RE: Answers needed
June 26, 2015 at 4:22 am
(This post was last modified: June 26, 2015 at 4:24 am by Louis Chérubin.)
(June 26, 2015 at 4:12 am)Pandæmonium Wrote:(June 26, 2015 at 3:51 am)Louis Chérubin Wrote: OK. I may have just learned something new! But doesn't the definition of atheist mean that a god is not an available solution for the origin of the universe?
Not necessarily. Most atheists will agree that if irrefutable evidence (that which stands up to scrutiny and means of duplication) is forwarded, they would believe that a 'god' (however defined, in this context) exists. Worshiping and submission is another matter altogether, but as above, being an atheist doesn't preclude the idea that there could be a god or gods. It's just that, to date, for me personally, no deity thesis ever forwarded has come even anywhere near close to convincing me there might be something to their claims.
(June 26, 2015 at 3:51 am)Louis Chérubin Wrote: Also, did you know that William of Ockham was a Franciscan friar? :-) I would recommend a deeper study of his theology before using him to disprove God. In fact, his razor has been used in certain dark regions of cosmology to support the idea of God. (!?)
Yes, I did. Occam's razor is a famous argument of parsimony in which the easiest/simplest explanation is taken in lieu of other, wooly, tangential explanations that seek the same end. In this case, "The universe exists because of god. God made it come into being" is re-written in light of the evidence as "The Universe exists. It came into being."
His theological disposition is irrelevant in the grander scheme of using it a way to smite the logical fallacies of personal incredulity and argument from ignorance (among others). I'm sure his beliefs were fascinating, but they have no impact on his razor.
(June 26, 2015 at 3:51 am)Louis Chérubin Wrote: I'll forgive your lack of interest in Behe.
Do not confuse my dismissal of the thoroughly debunked Behe as lack of interest. His thesis has been debated for 2 decades since he forwarded it. It's just, at it's heart, it's an argument from personal incredulity. It falls apart because his hypothesis is "this is complicated therefore god", when really, even if we take that as given, and that we agree a 'god' created it, that still doesn't give us an answer as to how x or y was created, what systems were involved, or a methodology. It forces us to accept and believe a non-answer as an answer.
OK. Thanks for your thoughts. Obviously you feel that scientific evidence supports a naturalistic explanation. I would share my interpretation of evidence, but I know you're heard it before. I'll go search other threads for your wisdom.
Don't you think you've created a tautology with your revised razor? Maybe you've oversimplified it (pun intended).
(June 26, 2015 at 4:07 am)paulpablo Wrote:(June 26, 2015 at 3:51 am)Louis Chérubin Wrote: OK. I may have just learned something new! But doesn't the definition of atheist mean that a god is not an available solution for the origin of the universe? Also, did you know that William of Ockham was a Franciscan friar? :-) I would recommend a deeper study of his theology before using him to disprove God. In fact, his razor has been used in certain dark regions of cosmology to support the idea of God. (!?)
I'll forgive your lack of interest in Behe.
Thanks for the advice. It is a novel experience for me. btw. Have you actually read Pascal for yourself? As you know, many things get lost in transmission. And besides, he is more complex than just his "wager argument."
Paulpablo,
Why don't you use the inductive approach like you do for the building jumper? The Christians you know don't have an appropriate fear of God, so they must not really believe what the Bible says.
I think they have an apropriate fear of god (none at all) but an inapropriate fear of admitting to themselves/others that they don't believe the bible/quran.
Which means you can ignore their behaviour . . . ?
