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.
While math always defines a work of art in it's physical attributes, artists are not necessarily mathematicians. My Danish buddy comes to mind. He just likes the way things look; he doesn't analyze or quantify. He's 100% right brained.
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 it.
try and use your reasoning and stop quoting principles you do not understand.
You patronizing jackass. You're lecturing me about what happened before the big bang and then telling me to stop quoting principles I don't understand? Roffles.
it is believed that nothing "before" the big bang exists to have triggered it.
That's not true. In the words of Stephen Hawking,
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.
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.
...[text shortened]... le. (well i guess you could say that if it is only solution, it is the most simple as well)
which in my view means discard anything you do not need in finding a solution
Exactly.
When Laplace showed Napoleon his treatise on celestial mechanics, Napoleon asked him what place God had in his theory. Laplace replied that he had no need for that hypothesis.
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.
Think about this sort of question:
Why do solids melt into liquids?
Because God makes them melt.
Is that going to help us understand why solid sodium chloride is not electrically conductive but molten sodium chloride is? No. It's not the simplest explanation for all that we have observed about melting. It doesn't explain why solids melt instead of turn into raccoons.
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.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Think about this sort of question:
Why do solids melt into liquids?
Because God makes them melt.
Is that going to help us understand why solid sodium chloride is not electrically conductive but molten sodium chloride is? No. It's not the simplest explanation for all that we have observed about melting. It doesn't explain why solids melt instead of turn into raccoons.
nope. but it is the easiest solutionš
"It doesn't explain why solids melt instead of turn into raccoons"
sure it does. god wants them to melt and not turn into racoons.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung [b]which in my view means discard anything you do not need in finding a solution
Exactly.
When Laplace showed Napoleon his treatise on celestial mechanics, Napoleon asked him what place God had in his theory. Laplace replied that he had no need for that hypothesis.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi i know that story and i like it. it also demonstrates the use of occam's razor which i do agree with: if you don't need a concept, don't use it.
that is why i took offence in your formulation:
Occam's razor tends to suggest the lack of gods.
it should be formulated: in following the principle of occam's razor, we do not need to use god in demonstra ...[text shortened]... 't needed to formulate the theory of evolution or big bang doesn't mean he doesn't exist
Exactly why I advocate research on the Martian problem!
Getting back to my original post, no one has ever proved that anything was ever caused by god, whereas one by one many things thast were thought to be caused by god have been shown otherwise.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Why would anyone say that?
It's the same reasoning used by Zahlanzi above:
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 AThousandYoung It's the same reasoning used by Zahlanzi above:
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.
Why not rather say 'the sun is an attribute of God'? That way the sun works the way we think we know it does, God doesn't have to intervene to be the occasion of its action, and God is saved for believers to believe in.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Why not rather say 'the sun is an attribute of God'? That way the sun works the way we think we know it does, God doesn't have to intervene to be the occasion of its action, and God is saved for believers to believe in.
Because then you raise questions such as:
Does God exist where there is no star/sun?
Where exactly is that border between sun and not-sun?
How can this hypothesis help us create fusion power plants?
And most cripplingly...
Is this hypothesis falsifiable?
EDIT - And by Occam's Razor, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics is a better theory than Relativistic Quantum Mechanics Plus God.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi i know that story and i like it. it also demonstrates the use of occam's razor which i do agree with: if you don't need a concept, don't use it.
that is why i took offence in your formulation:
Occam's razor tends to suggest the lack of gods.
it should be formulated: in following the principle of occam's razor, we do not need to use god in demonstra ...[text shortened]... 't needed to formulate the theory of evolution or big bang doesn't mean he doesn't exist
I have no problem with this post. There are some semantic issues we could argue about, but I'd rather just say you're right - because you are.
Why I am an Atheist
16 Feb '10 21:06
Back to Top