Philosophy and other pseudo-intellectual spoutings

[thebish]

Well, a "general reckon" version yes. It's not in Latin for a start!

There's a hopelessly dry argument about what Occam's Razor actually says but the principle I quoted makes sense and it's a useful tool so it will do for me even if the historical accuracy is off.

which is fine - except for the part where you said you were applying Occam's Razor... I guess it just sounds better than "I reckon"!

Well Wiki backs me up. So ner. It's not me making stuff up, what I quoted is still a valid logical tool, and you haven't addressed that. So if it makes you happy, edit "Occam's Razor" for "the thing often mistakenly referred to as Occam's Razor". Doesn't affect the point. It's like arguing against somebody who says they love the line "Et tu, Brute" by pointing out it's almost certainly not a historically accurate representation of Caesar's last words. And...?

no Pru - not having that... I was not as interested in your admirable ability to quote wiki as I was your total misapplication of a philosophical tool. If you misunderstand and then misapply a philosophical tool - it is not enough to claim that other people often misapply and misunderstand it too - so it makes your conclusions somehow more valid to go ahead and misapply it yourself. It doesn't.

(nor is it anything even remotely close to your very odd attempt to make it analogous to "Et tu, Brute.")

the way you have used it is merely the pretentious pseudo-intellectual equivalent of writing FACT after your post.

I am merely reacting to your total misapplication of a philosophical tool which has quite a specific and fairly limited sphere of application in order to try to make your conclusions carry more weight. It's the kind of thing you yourself are generally (and usually, rightly) quite keen to point out.

[Prufrock]

No it's not. That's what people mean when they say Occam's Razor. That's reflected by the FACT ( )that if you wiki "Occam's Razor" that's precisely the explanation you get.

As for it not being the sort of thing I normally go for: the argument that "this is what people now mean by it so bollocks to anyone trying to take a pedantic point when they knew exactly what I meant" is exactly the sort of argument I get behind. You can stick your "whom"s where the sun don't shine. As I said, if it offends you personally, read "the logical principle now mistakenly referred to as Occam's Razor" instead of "Occam's Razor". Whether or not that's the correct term for it is irrelevant to the point being made. Occam's Razor is a short hand for the point I was making.

More importantly though, again, even if I accept what you say, it doesn't alter my point. If I'm forced to discontinue my use, and write in full: "In either case, whether you say that something has been here forever, or that something must have popped into existence, the presence of a deity in both cases is an extra assumption and logic dictates that in either case as a general rule it is more sensible to discount the proposition that requires the extra assumption", then my point isn't weakened. I'm not trying to piggy-back on the credibility of a middle-ages monk, I'm trying to use a well-established principle of reasoning, whether or not we can agree on its name.

There's a ball there you can play if you fancy it.

[TANGODANCER]

More importantly though, again, even if I accept what you say, it doesn't alter my point. If I'm forced to discount my use, and write in full: "In either case, whether you say that something has been here forever, or that something must have popped into existence, the presence of a deity in both cases is an extra assumption and logic dictates that in either case as a general rule it is more sensible to discount the proposition that requires the extra assumption", then my point isn't weakened. There's a ball there you can play if you fancy it.

The salient point that makes that not quite right is the fact that the Deity argument is a major factor in as much as devotees believe in creation being the reason for such existence in the first place. You dismissing the this as not suiting your purpose doesn't change a single thing. It also isn't an argument invented this week, but one from way back in time that can't be wrote off as "logic dictates" just at your say-so. Unless you can factually deny creation then your points carry no more weight than anyone else's who believes in it.
Scientists created the Haddon Collider, but who created the scientists?

[Prufrock]

I'm glad you seem to accept that the theist position is not "sensible" then.

But - ha- believe me, my reason for not believing in god is not simply that it requires an extra level of assumption as to the beginnings of the universe! As I've said, simply that it requires that extra level doesn't disprove it, it simply means on a purely logical level (and hey, we have better tools than simple logic for most things, though unfortunately, though necessarily, it seems not for the question of "what happened just before the things that we know happened? Oh we don't know, because they're by definition before what we know? That'll probably be God then".); it makes less sense. Sometimes things that make less sense are actually true, but again, almost by definition, they're true less often than things that make more sense.

It's by no means conclusive proof. I'll quite happily admit that you can find a point in history before which science cannot explain, and necessarily point out that science can't explain it; you can then invent an idea, a force, some unknown agent, and call it "god" to explain what happened before. No atheist could disagree with you that that's "possible". You'd call it "god"; I'd call it "X" - if I accepted X had to exist. You could call it Loch Ness Monster if you wanted; it would have as much probative value as to what we now know as the Loch Ness Monster as it would towards proving the existence of what you now call god. You don't mean a disinterested unknown before the annals of history any more than someone who believes in the Loch Ness Monster does.

In any case, it still wouldn't help you argue against the fact that is evolution, or that X somehow gave a shit who I had sex with and how. You'd then call this thing that in no way represents your god, "God", and then claim I'd admitted that "God" could exist. La plus ca change...

[Montreal Wanderer]

Well, a "general reckon" version yes. It's not in Latin for a start!

There's a hopelessly dry argument about what Occam's Razor actually says but the principle I quoted makes sense and it's a useful tool so it will do for me even if the historical accuracy is off.

which is fine - except for the part where you said you were applying Occam's Razor... I guess it just sounds better than "I reckon"!

Well Wiki backs me up. So ner. It's not me making stuff up, what I quoted is still a valid logical tool, and you haven't addressed that. So if it makes you happy, edit "Occam's Razor" for "the thing often mistakenly referred to as Occam's Razor". Doesn't affect the point. It's like arguing against somebody who says they love the line "Et tu, Brute" by pointing out it's almost certainly not a historically accurate representation of Caesar's last words. And...?

According to Suetonius. many witnesses said his last words were "And you, child" to Brutus, so "almost certainly" may be a bit strong. All agree that early on in the encounter he said “Vile Casca, what does this mean?”

[Hoboh]

I'm glad you seem to accept that the theist position is not "sensible" then.

But - ha- believe me, my reason for not believing in god is not simply that it requires an extra level of assumption as to the beginnings of the universe! As I've said, simply that it requires that extra level doesn't disprove it, it simply means on a purely logical level (and hey, we have better tools than simple logic for most things, though unfortunately, though necessarily, it seems not for the question of "what happened just before the things that we know happened? Oh we don't know, because they're by definition before what we know? That'll probably be God then".); it makes less sense. Sometimes things that make less sense are actually true, but again, almost by definition, they're true less often than things that make more sense.

It's by no means conclusive proof. I'll quite happily admit that you can find a point in history before which science cannot explain, and necessarily point out that science can't explain it; you can then invent an idea, a force, some unknown agent, and call it "god" to explain what happened before. No atheist could disagree with you that that's "possible". You'd call it "god"; I'd call it "X" - if I accepted X had to exist. You could call it Loch Ness Monster if you wanted; it would have as much probative value as to what we now know as the Loch Ness Monster as it would towards proving the existence of what you now call god. You don't mean a disinterested unknown before the annals of history any more than someone who believes in the Loch Ness Monster does.

In any case, it still wouldn't help you argue against the fact that is evolution, or that X somehow gave a shit who I had sex with and how. You'd then call this thing that in no way represents your god, "God", and then claim I'd admitted that "God" could exist. La plus ca change...

So come on Pru what was it?

chicken or egg?

[Worthy4England]

Or you've drawn false conclusions - rumbled by the human need to have things happen in a linear sequence

Why conclude that the matrix must have been created, when you accept that sooner or later (or sooner or earlier!) something must have popped into existence of it's own accord.

Either some 'stuff' has existed 'forever' or something at some point popped into existence. In both cases Occam's razor says discount the deity and stick with the stuff you absolutely know exists as having been here forever or as having popped into existence.

because, when you look, stuff must have been created. For it to have existed forever is a nonsense - it had to start, that is what time is. The thing that's been there needs a creation too.
But to be created, one requires a creator... Which might just be an equation, it's not necessary to be a creature!
But the problem is that even that needs a starting point. Something cannot come from Nothing... not even God. God needs a creator too. It's impossible to reconcile...

Why must it? Human beings evolved to perceive medium-sized things traveling at medium speeds. Our brains work with time as a constant in a linear fashion and, as life has a beginning a middle and an end, so too must everything. But we know time doesn't work like that. There's relativity for a start, plus, spacetime curves. "Time's is just nature's way of stopping everything happening at once".

I'm not saying stuff has definitely been here forever, but I don't see why it *must* be wrong. As you've pointed out, the "what created that?" line of questioning goes back forever. "It's turtles all the way down". Either: stuff has been here forever; or, at some point the first "stuff" - whether it was all the matter in the universe, the universe itself, a god who created the universe, something that created the god that created the universe, or so on and so forth, but at some point SOMETHING - had to simply begin to exist.

You appear to have discounted both possibilities. One has to be correct.

You mean science hasn't managed to prove this one yet?

Some people made something up to try and fit a particular hypothesis? So there is a chance that some sort of biological/chemical/physical reaction started from nothing couldn't happen? I'm shocked. I thought that notion was as irrefutable as God did it was impossible.

I'm now thoroughly confused.

What happens at forever minus one? Nothing? If so how did forever start?

I'm losing my faith in Science. I'm starting to think they make shit up to suit them and brainwash the masses with it.

Except, and this is genuinely wonderful, at the point science realises it doesn't know, guess what it says? (Clue: it's not "God must have done it"). "We don't know" is not the same as "Anything could explain this, and should be given equal weight as any other "theory"* because you can't say it's definitely not true".

Seriously, the best thing that my parents taught me that I don't think they would have taught me had they been religious (not to say no religious parents would teach their kids this, just that mine wouldn't have) is that it's OK not to know. You don't have to fill the gap with a benevolent old man, and you can still give a preference one way or the other, but it's fine to just say "I don't know".

*#1 contender for most misunderstood word ever. And not to blame Bish, the pedantry of mathematicians is entirely to blame.

Ahh - this is good. We're making progress. Science would probably say "We don't know", I agree. Science is a little all encompassing in this context and often Scientists don't agree about things they don't know - but we'll let that one ride for a minute. That isn't the same as "Anything could explain this", I agree too, so what they tend to do is look at all the possibilities and give them a probability - which covers off your "given equal weight bit". So where I believe we'd get to is that Scientists might well at the moment give Higgs-Bosun a high probability (which when they find it, will lead onto the next question) and God a very low probability. Which is entirely different, than someone arguing the case that it couldn't possibly be the lower probability answer, because science has a higher probability answer. Which is exactly what most people who don't believe in God incorrectly, generally content when referencing Science...

[thebish]

No it's not. That's what people mean when they say Occam's Razor. That's reflected by the FACT ( )that if you wiki "Occam's Razor" that's precisely the explanation you get.

As for it not being the sort of thing I normally go for: the argument that "this is what people now mean by it so bollocks to anyone trying to take a pedantic point when they knew exactly what I meant" is exactly the sort of argument I get behind. You can stick your "whom"s where the sun don't shine. As I said, if it offends you personally, read "the logical principle now mistakenly referred to as Occam's Razor" instead of "Occam's Razor". Whether or not that's the correct term for it is irrelevant to the point being made. Occam's Razor is a short hand for the point I was making.

More importantly though, again, even if I accept what you say, it doesn't alter my point. If I'm forced to discontinue my use, and write in full: "In either case, whether you say that something has been here forever, or that something must have popped into existence, the presence of a deity in both cases is an extra assumption and logic dictates that in either case as a general rule it is more sensible to discount the proposition that requires the extra assumption", then my point isn't weakened. I'm not trying to piggy-back on the credibility of a middle-ages monk, I'm trying to use a well-established principle of reasoning, whether or not we can agree on its name.

There's a ball there you can play if you fancy it.

the fact that the misuse of Occam's Razor is well-established does not mean that in the way you have used it here it makes much sense at all.

I'll just remind you what you wrote..

So: either something has existed forever, be it matter, the universe or god; or, there was a nothing, and then something came into existence. In either case, the option involving a god involves an extra assumption.

you have outlined two positions:

1) the matter/universe/god has existed for ever
2) there was nothing and something came into existence

your first position already includes God - so no extra assumptions about God are required
your second position seems to need an initiator - in your model - it could be God or it could be summat else - whichever it was would be an extra assumption.

so - EVEN IF - your bastardised, misunderstood and misapplied misappropriation of Occam's Razor was a valid venture for this kind of proposition - you have failed even to get it past base 1.

[Prufrock]

Well, a "general reckon" version yes. It's not in Latin for a start!

There's a hopelessly dry argument about what Occam's Razor actually says but the principle I quoted makes sense and it's a useful tool so it will do for me even if the historical accuracy is off.

which is fine - except for the part where you said you were applying Occam's Razor... I guess it just sounds better than "I reckon"!

Well Wiki backs me up. So ner. It's not me making stuff up, what I quoted is still a valid logical tool, and you haven't addressed that. So if it makes you happy, edit "Occam's Razor" for "the thing often mistakenly referred to as Occam's Razor". Doesn't affect the point. It's like arguing against somebody who says they love the line "Et tu, Brute" by pointing out it's almost certainly not a historically accurate representation of Caesar's last words. And...?

According to Suetonius. many witnesses said his last words were "And you, child" to Brutus, so "almost certainly" may be a bit strong. All agree that early on in the encounter he said “Vile Casca, what does this mean?”

And in what language does Suetonius say that he said it ?

It has the ring to me of something made up long afterwards. I'd be willing to wager that his actual last words were something like "ugh...get off me you ...."

[Prufrock]

Why must it? Human beings evolved to perceive medium-sized things traveling at medium speeds. Our brains work with time as a constant in a linear fashion and, as life has a beginning a middle and an end, so too must everything. But we know time doesn't work like that. There's relativity for a start, plus, spacetime curves. "Time's is just nature's way of stopping everything happening at once".

I'm not saying stuff has definitely been here forever, but I don't see why it *must* be wrong. As you've pointed out, the "what created that?" line of questioning goes back forever. "It's turtles all the way down". Either: stuff has been here forever; or, at some point the first "stuff" - whether it was all the matter in the universe, the universe itself, a god who created the universe, something that created the god that created the universe, or so on and so forth, but at some point SOMETHING - had to simply begin to exist.

You appear to have discounted both possibilities. One has to be correct.

You mean science hasn't managed to prove this one yet?

Some people made something up to try and fit a particular hypothesis? So there is a chance that some sort of biological/chemical/physical reaction started from nothing couldn't happen? I'm shocked. I thought that notion was as irrefutable as God did it was impossible.

I'm now thoroughly confused.

What happens at forever minus one? Nothing? If so how did forever start?

I'm losing my faith in Science. I'm starting to think they make shit up to suit them and brainwash the masses with it.

Except, and this is genuinely wonderful, at the point science realises it doesn't know, guess what it says? (Clue: it's not "God must have done it"). "We don't know" is not the same as "Anything could explain this, and should be given equal weight as any other "theory"* because you can't say it's definitely not true".

Seriously, the best thing that my parents taught me that I don't think they would have taught me had they been religious (not to say no religious parents would teach their kids this, just that mine wouldn't have) is that it's OK not to know. You don't have to fill the gap with a benevolent old man, and you can still give a preference one way or the other, but it's fine to just say "I don't know".

*#1 contender for most misunderstood word ever. And not to blame Bish, the pedantry of mathematicians is entirely to blame.

Ahh - this is good. We're making progress. Science would probably say "We don't know", I agree. Science is a little all encompassing in this context and often Scientists don't agree about things they don't know - but we'll let that one ride for a minute. That isn't the same as "Anything could explain this", I agree too, so what they tend to do is look at all the possibilities and give them a probability - which covers off your "given equal weight bit". So where I believe we'd get to is that Scientists might well at the moment give Higgs-Bosun a high probability (which when they find it, will lead onto the next question) and God a very low probability. Which is entirely different, than someone arguing the case that it couldn't possibly be the lower probability answer, because science has a higher probability answer. Which is exactly what most people who don't believe in God incorrectly, generally content when referencing Science...

Why have you called it "God" though? This potential original force/spark/whatever, or "God" if you want, is something you'll be hard-pressed to find anybody serious would discount as a possibility, even if they think it's unlikely. The only reason anyone calls that "god" is to try to take a point; it's not the "god" of any Bible or modern believer. That requires a lot more. To get someone to accept that this initial force is a possibility gets you nowhere near proving or showing it in anyway likely that this "force" is a conscious being, that it's still around, that it cares what happens, that it is moralistic or that there is an afterlife in which it judges us for our sins.

Atheism doesn't mean rejecting ideas far removed from any modern "god" that might be back-dated and re-labelled "god" to try prove a point ("ah, so you can't say god definitely doesn't exist" "Well, I can't say what you've conveniently now named "God" doesn't exist"). If there's a religion out there that says god created the stuff and put it in the big bang then left it to its own devices since and buggered off, then they might have something (for now at least) - a sort of Deism Max. That's the road successive popes have started down, but they can't get away from the whole consciously cares what we do now, demands worship, cares who we have sex with and how, and judges us in the afterlife bit. That's the bit that atheists consider so unlikely as to be discounted as a possibility, which isn't the same as what you were saying.

[Prufrock]

No it's not. That's what people mean when they say Occam's Razor. That's reflected by the FACT ( )that if you wiki "Occam's Razor" that's precisely the explanation you get.

As for it not being the sort of thing I normally go for: the argument that "this is what people now mean by it so bollocks to anyone trying to take a pedantic point when they knew exactly what I meant" is exactly the sort of argument I get behind. You can stick your "whom"s where the sun don't shine. As I said, if it offends you personally, read "the logical principle now mistakenly referred to as Occam's Razor" instead of "Occam's Razor". Whether or not that's the correct term for it is irrelevant to the point being made. Occam's Razor is a short hand for the point I was making.

More importantly though, again, even if I accept what you say, it doesn't alter my point. If I'm forced to discontinue my use, and write in full: "In either case, whether you say that something has been here forever, or that something must have popped into existence, the presence of a deity in both cases is an extra assumption and logic dictates that in either case as a general rule it is more sensible to discount the proposition that requires the extra assumption", then my point isn't weakened. I'm not trying to piggy-back on the credibility of a middle-ages monk, I'm trying to use a well-established principle of reasoning, whether or not we can agree on its name.

There's a ball there you can play if you fancy it.

the fact that the misuse of Occam's Razor is well-established does not mean that in the way you have used it here it makes much sense at all.

I'll just remind you what you wrote..

So: either something has existed forever, be it matter, the universe or god; or, there was a nothing, and then something came into existence. In either case, the option involving a god involves an extra assumption.

you have outlined two positions:

1) the matter/universe/god has existed for ever
2) there was nothing and something came into existence

your first position already includes God - so no extra assumptions about God are required
your second position seems to need an initiator - in your model - it could be God or it could be summat else - whichever it was would be an extra assumption.

so - EVEN IF - your bastardised, misunderstood and misapplied misappropriation of Occam's Razor was a valid venture for this kind of proposition - you have failed even to get it past base 1.

In both those cases, if it's God that existed forever or popped into existence, you've now got a god without a universe, you then need a second assumption in each case that God then created the universe.

So option 1: The universe has existed forever (1 assumption)/ or, God has existed forever (1 assumption) and then created the universe (2 assumptions).

Option 2: The universe popped into existence (1 assumption)/ or, God popped into existence (1 assumption) and then created the universe (2 assumptions).

[Prufrock]

I'm glad you seem to accept that the theist position is not "sensible" then.

But - ha- believe me, my reason for not believing in god is not simply that it requires an extra level of assumption as to the beginnings of the universe! As I've said, simply that it requires that extra level doesn't disprove it, it simply means on a purely logical level (and hey, we have better tools than simple logic for most things, though unfortunately, though necessarily, it seems not for the question of "what happened just before the things that we know happened? Oh we don't know, because they're by definition before what we know? That'll probably be God then".); it makes less sense. Sometimes things that make less sense are actually true, but again, almost by definition, they're true less often than things that make more sense.

It's by no means conclusive proof. I'll quite happily admit that you can find a point in history before which science cannot explain, and necessarily point out that science can't explain it; you can then invent an idea, a force, some unknown agent, and call it "god" to explain what happened before. No atheist could disagree with you that that's "possible". You'd call it "god"; I'd call it "X" - if I accepted X had to exist. You could call it Loch Ness Monster if you wanted; it would have as much probative value as to what we now know as the Loch Ness Monster as it would towards proving the existence of what you now call god. You don't mean a disinterested unknown before the annals of history any more than someone who believes in the Loch Ness Monster does.

In any case, it still wouldn't help you argue against the fact that is evolution, or that X somehow gave a shit who I had sex with and how. You'd then call this thing that in no way represents your god, "God", and then claim I'd admitted that "God" could exist. La plus ca change...

So come on Pru what was it?

chicken or egg?

Undoubtedly and obviously the egg. Next!

[bobo the clown]

Ah .... now I'm convinced. Where do I sign ?

[thebish]

pru - seriously - read up what Occam's Razor is about and "for" and you will find that what you outline above isn't it.

what you are offering is Pru's Razor:

"I don't believe in God, so if there are any two propositions alongside one another and one appeals to God, then discount the one that appeals to God because it is a priori ludicrous." Be honest - there is no need to hide behind some pretend appeal to logic/Occam!

as it happens, Pru's Razor is not a bad Razor - I'd use it myself most of the time - but it's absolutely not Occam's Razor.

as for my own view - all such arguments for/against the "existence" of God are (to me) utterly sterile and meaningless... Personally I don't conceive of God in that way - as a "being" - or as "existing" in the same way that a book or an aardvark "exists". Okham's arguments were disingenuous and quite a lot of bollox. the "razor" named after him has quite a limited academic sphere of application into which your scenario simply does not fit.

all is presentation...

even if you ignore all I have said above...

your propositions stand or fall on the unspoken definition of "God" contained within them... many would argue that essential to the very being of God is God's creative action - it is not separable - so the "God" in your proposition is merely an artificial construction for the sake of argument.

the assumption of God's creativeness is inseparably part and parcel of God's "existence" - so the idea of God creating requires no extra assumption (as you assert) beyond God's mere existence.

if you think that's picky - then I'd wager you haven't read Okham OR any philosophy!

[TANGODANCER]

Pru. Do you maybe understand the relevance of my signature?

[TANGODANCER]

The Conan-Doyle razor:

“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
― Arthur Conan Doyle, The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes

[Hoboh]

The riddle as I see it, hobohs razor, is there a beginning to find or is this a human thing to seek?

[TANGODANCER]

The riddle as I see it, hobohs razor, is there a beginning to find or is this a human thing to seek?

Well, Hoboh, there is the fact that "so far", in the galaxy, science, despite its many achievements, has only been able to show the existence of life on just one planet: Earth. It "might" be relevant that Jesus came here too, rather than say, Mars, Venus or any of the other destinations. A possible case, I'd say, for the Conan-Doyle razor to apply?

[Dujon]

Why is 'science' often brought into philosophical/theological discussions when its sole purpose is to find out 'how things work'? To the best of my knowledge no scientist has ever set out to prove or disprove the existence of a creator or creators. Many scientists, including Einstein, were and are what we would call religious. I see no conflict.

[Prufrock]

Einstein was what we would call religious in the same way that Hitler was what we would call an atheist - that is to say, he wasn't.