A Fine Example of Theocracy Indeed

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Occams razor does not postulate that the simplest solution is the correct one.

Yes it does
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
"Of several acceptable explanations, the simplest is preferable"

CDfm wrote: »

If you yourself admit you dont have the technology or the data -why so sure? If you are unsure and dont have the data why not say it.

There is nothing wrong with saying you have no scientific explanation but just dont believe rather than borrow theories.

If I see someone knock a table and make something fall off, I could say "it fell off because he knocked the table" or I could do what you're doing and say "I know that saying he knocked it completely explains why it fell but I think that God made it fall". I don't have to be sure that God didn't have a hand in morality. All I have to say is that him having a hand in it does not change it's validity in any way so why insist that he must have had a hand in it when this hand didn't actually do anything?


The question is not "why not invoke god?", it's "why invoke god to explain something that has already been explained?"

CDfm wrote: »

If you are following Nietschean logic he also discounted Plato.I am asking you to explain your logic. I cant see it.

I'm not following Nietschean logic, I didn't even know he said that. My logic is: if you think that people need the promise of heaven and the threat of hell as a motivation to do good, that is not morality, that is selfish self preservation. They are only doing good in order to get something out of it

Why is it not enough to say "do good because it's good, even if you will never be rewarded"?

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

Occams razor does not postulate that the simplest solution is the correct one.

Technically you're correct, but can you even explain why or are you just parroting something you heard once and want to sound clever? Because quite frankly the rest of your post implies you don't understand this principle, so it seems a little ironic that you would be lecturing others in its finer points.

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

Technically you're correct, but can you even explain why or are you just parroting something you heard once and want to sound clever? Because quite frankly the rest of your post implies you don't understand this principle, so it seems a little ironic that you would be lecturing others in its finer points.

The exact wording is

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate[/I]" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity."

I am not being clever - Occams in not just applied to science and to imply that Occams Razor is proof is misleading. Its a deductive tool or method but you dont point out that in science when applied to is complex problems it can point towards to the wrong answer and wishful thinking. Occams is not infallible and you know this.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

The exact wording is



I am not being clever - Occams in not just applied to science and to imply that Occams Razor is proof is misleading. Its a deductive tool or method but you dont point out that in science when applied to is complex problems it can point towards to the wrong answer. Occams is not infallible and you know this.

I never said it was proof, I am using it in exactly they way it was intended. It is irrational to insist that god must have been involved with something when his involvement is completely unnecessary. Why insist he had a hand in it when this hand didn't do anything?

I could just as easily say the flying spaghetti monster had a hand in it. Logic like this is exactly why someone thought up the flying spaghetti monster to show how little sense it makes. Since morality would exist whether god had a hand in it or not, it's not up to me to prove he didn't have a hand in it, it's up to you to prove he did

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I never said it was proof, I am using it in exactly they way it was intended. It is irrational to insist that god must have been involved with something when his involvement is completely unnecessary. Why insist he had a hand in it when this hand didn't do anything?

So why cite Occams then.

Why not just say that you just dont believe.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

So why cite Occams then.

Why not just say that you just dont believe.

Are you really asking me why would I cite occam's razor if it's not proof, ie that I should use it in a way that it was never intended to be used

You don't seem to understand occam's razor. Since morality would exist without god, making god unnecessary in morality, occam's razor indicates that he was not involved and the burden of proof rests with the person claiming otherwise. I don't really know how to make it any clearer

Sam Vimes

Here's an example: a guy is found kneeling over a dead body with a knife in his hand. He claims that god took over his mind and forced him to do it. Do we accept his story just because we can't absolutely prove it to be false?

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Are you really asking me why would I cite occam's razor if it's not proof, ie that I should use it in a way that it was never intended to be used

You don't seem to understand occam's razor. Since morality would exist without god, making god unnecessary in morality, occam's razor indicates that he was not involved and the burden of proof rests with the person claiming otherwise. I don't really know how to make it any clearer

Occam did not say the simpler the better.

Are you saying as that as you dont believe in God and therefore you exclude God when arriving as an explanation for your moral beliefs or actions.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Occam did not say the simpler the better.

Are you saying as that as you dont believe in God and therefore you exclude God when arriving as an explanation for your moral beliefs or actions.

Yes in fact occam did say the simpler the better. Occam's razor is the principle that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily (direct quote). When you say god must have been involved in something that would exist just as well without him, you are multiplying entities unnecessarily

Whether I believe in God is irrelevant. Even if god did exist you would still have to show that he was involved in morality because there is nothing to indicate that he was and he is an unnecessary entity in morality

I could compare it to "cars exist therefore john smith from wicklow built them". I believe in john and I believe in cars but that doesn't bring me any closer to accepting that he built them. Now if you could show that it was impossible to build cars without John Smith or maybe had some evidence of him building them, you'd be getting somewhere

CDfm

According to Ockham, "nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture" (William of Ockham, Scriptum in librum primum Sententiarum (Ordinatio), Distinctiones XIX-XLVIII, in Opera Theologica, vol. IV, ed. Girard Etzkorn and Francis Kelly [St. Bonaventure University, 1979], p. 290).

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Medi/MediZhen.htm

If you cite Occam correctly you do so with the assumption that God exists.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Medi/MediZhen.htm

If you cite Occam correctly you do so with the assumption that God exists.

We as human beings are currently not in a position to make that assumption. And again, even if he exists, that does not prove that he was involved in morality. As you just quoted "nothing ought to be posited without a reason given". The only reason you've given is "you can't prove he wasn't involved" and that's not a reason because I can't prove that anything in existence wasn't involved

Sam Vimes

Does your argument boil down to "god was involved in morality because it says so in the bible"?

If so there is no point having this debate because your argument is basically "I believe god was involved in something that requires no god because I really really really want him to have been involved". Well I'm sorry mate but wanting something to be true doesn't make it true

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We as human beings are currently not in a position to make that assumption. And again, even if he exists, that does not prove that he was involved in morality. As you just quoted "nothing ought to be posited without a reason given". The only reason you've given is "you can't prove he wasn't involved" and that's not a reason because I can't prove that anything in existence wasn't involved

Using Occam God or scripture cant be excluded and you cited Occam not me.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Does your argument boil down to "god was involved in morality because it says so in the bible"?

If so there is no point having this debate because your argument is basically "I believe god was involved in something that requires no god because I really really really want him to have been involved". Well I'm sorry mate but wanting something to be true doesn't make it true

Well like I pointed out as you dont believe in God just say it but using Occam as an argument from authority doesnt cut it.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Using Occam God or scripture cant be excluded and you cited Occam not me.

If you look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor, you'll see it's commonly used as an argument against god. Just because I use a concept from this guy doesn't mean I have to accept his every belief and prejudice. Until such time as God's existence is proven, we cannot assume the scriptures are correct. If you are making that assumption then there is no point in you venturing into the atheism forum

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Well like I pointed out as you dont believe in God just say it but using Occam as an argument from authority doesnt cut it.

I am not using it as an argument from authority. It is a concept that can be applied very effectively to this situation. You are the only one using an argument from authority because you're assuming that the scriptures are correct and basing all of your arguments on that. They have never been proven to be correct so you are wrong to make that assumption

Sam Vimes

You are doing that old religious thing of assuming that your god exists and going from there. Do you not think that's a bit counter productive in an argument with an atheist because we don't accept that assumption? You can't indicate for god's existence by beginning with the assumption that he exists!

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor, you'll see it's commonly used as an argument against god. Just because I use a concept from this guy doesn't mean I have to accept his every belief and prejudice. Until such time as God's existence is proven, we cannot assume the scriptures are correct. If you are making that assumption then there is no point in you venturing into the atheism forum

Just because its commonly misused or cited in Wikipedia doesnt make it correct. I havent read up in that kind of stuff in years but knew what you were citing as Ockam was incorrect.


I can lookup wikipedia too up here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_fallacy

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Just because its commonly misused or cited in Wikipedia doesnt make it correct. I havent read up in that kind of stuff in years but knew what you were citing as Ockam was incorrect.


I can lookup wikipedia too up here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_fallacy

I'm not using the bandwagon fallacy. Look mate, if Occam thought you could assume the scriptures to be correct then he's wrong because they have not been proven to be correct, simple as that. You're actually using the argument from authority fallacy here by suggesting that if I take one of this guy's ideas then I have to take all of his beliefs and prejudicces just because he held them.

Just the idea in the text you quoted, that you can "prove by the authority of ancient scripture" is fcuking ridiculous. Just because some guy 2000 years ago wrote something down doesn't mean it's proven. If writing it down could prove it, not only would I already be a believer but christianity would be taught in history class, just like all of the other history that has been proven

Sam Vimes

Does the fact that occam's razor is used across all realms of human endeavour without objection, even in areas with nothing to do with religion, make you think that maybe you might be wrong to say that it can't be used unless the existence of god is assumed? Can you find anything to suggest that, since the text you quoted doesn't actually indicate that?

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not using the bandwagon fallacy. Look mate, if Occam thought you could assume the scriptures to be correct then he's wrong because they have not been proven to be correct, simple as that. You're actually using the argument from authority fallacy here by suggesting that if I take one of this guy's ideas then I have to take all of his beliefs and prejudicces just because he held them.

Just the idea in the text you quoted, that you can "prove by the authority of ancient scripture" is fcuking ridiculous. Just because some guy 2000 years ago wrote something down doesn't mean it's proven. If writing it down could prove it, not only would I already be a believer but christianity would be taught in history class, just like all of the other history that has been proven

Well thats all very well but seeing you are a Wikipedia fan Occam used in science has hampered progress too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

However, on many occasions Occam's razor has stifled or delayed scientific progress.[18] For example, appeals to simplicity were used to deny the phenomena of meteorites, ball lightning, continental drift, and reverse transcriptase. It originally rejected DNA as the carrier of genetic information in favor of proteins, since proteins provided the simpler explanation. Theories that reach far beyond the available data are rare, but General Relativity provides one example.
In hindsight, one can argue that it is simpler to consider DNA as the carrier of genetic information, because it uses a smaller number of building blocks (four nitrogenous bases). However, during the time that proteins were the favored genetic medium, it seemed like a more complex hypothesis to confer genetic information in DNA rather than proteins.

What I am saying is that logically if thats the argument you are taking you cant throw away the bits you dont like.Because using Occam God exists and is essential to the mix and you might even confuse Creationists that you are on their side too.

Your first arguments were better because they relied on not having data rather than relying on dogma.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Does the fact that occam's razor is used across all realms of human endeavour without objection, even in areas with nothing to do with religion, make you think that maybe you might be wrong to say that it can't be used unless the existence of god is assumed? Can you find anything to suggest that, since the text you quoted doesn't actually indicate that?

Its a tool but its a conservative tool used too elimate stuff too for economy of effort not to prove a point. Its very useful but you are using it to eliminate propositions you dont like.Like you might have a general principle and refine it but misusing it is lazy.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Well thats all very well but seeing you are a Wikipedia fan Occam used in science has hampered progress too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

I never said it was perfect, in fact I acknowledged it wasn't. That does not, however, mean that it should be dismissed out of hand. It is still a useful tool as long as you keep in mind that it's not perfect.

CDfm wrote: »

What I am saying is that logically if thats the argument you are taking you cant throw away the bits you dont like.Because using Occam God exists and is essential to the mix and you might even confuse Creationists that you are on their side too.

Your first arguments were better because they relied on not having data rather than relying on dogma.

You actually do not understand occam's razor at all. It in no way requires the assumption of god's existence. None. Whatsoever. Suggesting otherwise is quite simply ludicrous.

He believed in god. Fantastic. That does not mean that every logical concept he puts forward relies on the existence of god to give it validity. All it means is he gave artificial authority to the scriptures because he took them to be proven when they're not. Making an incorrect assumption like that is actually a sure fire way to make occam's razor fail.

CDfm wrote: »

Your first arguments were better because they relied on not having data rather than relying on dogma.

This argument also relies on not having data. If you had data suggesting that god was involved in morality then occam's razor could not be used. Until such time as you have this data, god is an unnecessary entity in morality and there is no reason to place him in the middle of it other than you want him to be there

Edit: also, I am not ''relying on dogma'. It is a useful logical tool. I am not asking you to accept it because occam said it, I'm asking you to accept it because it makes sense

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Its a tool but its a conservative tool used too elimate stuff too for economy of effort not to prove a point. Its very useful but you are using it to eliminate propositions you dont like.Like you might have a general principle and refine it but misusing it is lazy.

I am using it to eliminate god for economy of effort. He is not required for morality so I am eliminating him until evidence is presented to the contrary. I am not using it to eliminate something "I don't like" and I am not using it lazily. Whether I like god or not does not change the fact that morality would exist even if he had nothing to do with it. I am using it exactly as it was intended to be used

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You actually do not understand occam's razor at all. It in no way requires the assumption of god's existence. None. Whatsoever. Suggesting otherwise is quite simply ludicrous.

Well the way William of Ockam wrote it it did. Its like conducting a scientific study a limiting the sample to suit your hypothesis the way you want to apply it.

He believed in god. Fantastic. That does not mean that every logical concept he puts forward relies on the existence of god to give it validity. All it means is he gave artificial authority to the scriptures because he took them to be proven when they're not. Making an incorrect assumption like that is actually a sure fire way to make occam's razor fail.

Hey I am not an expert -its years since Ive read the stuff but the way Occam wrote it is not the way its being used by Atheists argument.

This argument also relies on not having data. If you had data suggesting that god was involved in morality then occam's razor could not be used. Until such time as you have this data, god is an unnecessary entity in morality and there is no reason to place him in the middle of it other than you want him to be there

You are applying what you apply to natural sciences to a different phenomona.

Edit: also, I am not ''relying on dogma'. It is a useful logical tool. I am not asking you to accept it because occam said it, I'm asking you to accept it because it makes sense

Im saying its ok for you to say you dont believe but its wrong to cite Occam doing so.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Well the way William of Ockam wrote it it did. Its like conducting a scientific study a limiting the sample to suit your hypothesis the way you want to apply it.

No part of "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" says "You must assume that my particular version of God exists to use this concept". You're talking nonsense man.

CDfm wrote: »

You are applying what you apply to natural sciences to a different phenomona.

And that's wrong because...

CDfm wrote: »

Im saying its ok for you to say you dont believe but its wrong to cite Occam doing so.

No, it's not. You simply do not understand it as you have amply shown. Once you show me something that says that the use of Occam's razor as a logical concept requires the assumption of God's existence I will gladly apologise and accept Jebus as my saviour.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No part of "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" says "You must assume that my particular version of God exists to use this concept". You're talking nonsense man.

Hey don't blame me I dont go around quoting medieval metaphysical philosophers.

No, it's not. You simply do not understand it as you have amply shown. Once you show me something that says that the use of Occam's razor as a logical concept requires the assumption of God's existence I will gladly apologise and accept Jebus as my saviour.

I am not a William of Ockam Scholar but its not used simply to eliminate indiscrimately.Quite a mover was our Bill.

Edit : you might like this biographical link though http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15636a.htm

And this one that shows that Occam did not apply it to his faith. So are you signing up then.

http://www.skepdic.com/occam.html

This principle has been used by atheists to reject the God-the-Creator hypothesis in favor of natural evolution: if a Perfect God had created the Universe, both the Universe and its components would be much simpler. William would not have approved.

He did argue, however, that natural theology is impossible. Natural theology uses reason alone to understand God, as contrasted with revealed theology which is founded upon scriptural revelations. According to Occam, the idea of God is not established by evident experience or evident reasoning. All we know about God we know from revelation. The foundation of all theology, therefore, is faith. It should be noted that while others might apply the razor to eliminate the entire spiritual world, Ockham did not apply the principle of parsimony to the articles of faith. Had he done so, he might have become a Socinian like John Toland (Christianity not Mysterious, 1696) and pared down the Trinity to a Unity and the dual nature of Christ to a single nature.

Sam Vimes

So Ockam didn't apply it to his faith, which I already knew. That doesn't mean it can't be applied to faith, especially because his reason is a load of crap. He's putting his faith on a pedestal and saying it can't be questioned in the same way anything else can. Well I'm sorry to tell you and Ockam but it can just as easily be applied to faith
once you stop making the completely unfounded and incorrect assumption that it's been proven
. That just sounds to me like a BS rationalisation because he realised just how unlikely it would make his god, because it's much simpler to say they simply lied than to say the laws of nature were broken by an infinitely complex being
. The fact that Ockam believed in God isn't even relevant because the fact that Ockam came up with it isn't relevant. It would only be relevant if I was using an argument from authority fallacy. He had a personal bias that stopped him using his own idea to it's full potential but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't

Besides which, I'm not applying it to god's existence, I'm applying it to whether he had a hand in morality or not. Even if he does exist, why insist he must have had a hand in it if would be exactly the same if he didn't? What did he do exactly?

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I am using it exactly as it was intended to be used

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No, it's not. You simply do not understand it as you have amply shown. Once you show me something that says that the use of Occam's razor as a logical concept requires the assumption of God's existence I will gladly apologise and accept Jebus as my saviour.

This principle has been used by atheists to reject the God-the-Creator hypothesis in favor of natural evolution: if a Perfect God had created the Universe, both the Universe and its components would be much simpler. William would not have approved.

He did argue, however, that natural theology is impossible. Natural theology uses reason alone to understand God, as contrasted with revealed theology which is founded upon scriptural revelations. According to Occam, the idea of God is not established by evident experience or evident reasoning. All we know about God we know from revelation. The foundation of all theology, therefore, is faith. It should be noted that while others might apply the razor to eliminate the entire spiritual world, Ockham did not apply the principle of parsimony to the articles of faith. Had he done so, he might have become a Socinian like John Toland (Christianity not Mysterious, 1696) and pared down the Trinity to a Unity and the dual nature of Christ to a single nature.

:eek::eek:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So Ockam didn't apply it to his faith. That doesn't mean it can't be applied to faith, especially because his reason is a load of crap. He's putting his faith on a pedestal and saying it can't be questioned in the same way anything else can. Well I'm sorry to tell you and Ockam but it can just as easily be applied to faith
once you stop making the completely unfounded and incorrect assumption that it's been proven

Besides which, I'm not applying it to god's existence, I'm applying it to whether he had a hand in morality or not. Even if he does exist, why insist he must have had a hand in it if would be exactly the same if he didn't? What did he do exactly?

Sam Vimes

As I said, he had a personal bias that prevented him using the idea to it's full potential, which I already knew. Giving me a bullsh!t reason why it doesn't apply to God doesn't count as a reason.

All you've shown me is that believers do all kinds of mental somersaults so they don't have to admit their faith is irrational. I already knew that