It's a neat explanation, but until we have proof for it it remains nothing more than a neat hypothesis.
Perhaps you will have to enlighten me. But relatedly, maybe, my understanding was that the universe can be observed on the infinitely large and infinitesimally small scales, and the relationships we can derive between its constituent variables--ratios that we can calculate even with our feeble human faculties--will hold true (like laws), no matter at what "magnification" we observe the phenomena. As such, I view the universe as an equation of sorts. But anyway, forgive my tangent. (I was assuming that "Simplicio's" argument was that we may not be observing everything needed to make a conclusion.)
I actually had that in mind when I wrote that, but I would disagree since it is not the most parsimonious (given that a lot of assumptions are packed into the statement) and logical explanation (given what humankind knows through empiricism). And if we start redefining logic, then I suppose anything goes and arguing it is pointless!
I actually had that in mind when I wrote that, but I would disagree since it is not the most parsimonious and logical explanation (given what humankind knows through empiricism). And if we start redefining logic, then I suppose anything goes and arguing it is pointless!
Does that mean you're admitting humans attached those labels making that definition purely conjecture or do you argue for a God with those attributes outside of reality on which our logic does not apply?
You would first need to logically explain how this aforementioned omnipotent god exists, however. For it to be parsimonious, it need not only be the least contrived conclusion, but also be contextually rational. The statement would only be parsimonious if this god was proven to exist, and was also proven to meet our standards of omnipotence. Otherwise, we could just as easily attribute everything to the work of a powerful demon.
And lo, this thread was born regardless!
I think that, technically, that was Occam's Razor... But in any case, the evolution of life (from inorganic matter) has already been shown to be quite probable .All we need now is Occam's Razor in this party, and we will all be cut out of the equation, since life is apparently more improbable than this whole universe just being rocks and burning fuel scattered aroun in a vast field
I'm starting to think that the root of most arguments is miscommunication, misunderstanding, and misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
But if we haven't yet observed or proved the presence of a god yet, then our claim is not useful to us. We can't develop a hypothesis using phenomena we haven't observed. In that case, we're aiming for reductionism with a dash of speculation rather than simplicity. I'm arguing for the simplest probable explanation.
We are all ignorant, and not always willfully, unfortunately.
I find the Christian God to be an artifical construct, created from fear, feed with fear, sustained with fear and violence. Atheists can argue whether it "exists" physicall or not, but it is a being that represents many bad deeds. And on a personal level, it has a smaller (imho smaller, christians might argue with me about this) positive potential as well for helping individuals with addictions and hopeless situations. I think that it all depends on personal preference, cause I could not relate to that too much.
Highly "probable" for me are the existence of "beings" that describe our existence as either:
a. People are like cells in the body of a higher being, the higher being experiencing this life through us, with us, by us, not "commanding" us in a direct sense
(Just like when we say "I am", we really are not, our billions and billions of cell are, then they are not, then they are again, and so on, and so on.)
b. The "Creator" of this particular plane started it with a thought, set out the rules or let the rules be, and then observes from the point of view of EVERYTHING how this unfolds. Which would allow for a "godless" experience if we go with the strict godlike figures
c. Beings exist simultaneously with us, but not on the same physical plane as we are able to percieve, and once we were able to make a connection with these planes, more or less, but as our collective consciousness became more rigid, it is no longer possible to perform certain things that would have otherwise been claimed to be easily done. Etc. We might rediscover all this with scientific progress, at which point it would no longer be considered bullshit, but it would be very embarassing for today's hardest atheists and theists as well, imho
There are many non-mainstream and several more famous religions/spiritual belief systems that have one of these elements, do not want you to do destroy your reasoning, and can be really good food for thought even for someone who otherwise just deals with only strictly materialist things in his/her everyday life. Dismissing these, for me, equals with throwing out the baby with the washwater.
No. But hypotheses that are not backed up by sufficient evidence fall apart. (The evidence, in this case, being the data gathered from observations.) I have yet to see anywhere in the scientific community where that isn't the case. Unsubstantiated hypotheses are in the realm of speculation.So we have to reject all hypotheses that relate to phenomena we haven't observed? That's going to set the development of our scientific understanding back a long way.
The observation is in the results we're trying to explain. The explanation may (and frequently does) posit new phenomena.
In the scientific application of parsimonious principles, it does need to be testable, yes, which is what I have been arguing. I'm not even sure what we're arguing anymore.
I disagree, unless you have a very different definition of unsubstantiated. But feel free to keep misconstruing what I have been saying.Most hypotheses begin as unsubstantiated ones, of course. Some continue for a reasonably long time in that form; some would put string theory in that category.
I don't think you have, though it may be what you meant to argue.
Can you think of even one religion that's likely to be factual?
I value my (short) life a bit too much not to dismiss kittens in the center of the moon and the like.
This is a bit off-topic, but I just watched a talk between Lawrence Krauss and Brian Greene about string theory that was remarkably interesting and comprehensible. Despite theoretical physics not being a direct aspect of the debates in this thread, I think science in general is just so incredibly fascinating that if you delve into hypothetical or theoretical disciplines, the typical "Is there a God?" discussion seems a bit elementary or premature. In some sense one should put a large amount of effort into attempting to gain understanding about how the universe functions before tackling the why question.
Which makes it kind of strange when people are willing to reject certain aspects of their chosen religion but still accept shit that's far more ridiculous. It's clearly a backwards way of attempting to ascertain truth.
This is pretty good, and thanks for the elaboration, but I think it doesn't quite hit on one point which I'll elaborate on here. Namely the evidence axiom arises because I assume that both parties are arguing while agreeing that there is an objective reality. Note that I don't necessarily think we'll ever understand that objective reality in its totality; I actually believe the opposite, that we can only ever approximate it with increasingly accurate representations (weather internal and mediated by sensory perception or external and mediated by intellectual modeling). But I have never gotten the feeling, at least when dealing with most Western religion, that the objective nature of reality is in question. Maybe this is a misunderstanding on my part, but I don't think I've encountered the argument, not just that a persons interpretation of reality is subjective, but that reality itself is subjective. Discussions of religion at do not seem to deal with the idea, put simply, that "I believe in God, and so he is real and you do not believe in God and so he is not real and both positions are simultaneously correct as very serious expressions of the nature of reality"
There is certainly an element of truth here. To a priest living in the 8th century, as I have argued before, Christianity would appear to be very plausible. But to a literate, highly educated person living in the 21st century, I don't think there is any good reason for believing in a god who directly communicates with humanity and/or reveals himself through organized religion. The key difference is that the person in the 21st century has access to more knowledge than ever before. My belief, therefore, is that if one is highly knowledgeable and perfectly rational, then the usual theological claims wouldn't seem to be very plausible at all, because there is little evidence for god in the first place. The closer one gets to the truth, the less plausible theology appears. There are certainly cases of intelligent, educated people believing anyway (for example, Francis Collins), but I think they're putting aside the evidence and choosing to believe because they want to believe; any rational reasons why they say they believe are simply after-the-fact rationalizations.