Unproveordisprovable Concepts (God) and Occam's Razor.

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

When one thinks about it, adding a completely unnecessary factor to the already hellishly complicated dilema of life is nuts.

OCCAM'S RAZOR PEOPLE! IT SAYS IT ALL! If you do not understand this PLEASE find out. Argument about something one does not understand is annoying and tedious.

Arguments against my view (an unheard of thing, I know):

1) Occam's Razor is a scientific tool. Religion contridicts science. Therefore many religious people will dismiss Occam's Razor.

2) Religion is not a completely useless. It can bring hope and many other positive emotions.

3+) I leave this to you, theists.

THE problem with disprovable ideas associated with upodpa (it's not that hard to figure out what this is) ideas (God) is that people can just bring up more upodpa reasons to explain their disprovable ideas. Then it's right back to square one. Circular.

The other thing is that people can simply choose to not believe evidence against their beliefs. Sad, isn't it, how some people never manage to get past the denial phase?

A note in advance to some: Thank you for your contribution.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 958 • Replies: 17

No top replies

Yes of course, the sun does rise and set as it travels across the sky.

0 Replies

I use a Norelco razor.

0 Replies

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Sure it is.

It's not proof of absence, but of course it's evidence.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That's real life's favourite line!

Why do you come up with some crazy, unsupported idea (God), and say:

"I can't see him but I KNOW he's there."

The KNOW part really pisses me off. How can you know something exists if, as you say, there is no evidence for it?

Maybe abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence, but the concept or idea can be dismissed if it has no evidence - Occam's Razor. This is what this whole thread is about!

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Sure it is.

It's not proof of absence, but of course it's evidence.

Absence of evidence is evidence?

Well, I suppose it's good that you admit to believing this foolishness. It's the first step that is necessary to unmuddle your muddled thinking.

So if I sued my neighbor in court for trespassing on my property, and the judge asks, 'what evidence do you offer that your neighbor trespassed on your property' and I answer 'I have no evidence. That's my evidence.' ----- then I'll probably win, eh? You think so?

No, absence of evidence is simply absence of evidence.

If you argue, 'we know that creature X did not exist during period Y , because we've never found any evidence that it existed during that period,' do you really consider that conclusive?

C'mon. Laughing

0 Replies

real life wrote:

maporsche wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Sure it is.

It's not proof of absence, but of course it's evidence.

Absence of evidence is evidence?

Certainly it is evidence - it is evidence of lack of evidence pertaining to the thing, state, or condition of being at examination. It is not proof there is no such evidence, it merely is incontravertible proof no such evidence has come to hand.

Quote:

Well, I suppose it's good that you admit to believing this foolishness. It's the first step that is necessary to unmuddle your muddled thinking.

This oughtta be fun.

Quote:

So if I sued my neighbor in court for trespassing on my property, and the judge asks, 'what evidence do you offer that your neighbor trespassed on your property' and I answer 'I have no evidence. That's my evidence.' ----- then I'll probably win, eh? You think so?

Argumentum ad absurdam. Simply silly - a fool's ploy, a tacit concession of defeat.

No, absence of evidence is simply absence of evidence.

Quote:

If you argue, 'we know that creature X did not exist during period Y , because we've never found any evidence that it existed during that period,' do you really consider that conclusive?

Given suitable and sufficient credible corresponding, corroborative evidence, absent substantive, reasonably contradictory evidence, such a finding would be a strong component of a reasoned conclusion such a critter did not exist during the prescribed period. You get much beyond simple math, and science perforce deals in probabilities; the function of science is to decrease the margin of uncertainty through building, comparing, and assessing interdisciplinarilly derived and confirmed corroborative evidence. The function of religion is to banish uncertainty through proclamation issued under self claimed authority.

Quote:

C'mon.

Indeed.

0 Replies

Given the fact that new varieties of LIVING creatures are still being discovered every year, it is a ridiculous assumption to state that lack of evidence is conclusive of anything when it comes to finding out what critters did and didn't supposedly exist in X location Y years ago.

Many creatures may have a habitat that stretches for miles, and you're going to conclude after examining a few square yards of it in a dig that you've eliminated the possibility that creature X was ever there?

Laughing

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Given the fact that new varieties of LIVING creatures are still being discovered every year, it is a ridiculous assumption to state that lack of evidence is conclusive of anything when it comes to finding out what critters did and didn't supposedly exist in X location Y years ago.

Many creatures may have a habitat that stretches for miles, and you're going to conclude after examining a few square yards of it in a dig that you've eliminated the possibility that creature X was ever there?

Straw man, irrellevancy, and non sequitur. Discovery of previously unknown critters proves only that previously unknown critters exist. Lack of evidence that some critter existed in a given location at a given time is by itself only evidence that such a critter did not exist there and then - to arrive at a reasonable conclusion such a critter did not exist there and then, one need take into account a broad spectrum of other, interlocking evidence. The more evidence pointing to the unlikelihood of that critter's having lived there and then, the more likely it becomes that the critter might not have existed there and then. Eventually, as evidence to such effect mounts, without contradiction, the only reasonable conclusion is that such a critter did not live there and then. At that point, not unless and untill evidence is obtained which confirms that critter existed there and then is there any reaonable, logical, supportable basis to assume that critter existed there or then. Its all about the evidence.

By the evidence here on these boards, you're making a fool of yourself and a mockery of the proposition you forward.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Sure it is.

It's not proof of absence, but of course it's evidence.

Hmm...

ev·i·dence Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-i-duhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
-noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

0 Replies

Occam's razor
-noun the maxim that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Pleading "Occam's razor" doesn't prove anything, either. Basically, it's a confession that two arguments are not disprovable.

Equally, I can point to Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. Things can be true without being provable.

0 Replies

DewDad wrote:

Occam's razor
-noun the maxim that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Pleading "Occam's razor" doesn't prove anything, either. Basically, it's a confession that two arguments are not disprovable.

Equally, I can point to Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. Things can be true without being provable.

But we're not talking about 'proof'. This isn't mathematics. This is a discussion about something that--given the evidence--amounts to nothing more than an idea, or sets of ideas, abstractions.

Pleading Occam's razor is to plead that this idea, "God," is unnecessary.

The idea of "God" is not necessary for the functioning of the world.

I could believe in a "God" and the world would function just as it has all along, or I could not believe in a "God," and the world would go along functioning as it always has.

So, why believe in a "God?"

Also, Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, strictly speaking, are mathematical theorems that state that formal systems cannot prove their own consistency.

If you were to consider the idea of "God" as a formal system, then you could not prove its consistency with the idea itself.

And indeed, most of the very ideas of "God" lead to inconsistencies and paradoxes.

0 Replies

real life,
I don't agree with either the statement of it's negative. Read my post please. Maybe you should not just answer people who you think are wrong.

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

real life,
I don't agree with either the statement of it's negative. Read my post please. Maybe you should not just answer people who you think are wrong.

And this arrogant sort of statement is why I will not respond to your initial post, kid.

0 Replies

Most things people think or believe in result in paradoxes and inconsistencies. Why would God be any different?

0 Replies

Dys said it all, aperson.

Occum's razor would lead to the sun and moon moving across the skyand the Earth would be relatively pancake flat.

It is a toolbut a much over-rated toolas science proves damn near every day.

0 Replies

You got a point there. Maybe I was over-rating it.

Sturgis,
I don't understand; what did I say that was arrogant?

0 Replies

Unproveordisprovable Concepts (God) and Occam's Razor.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know