Originally Posted by cowmeat
I removed my post since after this sentence you wrote.
"No, since we have no other ideas of how it was caused without drawing more assumptions it is possible that this is the solution we should accept."
This is literally the dumbest thing I've read in this entire thread by a landslide and that amounts to something. Have a good day.
I dont know why you would remove your post when it is quoted in its entirety in the next post, regardless that is the principle of Occam's razor.
Occam's razor (also Ockham's razor; Latin: lex parsimoniae "law of parsimony") is a problem-solving principle attributed to William of Ockham (c. 12871347), who was an English Franciscan friar, scholastic philosopher and theologian. The principle can be interpreted as stating Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
As an agnostic it should be easy for me to see the principles behind your argument and the argument youre making against the existence of a Deity, however the only point you have is a fallacy which does not apply.
Don't dm me pictures of bowls that you find attractive.
Originally Posted by SmallBowl
An unexplained phenomenon is definitely evidence towards an unestablished explanation existing.
Unexplained phenomenon in this case: The big bang
Given explanation with least assumptions given that either of us knows of: Existence of a Deity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
This is evidence towards a Deity, everything happens for a reason and outside the realm of quantum mechanics the same input will give the same output, that is core to science. So what input do you suggest there was leading to the big bang, making less assumptions than has been made in this explanation?
Note: Evidence != Conclusive proof that you should believe in above everything else.
You misunderstand what evidence is.
Lol this is very silly small bowl. Lack of evidence cannot be evidence for something.
For example: There is no evidence to prove that the whole world isn't just a bunch of robots under my control, therefor its possible!
Sounds silly right?
Exactly.
IF YOU'D ACTUALLY LISTEN TO COWMEAT
"proof by lack of evidence fallacy"
Is a common misstep when people who don't fully understand logic try to prove something.
Google it my dude.
Your "we can't explain this so SOMETHING must have caused it" argument is paradoxical.
Google "The Raven Paradox." BECAUSE THAT BASICALLY THE EXACT WAY YOU'RE TRYING TO ARGUE THAT GOD EXISTS.
HOWEVER, IT IS NOT COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE THAT A GOD EXISTS!
BUT
Your way of supporting that is silly. You can do better.
ASWELL AS THIS: I BELIEVE IN RELIGION BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO CONNECT WITH THERE INNER SELF WHICH THE PERCEIVE AS 'GOD' AND LEADS TO THE BETTERING ONSELF.
Heres an interesting question:
What is the difference between a large population of people believing in something that doesn't exist with little evidence and a large population believing in something that does exist with little evidence?
This is interesting. Because its possible that people are creating a kind of philosophical god that exists in the mind rather then in space.
Last edited by Veoo; Mar 19, 2017 at 12:30 PM.
Reason: Making my argument more clear.
Originally Posted by Veoo
Lol this is very silly small bowl. Lack of evidence cannot be evidence for something.
For example: There is no evidence to prove that the whole world isn't just a bunch of robots under my control, therefor its possible!
Sounds silly right?
Exactly.
This would be torn apart by occam's razer. It involves a lot of assumptions - whereas mine would not
IF YOU'D ACTUALLY LISTEN TO COWMEAT
"proof by lack of evidence fallacy" - does not apply
Is a common misstep when people who don't fully understand logic try to prove something.
Google it my dude.
Your "we can't explain this so SOMETHING must have caused it" argument is paradoxical.
Google "The Raven Paradox." BECAUSE THAT BASICALLY THE EXACT WAY YOU'RE TRYING TO ARGUE THAT GOD EXISTS.
HOWEVER, IT IS NOT COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE THAT A GOD EXISTS!
BUT
Your way of supporting that is silly. You can do better.
ASWELL AS THIS: I BELIEVE IN RELIGION BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO CONNECT WITH THERE INNER SELF WHICH THE PERCEIVE AS 'GOD' AND LEADS TO THE BETTERING ONSELF.
Heres an interesting question:
What is the difference between a large population of people believing in something that doesn't exist with little evidence and a large population believing in something that does exist with little evidence?
This is interesting. Because its possible that people are creating a kind of philosophical god that exists in the mind rather then in space.
No it is evidence, there is a difference between evidence and proof though which is not clear in your post.
The way the model of the atom was theorised was that it was known that there were negative parts that could come away and the rest was overall positively charged - thid was evidence for the plum pudding model which was once accepted as it was the best and simolest explanation for the phenomenon, after rutherfords gold foil experiment a new phenomenon had been showed which had to he explained, this disproved plum pudding model and as it was simply explained by the current model of the atom, it was used as evidence for that.
Similarly, in our case in point, as a god elequently explains the big bang phenomenon it can easily be seen as evidence - something which cannot be explained is evidence for existance of things or principles we dont know of yet
Don't dm me pictures of bowls that you find attractive.
Originally Posted by SmallBowl
This would be torn apart by occam's razer. It involves a lot of assumptions - whereas mine would not
No it is evidence, there is a difference between evidence and proof though which is not clear in your post.
The way the model of the atom was theorised was that it was known that there were negative parts that could come away and the rest was overall positively charged - thid was evidence for the plum pudding model which was once accepted as it was the best and simolest explanation for the phenomenon, after rutherfords gold foil experiment a new phenomenon had been showed which had to he explained, this disproved plum pudding model and as it was simply explained by the current model of the atom, it was used as evidence for that.
Similarly, in our case in point, as a god elequently explains the big bang phenomenon it can easily be seen as evidence - something which cannot be explained is evidence for existance of things or principles we dont know of yet
EDIT:
THAT LAST PART
LACK OF UNDERSTANDING IS NOT EVIDENCE LOL
STOP THIS WEIRD ASS EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IT LEAVES ROOM FOR TONS OF THEORIES BUT IT DOES NOT, HOWEVER, SUPPORT THOSE THEORIES AS EVIDENCE
The plum pudding model and that theorizing example is pretty unrelated to your argument, I'd snip it out, it just sounds like your trying to sound smart.
Yes but when you have much more logical scientific conclusions that are actually supported by reality you tend to lean towards those kiddo
although Im not saying there is no chance god exist ( I forget if I said I'm atheist, but if I did that was a mistake, I'm more agnostic.)
You tell me I am assuming but honestly do you know how much assuming is involved in concluding "I don't understand x so x might be true"
Im not saying that god exists or doesn't I'm just saying that that kind of reasoning is silly.
When you think about it things like the two slit experiment (yes this is more relevant then thomson's plum pudding model lol) they provide much more interesting proof for a kind of god and it would be much more scientific and interesting if you use this. The two slit experiment is the closes we've gotten to proving god using science (and quantum mechanics).
BUT
It is MUCH more logical to say this statement: "At this point in time, we have little scientific evidence to prove or disprove of a god, but there are clear inaccuracies in the bible, ranging from impossible immortal beings to amazing feats of magic that would be theoretically impossible, that would lead one to "Impeach the witness" and remove the christian bible from its pedestal. These inaccuracies however do not disprove the existence of a god they just disprove, as far as we, as humans can understand it, christianity as a viable solution to the problem that is gaps in scientific explanation of events in the history of our universe"
I believe that people believe in god for the same reason children believe in santa, because they want to, because its the only theory that explains the unexplainable with warmth rather then cold scientific analysis.
(this does not however mean that god doest exist, its just why I think people BELIEVE he does)
Plus
You have a better arguement this time good job
srry for shit grammar and spelling
Last edited by Veoo; Mar 19, 2017 at 03:43 PM.
Reason: small bowl is coming D;
