"God did not create Universe!", says Hawking.

[Ashmada]

I agree with everything you said except for one part, it's not just "religious people" who believe out of faith.

I said didn't believe out of faith. It'd be fine if they did, but most just believe out of stupidity and/or ignorance.

The next line seems to be a reference to the hedonistic masses that go through life without asking themselves the questions that matter... it's true, they're quite numerous.
They can be "atheists" or "non-practicing religious (i.e. religious for tradition's sake)" and, I, too, have nothing but contempt for those semi-sentient creatures... but I don't see how they are relevant to the discussion at hand .

<Long text misconceiving Ockham's Razor as a "let's get rid of redundancy" proposition.>

No.

It'd be damn right useless if restricted to that use.

And since you like quotes from the wiki, here's a rewording from the earlier exerpt :

This maxim, as interpreted by Bertrand Russell,[11] states that if one can explain a phenomenon without assuming this or that hypothetical entity, there is no ground for assuming it, i.e. that one should always opt for an explanation in terms of the fewest possible number of causes, factors, or variables. He turned this into a concern for ontological parsimony; the principle says that one should not multiply entities beyond necessity

From there, Teapots arise to illustrate the absurdity in positing deities on no logical basis.

Beside, "the universe exist" is a premise, not the answer to the question.

That's the point, "god created the universe and god just exists" doesn't answer the question either, it's therefore an irrelevant postulate and should be chopped off.

[Thiefami]

Hawking just mad he a cripple

[Ashmada]

For that matter, god just mad he got his ass kicked by the One-Eyed God the last time he tried to claim ownership of Yggdrasil and dependancies.

[Mizango]

Or how a fallen, lesser subordinate can achieve the same level of omnipotence with less effort.

Hawking just mad he a cripple

Awesome contribution bro, I'm pretty sure I didn't touch on that fail argument at all last week.

[Kaylia]

I said didn't believe out of faith. It'd be fine if they did, but most just believe out of stupidity and/or ignorance.

The next line seems to be a reference to the hedonistic masses that go through life without asking themselves the questions that matter... it's true, they're quite numerous.
They can be "atheists" or "non-practicing religious (i.e. religious for tradition's sake)" and, I, too, have nothing but contempt for those semi-sentient creatures... but I don't see how they are relevant to the discussion at hand .



No.

It'd be damn right useless if restricted to that use.

And since you like quotes from the wiki, here's a rewording from the earlier exerpt :



From there, Teapots arise to illustrate the absurdity in positing deities on no logical basis.



That's the point, "god created the universe and god just exists" doesn't answer the question either, it's therefore an irrelevant postulate and should be chopped off.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to demonstrate here. I understand what occam razor is, I just don't understand by what logic you can discredit someone who believe in a God over an atheist using that. The concept of God in its simplest form doesn't have a lot that can be chopped off.

Anyway, the question of existence can't be answered by sciences (Gödel's incompleteness theorems) You can talk about "fewest number of causes" all you want, but it's not a question we can rationally approach. From this point, you can choose to ignore the questions of existence because it can't be answered, or you can choose to believe w/e you want (that's what atheists and theists do).

It's not smarter to say "it always existed" then "something we can't understand made it", we simply don't know.

[Max™]

It is however smarter to say "I don't know" than to posit an unknown cause.

[Kaylia]

It is however smarter to say "I don't know" than to posit an unknown cause.

Yes, and that's exactly what smart believer do. Their reasoning is the same as any agnostic, except they consciously follow their "feeling" knowing they might be completely wrong. Smart atheists do the same.

[guartz]

Yes, and that's exactly what smart believer do. Their reasoning is the same as any agnostic, except they consciously follow their "feeling" knowing they might be completely wrong. Smart atheists do the same.

huh? what?

[Kaylia]

huh? what?

To be an atheist or theist, you need to make a leap of faith and guess the final answers. Smart people know that, and do it anyway if they want to.

[guartz]

To be an atheism or theism, you need to make a leap of faith and guess the final answers. Smart people know that, and do it anyway.

Except your faith in god was originated by a lie somebody told you. Smart people's faith originates from conclusions based on tangible evidence.

[Kaylia]

Except your faith in god was originated by a lie somebody told you. Smart people's faith originates from conclusions based on tangible evidence.

If you think everyone with beliefs are mindless drones who can't consider this when they come up with their beliefs, then w/e, you probably aren't much better.

[Rhyis.]

http://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/3088/...jpg?1244270603

[Erza]

To be an atheist or theist, you need to make a leap of faith and guess the final answers. Smart people know that, and do it anyway if they want to.

No.They.Dont. Atheism is a rejection of a positive claim based on a lack of demonstrable evidence, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of atheists, myself included would change their mind and believe in God if the face of proper evidence, not just bullshit like "lolz the bible says it's true".

Let me ask you this, would you consider it a "leap of faith" if you made a positive claim of knowledge that magical invisible rainbow horses lived on Mars?

[Kaylia]

No.They.Dont. Atheism is a rejection of a positive claim based on a lack of demonstrable evidence, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of atheists, myself included would change their mind and believe in God if the face of proper evidence, not just bullshit like "lolz the bible says it's true".

Let me ask you this, would you consider it a "leap of faith" if you made a positive claim of knowledge that magical invisible rainbow horses lived on Mars?

Again, a smart theist will never claim his spiritual belief are the truth, he will simply say "this is what I believe in". I'm not sure why you expect him to convince you, because that's not his goal. He knows how he came to his conclusion, and he knows differents people might feel differently.

To reject the claim, you need belief yourself. You cant say otherwise unless you're an hypocrite.

And your question about Mars is retarded. There is nothing about the planet we can't understand. The existence of the universe however will -always- be unexplained.

[guartz]

ah, smart theists hold personal delusions. It's like saying I had a dream about eating out your mom yesterday. Can't prove it, no way to. But it's my belief that dream happened, and it was sloppy.

[Ashmada]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to demonstrate here. I understand what occam razor is

Your previous effort shows you don't understand it ; at least not how it applies to philosophy.

I just don't understand by what logic you can discredit someone who believe in a God over an atheist using that.

Then I don't know what to say.
I've used my own formulation, I've quoted Russell directly... I'm running out of ways to explain it now.

The concept of god in its simplest form doesn't have a lot that can be chopped off.

The concept itself should be chopped off, as I've tried to convey several times now. Cfr the above quote on Russell.
Russell's Teapot directly results from Ockham's Razor, it's just the razor applied to theology in exampe form.

You can talk about "fewest number of causes" all you want, but it's not a question we can rationally approach.

Yes, we can, and many have. Kant was pretty damn thorough about it in "critique of pure reason".

From this point, you can choose to ignore the questions of existence because it can't be answered, or you can choose to believe w/e you want (that's what atheists and theists do).

Palm, meet face. Face, meet palm.
Not the first time I'm confronted with this rhetoric, but it still has the same effect.

You do realise that this quote :

It is however smarter to say "I don't know" than to posit an unknown cause.

that you agreed with is saying exactly what I've been saying, right?
The "unknown cause" being whatever deity you want (except Odin, he's known and awesome).

[Max™]

FUCK YEAH, ODIN!

http://i518.photobucket.com/albums/u...488/Odin01.jpg
http://blog.kexp.org/blog/wp-content...06/08/Odin.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...ators/odin.jpg

[Maxwell]

Wow, Kaylia really has no idea what they're talking about.

[Mayareira]

lolOdin

[Kaylia]

Your previous effort shows you don't understand it ; at least not how it applies to philosophy.



Then I don't know what to say.
I've used my own formulation, I've quoted Russell directly... I'm running out of ways to explain it now.



The concept itself should be chopped off, as I've tried to convey several times now. Cfr the above quote on Russell.
Russell's Teapot directly results from Ockham's Razor, it's just the razor applied to theology in exampe form.

Yes, we can, and many have. Kant was pretty damn thorough about it in "critique of pure reason".



Palm, meet face. Face, meet palm.
Not the first time I'm confronted with this rhetoric, but it still has the same effect.

You do realise that this quote :

that you agreed with is saying exactly what I've been saying, right?
The "unknown cause" being whatever deity you want (except Odin, he's known and awesome).

Keep tossing insults, your argument doesnt worth shit mathematically or scientifically. It's not even good philosophy since you're misusing concept like many people do. Occam's razor should be applied whenever you can, but it only works if you can determine the validity of the model, or show the equivalence within the model, and sadly for you, it's not something that can be done here. As a mathematics principle, it works fine, but as a rules of thumbs in philosophy, it's subject to every fucking bias.

Anyway, I havent seen you propose any reasonable solution here that solve that "causeless cause" issue. If you have one, then please, do post it.

[edit#125453]
The only rational way to deal with the topic is agnosticism. Anything else require beliefs, idiocy or hypocrisy.