Why I am an Atheist

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's right. That's how I know there are leprechauns helping the electrons change the display on my clock, and that every President was once a supermodel but was reincarnated.

its not the same thing.

occam's razor is just a basic guideline. it applies in some cases. however as knowledge becomes more and more complex so does the theories.

occam's razor doesn't help you find the right answer. it only suggests that if you don't need a concept in your reasoning, eliminate it.

and yes, god is not "needed" in making the universe work. everything can be explained by some physics law. until you come at the point of big bang. what triggered it? occam's razor in this case "requires" a supernatural cause bacause it is believed that nothing "before" the big bang exists to have triggered it.

try and use your reasoning and stop quoting principles you do not understand.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
its not the same thing.

occam's razor is just a basic guideline. it applies in some cases. however as knowledge becomes more and more complex so does the theories.

occam's razor doesn't help you find the right answer. it only suggests that if you don't need a concept in your reasoning, eliminate it.

and yes, god is not "needed" in making the univ ...[text shortened]... it.

try and use your reasoning and stop quoting principles you do not understand.

God doesn't solve the issue, though. What triggered God? And if God has no cause, why does the universe have to have one?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
art cannot really function i think without mathematics. there are of course varying degrees. Art that is produced purely by mathematics, like fractals, or art that distorts mathematics by utilising creative perspective. Others like Cubism which seems to try to render three dimensions on a two dimensional plane. Again there are artists like Escher ...[text shortened]... eparable, although i would like to see someone attempt 'art', without recourse to mathematics.

bend a piece of wire. once, twice, it doesn't matter.
name it something funky. like "void emotions in void"

it is art.

when did mathematics come in?

sure you can use mathematics to describe it. that doesn't mean the two are dependent.

Originally posted by Palynka
God doesn't solve the issue, though. What triggered God? And if God has no cause, why does the universe have to have one?

sure.

that is why occam's razor cannot be used as a tool to disprove god.


and that is why occam's razor doesn't always work.

if anything, it "proves" god. what solution is more simple than "there is something called god that is the cause of everything".

like i said, maybe "bull" was not the right word to describe the principle. it has uses. but not here.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
sure.

that is why occam's razor cannot be used as a tool to disprove god.


and that is why occam's razor doesn't always work.

if anything, it "proves" god. what solution is more simple than "there is something called god that is the cause of everything".

like i said, maybe "bull" was not the right word to describe the principle. it has uses. but not here.

I don't see how it follows that, if anything, it proves "God". God is an incredibly complex entity compared to the entities we observe in our universe. Apart from that, we agree, I guess.

Originally posted by Palynka
I don't see how it follows that, if anything, it proves "God". God is an incredibly complex entity compared to the entities we observe in our universe. Apart from that, we agree, I guess.

in this case i only have to define god as omnipotent. and while god may be infintely complex, he is the easiest solution to any problem conceivable.

why does it rain? god.
why are we alive? god.
why do we dream? god.


using god like that is very easy. it is also the end of science, progress and mostly everything that defines us as a curious race.

what i am trying to say is that i believe the interpretation "the most simple theory is most often the right one" is not useful. according to wikipedia, occam formulated it originally as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" which in my view means discard anything you do not need in finding a solution. doesn't mean that in following this principle the solution you get to will be simple. (well i guess you could say that if it is only solution, it is the most simple as well)

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
in this case i only have to define god as omnipotent. and while god may be infintely complex, he is the easiest solution to any problem conceivable.

why does it rain? god.
why are we alive? god.
why do we dream? god.


using god like that is very easy. it is also the end of science, progress and mostly everything that defines us as a curious race.
le. (well i guess you could say that if it is only solution, it is the most simple as well)

My point was that you add one complex entity and solve nothing. You just add another layer of complexity.

If the problem is not accepting the universe is without cause, then postulating the existence God just pushes the same question one step backwards because God is again accepted to be without cause. That's not parsimonious, because you explain nothing more and just add an entity as intermediary.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
sure.

that is why occam's razor cannot be used as a tool to disprove god.


and that is why occam's razor doesn't always work.

if anything, it "proves" god. what solution is more simple than "there is something called god that is the cause of everything".

like i said, maybe "bull" was not the right word to describe the principle. it has uses. but not here.

You are right that Occam's Razor doesn't disprove God, but it also certainly doesn't prove God, because God will introduce complexities that go way beyond what is observed scientifically.

Occam's Razor just shows that God is extremely unlikely based on scientific observations so far.

You mentioned that a simple solution is that "there is something called god that is the cause of everything", but this isn't a simple solution at all.

You could say the same for a magician who can give the illusion of levitation. A simple solution is that he has mystical powers that allow him to actually levitate, but the actual answer is what appears to be a more complex one involving exploitation of known physical laws and misdirection to give the illusion of levitation.

To say someone can have mystical powers to actually levitate would require redefining our known laws of physics.

So effectively Occam's Razor is saying to give the simplest solution that fit within our scientific understanding. Anything beyond this will be speculation which you cannot build upon.

Originally posted by Palynka
My point was that you add one complex entity and solve nothing. You just add another layer of complexity.

If the problem is not accepting the universe is without cause, then postulating the existence God just pushes the same question one step backwards because God is again accepted to be without cause. That's not parsimonious, because you explain nothing more and just add an entity as intermediary.

why can't an omnipotent being without end or begininng explain everything? i don't have to prove this theory because occam's razor(in the form i find incorrect) doesn't require me to do that.

i add god to the table. and i end all debate. god is the ultimate answer. and is easier to say god makes the sun work rather than say x amount of presure, y amount of heat that allows for fusion to give z amount of energy.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
why can't an omnipotent being without end or begininng explain everything? i don't have to prove this theory because occam's razor(in the form i find incorrect) doesn't require me to do that.

i add god to the table. and i end all debate. god is the ultimate answer. and is easier to say god makes the sun work rather than say x amount of presure, y amount of heat that allows for fusion to give z amount of energy.

It doesn't explain anything at all. The only problem was the First Cause and you didn't solve that one. "The universe is without First Cause" is as good to solve that problem as "God is without First Cause and God created the universe", and it uses one entity less.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
why can't an omnipotent being without end or begininng explain everything? i don't have to prove this theory because occam's razor(in the form i find incorrect) doesn't require me to do that.

i add god to the table. and i end all debate. god is the ultimate answer. and is easier to say god makes the sun work rather than say x amount of presure, y amount of heat that allows for fusion to give z amount of energy.

The fact that something is easier to say doesn't make it the simpler answer. Inventing a hypothetical barely defined entity and calling it God then stating that it is the cause of everything is not really the simplest answer. My biggest objection is that you have actually given the being unnecessary attributes (omnipotent and without end or beginning) which are not required in the slightest in order to explain the phenomena and you probably have no way of determining anyway. You might as well add in the fact that God is pink with purple spots and is a girl.

Originally posted by Palynka
It doesn't explain anything at all. The only problem was the First Cause and you didn't solve that one. "The universe is without First Cause" is as good to solve that problem as "God is without First Cause and God created the universe", and it uses one entity less.

It may eliminate an entity, but it produces a new problem: how to explain the eternal existence of a created entity in a manner which does not require acts which resemble the acts of the eliminated first entity.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It may eliminate an entity, but it produces a new problem: how to explain the eternal existence of a created entity in a manner which does not require acts which resemble the acts of the eliminated first entity.

It would still be just an intermediate.

To provide a little context, I'm not saying that OR is a powerful argument against good. I agree it's a tenuous one, IF ANYTHING. That said, I believe it's absolutely false that one can use the OR to favour the explanation of a Creator/God as a First Cause.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It may eliminate an entity, but it produces a new problem: how to explain the eternal existence of a created entity in a manner which does not require acts which resemble the acts of the eliminated first entity.

Has god always been here? I not, according to you thinking, he had a cause. If god could be here without a cause, so could the universe. If god had a cause, god would not be god.

Originally posted by Agerg
First, please tell me than when you all say "art" or "artist" you all refer to swirly colours and 'pretty pictures' as opposed to the endeavours of precisely rendering on paper (or canvas, or clay, or...) the world around us (or imagined) which is the sort of 'art'(?) I admire and (try to) do. Secondly, would I be correct in saying that we maths people are sup ...[text shortened]... 'beautiful' facets of our environments? (My challenge to that is subjectivity)

First, I refer to both swirly, pretty colors and precise drawings as art. One emphasizes the colors, the other emphasizes a wider range of attributes, especially shape.

No, math people are not less able to spot the beautiful necessarily. They're (we're) just more likely to see the beauty of an equation rather than the beauty of a bush and the life within it.

You ARE an artist, so I am not downplaying your perception. I am downplaying the perception of math people who are not artists; who sit inside all day staring at books and papers.