Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doctor X · 09-13-2003, 03:17 PM

Perhaps the physical attempt to try to shoot provides him some pleasure?

--J.D.

theophilus · 09-13-2003, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
"First, William of Occan was a Chrsitian, so he could not have intended any dictum as a tool to deny God."

So what? We're interested in how it could be used, period.

"Second, there is apparently no evidence that Occam ever knew about his famous namesake."

Again, so?

"The mere assertion of an idea does not automatically mean that that idea is adequate to explain a phenomenon."

The law is relevant only when all things are equal. If we have equal, or no evidence for two hypotheses then the simpler one tends to be correct.

"Third, it is not at all clear that evolution is a "simpler" explanation than God. Evolution is based on the confluance of an infinite number of potential events and constrained by time and space."

And God could have done it an infinite number of ways, so once again we are either stuck with just the universe or both God and the uviverse. Once again, naturalism wins.

"God, on the other hand is a "simple" being and is not constrained by time and space."

True, but your stuck with (so far) two things. Once again, I ask you: which is simpler, just a universe, or a universe plus God?

Your question is mistaken.
Saying "just" the universe as if you know that the universe is "simple" is just begging the question.

Most important, it's not "God" and anything. God is a self-existent unity. Everything else proceeds from him.

theophilus · 09-13-2003, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
I'm going to take 3 official actions here.

1. Theophilus, you have hijacked this thread and dragged it off in a direction I'm sure CV did not mean it to go. It's a discussion about OR *and* multiple universes, and you just want to diss OR. Consider yourself whacked about the head and shoulders with a long-dead trout, theophilus.

I'm confused (yes, yes, enjoy your little laugh); I could have sworn that I posted this as a separate topic. I was surprised when I saw the title you used. I went over to CV's post and do not recall having ever seen it.

2. I'm going to split this thread, and re-title all but the OP 'theophilus vs. Occam's Razor'. And I'm going to note that theo goes into this battle without even a rusty nail file, so my money's on William.

I wasn't trying to defeat William, so don't see the point of your money being anywhere but in you pocket.

3. Comestible Venom, I've read that article, and a fascinating one it is, too. 4 possible levels of multiple universes- hell, my mind wasn't far enough out to conceive that even doing 'shrooms and acid simultaneously, back in the seventies. (Guess I should have added more drugs to the mix, hm?) But, it's not really a topic for EoG, so I'm moving it to S&S. Jobar.

The reason I posted here EoG is because OC is always drug in as if the mere assertion excludes God.

theophilus · 09-13-2003, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
"Evolution is based on..."

When did he mention evolution!

If you mean Occam, I don't think I implied that. I was discussing the application of OR which is usually asserted as ipso facto disproof of Go as creator because that is somehow more "complicated" than evolution.

copernicus · 09-13-2003, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
Most important, it's not "God" and anything. God is a self-existent unity. Everything else proceeds from him.

Which God, Theophilus? There are an endless number of them, and Occam wants to get busy.

theophilus · 09-13-2003, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Irrelevant. The worth of a philosophical tool is embedded in its usefulness, not the putative intentions of its creator.

I mentioned this to remove the unspoken implication that OR is automatically antitheistic.

Falsifying evolution: show that organisms don't change over time; show that all offspring are perfect genetic mosaics of their parents. Falsifying neo-Darwinism: find a Homo erectus fossil in Cambrian strata.

Where did this come from?

You're conflating evolution and something else here. Evolution only precludes Creationism, not God.

Well, since the only God I'm concerned with is the creator God, I'm not conflating anything.

Man, you ought to be arrested for torturing logic and semantics. What does Occam have to do with time and space constraints?

We could share a cell when you're hauled in for missing the point.

theophilus · 09-13-2003, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goober
Yeah, and the guy who discovered fission didn't intend for it to be used as a weapon, so that must mean all atom bombs are a fiction.

Or how about: The PoE was invented by Christian theologians, so they could not have intended it to be a tool to deny god. Therefore, any use of it to deny god is wrong, irrelevant of what to PoE atually says.

Why did you even bother to write this sentence? Can't you see how irrelevent it is?

This was just an observation. I apologize in not being clear.

I included it to challenge the unspoken assumption present in most citings of OR that it is automatically anti-theistic.

theophilus · 09-13-2003, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bd-from-kg
What phenomenon are you referring to? Certainly the theory of evolution is capable of explaining the origin of species, but admittedly it�s incapable of explaining, say, radioactive decay.

I probably should have used the term Naturalism, of which evolution is a part. However, withing the context of extant life, evolution is not KNOWN to be an adequate explanation since it has never been observed (macro).

Neverthelsess, evolution is clearly a complex process (of course, it is not a process at all since that would imply direction), requiring the simultaneous, precise occurrance of a hugh number of biological/chemical/cosmological elements.

If you knew even a little bit about science you�d know how ridiculous and ignorant this statement is.

I know. That's why every time I've asked for one piece of evidence of evolution (macro), which I've done hundreds of times, I've received exactly ZERO replies. I'm sure, however, since you know lots about science, you'll be more forthcoming. I await your answer - just one piece of incontrovertible evidence, please.

Creationism, on the other hand, really is untestable and unfalsifiable. Once you postulate an omnipotent, omniscience, unknowable being as the explanation of a phenomenon, anything goes. Absolutely nothing could falsify it.

Well, all the creationists I know are perfectly willing to have their thesis tested by exactly the same tests applied to evolution - oh, I forgot, no tests have been applied to evolution, except theorhetical. I guess it's a different standard for creation.

The correct measure of the �simplicity� of a new theory is how much the existing framework has to be modified to accommodate it.

Well, since the "existing framework" was historically creation, then you're talking about evolution, right?

Evolution postulates absolutely no new entities, no new physical laws, no mysterious coincidences.

I'm sorry, I must have missed "natural selection/survival of the fittest" in my classes on medaeval science.

It fits very comfortably indeed into the pre-existing framework. If evolution isn�t �simpler� than God, no scientific theory is simpler than God.

You must be kidding. Which is simpler "In the beginning, God created," or "billions and billions of years ago, life began by an unknown, accidental event and the complex organisms which now exist are the result of a random process which has never been observed and for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence (don't forget my request for evidence - just one piece will do).

And if that means that the �God� hypothesis is to be preferred, we might as well abandon science altogether in favor of �Goddidit�. That�s a nice �simple� hypothesis that�s guaranteed to �explain� anything that might ever be discovered.

Well, hell, it that's your preference, why not just say, "that's just the way it is" - that's surely the most simple explanation of all.

Besides, simplicity isn�t the only criterion for preferring one theory to another. Explanatory and predictive power is also very important, as is fruitfulness. The explanatory and predictive power of the �God hypothesis� is exactly zero, because it is consistent with absolutely any conceivable observations, past, present, or future. That means not only that any other hypothesis consistent with the facts is preferable, but that it isn�t a scientific hypothesis at all.

Aside from the fact that evolution has never had a successful prediction (remember all those transitionary forms that don't exist), we're ONLY talking about OR here.

This is something that you consistently fail to understand. God-based hypotheses are consistently rejected (in fact ignored) by scientists, not because all scientists have some mysterious, unshakable �naturalistic bias�, but because such hypotheses lead nowhere.

and what you consistently ignore is that scientists do, in fact, have an unshakeable "naturalistic bias." Of course the "God hypothesis" will not yield meaningful answers when the range of acceptable answers is limited to the purely natural at the beginning of the investigation.

There�s no way to test them or make predictions based on them.

This is simply false. Newton, Keppler al based their theories on the assumption that nature displayed uniformity and, therefore predictibility, just because it was governed by God.

Naturalistic predictibility is based on nothing.

Jobar · 09-13-2003, 07:04 PM

theophilus:
That's why every time I've asked for one piece of evidence of evolution (macro), which I've done hundreds of times, I've received exactly ZERO replies.

theophilus, you push me to the bare edge of rudeness with that. Take ye that statement to E/C, and after you have been covered with evidence so deep that you can't see daylight, come back here and apologize. That's not true and you know it.

In fact, I am going to start the thread for you. Unsupported assertions and repetitious arguments are one thing; bald lies are quite another.

Spurious Quirk · 09-13-2003, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
I know. That's why every time I've asked for one piece of evidence of evolution (macro), which I've done hundreds of times, I've received exactly ZERO replies. I'm sure, however, since you know lots about science, you'll be more forthcoming. I await your answer - just one piece of incontrovertible evidence, please.

I apologise if you have seen this before, but how about this as evidence for so-called 'macro' evolution?

Cheers

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-13-2003, 03:17 PM	#11
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Perhaps the physical attempt to try to shoot provides him some pleasure? --J.D.

09-13-2003, 07:04 PM	#19
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	theophilus: That's why every time I've asked for one piece of evidence of evolution (macro), which I've done hundreds of times, I've received exactly ZERO replies. theophilus, you push me to the bare edge of rudeness with that. Take ye that statement to E/C, and after you have been covered with evidence so deep that you can't see daylight, come back here and apologize. That's not true and you know it. In fact, I am going to start the thread for you. Unsupported assertions and repetitious arguments are one thing; bald lies are quite another.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.