actually), because they're not going anywhere.

Logic has away of doing that to blind faith.

“The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen” (Hebrews 11:1)

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Just because one radio is tuned into a different station than another, doesn't mean the radios don't function similarly.

Just because the radios are functioning similarly does not mean that you are not misinterpreting noise in precisely the same way that primitives misinterpreted thunder and lightning.

While it's funny, because even scientists own a piece of the original equipment. Are you saying they're not capable of comparing notes?

Sure, but they include in their notes test specifications with an explication of expected results. And if these tests start producing widely divergent results, they move on to construct better theories (rather than mumble silly banalities about God(s) functioning in mysterious ways).

 

[Iacchus]

Just because the radios are functioning similarly does not mean that you are not misinterpreting noise in precisely the same way that primitives misinterpreted thunder and lightning.

If things of a spiritual nature do exist, how do you know for a fact that they weren't tuned in? Because these are the sorts of correspondences which are usually involved regarding nature dieties.

So, are you at all familiar with the idea of the collective unconscious?

Sure, but they include in their notes test specifications with an explication of expected results. And if these tests start producing widely divergent results, they move on to construct better theories (rather than mumble silly banalities about God(s) functioning in mysterious ways).

Well perhaps what they would need to do is take into account something along the lines of behaviorism?

 

[Iacchus]

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.

Eternity has always been. And so has God.

 

[RandFan]

Eternity has always been. And so has God.

Eternity is a human construct and so is god.

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and I'm not certain about the universe.
--Einstein

 

[Iacchus]

It's a common story actually, like fanatical Muslims or brainwashed cult followers (indoctrinated), Catholics, Jews, Evangelical Christians, Buddhists or any of the worlds many theological beliefs I had blind faith. My intuition and spiritual feelings reinforced my desire to believe.

Are you referring to the "blind leaders of the blind?" This doesn't necessarily imply all faith is blind now does it?

Incorect. I base everything on empirical data, logic and reason. There is simply no reason to base everything upon any such assumption. Just because you declare this to be true doesn't make it true. Do you have a logical argument as basis to make this true?

However, by employing your logic and claiming my arguments are illogical (whether they are or not), you are concluding God doesn't exist. And that's an assumption as far as I'm concerned.

By your logic I base everything upon the assumption that the Cubs will never win the world series.

No, both the Cubs and the world series have been established as being "perceptible."

Straw man. I have only said that there have been no logical arguments made in this threads that demonstrate the existence of god.

Therefore your argument assumes that He doesn't. Logic doesn't prove anything by the way.

Know better? Know what better?

How do you know that I don't actually have knowledge of God?

I do not see gods existence as ridiculous or unreasonable. I simply see it as extremely unlikely.

And, if I were to insist on maintaining my belief in God? What exactly would you choose to call it then? Besides illogical and a fallacy that is?

Logic has away of doing that to blind faith.

“The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen” (Hebrews 11:1)

"The desire for something which is not tangible of this world." Yes, and if an immaterial God does exist, that's exactly what that means.

 

[Iacchus]

Eternity is a human construct and so is god.

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and I'm not certain about the universe.
--Einstein

Time is a human construct and so is reality? Does that make them any less real?

 

[RandFan]

Are you referring to the "blind leaders of the blind?" This doesn't necessarily imply all faith is blind now does it?

By it's very definition all faith is blind.

The Bible says so.

Hebrews 11:1[/b]

“The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen”

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
   
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
   
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
   
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
   
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
   
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
   [/list=1]

1. Christ said it.
   
   

   "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

   You tell me? What does "not seen" mean?
   
   

   However, by employing your logic and claiming my arguments are illogical (whether they are or not), you are concluding God doesn't exist.

   Wrong, arguments can be wrong and the proposition can still be correct. I have made no conclusion to whether or not god exits.
   
   

   And that's an assumption as far as I'm concerned.

   I honestly don't know. I cannot prove that god does not exist.
   
   

   No, both the Cubs and the world series have been established as being "perceptible."

   What?
   
   

   Therefore your argument assumes that He doesn't.

   No, let's say that there are have been no logical arguments in support of the Sun. It would not follow that my "argument" would assume that it doesn't exist.
   
   

   Logic doesn't prove anything by the way.

   It's hard to find the truth without it. That IS the blind leading the blind. Thanks for the object lesson.
   
   

   How do you know that I don't actually have knowledge of God?

   I can't believe that you asked that question. I DON'T KNOW! If you have some evidence it would sure be appreciated. Until then I can only say that you have given me no reason to believe.
   
   

   And, if I were to insist on maintaining my belief in God?

   That would be just fine with me. I have told my children that I will support them if they choose to believe in god. I currently meet with my family and my mother-in-law for scripture study once a week. I have purchased all of my children bibles and while I don't take them to church I have taught them the major stories of the bible including Adam and Eve, the Fall, the flood, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and of course the New Testament. We have discussed at length faith and spirituality. I have told them that if they choose to follow their spiritual feelings and follow Christ that I will support them and respect their beliefs. All of my brothers and sisters and parents and in laws worship god and we spend allot of time discussing god and I have never been disrespectful or tried to change their minds. However, If the conversation ever veers to logic then that is another thing altogether.
   
   

   What exactly would you choose to call it then? Besides illogical and a fallacy that is?

   Faith.
   
   

   "The desire for something which is not tangible of this world." Yes, and if an immaterial God does exist, that's exactly what that means.

   That is fine. But don't assume that there is any objective proof that god exists.

 

[RandFan]

Time is a human construct and so is reality? Does that make them any less real?

Time is measurable and both can be theoretically explored and experiments designed to test them.

 

[csense]

By it's very definition all faith is blind.
The Bible says so.


Hebrews 11:1
“The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen”

Christ said it.

"Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

Faith may be blind, but it nonetheless is not deaf, for in so demonstrating the former, you have also demonstrated the latter.

 

[RandFan]

Faith may be blind, but it nonetheless is not deaf, for in so demonstrating the former, you have also demonstrated the latter.

Non sequitur. It doesn't follow that if something is blind it is not deaf. There are people who are both blind and deaf. By your logic such people would not exist.

 

[csense]

Yes, I agree, there are people who are both blind and deaf, unfortunately so...

 

[RandFan]

I feel compeled to say that I also regularly talk to my children about critical thinking. I love to test their abilities and try and slip things past them. Like anything else a person can develop and improve his or her critical thinking skills.

My kids can now spot fallacies in tv and print commercials and letters in the mail that promise riches or too good to be true opportunities.

I think a person can be spiritual and a critical thinker. However it requires, IMO, a blind spot.