I Believe That There Is No God

[Mad_Michael]

Don't believe in God? OK. You believe that there is no God. That is your belief; system of belief, religion or philosophy, perhaps. Fair enough.

Not entirely so. One can rationally hold doubt of god, but that is technically beside the point here.

The point here is: Since there is no proof for the existence of God, then there can only be belief (i.e. there is no logical rationale for holding doubt or otherwise).

Yes, one can rationally assert that belief in God is irrational based upon a formulation of Ockham's Razor.

The introduction of a supernatural agent (without any evidence to support such an interpretation) into the process adds needless complexity - and thus is rejected as irrational supposition.

And as I always find it necessary to add, this in no way shape or form says anything about God's existence. And there is nothing wrong with doing something irrationally. Humans are irrational beings. Amongst humans, rational behaviour is the exception, not the rule.

[jazzer]

"...The point is that there is plenty of proof for the existence of God..."

Okay, I'm game. Your ball.

[daniel]

...

No. The point is that there is plenty of proof for the existence of God, but many choose not to see it as Divine.

Actually, scientists during the Renaissance era developed the scientific method and performed science looking for God's handiwork. The more observations they made, the more they found contradictions to common belief and the Bible.

It is poor science when one goes out to prove a conclusion already determined. Rather, science would open the door to a possibility of the Divine as one of the explanations unexplained events rather than concluding its impossibility.

This would be the description of Creation Science. It would reject results that contradicted the Bible because it already holds preconcieved conclusions before even making the first experiements.

[ScottSA]

Ockham's Razor.

I hate it when people invoke Occam's razor and then mis-spell it. It just looks so...I don't know...illiterate.

You're not really serious, are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ockham

His name is William of Ockham... yikes.

I believe ScottSA was trying to be serious - for what that's worth.

Anyway, as near as I can tell, the odd spelling of "Occam" is apparently an American thing - seemingly fully accepted as the 'proper' spelling of the term in the USA. Without a doubt, the proper spelling would be "Ockham" given that was originated by William of Ockham and that I've never encountered the spelling of "Occam" in any reputable non-American source. Every text I have cites the "Ockham" spelling.

Oh, I'm being quite serious. It is certainly not a spelling confined to America; it is the spelling used by anyone who has ever been in the ivory halls. It is named after Ockham, but has entered the lexicon as 'Occam,' and one would be hard pressed to find an academic using the spelling "Ockham's Razor."

http://skepdic.com/occam.html

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

The preference for simple explanations is ancient. This principle has come to be known as Occam's Razor, after William of Ockham (also spelled Occam)

http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~soss/cs644/projects/jacob/

Why do you so persitently jam yourself into corners like this?

Try, just for fun, googling "ockham's razor" What comes up? After that, note that one (1) site comes up explaining the principle, and after that its a bunch of radio stations or whatever.

[Xman]

Yes, one can rationally assert that belief in God is irrational based upon a formulation of Ockham's Razor.

The introduction of a supernatural agent (without any evidence to support such an interpretation) into the process adds needless complexity - and thus is rejected as irrational supposition.

And as I always find it necessary to add, this in no way shape or form says anything about God's existence. And there is nothing wrong with doing something irrationally. Humans are irrational beings. Amongst humans, rational behaviour is the exception, not the rule.

You are making the assumption that the our system of logic is perfect and can explain everything, and this system of logic is your personal religion, or philosophy, as supported by your usage of adverbs like "rationally" and "technically".

(i) I'll go with that though. You state: introduction of a supernatural agent...into the process adds needless complexity. You assert that this added complexity, by Ockham's Razor, would diminish the likelihood that the theory of God would hold true. I question: Does the theory of God add complexity or reduce complexity? What theory other than God actually reduces complexity? I'm not saying that I believe in God or not; that is irrelevant. I'm just playing at your game.

(ii) I'll not go with that. It is quite arrogant of us to think that we can actually figure out this whole thing. Why wouldn't we be arrogant though, when the only species we have to compare ourselves with are the great apes? Our system of logic is flawed. Consider the concept of infinity. Besides that, it has already been established that our logic cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God.

For a twist, consider quantum philosophy and how reality is called into question. Imagine being at two different places at the same time. We are like the ants and the anthill. We carry on doing what we know, yet not truly understanding the big picture of the system, or the anthill. Perhaps, these things are beyond our reach. Maybe, and not to make things more complex, some aliens will come and tell us the answers, so we can sit comfortably in our own self-assuredness that there is no God and we can continue to masturbate. Right, Mike?

[margrace]

Well I can gurarntee one thing, we are all going to find out some sooner than others. Whether you believe in the Mythical father in the white gown or the fact that everyone is part of God, it really won't matter in the end.

It is your journey here on earth that matters now. Killing others for revenge, for not believing what you do. or just to get their assets, just consider there might be a reconing, you don't know do you.

[jbg]

Ockham's Razor.

I hate it when people invoke Occam's razor and then mis-spell it. It just looks so...I don't know...illiterate.

You're not really serious, are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ockham

His name is William of Ockham... yikes.

I believe ScottSA was trying to be serious - for what that's worth.

Anyway, as near as I can tell, the odd spelling of "Occam" is apparently an American thing - seemingly fully accepted as the 'proper' spelling of the term in the USA. Without a doubt, the proper spelling would be "Ockham" given that was originated by William of Ockham and that I've never encountered the spelling of "Occam" in any reputable non-American source. Every text I have cites the "Ockham" spelling.

Oh, I'm being quite serious. It is certainly not a spelling confined to America; it is the spelling used by anyone who has ever been in the ivory halls. It is named after Ockham, but has entered the lexicon as 'Occam,' and one would be hard pressed to find an academic using the spelling "Ockham's Razor."

http://skepdic.com/occam.html

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

The preference for simple explanations is ancient. This principle has come to be known as Occam's Razor, after William of Ockham (also spelled Occam)

http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~soss/cs644/projects/jacob/

Why do you so persitently jam yourself into corners like this?

Try, just for fun, googling "ockham's razor" What comes up? After that, note that one (1) site comes up explaining the principle, and after that its a bunch of radio stations or whatever.

Deleted - duplicate.

[cybercoma]

Oh, I'm being quite serious. It is certainly not a spelling confined to America; it is the spelling used by anyone who has ever been in the ivory halls. It is named after Ockham, but has entered the lexicon as 'Occam,' and one would be hard pressed to find an academic using the spelling "Ockham's Razor."

http://skepdic.com/occam.html

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

The preference for simple explanations is ancient. This principle has come to be known as Occam's Razor, after William of Ockham (also spelled Occam)

http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~soss/cs644/projects/jacob/

Why do you so persitently jam yourself into corners like this?

Try, just for fun, googling "ockham's razor" What comes up? After that, note that one (1) site comes up explaining the principle, and after that its a bunch of radio stations or whatever.

You can't be serious!

No one said you're wrong. I clearly showed that both ways are correct. You insisting that Ockham is incorrect is nothing short of self-fellatio... In other words, just plain wrong.

[guyser]

nothing short of self-fellatio...

Well if we could do that , no one would post.

[ScottSA]

Oh, I'm being quite serious. It is certainly not a spelling confined to America; it is the spelling used by anyone who has ever been in the ivory halls. It is named after Ockham, but has entered the lexicon as 'Occam,' and one would be hard pressed to find an academic using the spelling "Ockham's Razor."

http://skepdic.com/occam.html

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

The preference for simple explanations is ancient. This principle has come to be known as Occam's Razor, after William of Ockham (also spelled Occam)

http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~soss/cs644/projects/jacob/

Why do you so persitently jam yourself into corners like this?

Try, just for fun, googling "ockham's razor" What comes up? After that, note that one (1) site comes up explaining the principle, and after that its a bunch of radio stations or whatever.

You can't be serious!

No one said you're wrong. I clearly showed that both ways are correct. You insisting that Ockham is incorrect is nothing short of self-fellatio... In other words, just plain wrong.

What I am saying is that "Occam's Razor" is the accepted academic rendering of it. Any even marginal academic knows that. No, they won't put you in jail for using "Ockham", but it's clumsy and it's not the accepted term for the principle. Why are you trying to argue otherwise?

[gc1765]

What I am saying is that "Occam's Razor" is the accepted academic rendering of it. Any even marginal academic knows that. No, they won't put you in jail for using "Ockham", but it's clumsy and it's not the accepted term for the principle. Why are you trying to argue otherwise?

I love it when people can't admit they are wrong. Perhaps you should be arguing with all of These Academics

[ScottSA]

What I am saying is that "Occam's Razor" is the accepted academic rendering of it. Any even marginal academic knows that. No, they won't put you in jail for using "Ockham", but it's clumsy and it's not the accepted term for the principle. Why are you trying to argue otherwise?

I love it when people can't admit they are wrong. Perhaps you should be arguing with all of These Academics

I don't need to argue with those academics. The accepted rendering of it is Occam's razor." If you google it my way I will gaurantee you'll find hundreds more academics using the proper spelling. Ockham is archaic and hasn't been in wide use in decades. It's not clear to me why you're persisting with this nonsense. Even wiki sends you to 'Occam' when you google 'Ockham'. What's your problem?

[gc1765]

If you google it my way I will gaurantee you'll find hundreds more academics using the proper spelling. Ockham is archaic and hasn't been in wide use in decades. It's not clear to me why you're persisting with this nonsense. Even wiki sends you to 'Occam' when you google 'Ockham'. What's your problem?

I just googled "color" and "colour", and "color" came up with way more hits. When I searched "colour" in wikipedia, it sent me to "color" as well. Are you now going to tell me that means it's wrong for me to spell color as "colour"? Why can't you just admit you made a mistake, is that really so hard to do?

[ScottSA]

If you google it my way I will gaurantee you'll find hundreds more academics using the proper spelling. Ockham is archaic and hasn't been in wide use in decades. It's not clear to me why you're persisting with this nonsense. Even wiki sends you to 'Occam' when you google 'Ockham'. What's your problem?

I just googled "color" and "colour", and "color" came up with way more hits. When I searched "colour" in wikipedia, it sent me to "color" as well. Are you now going to tell me that means it's wrong for me to spell color as "colour"? Why can't you just admit you made a mistake, is that really so hard to do?

You spell colour any way you want. I'm talking about the accepted academic rendering of Occam's razor. I don't believe the proper spelling of colour is at issue in academia. On the off chance that you don't have any notion of academia at all, let me introduce you to another similar overthrow of usage:

Once upon a time, Mandarin was translated into English via Wade-Giles. Through this school of translation, we get "Peking," "ching," and "Mao Tse Tung." Then one day, round about the 1950s and 60s, a new form of translation named "Pinyin" came along. Buckets of ink were spilled in debating the proper form to use in Mandarin translation. The wars among Sinologists raged back and forth, with each side heaping scorn on the other, but guess what? Lo and behold, today we know them as "Beijing, "jing," and "Mao Zedong," respectively. Know why? Because one gave way to the other as proper usage. That's what happens in academia. It happens all the time, and that's the fate of Ockham. It turned into Occam a long time ago.

So you see, it's just not as simple as you thought, is it?

[gc1765]

You spell colour any way you want. I'm talking about the accepted academic rendering of Occam's razor.

...

That's what happens in academia. It happens all the time, and that's the fate of Ockham. It turned into Occam a long time ago.

Your entire argument was based on the fact that "Occam's razor" gets more hits in google than "Ockham's razor" & that it is used by more academics, and therefore is the only acceptable spelling. When I showed you that "color" also gets more hits in google than "colour" and that "color" is used by more academics than "colour", knowing that "colour" is a perfectly acceptable spelling, you change your argument to make it sound like the spelling "Ockham" hasn't been used in a long time. Why don't you take another look at that Link I provided you and take notice of the dates of those "academic" publications. You might want to re-think where you are going with this...

[ScottSA]

You spell colour any way you want. I'm talking about the accepted academic rendering of Occam's razor.

...

That's what happens in academia. It happens all the time, and that's the fate of Ockham. It turned into Occam a long time ago.

Your entire argument was based on the fact that "Occam's razor" gets more hits in google than "Ockham's razor" & that it is used by more academics, and therefore is the only acceptable spelling. When I showed you that "color" also gets more hits in google than "colour" and that "color" is used by more academics than "colour", knowing that "colour" is a perfectly acceptable spelling, you change your argument to make it sound like the spelling "Ockham" hasn't been used in a long time. Why don't you take another look at that Link I provided you and take notice of the dates of those "academic" publications. You might want to re-think where you are going with this...

No, I'm going to rethink the point of trying to explain this to you. I daresay you can find a number of recent articles using Wade-Giles translation, but that doesn't mean Wade-Giles translation is the one commonly accepted in academia. Ockham is archaic, Occam is not. Now really, if you can't grasp this simple fact without banging your head against the issue, lets drop it, ok?

[Riverwind]

The wars among Sinologists raged back and forth, with each side heaping scorn on the other, but guess what?

Don't you think the fact that the Chinese themselves use Pinyin for their own purposes was what triggered the shift? It is kind of silly for any non-Chinese Sinologist to insist on using something else under the circumstances.

[gc1765]

lets drop it, ok?

Fine by me, I've already had a good laugh at your expense. And, apparently I'm not the only one...

[ScottSA]

The wars among Sinologists raged back and forth, with each side heaping scorn on the other, but guess what?

Don't you think the fact that the Chinese themselves use Pinyin for their own purposes was what triggered the shift? It is kind of silly for any non-Chinese Sinologist to insist on using something else under the circumstances.

Much is silly in academia, not least the debates over Wade-Giles and Pinyin.

[jbg]

I find it amusing to see a lengthy fight over English-language spelling of "Ockham" v. "Occam" and "color" v. "colour" on the bulletin board of a non-English-speaking country. As of the passage of the OLA in 1969, Canada was no longer an English-speaking country.

[White Doors]

Well I can gurarntee one thing, we are all going to find out some sooner than others. Whether you believe in the Mythical father in the white gown or the fact that everyone is part of God, it really won't matter in the end.

It is your journey here on earth that matters now. Killing others for revenge, for not believing what you do. or just to get their assets, just consider there might be a reconing, you don't know do you.

Yes and I am told that you will be finding out sooner than most on this board?

[margrace]

Well I can gurarntee one thing, we are all going to find out some sooner than others. Whether you believe in the Mythical father in the white gown or the fact that everyone is part of God, it really won't matter in the end.

It is your journey here on earth that matters now. Killing others for revenge, for not believing what you do. or just to get their assets, just consider there might be a reconing, you don't know do you.

Yes and I am told that you will be finding out sooner than most on this board?

You might be surprised Whte Doors. I am completely healthy, are you? Even if I am probably old enough to be your grandmother. Youe young chits have a lot to learn.

[Bonam]

I Believe That There Is No God

Me too.

[Xman]

Believing, one way or another, is the best we can do.

[betsy]

For anyone who has experienced an aspirating forest, a warm sun on a cold morning, or the smell of grass after a spring rain there must be a higher power. In all the things we have made as human beings there is no experience that can ever come close to such awe.

Those very real things have real scientific explanations. It's too bad you're so busy attributing all of this to God that you can't appreciate these things for what they really are.

Yes there are scientific explanations for the behaviour of natural phenomena.

But there is no scientific evidence that proves how they got there. Just a few feeble attempts.

As the theory of evolution sputters and grinds to an embarrassing halt under the weight of the lack of evidence that its inventor admitted was essential....I would think that anyone defending our scientific understanding of the universe would be a little embarrassed, to say the least.

These theories, often wrongly, seek to explain the behaviour of nature and the universe. Only the most arrogant and ignorant imagine they can explain their existence.