Sorry to lose you, Coffee. I hope your decision makes you happy, but I can't support you in it.
*cracks knuckles*
I'm sure you're familiar with the name William of Occam, the man who codified the logical (READ: common sense) principal of Occam's Razor. This sadly misunderstood piece of reasoning is quite simple and goes a little something like this:
Keep it simple, stupid!
To elaborate, it's an arguement against redundancy. When confronted with two (or more) competing ideas, the idea that involves the least amount of redundancy is superior.
To illustrate:
I have a theory that explains the nature of my shoe-laces. It's 20 pages of equations that eventually tell me just how long my laces are. It's a bit tedious, but it works and is quite accurate.
But wait! My best friend suddenly appears with another theory about my shoe-laces, which explains their length in a single line. We furiously compare results and we find that they are identical.
Which theory is superior? Mine, with 20 pages of redundant crap, or my friend's, which pares it down to a single line?
If you have any common sense you'd choose the theory that explains my laces in a single line. If you're musclewhatsupyall, you probably are drooling out the side of your mouth while being fed pablum with a spork.
Now let's take this common sense, eminantly logical principal to the question of Life, the Universe, and EVERYTHING. We have two competing theories, and I'll lay them out for all to see.
1. Life, the Universe and Everything. It's here, it functions, it came about in the Big Bang, and 15 000 000 000 years later a small planet in the western spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy orbiting an insignificant yellow star spawns a quasi-intelligent race of apes who suffer from delusions of grandeur and (in all respect to Douglas Adams) think digital watches are a nifty idea. All its mechanisms are observable, and we're starting to understand just how the very fabric of it all functions (quantum physics). There are still many unanswered questions, like just why DID the Big Bang happen, but in the words of Yoda "Patience!".
2. All of the above, only with the ADDITIONAL stipulation that God was responsible.
Which theory has the redundant component?
As an interesting aside, it's worth noting that William of Occam followed this exact same reasoning and came to this same conclusion; namely, that the existence of God cannot be logically reasoned and if one is to believe in him it must be by faith alone. Was he an atheist? No. Was he an agnostic? No. He was a theologian (ie a religious philosopher) by trade, and educated by the Franciscans.
There's your life-raft, Coffee
. You seem like someone who can appreciate reasoning, rather than someone who simply invents explanations for preconceived notions and passes it off as logic.
*cracks knuckles*
I'm sure you're familiar with the name William of Occam, the man who codified the logical (READ: common sense) principal of Occam's Razor. This sadly misunderstood piece of reasoning is quite simple and goes a little something like this:
Keep it simple, stupid!
To elaborate, it's an arguement against redundancy. When confronted with two (or more) competing ideas, the idea that involves the least amount of redundancy is superior.
To illustrate:
I have a theory that explains the nature of my shoe-laces. It's 20 pages of equations that eventually tell me just how long my laces are. It's a bit tedious, but it works and is quite accurate.
But wait! My best friend suddenly appears with another theory about my shoe-laces, which explains their length in a single line. We furiously compare results and we find that they are identical.
Which theory is superior? Mine, with 20 pages of redundant crap, or my friend's, which pares it down to a single line?
If you have any common sense you'd choose the theory that explains my laces in a single line. If you're musclewhatsupyall, you probably are drooling out the side of your mouth while being fed pablum with a spork.
Now let's take this common sense, eminantly logical principal to the question of Life, the Universe, and EVERYTHING. We have two competing theories, and I'll lay them out for all to see.
1. Life, the Universe and Everything. It's here, it functions, it came about in the Big Bang, and 15 000 000 000 years later a small planet in the western spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy orbiting an insignificant yellow star spawns a quasi-intelligent race of apes who suffer from delusions of grandeur and (in all respect to Douglas Adams) think digital watches are a nifty idea. All its mechanisms are observable, and we're starting to understand just how the very fabric of it all functions (quantum physics). There are still many unanswered questions, like just why DID the Big Bang happen, but in the words of Yoda "Patience!".
2. All of the above, only with the ADDITIONAL stipulation that God was responsible.
Which theory has the redundant component?
As an interesting aside, it's worth noting that William of Occam followed this exact same reasoning and came to this same conclusion; namely, that the existence of God cannot be logically reasoned and if one is to believe in him it must be by faith alone. Was he an atheist? No. Was he an agnostic? No. He was a theologian (ie a religious philosopher) by trade, and educated by the Franciscans.
There's your life-raft, Coffee
. You seem like someone who can appreciate reasoning, rather than someone who simply invents explanations for preconceived notions and passes it off as logic.