16 edits
Originally posted by Eladarhow so?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."
If this definition of Occam's razor is true, then you are stuck.
.
You put your faith in one theory over the other.
No faith required; just logic and/or evidence.
It is something that you believe in that can't be proven.
What do I believe in that "can't be proven"?
I have no problem with something that can be demonstrated to be true even if it is simply an unproven theory
That is a self-contradiction.
How can you have a theory "demonstrated to be true" that is "an unproven theory"? If it is demonstrated to be true then that demonstration proves the theory therefore it isn't an unproven theory.
It is interesting that you assert here you "have no problem" with something that is self-contradictory.
But then to jump to other things which are not repeatable,
how is goddidit repeatable? How it God created the universe or the Earth or that being invisible and therefore unobservable ghosts that can float through solid walls etc experimentally repeatable?
In contrast, the laws of physics and many things in the natural world can be observed. Actually, to 'repeat' it isn't scientifically necessary for it to be scientific as long as you can directly or indirectly observe it and it doesn't matter how indirect that observation is.
We cannot make a star explode in an experiment thus it isn't 'repeatable' in that narrow sense and yet via observation it is still a scientific fact that stars can explode.
Only a complete idiot would say that since you believe in gravity you must believe that God does not exist and the super natural does not exist.
Nobody I am aware of, including I, says or believes this. Not sure how 'gravity' relates to this but, with or without the law of gravity, I don't even agree to just "you must believe that God does not exist and the super natural does not exist."
-why this "must"? You can rationally assign a very low probability to it given logic, lack-of-evidence, more logical explanations, etc, just like you can can rationally assign a very low probability to the law of gravity being false given logic, evidence etc, but that probability is still non-zero and there is no "must" believe it is false. Totally rational non-self-contradictory beliefs about the external world (as opposed to those of purely mathematical/deductive truths) are always probabilistic rather than absolute certainties.
You try to play a game. I suppose it is what you do to feel good about your arrogance.
Your position. I just say that we should assume God does not exist that way I can say I do not make an assumption. Excluding God is the non assumption position.
Circular reasoning but fits what I said. Last reply on my part. Until you see it, all attempt at explanation is a waste of time.
2 edits
Originally posted by EladarSo now you saying you don't assume God exists?
I just say that we should assume God does not exist that way I can say I do not make an assumption. Excluding God is the non assumption position.
But then why the
"...Since your beliefs can't explain a universe without beginning or how the universe can begin your belief system has obvious flaws." (your quotes)
?
so the start of the universe cannot be explained without a God? That is what you imply in the above, right? Unless you are saying the tooth fairy did it.
if so, seems you do assume a God exists for you say the beginning of the universe cannot be "explained" without it (as if an unintelligent "Goddidit "explains" it)
Originally posted by EladarI most definitely do not. Although it might be interesting to know what you actually mean by 'supernatural'.
Your beliefs are rooted in axiom that a super natural aspect of reality does not exist.
True we can't test it but does that mean it is not possible?
What we shouldn't do, is believe it until we can test it.
Since your beliefs can't explain a universe without beginning or how the universe can begin your belief system has obvious flaws.
The failure to explain something via 'belief' is not a flaw. It is sanity. Holding a 'belief' which you made up just to 'explain' something is insanity.
You are basically saying that someone who says the universe was farted out of a giant frog has fewer flaws in his belief than someone who says he just doesn't know where the universe came from.
Sorry, but you are just plain wrong.
Originally posted by EladarWhat a crappy thing to say. My mom and sister are Mormons and I can tell you they think of themselves as Christian. Your bias stinks. My bias is I think the whole thing is a scam and I make no bones about it but you are a retard.
Yeah and Mormons think they are Christians. Doesn't really matter what we believe if we are self delusional.
Originally posted by sonhouseAnyone who believes that...
What a crappy thing to say. My mom and sister are Mormons and I can tell you they think of themselves as Christian. Your bias stinks. My bias is I think the whole thing is a scam and I make no bones about it but you are a retard.
God was once a man
A man can become a God of his own world
That Jesus is Satan's brother
Isn't a Christian
2 edits
Originally posted by apathistThe Bible calls Christians to be a bigot when it comes to those who claim to be Christian.
That isn't up to you. Religious Tolerance says that mormons are christians. You exhibit bigotry.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_deno.htm
But hey you can judge me all you like and label me with derogatory terms. Not very tolerant of you. You may want to look in the mirror.
Originally posted by EladarYou are the one dissing a religion. You do realize we have freedom of relgion here in the USA?
The Bible calls Christians to be a bigot when it comes to those who claim to be Christian.
But hey you can judge me all you like and label me with derogatory terms. Not very tolerant of you. You may want to look in the mirror.
Personally, I want freedom FROM religion but that's just me.