Occums razor has nothing to do with values. It is a logical test for deciding between two options that are not conclusively proven.
How do smart atheists construct their arguments against God?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
Occums razor has nothing to do with values. It is a logical test for deciding between two options that are not conclusively proven.
Incorrect.
Literally translated, it means: do not multiply entities beyond necessity.
See: OR
for example.
Probably observation.
There is a correlation between high intelligence and atheism as well as advanced education and atheism.
Because that would be to introduce an element of circularity (assuming that you believe that a deity is similarly engaged in said Values).
In any case, I don't believe that these Values are anything but social constructions, and as such, though they may indeed, as you note, factor into my life, they certainly wouldn't factor in to any notion of a deity.
It's not "the" definition. It's "a" definition (specifically the one you've chosen). You are probably well aware that there are multiple definitions.
Correct.
OK
Yes, I am aware of the literal translation, but for practical application it is as I have stated. Do not multiplies entities beyond necessity usually applies to not multiplying assumptions beyond necessity. In cases of absolute proof occums razor is not necessary.
Last edited:
Incorrect.
No, it has nothing to do with any 'absolute' (sic). It has no restrictions on scope, which is why it is applicable to any 'value' (however defined).
sorry missed a line from my post, please re-read.
The sentence should read "In cases of absolute proof occums razor is not necessary."
The sentence should read "In cases of absolute proof occums razor is not necessary."
There may be slight variations to the definition, but I have never come across one before that links open minded to requiring proof.
Aaah.
Yes, quite correct.
But, you don't think that this could possibly be one of those cases do you?
Well for the atheist its the unfortunate situation of trying to prove a negative. There is no conclusive proof for or against, so as your earlier stated occums is still applicable. But to use occums for me it would come down to this;
Atheist start of creation theory – there was a singularity, how did it get there? we don’t know.
Theist start of creation theory – there was a singularity, how did it get there? God created it, how did god get there? we don’t know.
Atheist has one less entity / assumption so goes with occum..
(I just choose not to use it, it is a tool that we may use not an obligation)
Most scientific theories do not rely on absolute mathematical proof, what they can show is a preponderance of evidence that show something is probably true beyond a reasonable doubt. If we start from the presumptions of mainstream religion, we can show they aren't true.
There are plausible theories of how the early universe came about (we already know there wasn't a singularity). One is the cause came from another universe running backwards in relation to our own, by the mechanism of quantum tunnelling. Therefore the universe is both eternal and had a local beginning.
There are plausible theories of how the early universe came about (we already know there wasn't a singularity). One is the cause came from another universe running backwards in relation to our own, by the mechanism of quantum tunnelling. Therefore the universe is both eternal and had a local beginning.
Some atheist do nothing but things of this sort:
I think it says:
"You go to hell because you not believe in Me."
I'm atheist, I lack a belief in Gods and Goddesses (as well Xenu and other Alien based religions).
However, yes, I do agree they MAY be true. When I see some good evidence then I'll reconsider my stance. What I don't find is reciprocation on this front. Most theists (at least monotheists) will not even consider their positions may be wrong. That is: Equal.
I think when theists adopt the "equal" stance then things aren't all that bad. The problem as I see it is they not only "believe" in their God, the new fashion in theology is to tell everyone else that their God is bullshit. So, get this, they don't have any good evidence for their "idea God", won't admit their belief is equal to mine, and have the gall to tell other people their theistic beliefs are bullshit :bugeye: Oh, not ONLY bullshit, but sometimes "Satanic".
THEN to top it all off they add in a million other scents of shit: Our Book is Perfect, Our Language is Gods' Language, God likes this, God hates that, Our "Prophet" is the ONLY Prophet or the Last Prophet or etc....
All of these intolerance add up to make life with them unbearable. It even leads to murder of non-theists or different theists. I mean: Get that shit - actually murdering other people for lacking an inane "belief" (something you have no ability to change). That's crazy. We're not even talking a change in political system. Just going out one daty and burning down the other Gods House, with his "Satanic" worshippers in it.
Thank the Gods for most of us we don't have to live with it.
Those are some reasons why some atheists care.
I agree with your overall analysis here.
Although, I must say, it's a bit tenuous to argue as you have here, along the lines of a creation theory. My comments were directed at the idea of an active, current deity, and had no relation whatsoever to any creation myth.
Alot of what you say is true. I cant talk for other theists, but I do beleive in a God (under the right definition) and I will admit there is a possibility I am wrong. I do not believe I am doomed to hell for allowing that possibility. I admit I am not a typical theist but I am by no means unique either, there are plently of others with same or similar views.
Yes, I grossly oversimplified for the sake of saving myself typing. Just demonstrating occums in action rather than trying to prove any creation theory..