Ever since me and Rust used this concept in a debate several months ago every mini-atheist on this forum has been using it out of context.

So here I'm going to take some time to explain this concept more in depth, and point out some ways in which it can be used.

Occam's Razor was invented by a Franciscan monk, William of Ockham some time during the 14th century.

The basic principle is that when explaning something as little assumptions should be made as possible, this can also sometimes be taken to mean the simplest explanation is usually the truth.

The main problem with this is that it is actually not scientific fact, it is just scientific methodology, which may mean that in several centuries when scientific method has improved it may be rendered obsolete.

Not everything in the universe is simple, not all of our explanations are correct, and sometimes assumptions have to be made.

This being said; for now the concept is a logical thing to follow.

The main use in theological debate is creation of life and the universe. If you adhere to the theory of the Big Bang creating the universe and are an atheist (like me), then already you have to make a few assumptions;

1. That there was nothing in existence.

2. That the fact that nothing existed meant that the laws of the universe as we understand them did not exist.

3. That because there was no law governing what could and couldn't happen, a random event occured, a singularity appeared.

4. The singularity contained all matter within the universe as we know it.

5. The singularity expanded to the size that our universe now is.

If you are a theist and believe that God created the universe via the Big Bang (a more rational kind of theist) Then you also make a few assumptions.

1. God exists outside our universe.

2. God wanted to create a universe very slowly.

3. God created a singularity.

4. The singularity contained all matter within the universe as we know it.

5. The singularity expanded to the size that our universe now is.

As you can see the strong atheist in his belief is making just as many assumptions as the rational theist. This means that we are not actually entitled to say that our belief is any more founded than a Christian.

More disturbing however is the other use of the principle, the dark side of theology; fundamentalism.

Assumption number 1:

All current scientific knowledge is wrong.

2. God exists.

3. God made the scientists look like they were right.

4. God created the universe.

Uh oh, it seems that those weirdos have a more simple explanation than everyone else. Does that make them right? Of course not, the history of the universe suggests otherwise, but unfortunately Occam's Razor still backs their ridiculous worldview.

For this reason I don't think that Occam's Razor is a very valid peice of evidence to use in a debate as depending on the beliefs of a person it can be twisted to fit any argument.

[This message has been edited by jb_mcbean (edited 12-29-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

If you adhere to the theory of the Big Bang creating the universe and are an atheist (like me), then already you have to make a few assumptions;

1. That there was nothing in existence.

2. That the fact that nothing existed meant that the laws of the universe as we understand them did not exist.

3. That because there was no law governing what could and couldn't happen, a random event occured, a singularity appeared.

4. The singularity contained all matter within the universe as we know it.

5. The singularity expanded to the size that our universe now is.

What do you mean "there was nothing in existence"? What part of the Big Bang is that? The steps of the Big Bang go as follows:

quote:-During the first 10-43 seconds the four fundamental forces are unified (although no complete physical description of this era yet exists). Temperature 1032 Kelvin. 10-43 seconds defines the time when gravity splits from the other forces (weak, strong and Electro-Magnetic).

-Up to 10-35 seconds, quarks and anti-quarks dominate the Universe. The strong force separates from the weak and electromagnetic forces. Temperature drops to 1027 Kelvin. At 10-12 seconds the four forces become distinct.

-At 0.01 seconds, electrons and positrons form as the temperature drops to 1011 Kelvin. After 1 second, the Universe becomes transparent to neutrinos, which from now on hardly interact further with matter.

-At three minutes after the big bang, the temperature has reached 109 K, protons and neutrons combine to form what will become the nuclei of elements (mostly H and He). After 300,000 years the temperature has dropped to 3000 K and the electrons are captured by nuclei to form neutral atoms. The Universe becomes transparent to light (photons stop interacting with free electrons) resulting in the formation of the Cosmic Background Radiation.

-After 1 billion years, the temperature is 20 K and galaxies and stars have begun to form via gravitational contraction of over-densities in the initial Universe. A a few billion years our Galaxy forms, at about 10 billion years after the Big Bang the Sun and Earth form. After 15 billion years we reach the present and a background temperature of about 3 K.

Hmm...yeah...I don't see anything about nothing existing. Nor do I see why anyone would feel the need to make such an assumption. The source of the matter that composed the original singularity of our universe is currently beyond the scope of science. I'm content simply stating the truth: that I don't know how matter originated, or if it even had a point of origin in the first place.

edit: That being said, I'd also like to add that Occam's Razor is very useful for estimating the probability of an occurance. You seem to think that because predictions that would have been made using Occam's Razor in the past have now been proved wrong, that Occam's Razor is essentially useless. However, considering that Occam's Razor deals only in probability, the possibility of a prediction using Occam's Razor being wrong does exist. Occam's Razor isn't used to make a declaration of truth, but more to form a sort of logical gauge for sorting things out and finding the most probable explanation for an occurance.

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 12-29-2006).]

1. First of all, you and I were not the first people to use Occam's Razor on totse. I'm not sure if you're tying to imply that or not, so I'm making it clear. I also think its silly to think we popularized it.

2. Occam's Razor supports the simplest explanation that fits the evidence. Whether an explanation has the least amount of assumptions is second to whether the explanation fits to evidence to begin with. The evidence simply does not suggest that current scientific knowledge is wrong; not in the least.

3. Making a list of assumptions as you are doing is ripe for oversimplification and arbitrary decisions. In saying "current scientific knowledge is wrong" you're including millions of other assumptions.

4. Whether an assumption is necessary or superflous is also important to determine.

*Puts on pot of coffee*

occams razor doesnt work for multiple choice tests. Its usually the longer more detailed answer that is correct.

i dont know why this made me think of that

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

If you adhere to the theory of the Big Bang creating the universe and are an atheist (like me), then already you have to make a few assumptions;

1. That there was nothing in existence.

2. That the fact that nothing existed meant that the laws of the universe as we understand them did not exist.

3. That because there was no law governing what could and couldn't happen, a random event occured, a singularity appeared.

4. The singularity contained all matter within the universe as we know it.

5. The singularity expanded to the size that our universe now is.

What do you mean "there was nothing in existence"? What part of the Big Bang is that? The steps of the Big Bang go as follows:

quote:-During the first 10-43 seconds the four fundamental forces are unified (although no complete physical description of this era yet exists). Temperature 1032 Kelvin. 10-43 seconds defines the time when gravity splits from the other forces (weak, strong and Electro-Magnetic).

-Up to 10-35 seconds, quarks and anti-quarks dominate the Universe. The strong force separates from the weak and electromagnetic forces. Temperature drops to 1027 Kelvin. At 10-12 seconds the four forces become distinct.

-At 0.01 seconds, electrons and positrons form as the temperature drops to 1011 Kelvin. After 1 second, the Universe becomes transparent to neutrinos, which from now on hardly interact further with matter.

-At three minutes after the big bang, the temperature has reached 109 K, protons and neutrons combine to form what will become the nuclei of elements (mostly H and He). After 300,000 years the temperature has dropped to 3000 K and the electrons are captured by nuclei to form neutral atoms. The Universe becomes transparent to light (photons stop interacting with free electrons) resulting in the formation of the Cosmic Background Radiation.

-After 1 billion years, the temperature is 20 K and galaxies and stars have begun to form via gravitational contraction of over-densities in the initial Universe. A a few billion years our Galaxy forms, at about 10 billion years after the Big Bang the Sun and Earth form. After 15 billion years we reach the present and a background temperature of about 3 K.

Hmm...yeah...I don't see anything about nothing existing. Nor do I see why anyone would feel the need to make such an assumption. The source of the matter that composed the original singularity of our universe is currently beyond the scope of science. I'm content simply stating the truth: that I don't know how matter originated, or if it even had a point of origin in the first place.

edit: That being said, I'd also like to add that Occam's Razor is very useful for estimating the probability of an occurance. You seem to think that because predictions that would have been made using Occam's Razor in the past have now been proved wrong, that Occam's Razor is essentially useless. However, considering that Occam's Razor deals only in probability, the possibility of a prediction using Occam's Razor being wrong does exist. Occam's Razor isn't used to make a declaration of truth, but more to form a sort of logical gauge for sorting things out and finding the most probable explanation for an occurance.



That describes the actual big bang, not before it happened.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



3. Making a list of assumptions as you are doing is ripe for oversimplification and arbitrary decisions. In saying "current scientific knowledge is wrong" you're including millions of other assumptions.



Exactly true, but the point is that it would be difficult to say how many assumptions you are making whilst making any sort of a hypothesis. You are however right about assumptions being neccessary or superflous, however the point I was trying to make is that in every theory and hypothesis there are some assumptions neccessary.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Occam's Razor supports the simplest explanation that fits the evidence. Whether an explanation has the least amount of assumptions is second to whether the explanation fits to evidence to begin with. The evidence simply does not suggest that current scientific knowledge is wrong; not in the least.

I wholeheartedly agree; however that was not how the concept was originally intended. I was merely trying to point out that when you argue based solely upon the simplicity of your argument, then you can argue almost anything.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that what you believe to be most likely and have the most evidence will always be relative to your own point of view. Therefore it is naive to assume that our own beliefs are any more watertight than the next mans.

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

Exactly true, but the point is that it would be difficult to say how many assumptions you are making whilst making any sort of a hypothesis. You are however right about assumptions being neccessary or superflous, however the point I was trying to make is that in every theory and hypothesis there are some assumptions neccessary.

If your point is that there are some assumptions necessary, then I don't think anyone was questioning that. How is that at all conclusive that the "fundamentalist" position is supported by Occam's Razor as you concluded? It isn't.

quote:[b]

I wholeheartedly agree; however that was not how the concept was originally intended. I was merely trying to point out that when you argue based solely upon the simplicity of your argument, then you can argue almost anything.

It's a necessary requirement because if doesn't follow the avaialable evidence, then it isn't an explanation or solution to begin with. The "theory" in question must follow the evidence. That's part of the simplicity of the theory itself as a "theory" that doesn't follow the evidence must then include an explanation for why that is the case (thus making it much more complex).

quote:[b]

Basically what I'm trying to say is that what you believe to be most likely and have the most evidence will always be relative to your own point of view. Therefore it is naive to assume that our own beliefs are any more watertight than the next mans.

To take this extremely relativist point of view as you are is sily; by that reasoning we could say that 2+2=4 depends on your point of view... That's not how it works; truth doesn't care what your point of view is.

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

This means that we are not actually entitled to say that our belief is any more founded than a Christian.

Not true. Assuming this god is anything like the Abrahamic 'God' makes FAR more assumptions. It assumes the god is intelligent, the god has a motive, the god has anthropomorphic characteristics.

I think Dawkins answers this in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiayuN2IcT0

[This message has been edited by glutamate antagonist (edited 12-30-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If your point is that there are some assumptions necessary, then I don't think anyone was questioning that. How is that at all conclusive that the "fundamentalist" position is supported by Occam's Razor as you concluded? It isn't.

OK so in that particular instance I was being a bit sensationalist and not entirely truthful, but the point still stands that you can argue almost anything with Occam's Razor.

quote:It's a necessary requirement because if doesn't follow the avaialable evidence, then it isn't an explanation or solution to begin with. The "theory" in question must follow the evidence. That's part of the simplicity of the theory itself as a "theory" that doesn't follow the evidence must then include an explanation for why that is the case (thus making it much more complex).

I agree.

quote:To take this extremely relativist point of view as you are is sily; by that reasoning we could say that 2+2=4 depends on your point of view... That's not how it works; truth doesn't care what your point of view is.

I thought better of you, Rust, than to try on that analogous argument crap. You know very well that that sort of thinking is just not valid in the way the world works, just because something is like something else (and in this case it isn't) doesn't mean to say it is the same. In fact that style of thinking opens the door to accepting backwards half-assed creationist arguments like William Paley's watch analogy or that bullshit about the human eye. Therefore I challenge you for the sake of human development to either produce solid, irrefutable evidence for either there being no God or there being a God (e.g. "the truth"). Or accept the fact that you were talking rubbish.

An over used and misunderstood concept on Totse... You don't say.

The problem I have with Occams Razor is the concept of simplicity..

assuming that it states "the simplest explanation is usually the best one"

isnt simplicity relative...

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

OK so in that particular instance I was being a bit sensationalist and not entirely truthful, but the point still stands that you can argue almost anything with Occam's Razor.

No, the point doesn't stand, because you've failed to make it.

quote:

I thought better of you, Rust, than to try on that analogous argument crap.

Please spare me this fake disdain bullshit.

As if I gave a shit what you thought of me, and as if you weren't just saying that in a passive-aggressive way of attacking me. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



quote:

You know very well that that sort of thinking is just not valid in the way the world works, just because something is like something else (and in this case it isn't) doesn't mean to say it is the same.

I didn't say they were the same; I made the analogy in the hopes that you'd understand how extreme relativity leads to utter absurdity.

Your position would entail that the knowledge acquired via the scientific method, and the claim that the whole of science is wrong, are equals. That's unreasonable; especially if you've given absolutely no justification for that claim save for what you apparently think is self-evident relativism.

quote: In fact that style of thinking opens the door to accepting backwards half-assed creationist arguments like William Paley's watch analogy or that bullshit about the human eye. Therefore I challenge you for the sake of human development to either produce solid, irrefutable evidence for either there being no God or there being a God (e.g. "the truth"). Or accept the fact that you were talking rubbish.

What the fuck are you babbling about? Nothing I've said necessitates that I show how god exists or doesn't exist. That's not even my position, let alone something I'm arguing here.

When I said "truth doesn't care what your point of view is" I'm explaining how truth isn't democratic. 2+2 equals 4 regardless of what your point of view is. If you don't believe that to be true, then arguing with you is useless, because it means you essentially do not follow logic.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-02-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

1. That there was nothing in existence.

2. That the fact that nothing existed meant that the laws of the universe as we understand them did not exist.



The irony! You are trying to explain the occam's razor with non-sense^^.

Surely the simplest explanation for the universe existing is the undeniable fact that there cannot be nothing?

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

No, the point doesn't stand, because you've failed to make it.

I failed to make it, according to you, because I didn't compile a list of all the assumptions made. That may be the case, honestly I may not have made a complete list. The point still stands that when Occam's Razor was conseptualised Occam himself did not say it had to be used in accordance with any evidence, in fact the first person I've heard say this is you. That's not to say I don't agree with you there, but when using such a loose concept it is in fact possible to argue just about anything to do with creation or earth's history, perhaps not scientific laws, or proven properties, because they would still remain the simplest and least assumption ridden explanations.

quote:Please spare me this fake disdain bullshit.

As if I gave a shit what you thought of me, and as if you weren't just saying that in a passive-aggressive way of attacking me.

Don't play the victim here, it's not very suiting. To be perfectly honest I share most of your opinions and beliefs and quite respect you as a person. We've had many lively debates which really made me think, but when you just resort to some sort of lazy, creationist, tactic like this instead of taking the time to come up with a coherent and logical argument, it just makes you seem like a stubborn, arrogant prick who will disagree with anyone and attack them for a difference in wording of the same opinion.

quote:I didn't say they were the same; I made the analogy in the hopes that you'd understand how extreme relativity leads to utter absurdity.

Your position would entail that the knowledge acquired via the scientific method, and the claim that the whole of science is wrong, are equals. That's unreasonable; especially if you've given absolutely no justification for that claim save for what you apparently think is self-evident relativism.

No you didn't, yet you implied it by using that pathetic analogy in the first place, and now your lying through your teeth to try and cover your ass. By the way, as a self-proclaimed champion of science, would you like to offer any conclusive proof that relativity in this instance leads to absurdity? No? Another analogy up your sleeve?

My position on creationism has been and always will be that it is outright lies, but for someone who believes it perhaps the "fact" that all scientific knowledge is wrong is self-evident, and can be proven by other means outside of science, in which case their claim that we are wrong is equal to our claim that we are wrong, according to occam's razor.

quote:What the fuck are you babbling about? Nothing I've said necessitates that I show how god exists or doesn't exist. That's not even my position, let alone something I'm arguing here.

When I said "truth doesn't care what your point of view is" I'm explaining how truth isn't democratic. 2+2 equals 4 regardless of what your point of view is. If you don't believe that to be true, then arguing with you is useless, because it means you essentially do not follow logic.

Cut the crap. You have in the past stated that you are a weak atheist, you used an analogy to argue a point, and I have already stated how analogical arguments can be used dishonestly, just like you did. Of course I fucking follow logic! It is just that what you just said about 2+2 equaling 4, bears absolutely no relation at all to what we were just talking about. In case you didn't notice, we were talking about God existing or not existing, not about some childish arithmetic problem. So on the same track, where, logically, did you get the decision that such a pathetic analogy linked at all to this?

By the way, happy new year, dude.

[This message has been edited by jb_mcbean (edited 01-02-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

The irony! You are trying to explain the occam's razor with non-sense^^.

Surely the simplest explanation for the universe existing is the undeniable fact that there cannot be nothing?

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

No, it has been proven there can be nothing. But here we reach an interesting paradigm: if no universal constants or laws existed, Occam's Razor didn't exist.

quote:No, it has been proven there can be nothing.

Where's your proof? Can you show me 'nothing'? Are you able to direct me to a place where nothing exists?

It's nonsense to say their can be or has been nothing. How can something come from nothing? That's incomprehensible! If it were simple you would simply state the reason instead of making a complicated reply. IMHO that's the point of Occam's razor, to eliminate the complicated hard to understand theories like a god creating the universe from nothing! What is simpler than a universe that exists because it must for the simple fact that there cannot be nothing?

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

No there can't be nothing.

It would violiate the uncertainty principal as demonstrated in quantum mechanics. Absolute nothing would be a certainty.

Also, quantum reality cannot come into material existence absent a concious obserer.

So the universe that exists now was the easiest path to both "not nothing", uncertainty, and a conciousness feedback?

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Where's your proof? Can you show me 'nothing'? Are you able to direct me to a place where nothing exists?

It's nonsense to say their can be or has been nothing. How can something come from nothing? That's incomprehensible! If it were simple you would simply state the reason instead of making a complicated reply. IMHO that's the point of Occam's razor, to eliminate the complicated hard to understand theories like a god creating the universe from nothing! What is simpler than a universe that exists because it must for the simple fact that there cannot be nothing?

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I suppose it would be difficult to argue this without myself using an analogy, so I'll just ask you this: There is evidence for the universe currently expanding, right? This pretty much adds substance to the claim that the Big Bang happened yes? So where is it expanding into? What existed at the time that the singularity happened? Why would a singularity occur in a place where there was time, space, matter and energy? If the universe is currently expanding that points to a first cause. Now if you assume as most scientists now do, that the universe will continue expanding (after all why wouldn't it? The universe is expanding at a constant rate meaning that there is no friction or other forces acting upon the expansion from outside) Then it's logical to assume that the universe won't collapse in on itself, causing a singularity to appear, therefore what is outside of the universe to produce no drag or friction or indeed act upon the expansion in any way must be nothing.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

No there can't be nothing.

It would violiate the uncertainty principal as demonstrated in quantum mechanics. Absolute nothing would be a certainty.

Also, quantum reality cannot come into material existence absent a concious obserer.

So the universe that exists now was the easiest path to both "not nothing", uncertainty, and a conciousness feedback?

Where nothing exists, the uncertainty principle doesn't exist.

This is moving into interesting territory. I would like to turn this debate into a philosophical discussion now. Is anyone familiar with René Descartes? He is of course very famous for being the originator of the phrase "I Think, therefore I am". Basically what this entails is the only thing we can be certain of through concious observation is that we ourselves exist. Everyone and everything around us even our own bodies and senses could be an illusion, could be controlled by thought. This idea was quite interestingly explored through the film "The Matrix" before some crazy film buff points that out, but the idea could reach deeper than that: What if we are a spec of concious thought in a universe where logic and the laws of the universe as we observe do not exist? Crazy assed shit eh? Kind of makes your head spin.

Another great philosopher was Socrates, a truly ingenious man who said the phrase: "One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing." This phrase is a paradox in itself, but to some extent bears some truth, I think, we don't know for certain that God doesn't exist and religious people don't know that he does. What we have learned about the universe could be proven in the future to have different mechanisms governing it than what we currently think. And the true bain of mankind, the thing that causes wars and genocide, is the assumption of superiority. People start wars because they think they're better equiped to handle power than their rivals, people join in because they are told their way of life is superior, Fascism, The Khmer Rouge, Gulags, Iraq, the Crusades, the Trojan wars, all of this because people think they're better than other people.

Noone is free from this way of thinking, we as atheists assume we are smarter than Christians, Christians assume they are better under the eyes of God, communists assume that their way of thinking is far better than capitalism, and libertarians assume that they're better than anyone with different opinions.

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:



.... nothing exists ...

Non-sense http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Stephen Hawking adresses the challenge of an expanding universe in his book A Brief History of Time. As I understood him, the warping and curvature of space and time by the gravity of massive objects such as our sun accounts for the apparent paradox of expansion. What is the truth? Who can know? which is more likely? Which is simpler to understand? A universe created from nothing by a being or force from another dimension who/which is somehow able to create something from nothing? Or the simple fact that there cannot be nothing?

To say nothing exists is an obvious contradiction, how can it be said nothing exists? It's nothing! No-thing! It has no existence. It's so simple! it's like the reason for existence is right under one's nose, too close to see except by reflection http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif) Google 'something from nothing' and you will see this has been a debate for thousands of years since Parmenides. The universe/existence needs no first cause http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) but there is a reason http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Parmenides goes on to consider in the light of this principle the consequences of saying that anything is. In the first place, it cannot have come into being. If it had, it must have arisen from nothing or from something. It cannot have arisen from nothing; for there is no nothing. It cannot have arisen from something; for here is nothing else than what is. Nor can anything else besides itself come into being; for there can be no empty space in which it could do so. Is it or is it not? If it is, then it is now, all at once. In this way Parmenides refutes all accounts of the origin of the world. Ex nihilo nihil fit. http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/parmenid.htm

quote:Nothing comes from nothing is a philosophical expression often stated in its Latin form: ex nihilo nihil fit. In the Chandogya upanishad of circa 800 BCE, belonging to the philosophical portion of the Hindu scriptures, this ideas is expressed as - "How can Non-existence come from Existence? Existence alone existed in the beginning". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

[This message has been edited by redzed (edited 01-03-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

I failed to make it, according to you, because I didn't compile a list of all the assumptions made. That may be the case, honestly I may not have made a complete list. The point still stands that when Occam's Razor was conseptualised Occam himself did not say it had to be used in accordance with any evidence, in fact the first person I've heard say this is you. That's not to say I don't agree with you there, but when using such a loose concept it is in fact possible to argue just about anything to do with creation or earth's history, perhaps not scientific laws, or proven properties, because they would still remain the simplest and least assumption ridden explanations.

1. If we're to describe "Occam's Razor" as it is most commonly used ("All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one") then accordance with evidence is inescapable. For something to be a "solution" or "explanation" to begin with, it must be in accordance with the facts - and the evidence which helps us establish those facts. Example: If we seek to explain the rotation of the planets, is the the claim that 'there are no planets' a possible solution to be considered to begin with? No. It is not in accordance with what we observe to be true, therefore it is not a solution.

So unless you're preaching to a 14th-century audience, you have no point. As it is understood today, evidence is an inescapable concept in Occam's Razor.

2. Occam wasn't even the person who invented this concept. He didn't "conceptualize" shit. The concept is his in name only. If you want to claim that accordance with evidence is not necessary to the principle called "Occam's Razor" you're going to have to look way past him.

quote:

Don't play the victim here, it's not very suiting. To be perfectly honest I share most of your opinions and beliefs and quite respect you as a person. We've had many lively debates which really made me think, but when you just resort to some sort of lazy, creationist, tactic like this instead of taking the time to come up with a coherent and logical argument, it just makes you seem like a stubborn, arrogant prick who will disagree with anyone and attack them for a difference in wording of the same opinion.

1. I'm not playing the victim; I'm exposing your shitty statement as what it was: a false sense of disdain in order to attack me.

2. The only lazy, creationist tactic being used here is you misconstruing what I said, and refusing to accept the fact that I never said that they were equals; basing your claims in your silly assumptions and not on the facts.

I never once claimed that the two concepts where equal. My whole point, as I've already told you, was to show you how extreme relativism is foolish in the hopes that you'd realize that your position was foolish as well. That does not mean that I was implying that they were equal.



quote:

No you didn't, yet you implied it by using that pathetic analogy in the first place, and now your lying through your teeth to try and cover your ass.

Would you like to offer any conclusive proof that I didn't? No? Another bullshit claim up your sleeves?

Sorry, but I'm not lying. That was the purpose. Did I say they were equal? No, so you have no point, just your erroneous assumptions.

quote:

By the way, as a self-proclaimed champion of science, would you like to offer any conclusive proof that relativity in this instance leads to absurdity? No? Another analogy up your sleeve?

1. Your demand for proof is unreasonable if you have yet to prove a single word you have said.

2. If the extreme form of relativism you suggest applies to logic (which you've yet to give a reason why it does not), then there is no better proof that it leads to absurdity than logic itself. If one were to believe that the law of non contradiction is "self-evidently" false, then that necessarily leads to absurdity.

quote:

My position on creationism has been and always will be that it is outright lies, but for someone who believes it perhaps the "fact" that all scientific knowledge is wrong is self-evident, and can be proven by other means outside of science, in which case their claim that we are wrong is equal to our claim that we are wrong, according to occam's razor.

The same problem still stands. You've yet to prove that the two positions are equal. Just because you say they are equal, or just because the people in these scenarios you've concocted believe they are equal, doesn't make it so.

quote:

Cut the crap. You have in the past stated that you are a weak atheist, you used an analogy to argue a point, and I have already stated how analogical arguments can be used dishonestly, just like you did. Of course I fucking follow logic! It is just that what you just said about 2+2 equaling 4, bears absolutely no relation at all to what we were just talking about. In case you didn't notice, we were talking about God existing or not existing, not about some childish arithmetic problem. So on the same track, where, logically, did you get the decision that such a pathetic analogy linked at all to this?

1. I already explained this to you.

Your position necessitates that a relativist position so extreme that it would consider the scientific method to be metaphysically equal to simply saying that the scientific method is wrong. I provided a scenario where mathematics themselves would be thought as "self-evidently wrong" in the hopes that you'd understand how foolish that claim would be, and then see similar foolishness in your position. That's it. Does that mean that they are equal? No. Did I say that they are equal? No.



2. A weak-atheist doesn't claim there is no god... that's the strong atheist. You childishly "challenged" ( http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) ) that I, produce solid, irrefutable evidence for either there being no God or there being a God". Not only is that not my position given that I'm a weak-atheist, not a "strong" one, but my atheist position has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. Talk about "creationist tactics"...

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Non-sense http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Stephen Hawking adresses the challenge of an expanding universe in his book A Brief History of Time. As I understood him, the warping and curvature of space and time by the gravity of massive objects such as our sun accounts for the apparent paradox of expansion. What is the truth? Who can know? which is more likely? Which is simpler to understand? A universe created from nothing by a being or force from another dimension who/which is somehow able to create something from nothing? Or the simple fact that there cannot be nothing?

To say nothing exists is an obvious contradiction, how can it be said nothing exists? It's nothing! No-thing! It has no existence. It's so simple! it's like the reason for existence is right under one's nose, too close to see except by reflection http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif) Google 'something from nothing' and you will see this has been a debate for thousands of years since Parmenides. The universe/existence needs no first cause http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) but there is a reason http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Parmenides goes on to consider in the light of this principle the consequences of saying that anything is. In the first place, it cannot have come into being. If it had, it must have arisen from nothing or from something. It cannot have arisen from nothing; for there is no nothing. It cannot have arisen from something; for here is nothing else than what is. Nor can anything else besides itself come into being; for there can be no empty space in which it could do so. Is it or is it not? If it is, then it is now, all at once. In this way Parmenides refutes all accounts of the origin of the world. Ex nihilo nihil fit. http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/parmenid.htm

quote:Nothing comes from nothing is a philosophical expression often stated in its Latin form: ex nihilo nihil fit. In the Chandogya upanishad of circa 800 BCE, belonging to the philosophical portion of the Hindu scriptures, this ideas is expressed as - "How can Non-existence come from Existence? Existence alone existed in the beginning". http://en .wikipedia .org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing (http: //en.wikip edia.org/w iki/Nothin g_comes_fr om_nothing )

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



Hold on a minute, why would gravitational distortions produce consistent results?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. I'm not playing the victim; I'm exposing your shitty statement as what it was: a false sense of disdain in order to attack me.

Uhuh.. and since you have asked me to offer proof that you just used an analogy to argue a point, can I just ask you whether you can prove that this was a false sense of disdain?

quote:2. Occam wasn't even the person who invented this concept. He didn't "conceptualize" shit. The concept is his in name only. If you want to claim that accordance with evidence is not necessary to the principle called "Occam's Razor" you're going to have to look way past him.

Well, don't keep me in suspense here, who did invent this concept?

Obviously when I used the wording "all science is wrong", I wasn't specific enough for your liking, so how about this one: "Palaeontology and Geology are wrong". Proof gathered from outside of the existing scientific method can still be construed as proof. When Newton discovered gravity, did he make an observation, draw a hypothesis, conduct experiments and then validate his claims via results, no, he got hit in the head by a fucking apple and then told everyone what they knew already. When Archimedes discovered water displacement, where were his experiments and hypothesis and verification, or was sitting in a tepid bath and yelling "Eureka" proof enough? Also, conclusive proof doesn't exist because no matter how many billions of times the experiment is performed, the next time it is done, the apple could just hover there or fall upwards or the bath water level could remain constant. Basically what is happening is we are placing our faith in the fact that A: Our scientists can be trusted to not let their own personal bias get in the way of honest results, and B: That our method of testing and experimentation isn't fundamentally flawed in the first place.

Now can you point out to me what the difference between this blind faith and a Creationists blind faith that some magical superbeing created the world 6,000 years ago with the help of all his little flying angel buddies and Jesus, at the end of the day we are both placing our faith in something that might not exist, the honesty of humanity and a god.

quote:2. The only lazy, creationist tactic being used here is you misconstruing what I said, and refusing to accept the fact that I never said that they were equals; basing your claims in your silly assumptions and not on the facts.

I never once claimed that the two concepts where equal. My whole point, as I've already told you, was to show you how extreme relativism is foolish in the hopes that you'd realize that your position was foolish as well. That does not mean that I was implying that they were equal.

If you don't believe the two concepts are equals, 1. Why did you make the analogy in the first place?

2. Why did you confidently state that my position was foolish just there with no proof save an unrelated analogy?

Now to get to the meat of the problem, what if the magical flying god was there every time an apple fell, a bath was sat in or a thermonuclear device was tested, waving his crazy magical arms and making sure the scientists thought they were right? This can be summed up into only one assumption, the assumption of omnipresence, and doesn't have to include anything else.

So here we have another choice, which assumption would you rather believe; that our scientific knowledge is correct, our scientists not extremely biased and that our methods of testing accurate; or that there is an extremely powerful, omnipresent invisible superbeing. Of course the two ideas aren't equal in terms of common sense but then again the chances of life having started on earth with Abiogenisis are enormously small, so it may be argued that by believing in it we ourselves are defying common sense.

The simple reasons I choose not to place faith in the existence of a god are that A: I don't feel the need to. and B: I think belief in a god belittles human achievement, nothing more. Which all still boils down to opinion. Now can you tell me honestly that what you believe about theology and the origin of life doesn't boil down to opinion eventually?

[This message has been edited by jb_mcbean (edited 01-04-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

"Palaeontology and Geology are wrong".

How so?



quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

Proof gathered from outside of the existing scientific method can still be construed as proof. When Newton discovered gravity, did he make an observation, draw a hypothesis, conduct experiments and then validate his claims via results, no, he got hit in the head by a fucking apple and then told everyone what they knew already.

Really? I wasn't aware that everyone already knew that all objects with mass also had gravity. Or that that the Earth's gravity keeps the moon in orbit. Or that all of the planets were held in orbit due to the Sun's gravity, which was a revolutionary idea, and on and on and on. I guess Newton's 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' was just a book filled with common knowledge.

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

When Archimedes discovered water displacement, where were his experiments and hypothesis and verification, or was sitting in a tepid bath and yelling "Eureka" proof enough?

He yelled "Eureka", after having a thought and then conducted experiments. What's your point?



quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

Also, conclusive proof doesn't exist because no matter how many billions of times the experiment is performed, the next time it is done, the apple could just hover there or fall upwards or the bath water level could remain constant. Basically what is happening is we are placing our faith in the fact that A: Our scientists can be trusted to not let their own personal bias get in the way of honest results, and B: That our method of testing and experimentation isn't fundamentally flawed in the first place.



Are you saying that because there isn't "absolute proof" for anything, that it takes blind faith to believe that objects with mass have gravity? It takes blind faith to believe that if an object containing a certain volume is placed in a full bathtub, an equal volume of water will flow out of the tub because every time this has been done before, the same results occurring may have just been coincidences and there isn't "absolute proof" for anything?

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

Now can you point out to me what the difference between this blind faith and a Creationists blind faith that some magical superbeing created the world 6,000 years ago with the help of all his little flying angel buddies and Jesus, at the end of the day we are both placing our faith in something that might not exist, the honesty of humanity and a god.

It doesn't take "blind faith" to believe that antibiotics will cure gonorrhea, or that germs cause disease. Whether or not there is "absolute proof" for anything does not change the fact that believing getting a penicillin shot is better than not getting one when faced with gonorrhea, is not a matter of having "blind faith" in the powers of penicillin. However, believing that penicillin causes gonorrhea would take mountains of faith, because it contradicts all evidence to the contrary, as does believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old.



quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

Of course the two ideas aren't equal in terms of common sense but then again the chances of life having started on earth with Abiogenisis are enormously small, so it may be argued that by believing in it we ourselves are defying common sense.

Not only is that not necessarily true, but it doesn't really matter. The chances of you existing, instead of a person made from one of your father's other millions of sperm cells is rather small, but it would be rather ridiculous to think that it defies common sense that you actually exist after the fact, wouldn't it?



quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

The simple reasons I choose not to place faith in the existence of a god are that A: I don't feel the need to.

When do you find a need to have blind faith?



quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

and B: I think belief in a god belittles human achievement, nothing more.

How so? We are no more responsible for our existence whether we evolved without a god or were created by one.

You choose what to believe or disbelieve in based upon what makes you feel better?



quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

Which all still boils down to opinion. Now can you tell me honestly that what you believe about theology and the origin of life doesn't boil down to opinion eventually?

Having opinions based upon evidence does not equal blind faith.

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

When Newton discovered gravity, did he make an observation, draw a hypothesis, conduct experiments and then validate his claims via results, no, he got hit in the head by a fucking apple and then told everyone what they knew already.

The apple thing is a myth. And yes, he did. He wrote a gigantic book, countless equations, and innumerable essays on it all. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote:Now can you point out to me what the difference between this blind faith and a Creationists blind faith that some magical superbeing created the world 6,000 years ago with the help of all his little flying angel buddies and Jesus, at the end of the day we are both placing our faith in something that might not exist, the honesty of humanity and a god.

Yes, that's true. You might not exist. You're just a figment of my imagination. The difference is in the likelihood. It could be that little invisible green men are actually lifting this can of soda to my mouth, but it's much simpler to believe that I'm lifting it. All evidence points to that conclusion, and while it may be fabricated there's absolutely no reason to believe so.

Your first post is completely ridiculous, as well. The assumptions you choose for each side seem to be random, and aren't what I'd say are the actual axioms each side is operating from. For instance, you have a three-point explanation of the big bang and a one-point explanation of creaton. Why is "God created the universe" any more of a simpler assumption than "the big bang happened"? Why does God get one phrase and the big bang three?

Another example: We can delete these two

quote:1. That there was nothing in existence.

2. That the fact that nothing existed meant that the laws of the universe as we understand them did not exist.

because they don't fit. Maybe there was a law governing what happened, and the singularity is due to it. Maybe there was an entire universe that OUR universe destroyed. The following two

quote:3. That because there was no law governing what could and couldn't happen, a random event occured, a singularity appeared.

4. The singularity contained all matter within the universe as we know it.

are a single assumption, as well - or they could be four:

quote:3. That because there was no law governing what could and couldn't happen, a random event occurred.

4. This random event was a singularity.

5. The singularity contained matter.

6. The singularity contained ALL the matter within the universe as we know it.

You see what I mean now? Alternately, we could go to the theist side. (Note that your assumption "2. God wanted to create a universe very slowly" can be abused to a great extent, because it's really not a separate or needed assumption):

quote:1: All current scientific knowledge is wrong.

2. God exists.

3. God is able to create a world.

4. God wanted to create the world.

5. God created the world.

6. There was nothing in existence before God created the world

7. So no natural laws were in existance and God could make them whatever he wanted.

8. God wanted to make the laws as they are.

9. God created the laws as they are.

10. God wanted make the scientists look like they were right.

11. God made the scientists look like they were right.

Etc. You can make it as long or short as you want - not because Occam's Razor is flawed, but because the system of numbering assumptions that you used is, I think, very flawed.



[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 01-04-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Yes, that's true. You might not exist. You're just a figment of my imagination. The difference is in the likelihood. It could be that little invisible green men are actually lifting this can of soda to my mouth, but it's much simpler to believe that I'm lifting it. All evidence points to that conclusion, and while it may be fabricated there's absolutely no reason to believe so.

Can you calculate the likelihood of something without using past experience as evidence?

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

Uhuh.. and since you have asked me to offer proof that you just used an analogy to argue a point, can I just ask you whether you can prove that this was a false sense of disdain?

You can. Can I provide proof? No. However, the only alternative I see is not much better, as it would entail you actually showing disdain for an erroneous assumption you made (i.e that I was saying they were equal when I did nothing of the sort).

quote:

Well, don't keep me in suspense here, who did invent this concept?

I don't know of a clear-cut "inventor", as is the case with philosophical concepts such as this. But even Aristotle spoke of the preference for parsimony.

"the more perfect a nature is the fewer means it requires for its operation"

-- Aristotle.

If I'm not mistaken, Ockam even cited Aristotle in his works.

quote:

Now can you point out to me what the difference between this blind faith and a Creationists blind faith that some magical superbeing created the world 6,000 years ago with the help of all his little flying angel buddies and Jesus, at the end of the day we are both placing our faith in something that might not exist, the honesty of humanity and a god.



I don't have to point out a difference, you have to point out equality. You have to show that there is no difference. You talk about "creationist tactics" yet you apparently see no problem with trying to escape your burden of proof by attempting to pin one on me.

quote:

If you don't believe the two concepts are equals, 1. Why did you make the analogy in the first place?

I already explained this to you numerous times in this thread:

"Your position necessitates that a relativist position so extreme that it would consider the scientific method to be metaphysically equal to simply saying that the scientific method is wrong. I provided a scenario where mathematics themselves would be thought as "self-evidently wrong" in the hopes that you'd understand how foolish that claim would be, and then see similar foolishness in your position."

quote:

2. Why did you confidently state that my position was foolish just there with no proof save an unrelated analogy?

I confidently stated it was foolish because that's my confident opinion of what you've said. Do you expect me to say it without confidence? Does the confidence I used pose a problem for you? How did you even know I said it with confidence in the first place?

I believe it's foolish; I used an analogy in the hopes that you would also see that it is foolish. Apparently you did not; it seems I failed.

quote:

This can be summed up into only one assumption, the assumption of omnipresence, and doesn't have to include anything else.

That's not one assumption as that would entail an omnipresent being that evades all available methods of identification. What you are doing is mixing a bunch of different assumptions into one sentence and then acting as if it was one assumption.

quote:

So here we have another choice, which assumption would you rather believe; that our scientific knowledge is correct, our scientists not extremely biased and that our methods of testing accurate; or that there is an extremely powerful, omnipresent invisible superbeing. Of course the two ideas aren't equal in terms of common sense but then again the chances of life having started on earth with Abiogenisis are enormously small, so it may be argued that by believing in it we ourselves are defying common sense.

So they are equal... just "not equal in common sense"? It seems not even you yourself can say that they are equal with a straight face.

quote: Now can you tell me honestly that what you believe about theology and the origin of life doesn't boil down to opinion eventually?



You're trying to make this into a trial of my views when this thread has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe. It has to do with your claim. Your statements don't magically become true just because I do or do not believe a certain thing.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-05-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

Hold on a minute, why would gravitational distortions produce consistent results?

You will have to ask Hawkings that, apparently he and Penrose were responsible for "the theorems that proved singularities appear".

quote:... having changed my mind, I ma now trying to convince other physicists that there was no singularity at the beginning of the universe - as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account A Brief History of Time. P.54.

Still it seems you are avoiding the main question, that is how can there be nothiing? And how could something come from nothing? This was I thought the main thrust of this thread that is that Occam's razor says the simplest expalnation is most likely the best, and surely the simplest explanation is the universe or more correctly, existence has always existed. There cannot be nothing, non-existence, so there must be something and there is! Energy is eternal it cannot be created, nor can it be destroyed.

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Double posting

[This message has been edited by redzed (edited 01-05-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

So they are equal... just "not equal in common sense"? It seems not even you yourself can say that they are equal with a straight face.

What I mean is that to us they are not equal in terms of common sense. To a creationist the choice would be more like between believing nasty sinful humans, or believing the perfect sinless Jesus. Basically what happened here is that I let my own opinions get in the way of this particular line of thinking, a fundamental flaw when you're trying to play devil's advocate.

quote:That's not one assumption as that would entail an omnipresent being that evades all available methods of identification. What you are doing is mixing a bunch of different assumptions into one sentence and then acting as if it was one assumption.

Two assumptions, actually, one that the being is omnipresent and two that it is extremely powerful, the whole extremely powerful bit covers everything else.

Now that everything else you've said just boils down to opinion, except that interesting little factoid about Aristotle. I've decided that I don't need to answer anything else. So here's Boney M:

Brown girl in the ring

Tra la la la la

There's a brown girl in the ring

Tra la la la la la

Brown girl in the ring

Tra la la la la

She looks like a sugar in a plum

Plum plum

Show me your motion

Tra la la la la

Come on show me your motion

Tra la la la la la

Show me your motion

Tra la la la la

She looks like a sugar in a plum

Plum plum

All had water run dry

Got nowhere to wash my cloths

All had water run dry

Got nowhere to wash my cloths

I remember one Saturday night

We had fried fish and Johnny-cakes

I remember one Saturday night

We had fried fish and Johnny-cakes

Beng-a-deng

Beng-a-deng

Brown girl in the ring

Tra la la la la

There's a brown girl in the ring

Tra la la la la la

Brown girl in the ring

Tra la la la la

She looks like a sugar in a plum

Plum plum

Show me your motion

Tra la la la la

Come on show me your motion

Tra la la la la la

Show me your motion

Tra la la la la

She looks like a sugar in a plum

Plum plum

All had water run dry

Got nowhere to wash my cloths

All had water run dry

Got nowhere to wash my cloths

I remember one Saturday night

We had fried fish and Johnny-cakes

I remember one Saturday night

We had fried fish and Johnny-cakes

Beng-a-deng

Beng-a-deng

Brown girl in the ring

Tra la la la la

See, brown girl in the ring

Tra la la la la la

Brown girl in the ring

Tra la la la la

She looks like a sugar in a plum

Plum plum

All had water run dry

Got nowhere to wash my cloths

All had water run dry

Got nowhere to wash my cloths

Brown girl in the ring

Tra la la la la

Look that brown girl in the ring

Tra la la la la la

Brown girl in the ring

Tra la la la la

She looks like a sugar in a plum

Plum plum

[This message has been edited by jb_mcbean (edited 01-06-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

You will have to ask Hawkings that, apparently he and Penrose were responsible for "the theorems that proved singularities appear".

... having changed my mind, I ma now trying to convince other physicists that there was no singularity at the beginning of the universe - as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account- A Brief History of Time. P.54.

Still it seems you are avoiding the main question, that is how can there be nothiing? And how could something come from nothing? This was I thought the main thrust of this thread that is that Occam's razor says the simplest expalnation is most likely the best, and surely the simplest explanation is the universe or more correctly, existence has always existed. There cannot be nothing, non-existence, so there must be something and there is! Energy is eternal it cannot be created, nor can it be destroyed.

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

It's not that there can be nothing, it's that nothing exists outside of the universe. The idea of a universe in which inconsistent gravitational distortions produce consistent results which leads nearly every scientist to mistakenly believe that the universe is expanding at a constant rate, is to me far more preposterous than the belief that something could come from nothing.

Edit- how much better does that look in italics eh?



[This message has been edited by jb_mcbean (edited 01-05-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

[B]How so?



Please don't ask me that, I don't actually believe that shit I was just playing devil's advocate for some reason. So any argument I could produce in that statements favour would probably be flawed by my own personal bias. The point I was making is that those would be the assumptions you would have to make if you were to actually believe in the tennets of fundamentalist creationism.

quote:Really? I wasn't aware that everyone already knew that all objects with mass also had gravity. Or that that the Earth's gravity keeps the moon in orbit. Or that all of the planets were held in orbit due to the Sun's gravity, which was a revolutionary idea, and on and on and on. I guess Newton's 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' was just a book filled with common knowledge.

Meh, I guess I was being a bit harsh there, what I should have said is that he expande on what was in fact common knowledge.

quote:He yelled "Eureka", after having a thought and then conducted experiments. What's your point?

So you know Archimedes then? Have you spoken to him personally? I take it you're now going to provide proof that he actually experimented after doing this. Oh wait.

quote:Are you saying that because there isn't "absolute proof" for anything, that it takes blind faith to believe that objects with mass have gravity?

No, I'm saying it takes some degree of faith.

quote:It takes blind faith to believe that if an object containing a certain volume is placed in a full bathtub, an equal volume of water will flow out of the tub because every time this has been done before, the same results occurring may have just been coincidences and there isn't "absolute proof" for anything?

For the first point, again, not blind faith, some degree of faith, for the second point, yes I'm saying exactly that.

quote:It doesn't take "blind faith" to believe that antibiotics will cure gonorrhea, or that germs cause disease.

It doesn't take blind faith because the people giving you the antibiotics are honest about the success rate, and that the scientists doing the testing of the germs have produced some degree of consistent results, but yet it still requires some degree of faith because there is still no absolute proof.

quote:Whether or not there is "absolute proof" for anything does not change the fact that believing getting a penicillin shot is better than not getting one when faced with gonorrhea, is not a matter of having "blind faith" in the powers of penicillin.

That all depends on the circumstance doesn't it? I mean maybe the patient is allergic to penicillin, they don't know that, so they're putting their faith in the hope that their face won't swell up to the size of a balloon.

quote:However, believing that penicillin causes gonorrhea would take mountains of faith, because it contradicts all evidence to the contrary, as does believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

I am not going to answer this as I have already stated that I think analogous arguments are dishonest, and you just used one there.

quote:Not only is that not necessarily true, but it doesn't really matter. The chances of you existing, instead of a person made from one of your father's other millions of sperm cells is rather small, but it would be rather ridiculous to think that it defies common sense that you actually exist after the fact, wouldn't it?

Again, analogy. But anyway the fact is that there was still a chance, still odds, and I'm afraid that if you come to a bookmakers in Britain they're still offering odds on the earth being 6,000 years old and created by god.

quote:When do you find a need to have blind faith?

That one day humanity will progress beyond war and suffering, that we will pool our resources to fight famine and disease. There's probably a lot more blind faith in that than in the existence of God, but I'm not here to discuss that.

quote:How so? We are no more responsible for our existence whether we evolved without a god or were created by one.

OK so someone saying, "Oh, that was God that built the pyramids" "God cured cancer" "God invented democracy" "God launched sputnik and Yuri Gagarin and Neil Armstrong out of the confines of his planet" doesn't bother you at all? Well that's personal opinion so I'm not going to argue but I think it's wrong nonetheless.

quote:You choose what to believe or disbelieve in based upon what makes you feel better?

Probably.

quote:Having opinions based upon evidence does not equal blind faith.

It equals faith in the evidence.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



The apple thing is a myth. And yes, he did. He wrote a gigantic book, countless equations, and innumerable essays on it all. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)



Yes, that's true. You might not exist. You're just a figment of my imagination. The difference is in the likelihood. It could be that little invisible green men are actually lifting this can of soda to my mouth, but it's much simpler to believe that I'm lifting it. All evidence points to that conclusion, and while it may be fabricated there's absolutely no reason to believe so.

Your first post is completely ridiculous, as well. The assumptions you choose for each side seem to be random, and aren't what I'd say are the actual axioms each side is operating from. For instance, you have a three-point explanation of the big bang and a one-point explanation of creaton. Why is "God created the universe" any more of a simpler assumption than "the big bang happened"? Why does God get one phrase and the big bang three?

Another example: We can delete these two



because they don't fit. Maybe there was a law governing what happened, and the singularity is due to it. Maybe there was an entire universe that OUR universe destroyed. The following two



are a single assumption, as well - or they could be four:



Etc. You can make it as long or short as you want - not because Occam's Razor is flawed, but because the system of numbering assumptions that you used is, I think, very flawed.



Meh, some of what you have said I agree with, some I do not. I'm going to leave it at that because my concentration on this debate is slipping and I really cannot be arsed continuing to expand on what are essentially the same ideas for the benefit of yet another person.

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

Please don't ask me that, I don't actually believe that shit I was just playing devil's advocate for some reason.

Terrific. So you were just trolling for some reason. Thanks for the waste of time.

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

Meh, I guess I was being a bit harsh there, what I should have said is that he expande on what was in fact common knowledge.

I guess you can say that about anything. Kind of ironic that you later spoke of belittling human achievement.





quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

So you know Archimedes then? Have you spoken to him personally? I take it you're now going to provide proof that he actually experimented after doing this. Oh wait.

Would you like me to?



quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

It doesn't take blind faith because the people giving you the antibiotics are honest about the success rate, and that the scientists doing the testing of the germs have produced some degree of consistent results, but yet it still requires some degree of faith because there is still no absolute proof.

It doesn't take any faith. If I go to the doctor's office with gonorrhea, I don't need faith that penicillin will cure me to feel confident that I will get better, even though there are no guarantees. Faith is belief without evidence. The high success rate is enough reason for me to feel confident without knowing it will work; it's not faith giving me confidence. I have zero faith that an airplane will not fall on top of my house today, but I'm not worried about it happening because the odds of it seem pretty low to me.

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

That all depends on the circumstance doesn't it? I mean maybe the patient is allergic to penicillin, they don't know that, so they're putting their faith in the hope that their face won't swell up to the size of a balloon.

Doctors don't treat people based on faith; they do so on evidence. While they are aware that some treatments may kill rather than cure; the treatment is given anyway when the odds of success outweigh the odds of failure. No faith needed.



quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

OK so someone saying, "Oh, that was God that built the pyramids" "God cured cancer" "God invented democracy" "God launched sputnik and Yuri Gagarin and Neil Armstrong out of the confines of his planet" doesn't bother you at all? Well that's personal opinion so I'm not going to argue but I think it's wrong nonetheless.

You said that one of the two reasons you don't believe in God is because it belittles human achievement. Since when does belief in a creator require believing that He built the pyramids, He launched sputnik, etc.?

quote:You choose what to believe or disbelieve in based upon what makes you feel better?

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

Probably.

Wow.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

[b]

Terrific. So you were just trolling for some reason. Thanks for the waste of time.



Not trolling, just seeing how the other end of the argument could pan out. But to be a fundamentalist christian you would have to believe that Geology and Palaeontology were wrong.

quote:I guess you can say that about anything. Kind of ironic that you later spoke of belittling human achievement.

I suppose you're right, anyway I just don't think Sir Isaac Newton was the most important physicist who ever lived.



quote:Would you like me to?

Why not, what else will I be doing?



quote:It doesn't take any faith. If I go to the doctor's office with gonorrhea, I don't need faith that penicillin will cure me to feel confident that I will get better, even though there are no guarantees. Faith is belief without evidence. The high success rate is enough reason for me to feel confident without knowing it will work; it's not faith giving me confidence. I have zero faith that an airplane will not fall on top of my house today, but I'm not worried about it happening because the odds of it seem pretty low to me.

And yet when people go onto operating tables for minor surgery with extremely low mortality rates they still are nervous, sometimes even scared.

quote:Doctors don't treat people based on faith; they do so on evidence. While they are aware that some treatments may kill rather than cure; the treatment is given anyway when the odds of success outweigh the odds of failure. No faith needed.

But they still need faith in their evidence and faith that their own actions are the right ones.



quote:You said that one of the two reasons you don't believe in God is because it belittles human achievement. Since when does belief in a creator require believing that He built the pyramids, He launched sputnik, etc.?To believe in god means you belive humanity was god's achievement, so humanities achievements are ultimately god's achievement.





[This message has been edited by jb_mcbean (edited 01-05-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

Not trolling, just seeing how the other end of the argument could pan out. But to be a fundamentalist christian you would have to believe that Geology and Palaeontology were wrong.

If you don't actually believe that "Palaeontology and Geology are wrong", why do you need to see how the other end of the argument pans out from someone else's point of view? Don't you have your own?

If you have questions about Geology and Palaeontology, ask. Pretending that you believe they are flawed sciences, possibly causing someone to waste time arguing for them, is trolling.

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

I suppose you're right, anyway I just don't think Sir Isaac Newton was the most important physicist who ever lived.

If that was your point, you could have merely said so. What you did say was "When Newton discovered gravity, did he make an observation, draw a hypothesis, conduct experiments and then validate his claims via results, no, he got hit in the head by a fucking apple and then told everyone what they knew already." which severely minimizes some revolutionary achievements by a man that will be long remembered after you and I are forgotten.



quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

Why not, what else will I be doing?

If you truly believe that Archimedes didn't do experiments that validated his hypotheses on water displacement, and you're incapable of doing a quick Google search, I'll post some cites for you. Otherwise, don't waste my time.

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

And yet when people go onto operating tables for minor surgery with extremely low mortality rates they still are nervous, sometimes even scared.

So? Some people are afraid of surgery, even when told it's routine and relatively minor. Is this supposed to be evidence that faith is needed in science?

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

But they still need faith in their evidence and faith that their own actions are the right ones.



With verified success rates, giving someone with gonorrhea a penicillin shot has been proven to be the best action, whether or not there is absolute proof for anything. It also doesn't matter if the evidence shows that penicillin will kill 1% of patients. Doctors don't need faith that a particular patient will not be killed by the treatment; they are fully aware that it is possible. All they need to know is that the rewards of the shot outweigh the risks of not getting one. With evidence, faith can be thrown out the window.

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

What I mean is that to us they are not equal in terms of common sense. To a creationist the choice would be more like between believing nasty sinful humans, or believing the perfect sinless Jesus. Basically what happened here is that I let my own opinions get in the way of this particular line of thinking, a fundamental flaw when you're trying to play devil's advocate.

So then it's the opinion of the creationist that they are equal? So what? His opinion has no bearing on the facts; you must prove that it is a fact that the two are equal in worth. Go ahead.



quote:

Two assumptions, actually, one that the being is omnipresent and two that it is extremely powerful, the whole extremely powerful bit covers everything else.

Actually, not just two assumptions, that's the whole point. You're grouping a whole slew of assumptions and implications into one sentence in an arbitrary manner.

quote:

Now that everything else you've said just boils down to opinion, except that interesting little factoid about Aristotle.

Right, the fact that you've yet to support a single word you've said, and that you have been asking me questions instead of fulfilling your burden of proof, is "opinion"!

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

It's not that there can be nothing, it's that nothing exists outside of the universe. The idea of a universe in which inconsistent gravitational distortions produce consistent results which leads nearly every scientist to mistakenly believe that the universe is expanding at a constant rate, is to me far more preposterous than the belief that something could come from nothing.

Edit- how much better does that look in italics eh?



How so? The speculative theories as to how or why it appears so, are still being tested. It's not like it's written in stone. It's science, we develop a theory see how it compares to 'reality' and whether it helps us make accurate predictions and observations. The point is, according to Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is most likely the correct explanation. The simplest answer to existence is there cannot be nothing, whether inside or outside the universe.

That means if we at least start from a logical premise, whatever happened whether it is the curvature of space and time or the expanding universe from a big bang, we are more likely to find truth than to entertain nonsense. If it's a big bang, that means there was something prior to the big bang, that something exploded somehow and matter was formed. The singularity was apparently very tiny and extremely dense, what was it contained in? What surrounded it? What did it expand into? If the answer is nothing then that is a nonsense that no amount of logic and science can explain. If the answer is 'something' then the big bang was simply an effect in the continuum of existence. All very complicated, hard to understand and hard to explain.

Compare that to a simple truth such as there cannot be nothing, therefore existence is the imperative -- there is no option. Starting from that point and developing theories based upon that logical premise, rather than ones that are based on a non-sense, seems more likely to be productive, what do you think? Does it challenge your beliefs so much that you are not able to accept the most simple and most likely explanation?

Nothing comes from nothing, therefore there must have always been something!

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Let me be the first to say M-theory if no one else has.

To the OP:

You seem to be mixing up the "Big Bang theory" and "inflationary model". Keep in mind there's a difference, and that there are a lot of scientifically minded individuals that don't believe the Big Bang is correct. It is, after all, merely an extrapolation, whereas the inflationary theory is based on direct observation.

The cause of this thread is God, the Easter Bunny, and the NWO.

[This message has been edited by Genecks (edited 01-06-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Genecks:

The cause of this thread is God, the Easter Bunny, and the NWO.



By Occam's Razor, you are correct.

It's simply about multiplying causes beyond necessity. Now the real question is how many causes are necessary? What makes something necessary? Is anything in the universe necessary?

I'm pretty sure a lot of these things are wants. These wants are pragmatic. Therefore, God, the Easter Bunny, and the NWO could be the cause of this thread.

Occam's Razor doesn't make a definite statement. It just points to a more likely answer. i.e.

Dad found out that the bottle of whiskey has been emptied while only his 15 year old son was at home

Scenario I

The son drank the whiskey

Scenario II

The son went out to play basketball, a thief came into the house and decided he could get a drink. He started drinking the whiskey when the son came home and the thief, hearing the noise, escaped from the back door.

Occam's razor dictates scenario I is MORE LIKELY to be true, but it doesn't mean that Scenario II is definitely false.

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

occams razor doesnt work for multiple choice tests. Its usually the longer more detailed answer that is correct.

i dont know why this made me think of that

wrong



its usualy the middle answer that doesn't have lots of extra things put into it

quote:Originally posted by Martini:



If you don't actually believe that "Palaeontology and Geology are wrong", why do you need to see how the other end of the argument pans out from someone else's point of view? Don't you have your own?

If you have questions about



Basically, if you were so lazy to not read over the thread in the first fucking place then accuse me of being a troll when you fuck up, then it is you who is the troll.

quote:If that was your point, you could have merely said so. What you did say was "When Newton discovered gravity, did he make an observation, draw a hypothesis, conduct experiments and then validate his claims via results, no, he got hit in the head by a fucking apple and then told everyone what they knew already." which severely minimizes some revolutionary achievements by a man that will be long remembered after you and I are forgotten.

I'm sorry that I insulted him, is that better? Are you going to stop crying now?

quote:If you truly believe that Archimedes didn't do experiments that validated his hypotheses on water displacement, and you're incapable of doing a quick Google search, I'll post some cites for you. Otherwise, don't waste my time.

I did do a quick google search.

enlighten me.

quote:So? Some people are afraid of surgery, even when told it's routine and relatively minor. Is this supposed to be evidence that faith is needed in science?

So basically what you are saying is that when you post an analogy in place of a structured coherent argument, it's valid proof; but when I post one supporting the other end then it doesn't prove anything, I see, it all makes sense now.

quote:With verified success rates, giving someone with gonorrhea a penicillin shot has been proven to be the best action, whether or not there is absolute proof for anything. It also doesn't matter if the evidence shows that penicillin will kill 1% of patients. Doctors don't need faith that a particular patient will not be killed by the treatment; they are fully aware that it is possible. All they need to know is that the rewards of the shot outweigh the risks of not getting one. With evidence, faith can be thrown out the window.

Irrelevant. You have failed to prove anything except that statistically gonorrhea sufferers have marginally less to worry about than they did before 1928. Now either create a structured logical argument or stop wasting my time.

[This message has been edited by jb_mcbean (edited 01-06-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

So then it's the opinion of the creationist that they are equal? So what? His opinion has no bearing on the facts; you must prove that it is a fact that the two are equal in worth. Go ahead.

Since when is the burden of proof on me? Why don't you prove without a shred of doubt that the earth is 4.55 billion years old, even give or take 1%?

Can you prove that the Creationist is wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt? Can you prove that scientists are any more trustworthy than Jesus?

quote:Actually, not just two assumptions, that's the whole point. You're grouping a whole slew of assumptions and implications into one sentence in an arbitrary manner. It's your opinion that there are more than two assumptions, you see the opposing side of the argument can always see more in their opponents argument, so again, opinion.

quote:Right, the fact that you've yet to support a single word you've said, and that you have been asking me questions instead of fulfilling your burden of proof, is "opinion"!

Yes actually, I have provided what any reasonable person would count as proof, whereas in your opinion, it's not good enough.

Not a Boney M fan I take it?





[This message has been edited by jb_mcbean (edited 01-06-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

Basically, if you were so lazy to not read over the thread in the first fucking place then accuse me of being a troll when you fuck up, then it is you who is the troll.

If you claimed somewhere in the thread that you were playing devil's advocate and didn't mean what you're saying, then I missed it. Where did you do this?

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

[QUOTE]I'm sorry that I insulted him, is that better? Are you going to stop crying now?

It's not the fact that you insulted him. It's about your claim that Newton merely expounded upon what everyone already knew. That's beyond ignorant.



quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

I did do a quick google search.

enlighten me.

Are you fucking kidding me? You need help finding something on the internet that your average third grader can find in seconds?



quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

So basically what you are saying is that when you post an analogy in place of a structured coherent argument, it's valid proof; but when I post one supporting the other end then it doesn't prove anything, I see, it all makes sense now.

I'm not saying that at all. I didn't use any analogies. Neither did you. You stated that that people get surgery and are nervous even when told the surgery is minor. What point are you trying to make?



quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

Irrelevant. You have failed to prove anything except that statistically gonorrhea sufferers have marginally less to worry about than they did before 1928. Now either create a structured logical argument or stop wasting my time.

Gonorrhea sufferers have marginally less to worry about than they did before 1928? You're showing your ignorance again.

You are the one failing to make a valid argument that faith is needed in science. I have shown you an excellent example of how faith is not needed when treating patients, and you spout some bullshit that they still need faith in their evidence. If your brain is so dull that it can not comprehend that faith is belief without evidence, you're hopeless.

You seem to have this idea that if a doctor treats a patient without absolute certainty that the outcome will be successful, then faith is involved. I don't know how else to prove to you that this isn't true, other than what I already wrote.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

[QUOTE]

If you claimed somewhere in the thread that you were playing devil's advocate and didn't mean what you're saying, then I missed it. Where did you do this?

At the opening post of the thread I clearly stated that I am an atheist, whilst I was in the process of debating with Rust I stated several times that although I agreed (this being the key word here) with him it could be argued that...



quote:

Are you fucking kidding me? You need help finding something on the internet that your average third grader can find in seconds?

Stop fucking around and post the damn information.

quote:I'm not saying that at all. I didn't use any analogies. Neither did you. You stated that that people get surgery and are nervous even when told the surgery is minor. What point are you trying to make?

Yes you did, and yes I did, whether in peoples opinions something is safe or whether they are nervous about it is irrelevant to the fact that they might not be. Statistics do not represent absolute proof. What you did is show an example of how most people invest their faith into one particular branch of science, called it a perfect example of how faith isn't needed in science and glazed over the fact that it was an analogy in the first place.



quote:Gonorrhea sufferers have marginally less to worry about than they did before 1928? You're showing your ignorance again.

You are the one failing to make a valid argument that faith is needed in science. I have shown you an excellent example of how faith is not needed when treating patients, and you spout some bullshit that they still need faith in their evidence. If your brain is so dull that it can not comprehend that faith is belief without evidence, you're hopeless.

You seem to have this idea that if a doctor treats a patient without absolute certainty that the outcome will be successful, then faith is involved. I don't know how else to prove to you that this isn't true, other than what I already wrote.

That's because there is no proof. What you have provided isn't an example of anything, deal with it and move on.

Edit- also, your definition of faith is wrong.





[This message has been edited by jb_mcbean (edited 01-06-2007).]

After all this arguing, now you're going to tell me that you have some different definition of "faith"? Nah, you're not a troll.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

After all this arguing, now you're going to tell me that you have some different definition of "faith"? Nah, you're not a troll.

What you said was "blind faith", and whilst I'm not going to disagree with you that Christians have blind faith (although my opinion is biased here and a Christian may disagree with you) I refrained from using the term "blind faith" in any of those comments. Blind faith is faith without evidence, faith is simply belief or trust. To believe in one aspect of science strongly, one must have faith in the evidence and faith in the evidence that supports the evidence, etc, etc.

If blind faith is belief without evidence, you can't say that faith is merely belief, if you wanted to differentiate the two. You would have to say that faith is then belief with evidence, which would be incorrect.

Blind faith is a redundancy. Faith is blind by definition. Belief with evidence is 'knowledge', not 'faith'.

I disagree. I think belief built upon evidence can still be called faith, as people have different ideas as to what can be deemed "evidence." But real faith doesn't need to have evidence anyway (and can still lack the term "blind").

Also, I don't feel theists have this blind faith. Rather, blind faith is, to me, more along the lines of what cult members feel towards their leader. Their physical leader, who tells them what they want to hear, who makes them feel content. Who leads them to whatever he feels, because they're hanging on to his every word.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

I disagree. I think belief built upon evidence can still be called faith, as people have different ideas as to what can be deemed "evidence."

People having different ideas as to what is deemed evidence matters not one bit when separating belief based upon knowledge and faith.

If you see someone leaving a store with an item and you believe he is a thief, your belief is based upon knowledge, not faith. Will someone else think your evidence is lacking to draw such a conclusion? Sure. Do you have "absolute proof" that he is a thief? Of course not. Do you have to be "absolutely" convinced that he is a thief? No. The fact remains, your belief that you have discovered a thief is solely based upon evidence and zero faith.

"Absolute proof" "absolute belief" and "absolute evidence" need not exist to have beliefs based upon evidence and not one bit of faith.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

I disagree. I think belief built upon evidence can still be called faith, as people have different ideas as to what can be deemed "evidence."

People having different ideas as to what is deemed evidence matters not one bit when separating belief based upon knowledge and faith.

If you see someone leaving a store with an item and you believe he is a thief, your belief is based upon knowledge, not faith. Will someone else think your evidence is lacking to draw such a conclusion? Sure. Do you have "absolute proof" that he is a thief? Of course not. Do you have to be "absolutely" convinced that he is a thief? No. The fact remains, your belief that you have discovered a thief is solely based upon evidence and zero faith.

"Absolute proof" "absolute belief" and "absolute evidence" need not exist to have beliefs based on knowledge and not faith.





What evidence are you referring to in order to believe this man is a theif, for you gave none... the mere fact he had an item?

Like I said, people have different ideas of what evidence is. Just as you can say "He has something, therefore, he is a thief," so could someone else, exclaim "I prayed for this to happen, and it did, so my prayer to the Lord worked, and in effect, there is a God."

I could claim my evidence is sufficient to claim there's a God. But others might not see it the same way, as in, they won't see it as evidence pointing to the same conclusion.

See what I meant?

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

What evidence are you referring to in order to believe this man is a theif, for you gave none... the mere fact he had an item?

I did give some. He walked out of the store with an item without paying for it. Whether or not everyone agrees that that evidence is sufficient (it might have been his item to begin with) is irrelevant. That belief would be based solely upon evidence, taking faith out of the equation.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Like I said, people have different ideas of what evidence is. Just as you can say "He has something, therefore, he is a thief," so could someone else, exclaim "I prayed for this to happen, and it did, so my prayer to the Lord worked, and in effect, there is a God."

I could claim my evidence is sufficient to claim there's a God. But others might not see it the same way, as in, they won't see it as evidence pointing to the same conclusion.

See what I meant?

Whether or not others agree that there is sufficient evidence for something matters not one bit. Does the entire world have to agree that there is enough evidence that the Earth is a sphere, in order for us to claim that we have knowledge that it is?



It's unlikely that someone without faith would be praying in the first place, but if they did so as a test, and the probability of the prayers coming to fruition were unlikely enough for the person praying to believe in His existence, then yes, his belief is based solely upon evidence (belief based upon evidence = knowledge), and zero faith.

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:



Since when is the burden of proof on me?

Since you opened your mouth to claim that Occam's Razor supported the "fundamentalist" position... as well as all the slew of claims you made along the way.

quote:Why don't you prove without a shred of doubt that the earth is 4.55 billion years old, even give or take 1%?

Can you prove that the Creationist is wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt? Can you prove that scientists are any more trustworthy than Jesus?

Whether I can show a difference in the two positions or not does not mean the two are equal. You don't make your burden of proof because I failed to answer these desperate questions of yours.

quote: It's your opinion that there are more than two assumptions, you see the opposing side of the argument can always see more in their opponents argument, so again, opinion.



You mean, just like it was your opinion that the fundamentalist position makes less assumptions? Great. You just keep showing how silly your argument is with each post of yours.

quote:

Yes actually, I have provided what any reasonable person would count as proof, whereas in your opinion, it's not good enough.

Unless you think that a reasonable person would count your baseless statements as "proof" then you've done nothing of the sort.

You've yet to show how the two positions are equal, which is at the center of your argument.

quote:

Not a Boney M fan I take it?

Not a fan of shitty attempts at humor in general.



---

Look, this thread is a monumental disgrace and you know it... You thought you'd enlightened the regulars to the correct use of Occam's Razor and it's painfully obvious that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Do yourself a favor and stop making things worse.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-07-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Not a fan of shitty attempts at humor in general.



---

Look, this thread is a monumental disgrace and you know it... You thought you'd enlightened the regulars to the correct use of Occam's Razor and it's painfully obvious that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Do yourself a favor and stop making things worse.



No, the point is there is no correct use, if you can't answer these "desperate" questions it seems to me that you have failed to prove that I am wrong. Now if I can't prove that you are wrong then technically that does mean that the two positions are equal.

Perhaps Occam's Razor doesn't support the fundamentalist position, perhaps it does not that was not the point of this thread, the point was to show that Occam's Razor can be used dishonestly and definitely cannot be relied on as integral evidence.

quote:You mean, just like it was your opinion that the fundamentalist position makes less assumptions? Great. You just keep showing how silly your argument is with each post of yours.

I never once stated that that was in fact my opinion, all I did was try to provide a scenario in which it could be the case, the fact that I failed or succeeded at that in your eyes is of little consequence because the point that Occam's Razor is used in a dishonest and ridiculous way cannot be disproven.

Now, yes every argument is based on opinion, in my opinion, can you prove that isn't the case? Just because this is my opinion doesn't mean it is incorrect, and likewise I don't hope to change everyone elses opinion or assume I am correct.

To be perfectly honest the whole Boney M thing wasn't actually an attempt at humour; it was actually me getting really bored and not being able to think of anything to sum up with so saying the first thing that came into my head. I am really getting very bored of this entire debate and since it seems obvious to me that neither of us are making any headway I would like you to please just admit that you could be right and that I could be right and just move on, if you don't I'll probably not even have the time to thoroughly read your riposte as I have to learn a script just now anyway, just a little forewarning so you don't start bellowing: "He's gone! He didn't even write a reply! Therefore everything he said was a lie!"

I'll probably return to this at some point, but until then I'll leave you with this. (http://www.smickandsmodoo.com/oldcodgers/wemeet.mid)

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

If blind faith is belief without evidence, you can't say that faith is merely belief, if you wanted to differentiate the two. You would have to say that faith is then belief with evidence, which would be incorrect.

Blind faith is a redundancy. Faith is blind by definition. Belief with evidence is 'knowledge', not 'faith'.

I disagree.

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

I disagree.

Well, then how about giving a little clarification?

You say that blind faith is belief without evidence. You then say that faith is merely belief. How else are you distinguishing the two, if you aren't saying one is belief with evidence and the other without?

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

No, the point is there is no correct use, if you can't answer these "desperate" questions it seems to me that you have failed to prove that I am wrong. Now if I can't prove that you are wrong then technically that does mean that the two positions are equal.

You position does not stand because I fail to answer your questions. That's not how things work. You do not "prove" something by disproving something else. You like to talk about "creationist tactics yet that's the prime example of "creationist tactitcs": attacking a position (evolution in their case) as if the failure of that position somehow proved their beliefs. That's not true.

Whether I answer those questions or not, does not mean in any way shape or form that your point is made; hell, it doesn't even mean that I'm wrong - it means I didn't answer your questions.

Either prove that both positions are equals (which apparently you cannot since you've been stalling since you made this silly thread) or do everyone here, including you, a favor and end this shit-fest.

quote:

Perhaps Occam's Razor doesn't support the fundamentalist position, perhaps it does not that was not the point of this thread, the point was to show that Occam's Razor can be used dishonestly and definitely cannot be relied on as integral evidence.

If it cannot be used as evidence, then what the fuck where you doing saying it supported the fundamentalist position? Let me guess, you have a different definition of "support"...

quote:

I never once stated that that was in fact my opinion,

Who said you did? You said that it was my opinion that your statement ('an omnipresent and omnipotent being exists') was more than two assumptions. That applies to your statement that 'the fundamentalist position makes less assumptions', as well. Or is it that your statements are magically facts (even when completely unsubstatnaited as is the case here)?

quote:

all I did was try to provide a scenario in which it could be the case, the fact that I failed or succeeded at that in your eyes is of little consequence because the point that Occam's Razor is used in a dishonest and ridiculous way cannot be disproven.

If you failed, its definately not of little consequence, as it means that you've failed; my whole point. You've failed to prove anything. Your point doesn't "stand".

quote:

To be perfectly honest the whole Boney M thing wasn't actually an attempt at humour; it was actually me getting really bored and not being able to think of anything to sum up with so saying the first thing that came into my head.

Even worse.

quote: I would like you to please just admit that you could be right and that I could be right and just move on,

Have I ever said you couldn't be right? No. I've said that you've failed miserably ad proving your "point" and that you don't know much about Occam's Razor, the very subject you were pretending to enlighten people of! That's it.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-08-2007).]

Isn't the theory just what you said?

a SCIENTIFIC method for determining scientific fact

it is horrendous to think for me that people can make assumptions, especially concerning the question of the universe

we do not nearly have enough evidence to explain anything other than big bag most likely (out of numerous possible theories) happened. period.

You can not apply the scientific method without any base scientific laws/ facts or even just fucking evidence to back it up (which means all you have are assumptions to begin with)

I know I made some contradictory things in there, but oh well I think I made my point clear.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Well, then how about giving a little clarification?

You say that blind faith is belief without evidence. You then say that faith is merely belief. How else are you distinguishing the two, if you aren't saying one is belief with evidence and the other without?

When the term blind faith is used I take it to mean unguided belief, not exactly faith without evidence but a similar definition to me.

[This message has been edited by jb_mcbean (edited 01-08-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Have I ever said you couldn't be right? No. I've said that you've failed miserably ad proving your "point" and that you don't know much about Occam's Razor, the very subject you were pretending to enlighten people of! That's it.



Ok, captain superiority complex, what in my definition of Occam's Razor was wrong, what in my facts about Occam's Razor was wrong?

Basically the way I applied it in the opening post was wrong, in fact; dishonest, so fucking what? This is the internet it's packed full of lies. If you don't like it you're welcome to use a bible class to talk to people in.

Now what do you want for being the first to point it out? A Blue Peter badge? Now I ask you again, prove any assertion I made wrong, in fact prove it all wrong, can you do it? No because there's no proof I'm wrong, there's no solid proof, I could note, that I'm right either but that's not the point. To be quite frank, no one can prove fuck all about the start of the universe whether they use Occam's Razor or not, so asking people to do such a thing is fundamentaly dishonest in itself. I could give you loads of analogies in which Occam's Razor doesn't apply, but none of them equal the start of the universe so it doesn't matter.

You know this is actually the religions section of &totse. People are allowed to philosophise if it's their humour, now either make a valid contribution to this thread by giving your own opinions instead of judging everyone else or just fuck off.

[This message has been edited by jb_mcbean (edited 01-08-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by jb_mcbean:

When the term blind faith is used I take it to mean unguided belief, not exactly faith without evidence but a similar definition to me.

You're once again avoiding to distinguish between the two. It seems you're making shit up as you go along. I give up.