Occam's Razor

Originally posted by josephw
Where's the Hand? [b]Where's the Hand? 😲[/b]

Hand? At the end of my arm.
Maybe you mean "the Hand of God"?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Hand? At the end of my arm.
Maybe you mean "the Hand of God"?

No silly. The Hand of Hecate.

Originally posted by josephw
So then what brought natural laws into existence?

Did they always exist?

Is it necessary that matter exists before natural laws would exist?

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

Well, guess what? The chicken came first. It has been discovered that there is an enzyme in the shell of a chicken egg that only exists in the ovaries of a chicken. So naturally a chicken would have had to exist before the egg.

So then what brought natural laws into existence?
I have no need to suppose they were brought into existence...they are a property of the universe. How the universe got here on the other hand is a question neither you, I, nor anyone else is equipped to answer validly.

Did they always exist?
So long as there is a natural universe it is reasonable to suppose that there are natural laws. I won't be so pretentious to suggest I am familiar with the particular mathematics which suggests time started at the big bang but since I study the subject (maths) at undergrad level and trust it's results, I'll appeal to the premise that time started at the big bang anyway. - sue me!!

Is it necessary that matter exists before natural laws would exist
I see no reason why this should be the case.


As for chickens and eggs, you haven't really resolved the circularity there ;]

Originally posted by karoly aczel
1.What does that matter?

2.Dont know

3.Everything affects everything else.

4.the reason that it cant be created is that it is not done properly,

5.Tis not "magic" . Only "physics"

(I'm going to cop it for these answers but I thought I would try to answer)

These questions were supposed to be rhetorical ;]
1.What does that matter?
Perhaps it is important to know the origin of this stuff...is the creation of X merely a translation across dimensions of the 'particles' X is comprised of, or is it perhaps the case that the summation of all 'stuff' in all dimensions has been increased by the creation of X. What would be the implications of the second case where one was to, say, keep creating stuff by magic forever? Is there perhaps a limit to what can be created and how often???

2.Dont know
That is my favourite answer

3.Everything affects everything else.
Not really an answer, but then I didn't give a specific case.

4.the reason that it cant be created is that it is not done properly,
??? 😕
5.Tis not "magic" . Only "physics"
Then you need not have answered any of the questions - some people really do believe in magic (albeit they might refer to it by some other terminology)

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

Think maybe Occam was onto something?

Occam had it right, but the diagram is not the simplest when referring to atheism.
Awareness or Consciousness is prior to any belief, of which atheism is but one.

So:

Primordial Awareness......................Current Awareness................Future Awareness.

But as Awareness is prior to the mental conception of time and (according to A.E.) space, it really is......


AWARENESS.

Simple. No thing is, without awareness. BTW there is much in somewhat furry quantum science, the ultimate research on the basis of physical reality, that consciousness has something to do with what is manifested in experiments.
Its not definite, can't be ultimately established what is going on at that level, but nothing in quantum science negates the above.

As some have realized, awareness/consciousness is not prior to the physical world, it is not an epiphenomenon on brain development. The complexity of life IS evolved, but it was able to do such because it was arose from within a Primordial Field of Awareness. Such awareness is undefinable, unlocatable and unproveable, because it comprises the very thing we are seeking to prove it with. It is thus "empty" but nevertheless it is. Without it nothing is or ever could be.
I am not a theist in the understood meaning, nor an athiest, for both are too extrapolated from the original "empty simplicity" of Awareness.

Ask yourself, what exists at any level or any dimension without awareness?

(Edits typographical)

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]So then what brought natural laws into existence?
I have no need to suppose they were brought into existence...they are a property of the universe. How the universe got here on the other hand is a question neither you, I, nor anyone else is equipped to answer validly.

Did they always exist?
So long as there is a natural universe it is reason he case.


As for chickens and eggs, you haven't really resolved the circularity there ;][/b]

"How the universe got here on the other hand is a question neither you, I, nor anyone else is equipped to answer validly."

In your opinion.

By saying that, you automatically disqualify yourself from saying I'm wrong for believing that God created the universe. That statement renders you unable to say whether I'm right or wrong.

If, as you say, you don't know how the universe came into existence, then you don't know whether or not it was created. You don't know either way.

But if I say I do know, and since you don't know, you can't say authoritatively that I'm wrong.

You have to admit that I may be right.

Originally posted by Taoman
Occam had it right, but the diagram is not the simplest when referring to atheism.
Awareness or Consciousness is prior to any belief, of which atheism is but one.

So:

Primordial Awareness......................Current Awareness................Future Awareness.

But as Awareness is prior to the mental conception of time and (according to A.E.) space, i ...[text shortened]... self, what exists at any level or any dimension without awareness?

(Edits typographical)

"Ask yourself, what exists at any level or any dimension without awareness?"

Nothing.

Therefore there was an awareness before the existence of anything. And awareness means a being with the capacity of awareness. Because without consciousness there is no awareness, and there can be no consciousness without an entity with awareness.

God.

Originally posted by Agerg
These questions were supposed to be rhetorical ;]
[b]1.What does that matter?
Perhaps it is important to know the origin of this stuff...is the creation of X merely a translation across dimensions of the 'particles' X is comprised of, or is it perhaps the case that the summation of all 'stuff' in all dimensions has been increased by the creation of X. Wh le really do believe in magic (albeit they might refer to it by some other terminology)[/b]

I should've known they were rhetorical. 🙂

Anyways...
1. There are limits . Dont worry about that stuff. If you are interested in spirituality, then dont worry about magic'n such. (just my opinion,ok)

2.Good answer,still lets try harder

3.Yeah, thats just silly

4.What dont you understand about this?

5.Proably shouldn't have answered any of your questions. Right!! Nevertheless I find ths more interesting than...

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]So then what brought natural laws into existence?
I have no need to suppose they were brought into existence...they are a property of the universe. How the universe got here on the other hand is a question neither you, I, nor anyone else is equipped to answer validly.

Did they always exist?
So long as there is a natural universe it is reason ...[text shortened]... he case.


As for chickens and eggs, you haven't really resolved the circularity there ;][/b]

Time "started" at the BB because that's the farthest time back we can gather information about, that's all.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Ask yourself, what exists at any level or any dimension without awareness?"

Nothing.

Therefore there was an awareness before the existence of anything. And awareness means a being with the capacity of awareness. Because without consciousness there is no awareness, and there can be no consciousness without an entity with awareness.

God.[/b]

Yeeees. Sort of. My only difficulty with the usual "God" label is that "HE" is usually very defined and with a lot of human projections. I could possibly accept the label (I once did) if it didn't have all the dualistic attachments that usually go with it.
If one were to equate this Awareness that, as I understand it has always been Unborn, and thus Undying with a Divine Awareness or Transcendent/Immanent Awareness then perhaps I'd be ok with a label "God". But it has a lot of anthropomorphic attachments so I avoid it.
"God" to me embraces and contains everything and resolves absolutley perfectly every polarity and is so Godlike (as expected), we are unable to ever pindown/define/fully grasp/ That Great Oneness that is also Everything . To do so makes "HIM" just another object just much bigger. I believe we are immensely arrogant when we think we can define the Divine Source so easily. It also tends to put "God" out there, separate from us. Just not so. Can't be.

Life is full of magic, real magic. to me, it is just too mysterious to define and always will be. Evolution and the Big Bang sound just as (actually more) miraculous to me as any unusual healing, guidance or happening, which I also have experienced. I love and respect science but it has its form of inflexible fundamentalism too.
A lot of religious history is a form of human manipulated control of others unfortunately. We see it today.

Pardon the long post, but it is a BIG subject.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Time "started" at the BB because that's the farthest time back we can gather information about, that's all.

We usually say that the Universe started at BigBang.
I usually say that *our* Universe started at BigBang.
It's a difference between the two.

We usually say that time started at the point of BigBang.
I usually say that the time *as we understand it* started at the point of BigBang.

Because we don't know anything what happened before *our universe*, the BigBang theory itself does not pretend to explain anything about any pre-BigBan events, not even when the t=0, only t>0... Because of that we shouldn't draw any conclusions about anything from where we cannot gather any information.

My opinion is, that the existance of our universe depends of some pre-BigBangian reason, of physical reasons of which we are not yet aware, and this is my speculation. Any speculation will do. My opinion is not rigid. When new physics arrives I will simply change my opinion, because it is not religious.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, it did not come across that way to me.
Kelly

Ok, well divegeester used the word 'seem', clearly implying that to him (or her?) subjectively, situation (a) appeared to be simpler than situation (b). I responded to divegeester's post in kind, using the word 'sound' to imply a similar subjective judgement. Clearer now? I realise that there is a current vogue in this forum for pontificating as though one's unproven and unprovable beliefs were factual, but you may be assured that this is not a fashion I will adopt. And please don't think I'm referring only to the theists there - to my mind there is sufficient doubt regarding the origins of the universe to regard the big bang theory as somewhat speculative also.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"How the universe got here on the other hand is a question neither you, I, nor anyone else is equipped to answer validly."

In your opinion.

By saying that, you automatically disqualify yourself from saying I'm wrong for believing that God created the universe. That statement renders you unable to say whether I'm right or wrong.

If, as you sa ou can't say authoritatively that I'm wrong.

You have to admit that I may be right.[/b]

But if I say I do know, and since you don't know, you can't say authoritatively that I'm wrong.
I can authoritatively say you lack the means to know and are thus wrong for saying you do. Whether you got lucky and chanced upon the right answer is irrelevant.

If we are both staring at a sealed box purported to contain, by some passer-by, a piece of paper with a computer generated number written on it; though I may not have any valid means by which I can conclude the number is anything specific, I can be quite sure, given you have neither seen, nor possess equipment to look through the box, that any number you assert is likely to be wrong. Indeed, I could even challenge the statement there is any number at all!

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Ok, well divegeester used the word 'seem', clearly implying that to him (or her?) [b]subjectively, situation (a) appeared to be simpler than situation (b). I responded to divegeester's post in kind, using the word 'sound' to imply a similar subjective judgement. Clearer now? I realise that there is a current vogue in this forum f ...[text shortened]... the origins of the universe to regard the big bang theory as somewhat speculative also.[/b]

May I clarify that the BigBang theory says nothing about the origin of our Universe, i.e. t=0, only what happened after time started, i.e. t>0, and there the BigBang theory explains it very well.

The BigBang theory is the best speculation there is of what happened after our Universe came into being. No other theory comes even close th this.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Ok, well divegeester used the word 'seem', clearly implying that to him (or her?) [b]subjectively, situation (a) appeared to be simpler than situation (b). I responded to divegeester's post in kind, using the word 'sound' to imply a similar subjective judgement. Clearer now? I realise that there is a current vogue in this forum f the origins of the universe to regard the big bang theory as somewhat speculative also.[/b]

Your right, I miss read you. My bad.
Kelly