Answers needed

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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.



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.


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).

HA, yes, most likely. But for arguments sake as I'm sure you can understand. OR in the above context is reduced down, but at its heart it still rings true light of the evidence available to us and the conclusions which are logically consistent with it (again, I don't know).

I am always interested in other's thoughts, friend. Do not be afraid to share them. Forums are for discussion, after all.