Originally posted by twhitehead By non-physical, do you mean non-material like light, and magnetism, or do you mean totally disconnected from physical phenomena? If there is a total disconnect, then is it really real? And can it interact with physical phenomena?
If there is an interaction, then is that interaction observable? If not, then should it be called 'reality'?
No i meant belonging to the spiritual realm, as in divine. Can it be construed that this is a reality? well how is light, magnetism etc perceived other than its 'effects', on the surroundings, thus it should hold true then for divinity, that its 'effects', should be perceived in its immediate environment, making it a reality. Dont you think?
Originally posted by 667joe That is exactly my point! You are the one with weak critical thinking skills!
you base your affirmation on what exactly?
i just said you can never have supernatural explained by science. that once it is explained, it ceases to be supernatural and becomes science. therefore once you prove god, he is no longer supernatural, he is a scientific phenomenon.
how do you follow that i have weak critical skills?
Originally posted by 667joe We are hard wired to enjoy pleasure. It's all in your brain. Nothing supernatural about it. You could not enjoy anything before your brain was formed, and you will not be able to enjoy anything after your brain dies.
so basically you don't know exactly but you give a general answer "its somewhere in the brain"
Originally posted by Zahlanzi occam's razor is like murphy's law. bull
Completely wrong. Occam's razor is about degrees of freedom. The more degrees of freedom you have, the likelier you are to fit the past accurately and make wrong predictions about the future.
Originally posted by amolv06 Shouldn't the burden of proof rest with the claimant?
except theist don't need to prove god. it's faith. we are comfortable just the way things are.
i won't ever build a god powered airplance and pray to god everytime i need to get it in the air. i won't kill someone for not having the same beliefs. i WILL try to be the person god intends me to be. so everyone wins
Originally posted by robbie carrobie yes its awesome, imagine that and then imagine if it was the same with humans. I have a cubist print on my wall, would you like to see it? resistance is futile, your mine woman!
"Would you like to go up and see my etchings?" 😵
Originally posted by Palynka Completely wrong. Occam's razor is about degrees of freedom. The more degrees of freedom you have, the likelier you are to fit the past accurately and make wrong predictions about the future.
maybe we are not refering to the same occam razor.
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one
In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[4][5] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result
"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" is of course true. if i make a calculus theorem, i don't need to include god, the tooth fairy, einstein's law of relativity, newton's laws fo gravity and the economy statistics from 1995 of North Korea.
but the affirmation that the simplest explanation tends to be the best one doesn't apply in all cases and is as scientific as the claim that if a coin lands on heads 10 times, it will land on heads the 11th time.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi maybe we are not refering to the same occam razor.
[b]Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one
In science, Occam’s razor is used as a he claim that if a coin lands on heads 10 times, it will land on heads the 11th time.[/b]
True, but there's nothing in that says it applies to all cases and, as you write, it's a simply guiding tool. So I agree that OR is often abused, but that doesn't mean it is bull.
Originally posted by Palynka True, but there's nothing in that says it applies to all cases and, as you write, it's a simply guiding tool. So I agree that OR is often abused, but that doesn't mean it is bull.
But perhaps this is a pointless tangent, sorry.
no its not, i misformulated my claim.it isn't exactly bull and not exactly like murphy's law. i was just replying to athousand who claimed that or suggests that god doesn't exist.
yes, it is useful as a guideline of how to choose between theories in some cases. but as the science of a domain becomes more and more complex, you no longer can choose the least complex course of action.
my view is that or should be used as a principle to try and eliminate all unnecessary objects from a certain line of reasoning.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie No i meant belonging to the spiritual realm, as in divine. Can it be construed that this is a reality? well how is light, magnetism etc perceived other than its 'effects', on the surroundings, thus it should hold true then for divinity, that its 'effects', should be perceived in its immediate environment, making it a reality. Dont you think?
The effects of light and magnetism can be observed and measured in experiments.
How do you suppose we measure and observe the same effetcs of 'divinity'?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie No i meant belonging to the spiritual realm, as in divine. Can it be construed that this is a reality? well how is light, magnetism etc perceived other than its 'effects', on the surroundings, thus it should hold true then for divinity, that its 'effects', should be perceived in its immediate environment, making it a reality. Dont you think?
If anything has effects on its immediate environment then its effects should be detectable and can be studied using science.
Why do you separate this 'spiritual realm' from the rest of reality? What sets it apart?
Originally posted by Proper Knob The effects of light and magnetism can be observed and measured in experiments.
How do you suppose we measure and observe the same effetcs of 'divinity'?
I know that E=mc2, and F=q(v x B)
Any such equations for divinity?
I suppose the usual answer would be that since the equations are part of nature, and nature is an expression of the divine nature, the equations are an effect of divinity.
Why I am an Atheist
11 Feb '10 08:54
Back to Top