Mailing List Articles - Conversations on God part 2

A continuation of the Conversations on God debate - Michael

From: VIDYANANDA Dec-8 8:31 pm To: MATUS1976 346 of 372 377.346 in reply to 377.345

"? If you define god, or even a quality of god, then we can test that against reality, and see if reality agrees or disagrees with us. "

Test against reality? And what is reality? "In this theory (quantum physics) there is no consistent notion at all of what the reality may be that underlies the universal constitution and structure of matter" - David Bohm(famous physicist and a colleague of Albert Einstein) http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/bohm/

Scientists do not know what matter is, why anybody would ask them if there is God or not. Only mystics, artists and poets might have such knowledge. Only when main-stream science start to understand indivisibility of matter and consciousness in the Universe then it might actually know something. Until then it is as blind as a bat. Why do you think science cannot solve any mayor social or environmental problem in the world? Is it maybe because it does not understand what human being is, what is consciousness and why we are here?

"and see if reality agrees or disagrees with us"

Wow, reality has nothing better to do.

"to me, as a scientist"

Well, could you please tell us your credentials because all of your philosophical ideas are on the level of high school boy.

"such as occam's razor and hume's maxim. "

Occam's razor is not the law of nature it is a practical suggestion. The simplest explanation IS NOT ALWAYS the true one. Simplest to whom?

Regarding Hume's maxim, Hume is not the greatest philosopher that ever lived, there are greater western philosophers like Hegel, Kant, Spinoza ... not to mention eastern sages especially Buddha and Christ.

Just count how many times you repeat "Occam's razor and Hume's maxim. " in every of your messages - you have created a mantra turning science into your new religion and now you are a crusader against other sects, waging a holly scientific war for truth.

The question of God is essentially the question of consciousness and can be only answered through prayer and meditation. "Be still and know that I am God" Or in the eastern philosophy - I am That and That am I.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------

From: DAMMITDEWD Dec-10 12:33 pm To: MATUS1976 349 of 372 377.349 in reply to 377.345

Matus; Is it true that a good debater can argue either side? If so, perhaps I'm trying to be a good debater in taking on the pro-God side of this futile debate/BS session. I'm no Clarence Darrow and even if I was, I seriously doubt that I could come up with scientifically credible proof of God.

I do have several problems with your statement, "Well honestly, I am receptive to the idea of a God (depending on it's definition) on the condition that it is the simplest explanation for observed phenomena." Question; Why must the phenomena, (to which you are honestly receptive,) be observable? Can you perceive nothing beyond your physical sight? Obviously, the statement comes directly from some bullshitter. (Occam's razor perhaps) because it isn't apropos here. Or are you, in fact, saying that you could believe that there is a God ONLY IF YOU COULD SEE HIM (inclusively and) SOMEONE EXPLAINED HIS MAJESTY TO YOU "IN THE SIMPLEST MANNER POSSIBLE?"

Coming to your level Matus, let's suppose that you did "observe" God. Whereupon, someone explained the "observable phenomena" to you but the explanation wasn't, as you require, the simplest explanation possible," then suddenly, inexplicably, you found your ass on fire, do you think you might relent just a little or would you continue to argue? Point to be made? CAN YOU be persuaded or dissuaded, under ANY circumstance, or would you resort to ridiculous statements like, "if there is a God, who created Him?"

Now Mat, admittedly this is not good debate, it is silly to be sure. However and however, it is no more silly than your statement, "if there is a God, (sic) then someone, by necessity, created him. Furthermore, to suggest that "everything" is knowable and explainable in human terms, and that the explanations are to be found in Occam's razor, Hume's maxim, or anywhere else, in to push credulity beyond the frontiers of sanity.

>> "That's (sic) funny, that's what my credentials are as well . . ." <<

Touché! I probably deserve that. I did toot my horn a little. I was attempting to cut you off at the pass but you out flanked me by suggesting that if I haven't studied such and such, then I'm "no more qualified to answer questions of this nature than a physicist is qualified to answer political questions." Again Matus, and a very important point to be made here is the FACT that no one, regardless of what he may have studied, no one is "qualified to answer questions of this nature."

>> Okay, so when trying to prove that something exists, I ask you to define what that something is. You reply by saying that we do not and perhaps cannot know what that something is or maybe anything about it. So how exactly can I prove that something exist when I do not know what that something is? <<

Matus, you really do deserve a big atta-boy here. You hit it right on the head. We humans haven't a clue. A very big BUT here, if you can find no more evidence, in support of God notions, than for the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, you simply haven't looked for it and that's okay. I'm quite sure that God/Gods, whoever or whatever he/she/it may be, does not mind at all.

>> Since you have so many years experience in the field, I was wondering if you could answer me a few questions relating to nuclear physics that I have been curious . . . , ways in which EM radiation can interact with matter. . . , proton-proton fusion. . . . , . . . energy levels (in M V) required to initiate blah, blah, blah!. . . , . . . I have some projects I'm working on, DAMMITDEWD and since you have two post doctorate degrees, I could use some collaborative help on them . . .

Mat, would you mind terribly if I asked you to take your silly ass problems elsewhere. I'd like to help you but I'm more gainfully occupied right now, watching Gilligan's Island and the presidential election on television. Truly Mat, you are one amazing ass.

VIDY; When may we expect more of your art on the forum? And, boy howdy, do I wish I could write, AND THINK, like you. You slip so easily, and beautifully, to and fro the scientific, the practical and the mystical worlds. I think you're saying that any distinction between the three is only in our minds? The mystic, I love. The honest agnostic I admire. The belligerent, maniacal skeptic with hidden agenda, I abhor. Oh well, . . .none so blind . . .?

DAMMITDEWD;

PS, Perhaps I can help you a little Mat. To avoid having your Silly crap truncated, do them on you word processor and paste you posts.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

From: DAMMITDEWD Dec-11 12:40 pm To: MATUS1976 354 of 372 377.354 in reply to 377.345

Matus; Just to stir up your "simple interacting molecules" again, let's take a tertiary look at your "no God" logic, supposedly supported by your beloved Occam's razor. In one post you say, "There is no reason to insist that there is a God so that's reason enough to believe there isn't a god, just as it's reason enough to not believe in (sic) Santa Claus and fairy tales. Okay so far? Have I misconstrued anything?

Then you say, . . . I can explain (sic) the complex nature of biological reproduction as simple interacting molecules" and ". . . God is not necessary to explain creation."

Quoting from your continuously referenced Occam's razor, "You can not prove that god had nothing to do with the universe but you can prove that the universe did not require god to work. Science is parsimonious, it uses the simplest explanation for observed phenomena. PAUSE, ( A CAT HAS FOUR LEGS. A TABLE ALSO HAS FOUR LEGS, THEREFORE A CAT IS A TABLE?) CONTINUE. If you start making up entities with no justification, then where do you start. You could say that god created the universe, but then who created god? And then, who created that being. Well, you could say that god created himself, but if you assume that god created himself, then it would be less of an assumption (1 less arbitrary entity) that the universe created itself. This is also referred to as occams razor."

Mat, If you carefully read what you quoted, notice that God is not precluded, i.e., the options are not mutually exclusive, only that "it would be less of an assumption" that the universe created itself. (one less arbitrary entity)

However, by YOUR interpretation of Occam's razor, the options are mutually exclusive and God's existence is PRECLUDED by the never ending line of descending questions and this brings me to another important question.

In your understanding, if God is precluded by the never ending line of descending questions, why is the universe not also precluded by the same logic. Why is it suddenly okay for something to have created itself? It seems that you're saying "now that I've dispensed with God, I'm no longer required to dance with the girl I came with. I'll simply change the rules (shades of Miami Dade) and establish new logic criteria which permits the universe to exist apart from God.

However, maybe I've gone too far. Maybe you didn't overlook the subtleties so let's continue with the logic you used to preclude God but with a small delay in taking the "simplest explanation." Let's wait one click and go back to the base assumption that raised the question of God's creation. (even if we believe it to be false) Summed up, the (false?) assumption that Occam's razor raises, only to disprove, is; "if it exist, whatever it is, then it must have been created or, BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY OR . . . and followed by the rebuttal.

Please take note; We are now between the points, in Occam's razor, where "we could say that God created the universe" ^ "but then, who created God?" Are we together? This is the point where I find God.

For the moment, let's not assume that a cat is a table, only because it is the "simplest explanation for observed phenomena." At this point, a cat may well be a table, we simply don't know because we haven't made any assumptions. Now, exactly now, I ask you, why make the leap? To what end? Do you do it only because someone has said "science is blah, blah, blah?" Any open, receptive mind may well have problems with the assertion that "God is not required for the universe to work because Science is parsimonious and uses the simplest explanation for observed phenomena."

Matus, please see that this is the point where you and Occam's razor depart sound reason. It really doesn't require a rocket scientist to see the shallow bases for excluding God from creation, EVEN IF WE DON'T KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT GOD.

If you take away this single bullshit theorem from Occam's razor, all the remaining assumptions are lost even if the "good sounding phraseology" is mentally smooth and so easy to skip over.

You don't have to buy it guy. OPEN YOU F'ING MIND. Think for yourself. Don't let some bullshitter tell you how to think, NOT EVEN ME. Occam's razor IS NOT, as you stated, one of the most important documents ever written. According to DAMMITDEWD 101, Occam's razor is pure bullshit.

DAMMITDEWD;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------

From: MATUS1976 Dec-11 4:35 pm To: VIDYANANDA 355 of 372 377.355 in reply to 377.346

"Test against reality? And what is reality? "

And what do you consider reality to be? Are you a realtivist, to you believe that reality reshapes itself to peoples beliefs, or are you a realist, do you think there is an ultimate objective reality 'out there' somewhere. What is your position. Either or would be nice, as the two are mutually exclusive.

"Scientists do not know what matter is, why anybody would ask them if there is God or not. Only mystics, artists and poets might have such knowledge.Only when main-stream science start to understand indivisibility of matter and consciousness in the Universe then it might actually know something"

Oh, sorry, I did not know mystics artists and poets made particles accelerators. Do you have anything constructive to add besides meaningless new age mumbo jumbo?

"Until then it is as blind as a bat. Why do you think science cannot solve any mayor social or environmental problem in the world?"

Yeah, cause the world before science was so much better. Living minute to minute trying to avoid being impaled or slaughtered, fighting every second of your life just to stay alive, having an average life expectancy of 25 years. That is the wonderous world without science where everyone is in tune with nature and happy. Good for you if you want to fend for yourself and live in a cave.

"Is it maybe because it does not understand what human being is, what is consciousness and why we are here? "

Why hasnt religion solved it, especially with all the omnipotent gods out there, surely if I was a decent person and all powerfull, I would end suffering and horrible debilitating disease and horrific accidents that cost the lives of billions of people in all of history. Never mind that every single advance in the quality of every human beings lives has been from science.

"and see if reality agrees or disagrees with us"

"Wow, reality has nothing better to do. "

Do you have anything constructive to add?

"Well, could you please tell us your credentials because all of your philosophical ideas are on the level of high school boy. "

What credentials does one need to be considered a 'scientist' is it going to school to be an 'engineer' or a 'chemist' or is it understanding the basic and important principles in the scientific methodology. Buy the way, no high school teaches anything about philosophy of science. What are you credentials for claiming to have anymore knowledge about god than some rambling wacko off the street? Do you have a doctorate in 'knowledge about god'? As I mentioned in my comment to DEWD, I am currently a Teachers assistant in biology at my college.

"Regarding Hume's maxim, Hume is not the greatest philosopher that ever lived, there are greater western philosophers like Hegel, Kant, Spinoza ... not to mention eastern sages especially Buddha and Christ. "

So, what does that have to do with Hume's maxim? Babe Ruth was a good baseball player, so was Mickey Mantle.

"just count how many times you repeat "Occam's razor and Hume's maxim. " in every of your messages - you have created a mantra turning science into your new religion and now you are a crusader against other sects, waging a holly scientific war for truth. "

isnt that what science is, as way of examing and trying to understand the world that bothers to check if the results are accurate? Why is that such an alien concept to you? Why are you so hostile toward the idea of searching for the way the world works?

"The question of God is essentially the question of consciousness and can be only answered through prayer and meditation."

Ok, I'll get right on that... After I re-arrange my sock drawer.

Matus

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------

From: MATUS1976 Dec-11 4:55 pm To: DAMMITDEWD 356 of 372 377.356 in reply to 377.349

"I seriously doubt that I could come up with scientifically credible proof of God. "

Sure you could. If God (depending on the definition) was the simplest explanation, than (scientifically) you would have proven god exists. Of course the usually rules about scientific discoveries would still apply. Independant verification, tentative acceptance, etc. etc.

"Question; Why must the phenomena, (to which you are honestly receptive,) be observable?"

Because if it is not, then it is indistinguishable from not existing. So it is useless information. If someone has replaced my pen with an exact copy, how can I prove that? It looks, acts, and every conceviable test I have suggests that it is the same pen. So why should I assume that it is not the same pen?

"Can you perceive nothing beyond your physical sight?"

Yes, of course you can. 'Phenomena' is not limited to things that the human eye can observe. Humans can build machines that allow us to observe that things that exist beyond our own ability to naturally percieve them. This does not mean these things do not exist. Can you see wind? No, but you can see it's effects and deduce its existence. Can you see atoms? No, but you can see thier effects and deduce thier existence and use that to make testable predictions based on that theory. Are there any testable predictions made from presuming god exists?

"ONLY IF YOU COULD SEE HIM Coming to your level Matus, let's suppose that you did "observe" God. "

As I told you, if someone found, say, a pattern in pi, depending on the pattern and definition of god, it may be accepted as reasonable proof to a 'designer' or whatever (depending on circumstances) at which point I would accept (tentatively) that logical conclusion. If I SAW god, I would doubt myself first, as my 'seeing' of god might not have made any externally testable difference in the universe. If god is true only in my mind, then god might as well not be true to everyone else, as god existing only in my mind to other people is indistinguishable from god not existing at all.

"Again Matus, and a very important point to be made here is the FACT that no one, regardless of what he may have studied, no one is "qualified to answer questions of this nature." "

Not true, people who study knowledge and its acquisition are a more qualified to answer questions about the validity of such knowledge. That study is called epistimology and is a fundamental component of the philosophy of science.

"Matus, you really do deserve a big atta-boy here. You hit it right on the head. We humans haven't a clue. A very big BUT here, if you can find no more evidence, in support of God notions, than for the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, you simply haven't looked for it and that's okay. "

Or, the other logical possibility, is that I have looked and determined that 'evidence' to not be evidence at all. You may have looked and determined that 'evidence' to be evidence. Whose claims are more valid? Did you follow the rigourous methodology of science? Did I?

"Mat, would you mind terribly if I asked you to take your silly ass problems elsewhere."

Why, Professor DAMMITDEWD, is it, perhaps, because you lied about your credentials (which were irrelevant anyway) and you dont actually know these things?

Matus

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------

From: KSTEW2000 Dec-11 7:23 pm To: DAMMITDEWD 357 of 372 377.357 in reply to 377.354

A CAT HAS FOUR LEGS. A TABLE ALSO HAS FOUR LEGS, THEREFORE A CAT IS A TABLE?

This is not an application of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor says: "Entities should not be multiplied unecessarily." It establishes a preference for explanations that require the fewest number of assumptions and the fewest number of necessary steps.

For example:

EXPLANATION 1: 1. Person gets sick. 2. Person prays. 3. Doctor's treat the disease. 4. God heals the person. 5. Person gets better.

EXPLANATION 2: 1. Person gets sick. 2. Doctor's treat the disease. 3. Person gets better.

Occam's Razor would lead us to explanation #2 because the inclusion of prayer and/or God's intervention have been added unecessarily.

Another example:

EXPLANATION 1: 1. Person buys lottery ticket. 2. Lotto drawing is held. 3. God affects the outcome of the drawing. 4. Person's numbers are drawn. 5. Person wins lottery.

EXPLANATION 2: 1. Person buys lottery ticket. 2. Lotto drawing is held. 3. Person's numbers are drawn. 4. Person wins lottery.

Again Occam's Razor would lead us to explanation #2 because God's intervention is not necessary to explain the person winning the lottery.

Kevin Stewart

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------

From: DAMMITDEWD Dec-11 9:10 pm To: MATUS1976 358 of 372 377.358 in reply to 377.356

Matus, Ain't this here thang at we're a-doin righcheer a buncha fun? But are you sure you don't want to change some of your rules?

DAMMITDEWD; . . .I doubt that I could come up with come up with scientifically credible proof of God. MATUS:

>> Sure you could. If God (depending on the definition) was the simplest explanation, than (scientifically) you would have proven god exists.

So, you're saying that the simplest explanation for observed phenomena is scientific proof?" Okay, could we check that out? At the turn of the century there was ongoing debate, among the world's best scientific minds, as to whether a rocket motor would work in the vacuum of space. The scientific community was split, roughly fifty/fifty. One half thought that a rocket could not work in space because there's nothing in space to push against. Well, Mat, certainly the push concept is considerably more "simple" than Newton's action/reaction laws by which a rocket motor does, in fact, work in a vacuum. The prosecution rests.

DAMMITDEWD; Can you perceive nothing beyond you physical sight. MATUS; Yes, of course you can. 'Phenomena' is not limited to things that the human eye can observe. Humans can build machines that allow us to observe that things that exist beyond our own ability to naturally percieve them. This does not mean these things do not exist. Can you see wind? No, but you can see it's effects and deduce its existence. Can you see atoms? No, but you can see thier effects and deduce thier existence . . .

Oh well then, I see what your saying. I can't see atoms, since they're not observable, I see the effects of atoms so I deduce their existence? That makes sense to me now Mat. but tell me something. When I see the effects of God, but I can't observe God, why must I change the rules and deduce that God doesn't exist? By the way, atomic theory is certainly not the simplest explanation for the effects produced by atoms. The prosecution rests again.

DAMMITDEWD; A thing to which you are "honestly receptive" must it be observable? MATUS;>> "Because if it is not, then it is indistinguishable from not existing. So it is useless information. If someone has replaced my pen with an exact copy, how can I prove that? It looks, acts, and every conceivable test I have suggests that it is the same pen. So why should I assume that it is not the same pen? <<

I assume then, from your "observable requirement" that if something is hidden, it can't be real? If it is hidden it meets your "indistinguishable from not existing" requirement. You don't believe in Santa Claus then?

DAMMITDEWD; ". . . ONLY IF YOU COULD SEE HIM? Coming to your level Matus, let's suppose that you did "observe" God . . . MATUS; I told you, if someone found, say, a pattern in pi, depending on the pattern and definition of god, it may be accepted as reasonable proof to a 'designer' or whatever (depending on circumstances) at which point I would accept (tentatively) that logical conclusion. If I SAW god, I would doubt myself first, as my 'seeing' of god might not have made any externally testable difference in the universe. If god is true only in my mind, then god might as well not be true to everyone else, as god existing only in my mind to other people is indistinguishable from god not existing at all. Gee whiz Mat, do even understand this BS yourself? Perhaps you're saying that if God hit you in the ass with a flat board, you wouldn't know whether to doubt your ass, the flat board or God? May the prosecution please rest?

DAMMITDEWD; Again Matus, a very important point to be made here is the FACT that no one, regardless of what he may have studied, no one is "qualified to answer questions of (sic) God." MATUS; Not true, people who study knowledge and its acquisition are a more qualified to answer questions about the validity of such knowledge. That study is called epistimology and is a fundamental component of science.

Hey Mat! What a revelation. I'll bet that's where the Protestant epistimoplaen denomination got their name! WoW!

DAMMITDEWD; Matus, you really do deserve a big atta-boy here. You hit it right on the head. We humans haven't a clue. And a very big BUT here, if you can find no more evidence, in support of God notions, than for the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, you simply haven't looked for it and that's okay. MATUS; Or, the other logical possibility, is that I have looked and determined that 'evidence' to not be evidence at all. You may have looked and determined that 'evidence' to be evidence. Whose claims are more valid? Did you follow the rigourous methodology of science?

Matus, surely you wouldn't suggest that I haven't subjected the notion of God to the most rigorous scientific tests ever devised. There's been so much scientific information amassed on the subject. DAMMITDEWD; "Mat, would you mind terribly if I asked you to take your silly ass problems elsewhere." MATUS Why, Professor DAMMITDEWD, is it, perhaps, because you lied about your credentials (which were irrelevant anyway) and you dont actually know these things?

Okay Mat, fair enough but why did you ask the question? Had you applied "YOUR RIGOROUS METHODOLOGY OF SCIENCE" you would've known that, truth or lie, my response to the question would necessarily be the same.

DAMMITDEWD;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------

From: MATUS1976 Dec-12 8:52 am To: DAMMITDEWD 359 of 372 377.359 in reply to 377.354

"In one post you say, "There is no reason to insist that there is a God so that's reason enough to believe there isn't a god, just as it's reason enough to not believe in (sic) Santa Claus and fairy tales. Okay so far? Have I misconstrued anything? "

Nope, that about hits the nail on the head.

"Then you say, . . . I can explain (sic) the complex nature of biological reproduction as simple interacting molecules" and ". . . God is not necessary to explain creation."

Yup.

"Quoting from your continuously referenced Occam's razor, "You can not prove that god had nothing to do with the universe but you can prove that the universe did not require god to work."

No, as I have said over and over again. You can not prove a negative, you can only show that something can occur without the influence of something else. You can only show that the universe does not require god to work. It is not 'proof' however.

"Science is parsimonious, it uses the simplest explanation for observed phenomena."

PAUSE, ( A CAT HAS FOUR LEGS. A TABLE ALSO HAS FOUR LEGS, THEREFORE A CAT IS A TABLE?)

Ok, this is about the most absurd thing I have ever heard. DAMMITDEWD, you know absolutely nothing about logic if you think that this is A) Logical and B) shows the absurdity of any kind of logic. For a logical proposition to be correct, the premises it is based on must be correct also. What you should have said was

A - A cat has four legs b - A table has four legs c - everything that has four legs is a table d - therefore, a cat is a table

Obviously you did not say it like this because it would have become IMMEDIATELY apparent how moronic this proposition is. You lack basic knowledge of logic. A conslusion can be logical but wrong if one of the premises are incorrect. Step C is obvioulsy not a valid statement, even though you left it out. Again, learn some basic logic. Oh yeah, forgot, you already have two post doctorate degrees and are well versed in logic. Must have just forgot most of it...

"If you start making up entities with no justification, then where do you start. You could say that god created the universe, but then who created god? And then, who created that being. Well, you could say that god created himself, but if you assume that god created himself, then it would be less of an assumption (1 less arbitrary entity) that the universe created itself. This is also referred to as occams razor."

" Mat, If you carefully read what you quoted, notice that God is not precluded, i.e., the options are not mutually exclusive, only that "it would be less of an assumption" that the universe created itself. (one less arbitrary entity) "

Duh, I know that. There is nothing in occams razor about options being mutually exclusive. Occam's razor is a guide for what to believe in, if there is no evidence to suggest my giant dog sparky created the universe, then I will not assume that my giant dog sparky did create the universe. If there is no evidence to assume that god (whatever your definition is) created the universe, then I will not assume that god created the universe. Because, as I said, once you start adding entities that have no basis in evidence, you can add anything you want and as many as you want. It is entirely meaningless to do so. Occam's razor says 'forget what I want to be true, lets see what reality says is true' Crazy idea, I know. A lot of people have been burned at the stake for just such an idea.

"However, by YOUR interpretation of Occam's razor, the options are mutually exclusive and God's existence is PRECLUDED by the never ending line of descending questions and this brings me to another important question. "

No, that is not my interpretation, you inferred what was not implied. God is not necessary to explain the universe. There is no evidence to suggest that God is required to explain the universe. Therefore I will assume that god had nothing to do with the universe, and for similiar reasons, does not exist.

"In your understanding, if God is precluded by the never ending line of descending questions, why is the universe not also precluded by the same logic. Why is it suddenly okay for something to have created itself?"

Because the observable fact we wish to explain is that the universe is here. There is no changing that fact. If the universe is here, where did it come from? Either it was always here, created by something else, or it created itself. If it was created by god, as you suppose, then where did god come from? The same logical options apply. Either god was always there, created by something else, or created itself. Lets lay this out more basic.

universe (created itself) - 1 entity supported by evidence (the universe is here)

god (created itself) - universe (created by god) - 2 entities, only one supported by evidence

sparky (created itself) - muchaloopali (created by sparky) - puff the magic dragon (created by muchaloopali) - god (created by puff) - universe (created by god) - 5 entities, only one supported by evidence.

Follow that logic now?

Occams razor says that the simplest explanation is the best one. Once you start adding arbitrary entities which no evidence exists to support, then you have succeded in adding no usefull information to your explanation and there is no reason to stop adding other arbitrary entities.

"For the moment, let's not assume that a cat is a table, only because it is the "simplest explanation for observed phenomena."

NO, it's not. That is stupid.

"Matus, please see that this is the point where you and Occam's razor depart sound reason. "

And you can say this and be sure of this because you obviously have a sound grasp on logic and reason. What was that about 'all things that have four legs are tables'?

"It really doesn't require a rocket scientist to see the shallow bases for excluding God from creation, "

Or the shallow basis by which you ADDED god to creation. An addition that has no basis in reality and is an entirely human invented concept made to make insecure people like yourself feel important.

"Occam's razor IS NOT, as you stated, one of the most important documents ever written. According to DAMMITDEWD 101, Occam's razor is pure bullshit.

Occams razor is one of the most fundamentally important concept in philsophy of science. It is not bull shit. If you feel it is, the you feel basic concepts of science and logic are bull, and nothing can come of further coversation. Because having a logical discussion is pointless when you do not feel logic is important. Shall we all start rambling formlessly?

Matus

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------

From: DAMMITDEWD Dec-12 11:39 am To: KSTEW2000 360 of 372 377.360 in reply to 377.357

Hi Kevin, Thanks for trying to help. I'll show my appreciation by being nice to you, even if you may be a "skeptic."

Maybe I left a couple of "Occams Razor" steps off of my cat with four legs. It should have read; Cat has four legs. Cat goes to doctor. Doctor finds nothing wrong. Cat prays to God. Still nothing wrong. A cat is a table.

>> This is not an application of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor says: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." It establishes a preference for explanations that require the fewest number of assumptions and the fewest number of necessary steps.<<

If you don't mind me saying so, Kevin, by your stated rules, I think there's a little something wrong with your interpretation of Occams Razor. For example; EXPLANATION #1.1 1.) Person gets sick. 2.) Person prays. 3.) Doctor's treat the disease. 4.) God heals person. 5.) Person gets better.

On a personal bases, this example is rationally okay with me but there's a small hierarchical error and redundancies out the butt. Statement #4, "God heals person" makes redundant and unnecessary, all assumptions except # 1 and # 4. In which case, EXPLANATION 2.1 should read; (1) Person gets sick. (2) God heals person. Not because there is a God, not because God answers prayers or heals persons in the real world, steps # 2, 3, and 5 are made unnecessary by the established facts which you had complete control over. You took control of this small universe and established the fact that "God heals person." In which case then, all that is necessary to be healed (which is certainly getting better) is "person gets sick" and "God heals person. Real world prayers were not necessary because God doesn't answer prayers and even if he does, it doesn't matter in this case. Further, the best that could come from the doctors treatment, by your own words, is that "person gets better." at which time, and again by your own words, person had already been healed by God. (It's hard to imagine that the objective was to get "more" better than being healed.) Anyway, I get your drift but let's look at your OTHER explanation 1.1, which also has glaring errors. 1.) Person buys lottery ticket. 2.) Lotto drawing is held. 3.) God affects the outcome of the drawing. 4.) Person's numbers are drawn. 5.) Person wins lottery. Kevin, the single required assumption, and step, of this example is # 5. Explanation 2.1 should read; 5.) Person wins lottery.

Assumption #1 is unnecessary because "Person" is not required to purchase lottery ticket in order to win. A lottery ticket is a bearer's bond. Even so, person could have found lottery ticket, stolen lottery ticket, or someone could have given lottery ticket to person. Presenting the lottery ticket at the window is all that is require to win the lottery and even here, someone could have presented it for him. Assumption # 2 is unnecessary because if "person wins lottery," obviously the drawing was held. Assumption # 3 is unnecessary because God may well have "affected" the outcome of the drawing, the particulars of God's "affect" on the drawing is not stipulated in the facts. Assumption # 4 is unnecessary because if "person wins lottery" obviously "person's numbers are drawn."

>> Again Occam's Razor would lead us to explanation #2 because God's intervention is not necessary to explain the person winning the lottery. << Kevin Stewart; While it may or may not be justified, it is patently obvious that the singular assumption you've culled from any of your examples is the "God" assumptions, even when you stipulated exactly what God did. Why not check ALL of your assumptions for redundancies and biases, even the bases for your obvious God bias. Nothing derogatory intended here Kevin. Enjoyed your input.

DAMMITDEWD;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------

From: DAMMITDEWD Dec-12 11:52 am To: MATUS1976 361 of 372 377.361 in reply to 377.359

Mattus; Duh indeed.

>> Shall we all start rambling formlessly? <<

Obviously you haven't noticed. You started rambling formlessly with your first posting on the forum. Get lost silly fool. You bore me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------

From: KSTEW2000 Dec-12 2:05 pm To: DAMMITDEWD unread 362 of 372 377.362 in reply to 377.360

Hi Kevin, Thanks for trying to help. I'll show my appreciation by being nice to you, even if you may be a "skeptic."

Apparently, I have not helped, because you are still not seeing the logic behind Occam's Razor

Matus showed the problems with this argument against Occam's razor in one of his previous posts. I agree with his post on this matter.

EXPLANATION #1.1

1.) Person gets sick.

2.) Person prays.

3.) Doctor's treat the disease.

4.) God heals person.

5.) Person gets better.

You seemed to have missed my point. This is a series of steps used to explain an event. I used a simplified description to conserve time.

Kevin Stewart; While it may or may not be justified, it is patently obvious that the singular assumption you've culled from any of your examples is the "God" assumptions, even when you stipulated exactly what God did. Why not check ALL of your assumptions for redundancies and biases, even the bases for your obvious God bias.

Again you missed the point. I am culling the steps that are not necessary to produce the described event. I will post a different example later today that may be easier to grasp. Also, the above examples are typical of those used in any philosophy text describing Occam's razor. I'll provide a web reference in my next post so you can look it up for yourself.

Nothing derogatory intended here Kevin. Enjoyed your input.

You don't consider openly mocking someone's arguments derogatory. I've also noted that you immediatly assumed that I have a God bias because I posted an example for Occam's razor that includes a reference to God. I'll be sure to exlude any references to God in my next post.

Kevin Stewart

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------

From: KSTEW2000 Dec-12 3:34 pm To: VIDYANANDA 363 of 372 377.363 in reply to 377.1

>Main stream scientists are confidently saying that there is no God.

The general consensus among scientists is that God is not required to explain the natural world.

>But why are they saying this when there is no proof that God does not exist.

You can't prove a negitive. Scientists have yet to uncover any proof to the positive that God exists. Therefore, it is not sound critical thinking to arbitrarily assume that there is a God.

>Well, there is no proof that there is God also, nevertheless this is only an argument which supports the hypothesis that God does not exist but by no means is a conclusive proof.

You are correct. Lack of evidence to support God does not prove that God does not exist, only that we cannot assume He does exist because we have no evidence.

>We have to think in terms of probability and formal logic:

1. There is no evidence that can amount to the proof that God does not exist. 2. There is a lot of evidence which support hypothesis that God exists

Please include descriptions of this evidence.

>Conclusion: Probability is in favour of existence of God, therefore all atheists are logically preferable to be called SUPERSTITOUS.

I believe that atheism and theism require a ceratin amount of faith. Superstition is belief in spite of evidence. Since there is no evidence to support or refute God, how can belief in God or belief of no God be considered superstition.

>Brilliant isn't it? Can any superstitious atheist beat this logic? But be careful everything you say will be dissected by the rules of formal logic.

Logic only works if your assumptions are right. You are assuming(since you have provided none) that there is evidence to support the existence of God. ("a lot of evidence" are your exact words)

>P.S. I do not say that God has to be anthropomorphic - an old man with long grey hair and beard. Last time I heard he was a young man well shaved.

LOL...I like that one. On another thread God was described as a young African princess.

Kevin Stewart

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------

From: SHENDA Dec-12 9:17 pm To: MATUS1976 364 of 372 377.364 in reply to 377.355

<<Never mind that every single advance in the quality of every human beings lives has been from science.>>

IMHO this is the type of statement that shows an underlying hubris with many skeptics that greatly damages the idea of skepticism.

To say that *every* single advance in the quality of *every* single human beings life is due solely from science is absurd. Is love due to science, or is it not part of a quality life? How about poetry, art, music, children, family?

What about advances in law, social and sexual equality, philosophy?

What about the many people who consider religion and/or a belief in god to be essential to their personal quality of life? Are they *all* wrong?

Shenda

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------

From: MATUS1976 Dec-13 5:08 pm To: DAMMITDEWD 365 of 372 377.365 in reply to 377.358

"But are you sure you don't want to change some of your rules?"

They are not my rules, they are the rules of logic.

"So, you're saying that the simplest explanation for observed phenomena is scientific proof?"

It depends on what you define 'proof' to be. What is your definition of 'proof'? What is your definition of 'scientific proof' What is the difference? In the united states court system, people are 'proven' guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt' do you think that this is valid criteria for 'proving' something? If you utilize Hume's maxim as a good criteria for scientific proof, then occams razor or parsimony could be considered 'scientific proof'

"Okay, could we check that out? At the turn of the century there was ongoing debate, among the world's best scientific minds, as to whether a rocket motor would work in the vacuum of space. The scientific community was split, roughly fifty/fifty."

No, they were not. Some idiot editor at the New York Times, who was supposed to be the 'science' editor commented that Goddards work on rocket motors was pointless as he (Goddard) forgot that there is nothing in space to push off of. The scientific community was quick to respond, and then so was the editor who quickly published a retraction and an apology, admitting that he had forgotten Newton's laws of motion. No practicing phycisist at the time believed rockets would not work in space. You need to study your history of science a little more.

"The prosecution rests."

With a completely invalid argument. Your combination of ignorance and arrogance is sometimes amusing.

"Oh well then, I see what your saying. I can't see atoms, since they're not observable, I see the effects of atoms so I deduce their existence? That makes sense to me now Mat. but tell me something. When I see the effects of God, but I can't observe God, why must I change the rules and deduce that God doesn't exist?"

Because the things you call 'effects' of god are not effects of god at all, they are effects of other things that anybody with rudimentary physics and chemistry knowledge understand. If I push on a table, and that table moves, then the simplest explanation is that it moved becuase I pushed it. It may have moved because God pushed it at the exact same time I did, and then pushed back on my hand so I would be tricked into thinking I pushed it, thus making the moving table an 'effect' of god. But it is not the simlest explanation that god pushed me and the table, it is simpler to assume, unless some evidence arises to indicate otherwise, that I moved the table. I have also proved beyond a reasonable doubt that I moved the table. Atoms and molecules behave in such a way that is conducive to forming large complex molecules that can later form self replicating molecules. Maybe God made these molecules push and pull each other and tricked us into thinking they can do it naturally, but there is no reason to assume that and it is not the simplest explanation.

"By the way, atomic theory is certainly not the simplest explanation for the effects produced by atoms. The prosecution rests again. "

Boy, your ignorance as astounding. Can you cite one of these 'observations' of yours that might contradict the atomic theory of matter. Cause if you can cite a SINGLE thing that contradicts the atomic theory of matter, there is a nobel prize in it for you. Any person with two post doctorate degrees and who was worked in the nuclear physics field who thinks the atomic thoery of matter can be easily contradicted is either lying or is a fool. Which is it? It so happens that the atomic theory of matter is one of the most proven theorectical descriptions of nature that man has ever surmised. I suggest reading Isaac Asimov's 'Atomos' which is a historical account of all the observations that lead creedence to the atomic theory of matter before you make such ignorant statements as 'atomic theory is certainly not the simplest explanation for the effects produced by atoms' You need a better lawyer, professor DAMMITDEWD if the prosecution is resting on something so fundamentally IGNORANT and WRONG.

"I assume then, from your "observable requirement" that if something is hidden, it can't be real? If it is hidden it meets your "indistinguishable from not existing" requirement. You don't believe in Santa Claus then? "

NO, I didnt say that if something is 'hidden' it is not real. Where did you get that from? I said that if no machines we have can detect its existence, the it is indistuingashable from not existing. If machines we have can detect its existence, then it moves behind something, then our machines tell us that it has moved behind something, not that it has dissapeared. Did they teach you this stuff when you were studying nuclear engineering or what? Maybe when it was when you were doing that design resarch on the fusion bombs you worked on.

"Gee whiz Mat, do even understand this BS yourself? Perhaps you're saying that if God hit you in the ass with a flat board, you wouldn't know whether to doubt your ass, the flat board or God? May the prosecution please rest? "

BS? Are you stupid or just stubborn? What happened to that whole proving god to me thing and making my pathetic little world collapse around me? Prosecution rest.... puuuhleease. Let me try to make this as clear as possible. I 'feel' that god exists. Does this make god exist? No, god existence is independant of my feeling. If I feel that god exist, does this make any difference in the world? No, it doesnt. If god does exist, is there any difference in the world that exists beyond my own mind? No, well then God being factually but only being detectable by me is indistinguishable from god not existing and me just really believing he does. Not a difficult concept, DEWD, especially for someone of such academic credentials as yours.

"Matus, surely you wouldn't suggest that I haven't subjected the notion of God to the most rigorous scientific tests ever devised. There's been so much scientific information amassed on the subject. "

And none of it requires god as an entitiy in it's explanation. Therefore, scientifically, there is no reason to think god exists.

"Okay Mat, fair enough but why did you ask the question? Had you applied "YOUR RIGOROUS METHODOLOGY OF SCIENCE" you would've known that, truth or lie, my response to the question would necessarily be the same. DAMMITDEWD;"

So, did you lie? Be a man and admit it. Do you have two post doctorate degrees?

Matus

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------

From: MATUS1976 Dec-13 5:11 pm To: DAMMITDEWD 366 of 372 377.366 in reply to 377.361

"Mattus; Duh indeed. >> Shall we all start rambling formlessly? << Obviously you haven't noticed. You started rambling formlessly with your first posting on the forum. Get lost silly fool. You bore me."

Obviously you can not defend any of your notions or ideas logically or rationally, probably because you have a very limited concept of both logic and skepticism, let alone ANY understanding of Philosophy of science. Perhaps you might take it upon yourself to grow as a human being and study these things, as you do seem to have an interest in them.

Matus

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------

From: MATUS1976 Dec-13 5:17 pm To: SHENDA 367 of 372 377.367 in reply to 377.364

<<Never mind that every single advance in the quality of every human beings lives has been from science.>>

"IMHO this is the type of statement that shows an underlying hubris with many skeptics that greatly damages the idea of skepticism. "

Why is it damaging? I say give credit where credit is due.

"To say that *every* single advance in the quality of *every* single human beings life is due solely from science is absurd."

Ok, sorry, 99.99999999% of the advances that have made each and every one of our lives better is due to science.

"Is love due to science, or is it not part of a quality life?"

No, love is not due to science, but people did not 'invent' love. Many animals can and do form emotionally attatchements to others. Human are not exempt from this. This does not mean it is any less fascinating or wonderfull however.

"How about poetry, art, music, children, family? "

How much time would you have to spend creating poetry, art, and music, if you spent 12-18 hours per day just STAYING ALIVE? Science has enabled us to have time to grow and develope the wonderfull things that make living worthwhile, like art and culture and music and philosophy and creativity.

"What about advances in law, social and sexual equality, philosophy?"

Most of them came from the scientific concept of bothering to see if things work. This was of course around before 'science' was labelled as such, but it formalized the concept and thrust everybody out of a supersitious anything goes world to a world in which reality works in a specific way and it is worthwhile to try to figure it out.

"What about the many people who consider religion and/or a belief in god to be essential to their personal quality of life? Are they *all* wrong? "

Scientifically? Yeah, the evidence suggests they are. But since most religious peoples beliefs do not interfere with the everyday world of science, it does not matter. You can believe what ever you want about what happens to you after you die, it will have no impact on my life. But if you believe that St. Johns Wort cures cancer and Chemotherapy doesnt, and you try to force that belief on me, I have a problem with that.

Matus

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

From: KSTEW2000 Dec-13 11:02 pm To: DAMMITDEWD 368 of 372 377.368 in reply to 377.354

Dewd: Here is another example of Occam's Razor taken from the Skeptic's Dictionary website. This is the simplest example I could find. I don't know how to break it down anymore than this:

"Occam's razor is also called the principle of parsimony. These days it is usually interpreted to mean something like "the simpler the explanation, the better" or "don't multiply hypotheses unnecessarily." In any case, Occam's razor is a principle which is frequently used outside of ontology, e.g., by philosophers of science in an effort to establish criteria for choosing from among theories with equal explanatory power. When giving explanatory reasons for something, don't posit more than is necessary. Von Daniken could be right: maybe extraterrestrials did teach ancient people art and engineering, but we don't need to posit alien visitations in order to explain the feats of ancient people. Why posit pluralities unnecessarily? Or, as most would put it today, don't make any more assumptions than you have to."

Found at: http://skepdic.com/occam.html

Hope that helps, Kevin Stewart

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------

From: DAMMITDEWD Dec-14 11:40 am To: MATUS1976 369 of 372 377.369 in reply to 377.365

Mattus; I don't know why I permit you to piss me off. Accept my complements for raising the bar, several clicks, on intellectual nonsense. I just love your debate technique. EXAMPLE;

>> No, they were not. (sic) Some idiot editor at the New York times, who was supposed to be the science editor, commented that Goddard's work on rocket motors was pointless as he (Goddard) forgot that there was nothing in space to push against. <<

The early scientific questioning of a rocket motor working in the vacuum of space involved a little more than an editorial by the science editor of the New York Times. It is true that, at the turn of the century, Newton's laws of motion were in the text books and were generally accepted by the scientific community. Furthermore, mathematical rocket thrust models were self evident (Thrust = the mass of the escaping gases, multiplied by the square of it's velocity.) At the turn of the century however, rocket nozzle technology had not been worked out, without which the maximum velocity of escaping gasses from the rocket motor could not exceed the speed of sound. Among the many questions raised by this "scientific fact" one in particular seemed to suggest that, since the speed of sound decreases with density, in a vacuum the velocity of the escaping gasses would be too slow to produce sufficient thrust.

Of course, with nozzle technology (which Dr. Robert Goddard worked out and patented) the maximum velocity of the escaping gasses from a rocket motor was increased by orders of magnitude, even a vacuum.

At the turn of the century, the science editor of the New York times, nor anyone else for that matter, knew anything about rocket nozzles and while the big noise against the rocket working in a vacuum found vent in the "push against" argument, it had little to do with the ongoing scientific debate, other than good sounding lip service which the great unwashed could understand. UNDERSTAND MAT?

ASK JEVES, (ask.com) See list of "first" attributed to Robert Goddard.

"First proved, by actual static test, that a rocket will work in a vacuum, that it needs no air to push against;" I can't imagine why this would have been listed as a "first" if the only questions involved an editorial by an obscure New York Times editor. I think "YOU'D better study YOUR history."

Ref. your (post # 377.367) in response to SHENDA'S post (#377.364) to wit; "Ok, sorry, 99.99999999% of the advances that have made each and every one of our lives better is due to science"

To use one of YOUR debating techniques, science applies nothing of it's discoveries. Science concerns itself with Why. "Engineering" applies discoveries. Discoveries without application contributes nothing to "bettering our lives."

Matus; You have a dubious opportunity to "better all of our lives" and the cost would be almost nothing. Think of it. Should you eradicate yourself, the composite IQ of the hairless ape would increase several points and at once, the gene pool would be upgraded. DO IT and get the hell outta my ife.

DAMMITDEWD;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------

From: FLOOR13 Dec-14 12:44 pm To: MATUS1976 370 of 372 377.370 in reply to 377.366

"Obviously you can not defend any of your notions or ideas logically or rationally, probably because you have a very limited concept of both logic and skepticism, let alone ANY understanding of Philosophy of science. Perhaps you might take it upon yourself to grow as a human being and study these things, as you do seem to have an interest in them."

You forgot to mention that until he does, you're done responding to him. Please tell me you meant to add this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------

From: MATUS1976 Dec-14 7:17 pm To: DAMMITDEWD 371 of 372 377.371 in reply to 377.369

"I don't know why I permit you to piss me off."

You should not take debating so personally. There is no reason why you can not be civil and respectfull to a person you are debating with. My counter arguments to your asserations should not be taken as a personal attack. The validity of these arguments exist beyond you as a human being, because you believe in something that I do not, there is no reason why I should think less of you as a person, likewise, I should hope you feel the same way. Yet your reactions to many of these posts suggest to me that you have very limited experience in 'debating' and much more in 'arguing' In debates, the argument is independant of the arguer.

"The early scientific questioning of a rocket motor working in the vacuum of space involved a little more than an editorial by the science editor of the New York Times. It is true that, at the turn of the century,... ...one in particular seemed to suggest that, since the speed of sound decreases with density, in a vacuum the velocity of the escaping gasses would be too slow to produce sufficient thrust. "

I am very proud of you for bothering to research something before you blurt out statements about it. Unfortunately, you had already made the statement...

"One half thought that a rocket could not work in space because there's nothing in space to push against. "

(quick, go back and edit your post...)

Seems to me you were pretty sure the debate focused on Half of the scientific communities perception that rocket motors would not work because, as you said...'there's nothing in space to push against' now, all of the sudden, you actually meant...'At the turn of the century however, rocket nozzle technology had not been worked out, without which the maximum velocity of escaping gasses from the rocket motor could not exceed the speed of sound.' Yeah, right. What page did you copy and paste that from? It is good though that you did bother to do the research this time. Maybe you could try that with your ingorant statements about Occam's Razor, Hume's Maxim, and the Atomic Theory of matter, which you failed to respond to.

"vent in the "push against" argument, it had little to do with the ongoing scientific debate, other than good sounding lip service which the great unwashed could understand. UNDERSTAND MAT? "

Why then was the 'push against' argument the very BASIS of your argument!? Since you obvioulsy knew it was just 'good sounding lip service' Understand DEWD?

"Ok, sorry, 99.99999999% of the advances that have made each and every one of our lives better is due to science"

And science is totally seperate from engineering? No. You missed the point of that post, as usual. The point is that SCIENCE is a WAY of examining the world, not just ANY way, a very specific way which focuses on empirical edification and falsifiability. Advances that came from this concept, whether they were in agriculture or in materials, have science to thank. These advances are the exact reason why we have so much free time in our lives to sing, love, write, and read and debate.

How about some questions...

1) So what about that 'cat is a table' argument of yours? Didnt seem to feel any comments necassary?

2) Do you still feel that the concept of Occam's Razor is 'pure bullshit', and that it 'departs sound reason' which you obviously know so much about as demonstrated from your 'cat is a table' argument.

3) What is your definition of 'proof'

4) How about some of those effects that contradict the atomic theory of matter, or were you perhaps way off base in that statement and merely delivering 'good sounding lip service'

5) What about those post doctorate degrees and service in the nuclear industry? Whats the deal with that? Are you lying? Can you be a decent human being and admit it?

Matus

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

From: MATUS1976 Dec-14 7:18 pm To: FLOOR13 unread 372 of 372 377.372 in reply to 377.370

"You forgot to mention that until he does, you're done responding to him. Please tell me you meant to add this"

I probably should have.

Matus

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------

http://matus1976.com/mfdlist/