Mark_Chid

occam's razor is a rule of thumb, not a rule of physics.

If I tell you last week's winning lottery numbers the simplest explanation is that I got them from a newspaper, but i COULD be last week's winner and have had those numbers in advance.

Sometimes the complicated explanation is the truth.

GeoTheo

1. There is no impirical evidence. There cannot be, so all "evidence" is false evidence.
This is logically consistent.

2.It is not strange, it is quite a common belief.
you are odd to call it strange since you come from a culture where it is common.
3. Theists do not approach it from that perspective. They just get suckered into letting atheists frame the debate. I don't know one person that believes in God based on the standard logical arguements. I think more theists should take a look at that.
Parsimony: How do you justify this as being so authoritative? It seems totally arbitrary.
Parsimonious means "the explanation I like, because it fits my worldview."

Infinity Lover

I couldn't agree more.

Funnily enough though, on a slightly different note, there have been examples of lingual conversion in history.

During the Napoleontic occupation, for instance, there was an attempt at making Holland French speaking teritory. And it remainded the language of the 'upper class' (twats) for a while.

Isn't there the same 'practical purpose' to conversion to a certain language, as to religious conversion. It being oh so much more convenient if everybody beliefs in the same thing. No more reason to doubt one's specific religion being the proper one, or to defend it.

Marcel.

Jayhawker Soule

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> exactly <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Infinity Lover

To be honest, I worship the letter O. Here's my song of worship.

Oh O, oh O, oh oh oh O.
Oh O, oh O.
Oh oh oh O.
Oh O, oh O, Oh oh oh O.
Oh O, oh oh O, Oh O

etc.

GeoTheo

Here's the thing:
God exists in our mind. He also exists apart from the physical Universe.
Atheists retort by saying "He does not exist apart from the physical Universe. I know because He does not exist within the physical Universe. Parsimony requires me to reject His existence, because I think it is very parsimonious of me to limit all of my thinking to the physical Universe."
This is a non-sensical statement.
God may not exist in your mind. Also there are other things that do not exist in your mind.
One category of things that don't exist in your mind are things you don't understand. Once you understand them they exist. Likewise that explains there existence in other peoples minds.

There could be falsehoods that don't exist in your mind also. A falsehood could exist in my mind.
Is this the case with God?
It is not because I fully understand the explanation you have in your mind for what you believe to be "God" as well as the belief I have.
They are two seperate entities in my case but in your case they are not.
If I were the one that was decieved I could not say this.
Think for a second about worship. Do you understand it? Many atheists have admitted they do not. It is part of a missing dimension on your part.

GeoTheo

I have the letter 'e'. Atheists do not.
Language being our view of the world.
Think of the book "1984". Language was used to control people. The language was purposely limited to prevent people from rebelling. Big brother believed that if the people could not concieve of the concept of freedom they would not be able to rebel. They would have no understanding of what freedom was.

GeoTheo

So here is your analogy:
Any concept of anything that exists outside the physical universe is nonsensical.
The realm of the absurd. Worship is absurd.
How do you know for a fact that it only seems absurd because you cannot understand it? People often think things they don't understand are absurd.
I am not talking about worshiping the letter 'e'
I trying to describe what it is like to be some one with a larger vocabulary talking to a person with a limited vocabulary trying to describe a concept the other person has no word for.

wade-w

I agree.

How is the second explanation more complex than the first? The second statemnet, that you had them in advance is redundant if you were last week's winner. Therefore either possibility is equally simple (or complex, depending on your point of view).

The truth is whatever actually happened. Once all the facts are known, the true explanation is still no more complex than is necessary.

GeoTheo

Here is another analogy:
I have a concept in my mind. Another person has a straw man of my concept in their mind.
They attack the straw man, showing that it is irrational. We really are not in disagreement since my concept is not what was being destroyed only a charicature of it.
There is a communication problem.
Once I properly communicate the concept, it will exist in both our minds.
Untill that point we had alot of concepts in our mind in common except one. These all existed as concepts in our mind.
These concepts existed in our minds only.
The fact that we had them in common gives us some security that they also have their existence outside our minds and that We can trust our sense experience that allows us to aprehend them.
People like to reassure each other that they share concepts of reality. They do this all the time through communication.
If our senses could be entirely trusted to create a view of reality their would be no need for this.
Some concepts are scary. The best way to avoid them is to structure your view of reality around them. I think that is the case with metaphysical naturalism. God is such a scary concept that a worldview has been structured within which He would be impossible to be concieved of.
Challenges can even be made to prove God's existence within the framework of naturalism.
Theists take up the challenge and fail.
That in turn acts to further cement the bricks being put together in the atheists mind that create his reality.