Bree

Quote:

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"

Okay, I understand the principle - but I don't understand how it relates to atheism. Can someone please enlighten me?

pz

The concept of "god" violates Occam's Razor. It's an unnecessary, excessively complicated entity with no supporting evidence for its existence.

Radorth

So does every JMer theory ever discussed here. Also Occam's razor relates to accepting the simplest explanation, unlike some evolution theories only a Phd could begin to sort out, and unlike every JM'er theory I've ever seen. Are you seriously asserting that we should consider complex and unproven atheist theories as not in violation?

When you apply the Razor to the Gospels, you get the swoon theory- that Jesus did not really die. Anything else is cynical, complex and unprovable. Even the swoon theory is unprovable, but at least it's rational.

But hey keep throwing out complicated contradictory crap nobody will ever get but a few true believers, and you can never prove. So glad Schonfield, Wells and Durant have fallen from grace.

Rad

Melkor

They're far simpler than any of the theistic ones.

Oh wait... there AREN'T ANY.

"God did it" isn't an explanation, nor is it a theory.

Melkor

Besides, when you apply the Razor to the Bibbble, you come to a pretty swift conclusion that it's a collection of folklore handed down verbally for a really long time, then written down by people whose identities we can never be sure of, about many events that can never be proven.

The simplest explanation is the likely one.

Which is simpler?

That human beings -- known for making up stories and having dubious veracity at best when relating accounts of events -- wrote the Bibbble?

Or that everything in it is 100% true, which would require many, many contradicting events to have taken place that defy physical law, common sense, and require the existance of an inherently unprovable complex "being" that is all-powerful (yet can apparently not achieve victory over evil), is benevolent (yet allows evil to exist in spite of being all-powerful), is non-interventionist (yet is described intervening in human affairs countless times in the Bibbble)?


Occam's Razor points to a pretty simple answer to that question, even when applied to something as simple as the Bibbble.

Undercurrent

Add that there's nothing wrong under Occam's Razor with a theory being complex, so long as that complexity is the minimum amount required to explain all the available facts.

If a theory contradicts a known data point, it must at least include a statement along the lines of "and said data point is due to experimental error/untrustworthy/&c". If the theory contradicts a great number of data points, all of these additional clauses add great complexity to the theory pushing it back into Ockham's domain.

m.

Yellum Notnef

I was just wondering where you went,but I see you`ve decided to go play next door.
So here you are again with your bitter grudge against JM`ers and your two favorite skeptics up on a pedestal.

Why does it matter to you if a skeptical unbeliever thinks that Jesus was a real person,but didn`t actually die on the cross? This guy doesn`t believe Jesus was a supernatural god like you do so why are you so impressed? How does this help your cause?
Once again I`ll ask WHY does it matter to you if nonbelievers think Jesus was man or myth? You`re not going to convince any of them that Jesus was a God who floated up into the sky even if you think starting out with a real Jesus gets you one ass hair closer than if he was a myth.

Melkor

Exactly.

And since "God did it" is basically the "explanation" given, and that's not an explanation (unless a theory can be demonstrated as to HOW "God did it", and can be demonstrated to be simpler than scientific theories that propose otherwise), Occam's Razor points pretty far away from the Bibbble as anything useful in understanding the universe or anything in it.

Starboy

I don't consider Ockham’s razor a very good argument for anything. To me it seems to be an appeal to intuition. It begs the question: simple for what and for whom? When applied to practical matters it is usually accompanied by a caveat "but not too simple". And as far as explanations go there can be none simpler than "god did it" which I do not find convincing at all. Science doesn't need it because if a choice is to be made between two theories the way to decide it is by experiment on nature. It is one of the many lame concepts that philosophers dreamt of long ago and like to apply because philosophy doesn't really have much else to go on.

Starboy

Radorth

Historians like them don't help "the cause" at all. I've said that. I've also specifically said that Durant does more harm to the cause than 200 Winstojens will do in their whole lifetimes. I said it on a thread we were both on. Try to keep up. Oh wait, your cynicism doesn't allow you to note a Christian admitting a negative truth. I forget.

Millions of thoughtful people read their works and while readers well know Jesus was a real person, they are impressed by the logic of these writers- that he was a great person, even the greatest, but not divine. I've been trying for over a month to explain how damaging an honest skeptic can be, and how damaging the "swoon" theory is, and you guys still don't get it.

The beauty of the theory is that yo don't have to make a hundred cynical, unprovable, contradictory assertions to get a convert. Get it now? No? Oh good. I won't worry about you making any converts except other cynics looking for a new theory every two weeks.

The other mistake made here is that you have confused "simplest" explanations with "simplistic" explanations, which usually just open a Pandora's box to the thoughtful reader. Saying the NT is 100% made up is even dumber than saying it is 100% true, which I have never once claimed here or on any other skeptics website. Much of the end of Mark is interpolated (quite obviously I think). Matthew embellishes or reported an embellished story. The geneologies are inexplicable to me.

I'm not bitter against JMer's at all. They just supply me with an endless source of intellectual hypocrisy to point to. I don't even mind that, but when they start claiming they are intellectually superior and "rational" and I'm not, they deserve it.

Rad