So you have nothing other than the unknowable God defense. Got it. As i said, it's impossible to have rational discussions with people like you on religion. You always fall back on the same old circular arguments.
'tstrimple' said:
So you have nothing other than the unknowable God defense. Got it. As i said, it's impossible to have rational discussions with people like you on religion. You always fall back on the same old circular arguments.
You asked me to rationalize the decisions of a god. That wouldn't make sense in any religion. It has nothing to do with being circular. It's just a dumb question.
'Jarwulf' said:
'Tachikoma' said:
If you make an assertion about the existence of anything, onus is on you to provide observable and repeatable evidence for it. This is a fundamental principle that can not be overlooked. You may faith in something, but do not ever confuse 'belief' with 'fact'. You may have experienced something that leads you to believe in something, but do not confuse 'experience' with 'evidence' either, as personal experiences can not be observed objectively. Many people make the mistake of mixing up these concepts. Worse still, some people deliberately blur these distinctions to convince others.
The way I understand it. Occam's Razor doesn't apply to Entities with no beginning (which God is sometimes presumed to be) because there is no associated set of events leading up to God's existence which would make it a more unlikely event than God's nonexistence. IE its not the same thing as an assertion stating that your cup broke because you dropped it on the floor vs your cup broke because of a CIA conspiracy with the Loch Ness Monster.
Now it CAN be applied to God intervening in any way but being omnipotent and omniscient and all that God may have found some sublimely simple ways to do anything.
Occam's Razor has nothing to do with causality.
(Exactly how you count assumptions isn't defined, but it doesn't need to be for the principle to be solid).
It is simply: You should prefer the explanation that makes the least assumptions.
wow, this is still rolling along...
gotta love the epic flame threads
What you're describing is a different principle. It may or may not be solid.
'superpig' said:
'Jarwulf' said:
The way I understand it. Occam's Razor doesn't apply to Entities with no beginning (which God is sometimes presumed to be) because there is no associated set of events leading up to God's existence which would make it a more unlikely event than God's nonexistence. IE its not the same thing as an assertion stating that your cup broke because you dropped it on the floor vs your cup broke because of a CIA conspiracy with the Loch Ness Monster.
Now it CAN be applied to God intervening in any way but being omnipotent and omniscient and all that God may have found some sublimely simple ways to do anything.
Occam's Razor has nothing to do with causality.
(Exactly how you count assumptions isn't defined, but it doesn't need to be for the principle to be solid).
Are you sure? it seems Occam's Razor has everything to do with causality. Each event has a probability. Because of this a situation with a more events causing it (more complicated) is less likely than one with a less events causing it (less complicated). Thats the reason why it (sometimes) works.
It is simply: You should prefer the explanation that makes the least assumptions.
Why? Because Occam's Razor came out of the sky and told you to?
Because it's more far-reaching (doesn't refer solely to events), makes fewer assumptions itself, and because everybody else who uses it in argument means it that way. See also Wikipedia, Google Definitions, HowStuffWorks...
For all we know after they were "slaughtered" they were visited with the most pure and limitless love, joy, and fulfillment imaginable.Darn, I had promised not to, but I can't resist... this is just too much :-)
'way2lazy2care' said:
'ChaosEngine' said:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
-Dawkins
Dawkins verbosity aside, it's a pretty accurate list of accusations.
I don't think Dawkins is the best person to go to for any sort of unbiased picture of God.
Exactly. In any case, judging the actions of God from a human perspective is futile. That's like an ant judging the actions of humans. We're simply not qualified to do so objectively.
Please tell me you're joking. Sorry, but by your own belief system you've been given free will above all other creatures to MAKE A CHOICE. To judge. It's moral cowardice to suggest that if god does something we cannot judge him.
The term "act of god" has come to mean an amoral event, usually a natural disaster. We can't judge this because there is no intent behind it. But if you believe there is a moral reason behind such acts you must judge the perpetrators intent.
