Occam's Razor

http://img.moonbuggy.org/occams-razor/

Think maybe Occam was onto something?

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
http://img.moonbuggy.org/occams-razor/

Think maybe Occam was onto something?

6 days seems a lot more simple than billions of years of complex organic random connections

Originally posted by divegeester
6 days seems a lot more simple than billions of years of complex organic random connections

But then again, primordial soup sounds a lot simpler than an infinite, omnipotent and omniscient being.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
But then again, primordial soup sounds a lot simpler than an infinite, omnipotent and omniscient being.

How would you know?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
How would you know?
Kelly

I was trying to make it clear that I was making a subjective judgement. Did you not get that?

Originally posted by KellyJay
How would you know?
Kelly

How simple is magic? By this I don't mean how hard is it to chant "abracadabra"; I'm more interested in the underlying mechanics (or spiritual mechanics if you will, of other dimensional entites/events that betray the laws of physics, and the range of interaction of such phenomenon with the material universe, and also what has to in place for such to occur - ie: howzit all work??? 😕)

Originally posted by Agerg
How simple is magic? By this I don't mean how hard is it to chant "abracadabra"; I'm more interested in the underlying mechanics (or spiritual mechanics if you will, of other dimensional entites/events that betray the laws of physics, and the range of interaction of such phenomenon with the material universe, and also what has to in place for such to occur - ie: howzit all work??? 😕)

How simple were the first few seconds after the 'big bang'; where were the laws of physics during those seconds?

Originally posted by divegeester
How simple were the first few seconds after the 'big bang'; where were the laws of physics during those seconds?

The laws were there, naturally. The natural laws work also under extrem conditions. Big Bang has nothing supernatural involved.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The laws were there, naturally. The natural laws work also under extrem conditions. Big Bang has nothing supernatural involved.

Are you sure the laws of physics hold in every extreme circumstance such as the first second of the big bang?

Originally posted by divegeester
Are you sure the laws of physics hold in every extreme circumstance such as the first second of the big bang?

Yes, I am. Nature follows the laws of nature. That's how it is.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Yes, I am. Nature follows the laws of nature. That's how it is.

I read that scientists really struggle to identify what was happening in those first few seconds because the laws of physics weren't operating (or words to that effect)

Originally posted by divegeester
I read that scientists really struggle to identify what was happening in those first few seconds because the laws of physics weren't operating (or words to that effect)

The laws of physics has always been there, but not always known. Even today there are laws not yet discovered. A thousand of years ago very few were known, but the laws of physics operated just fine anyway. Same with the ones not yet known today. They operates just fine. And they have done so continuously from the start of our universe.

There are no supernatural laws of physics, that's an oxymoron.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I was trying to make it clear that I was making a subjective judgement. Did you not get that?

No, it did not come across that way to me.
Kelly

Originally posted by Agerg
How simple is magic? By this I don't mean how hard is it to chant "abracadabra"; I'm more interested in the underlying mechanics (or spiritual mechanics if you will, of other dimensional entites/events that betray the laws of physics, and the range of interaction of such phenomenon with the material universe, and also what has to in place for such to occur - ie: howzit all work??? 😕)

Well, how simple is it to get a "primordial soup" from what, nothing?
Seriously, when comparing one belief system over another at least go with the
apples and apples comparison. We may as well say once God created the
soup life could have sprung from it, as easy as we can say everything came from
nothing, and once we had something, that something formed into a "primordial
soup" and THEN LIFE. Beyond that it seems many want to start half way though
through a process that they assume they get so they can talk about it all as if
they understand it all.
Kelly

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
http://img.moonbuggy.org/occams-razor/

Think maybe Occam was onto something?

Yes and no.

Try to think outside the box. What is described as Christianity by the little graph is only what is visible. Like trying to forge an image of God out of rock or wood or something. You can't "see" God with your eyes, or for that matter, with any of your other physical senses.

The "Church" which is the "Body of Christ" is invisible as well. Each member has within the "Spirit of Christ", and you can't always tell who is lying or telling the truth. In fact, a lot of folks think they're Christians, but they are not.

What passes for Christianity that you can "see" in this world is a corruption of the true "Church". Although, there are many very small local assemblies around the world that you may never "see" where true believers gather together for fellowship.

So, Occam's observations are true, but not about the truth.

Interestingly though, the part about atheism is exactly true as far as I can tell. One dimensional and boring as hell.