Can science go forward...

[nebula]

Is this an answer?

Yes, Occams Razor would favor standard evolutionary theory over divine creation.

It's easier to believe a grand master planned and crafted and guided the formation of the universe and all it contains than for order to have created itself out of chaos with no intelligence behind it.

How is it that orbits can be calculated mathematically? How is it that fractals can recreate natural objects so perfectly? Math is all around us, and we are finding more and more processes that follow a mathematical flow. How is this possible?

[Valoran]

It's easier to believe a grand master planned and crafted and guided the formation of the universe and all it contains than for order to have created itself out of chaos with no intelligence behind it.

How is it that orbits can be calculated mathematically? How is it that fractals can recreate natural objects so perfectly? Math is all around us, and we are finding more and more processes that follow a mathematical flow. How is this possible?

Occam's Razor applies only to explanations. Invoking God is not an explanation, it's a cop out that leaves us nowhere nearer to the answer than before because the theist argument invariably falls back to "we cannot understand/question God". The God argument has zero explainability power, and hence does not qualify for inclusion in the possible subset of answers allowed for by Occam's Razor.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Valoran

[nebula]

It's easier to believe a grand master planned and crafted and guided the formation of the universe and all it contains than for order to have created itself out of chaos with no intelligence behind it.

How is it that orbits can be calculated mathematically? How is it that fractals can recreate natural objects so perfectly? Math is all around us, and we are finding more and more processes that follow a mathematical flow. How is this possible?

Occam's Razor applies only to explanations. Invoking God is not an explanation, it's a cop out

Only if one chooses to make it so. Mendell's belief in God didn't stop his study of genetics, did it?

it's a cop out that leaves us nowhere nearer to the answer than before because the theist argument invariably falls back to "we cannot understand/question God".

Only the ones without scientific curiosity.

A Christian with a scientific curiosity will ask, "How did God do it?" or "What process did He set in motion?" or the like and proceed with research.

The God argument has zero explainability power, and hence does not qualify for inclusion in the possible subset of answers allowed for by Occam's Razor.

You are making Occam's Razor a cop out to believe there is no God.

Again I ask you:

How is it that orbits can be calculated mathematically? How is it that fractals can recreate natural objects so perfectly? Math is all around us, and we are finding more and more processes that follow a mathematical flow. How is this possible?

[Valoran]

Only if one chooses to make it so. Mendell's belief in God didn't stop his study of genetics, did it?

Because obviously - and fortunately - Mendel was not an intellectually bankrupt person and did not invoke God as an explanation for everything he did not understand. He saw that there must be naturalistic explanations and hence proceeded with his research.

Only the ones without scientific curiosity.

A Christian with a scientific curiosity will ask, "How did God do it?" or "What process did He set in motion?" or the like and proceed with research.

How then is God relevant to answering those questions? One could easily skip the God part of it and proceed straight to the theorizing, and not lose anything from the final results. Factoring God into the equation does not give a hypothesis any more explanatory power. At all.

You are making Occam's Razor a cop out to believe there is no God.

Actually, I'm telling you how Occam's Razor actually works, because you're misusing it. Occam's Razor only applies for hypotheses which actually have explanatory power, from which you pick the simplest one that introduces the least amount of new assumptions, until you can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. The "God did it!" excuse does not fall into consideration at all under Occam's Razor because it has zero explanatory power. Religion does not even have any evidence whatsoever to prove itself true, much less bring anything useful to the table to explain anything else. It's not to say that you can't try to bring God in as a postulate, but invoking Occam's Razor is the wrong way to do it.

Again I ask you:

How is it that orbits can be calculated mathematically? How is it that fractals can recreate natural objects so perfectly? Math is all around us, and we are finding more and more processes that follow a mathematical flow. How is this possible?

What does this have to do with your misuse of the Occam's Razor principle?

Edited December 22, 2011 by Valoran

[nebula]

Again I ask you:

How is it that orbits can be calculated mathematically? How is it that fractals can recreate natural objects so perfectly? Math is all around us, and we are finding more and more processes that follow a mathematical flow. How is this possible?

I'm not a mathmetician but I'm pretty sure Stephen Hawking understands math at a very high level. Evidently this argument hasn't impressed him.

In other words you can't answer it, you don't care, it challenges your belief and therefore don't want to look into it, . . . .

[nebula]

Only if one chooses to make it so. Mendell's belief in God didn't stop his study of genetics, did it?

Because obviously - and fortunately - Mendel was not an intellectually bankrupt person

Insults are unimpressive to a discussion.

and did not invoke God as an explanation for everything he did not understand. He saw that there must be naturalistic explanations and hence proceeded with his research.

There's a difference between, "God did it and I don't care how," and "God did it, I'm curious as to how."

Only the ones without scientific curiosity.

A Christian with a scientific curiosity will ask, "How did God do it?" or "What process did He set in motion?" or the like and proceed with research.

How then is God relevant to answering those questions? One could easily skip the God part of it and proceed straight to the theorizing, and not lose anything from the final results. Factoring God into the equation does not give a hypothesis any more explanatory power. At all.

I think I'll plan a new science program: one that explains scientific understanding without mentioning the scientists involved in the discovery. Let us eliminate Aristotle and Archimedes and Newton and Pasteur and Darwin and Madam Currie and Mendel and Einstein and Watson & Crick and Hubble and Hawkins and the rest in our education of science. After all, science is about the facts, not the people, correct?

So let us train our future scientists to consider the world of science without the ones who enabled us to get to where we are.

Would you consider this feasible?

You are making Occam's Razor a cop out to believe there is no God.

Actually, I'm telling you how Occam's Razor actually works, because you're misusing it. Occam's Razor only applies for hypotheses which actually have explanatory power, from which you pick the simplest one that introduces the least amount of new assumptions, until you can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. The "God did it!" excuse does not fall into consideration at all under Occam's Razor because it has zero explanatory power. Religion does not even have any evidence whatsoever to prove itself true, much less bring anything useful to the table to explain anything else. It's not to say that you can't try to bring God in as a postulate, but invoking Occam's Razor is the wrong way to do it.

Occam's Razor was used to eliminate the belief in God, though.

Edit: I did a little research on Occam's Razor.

Occam's razor gained widespread acceptance, and as a result, the principle has been expanded upon (or distorted, depending on your view) over time. The physicist Ernst Mach, for example, made the razor part and parcel with empirical evidence, when he said that scientific research should use the simplest methods to arrive at conclusions and, what's more, must exclude from that process any evidence that isn't empirical. This is based on positivism -- the idea that if something can't be proven empirically, it doesn't exist.

This kind of thinking is viewed by some as dull logic, which can result in a divide between differing ideologies. Sometimes, even both of the opposing sides use Occam's razor to disprove each other's ideas.

Source

Was Occam's Razor applied appropriately to begin with?

Again I ask you:

How is it that orbits can be calculated mathematically? How is it that fractals can recreate natural objects so perfectly? Math is all around us, and we are finding more and more processes that follow a mathematical flow. How is this possible?

What does this have to do with your misuse of the Occam's Razor principle?

There are more than one way to present a case within a debate.

Can you answer the question?

Edited December 22, 2011 by nebula

[nebula]

In other words you can't answer it, you don't care, it challenges your belief and therefore don't want to look into it, . . . .

No another words I don't see how the fact that we can use math to predict orbits or anything else [mathematically] results in an invisible entity that created everything.

Where does math come from?

If we invented it, how is it that the universe is ordered by it?

In my view a Deist can an least manage an argument for a Creator, not that I would necessarily embrace it but I can see a decent argument being made. From a Christian standpoint you have a mountain of work ahead of you to go from "i think there is some creative being/force involved in the creation of our Universe" to "The Creator set our Universe in motion some 6000 years ago. He became angry because we ate forbidden fruit and banned us from a magical garden. As time went on he would only forgive people if they slaughtered and burned an animal in homage to him. The final solution for all our problems was for him to send himself to earth and consequently sacrifice himself to himself."

I caught you. You have been assuming all along I am a 6-Day Creationist and reacting to me accordingly. But I'm not.

As for the rest, you do not understand what the Bible proclaims.

There was nothing magical about the Garden. "Fruit" in Biblical language can be both physical and symbolic (i.e. "the fruit of righteousness" and "the fruit of darkness" mentioned in the Epistles). Humanity suffered taking into themselves the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Evil has consequences. And disobedience was only one part of the error committed. Blood had to be shed for atonement because life is in the blood and only life can cover death (the price of sin is death). If you violate the law of gravity, you will get hurt. If you violate the law of love, you will likewise get hurt. Just as you need a recompense for the consequences of disobeying gravity, so you need recompense for disobeying love. Pathogenic viruses and bacteria require the appropriate antigen. The corruption brought on by evil likewise requires an appropriate antigen. Only the pure life (blood) of God can be that antigen.

[nebula]

Where does math come from?

If we invented it, how is it that the universe is ordered by it?

I don't personally know why the Universe is ordered by it. I fail to see how acknowledging that there is order and this order can be described mathematically results in the creator being YHWH [or a sentient creator at all].

Where is your scientific inquiry? Have you never been astounded by the "brilliance" (for lack of a better word) of math, it's orderliness, its beauty, its complexity, its functionality, etc.?

Now, can you address this question without trying to assume my conclusion?

Or does something you personally cannot find researchable outside of your own ability to put under a microscope or create a hypothesis for not exist in your opinion?

Where would the whole work of quantum theory be without math? (Noting that math is the best if not only evidence they have for it.)

Edited December 22, 2011 by nebula

[nebula]

I caught you. You have been assuming all along I am a 6-Day Creationist and reacting to me accordingly. But I'm not.

Ultimately it doesn't matter, you follow the same God with the same storyline.

Stargaze, you are mixing arguments.

Are you arguing against the existence of any Creator, or are you arguing against the God of the Bible?

Please clarify your intention.

For the record, it does matter to know what belief you are arguing against. If you took a debate class in college, you should know this.

As for the rest, you do not understand what the Bible proclaims.

There was nothing magical about the Garden. "Fruit" in Biblical language can be both physical and symbolic (i.e. "the fruit of righteousness" and "the fruit of darkness" mentioned in the Epistles).

Oh there's nothing magical about people living forever [they would have if they didn't sin], animals being completely tame, talking snakes etc.

What was the Tree of Life for?

Humanity suffered taking into themselves the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Evil has consequences. And disobedience was only one part of the error committed. Blood had to be shed for atonement because life is in the blood and only life can cover death (the price of sin is death).

And who made up this rule?

The same one who made up the rule that if you smash your hand into a hard stone your bones will break. The same one who made the rule that an antibiotic that kills Gram-positive bacteria will not necessarily kill Gram-negative bacteria. The same one who made the rule that neutrophils will engulf bacteria while B-lymphocytes will create antibodies against the bacteria.

If you violate the law of gravity, you will get hurt. If you violate the law of love, you will likewise get hurt. Just as you need a recompense for the consequences of disobeying gravity, so you need recompense for disobeying love. Pathogenic viruses and bacteria require the appropriate antigen. The corruption brought on by evil likewise requires an appropriate antigen. Only the pure life (blood) of God can be that antigen.

Or God could simply have forgiven people instead of this bizarre set of rules and requirements to reach a state of forigveness.

Would you have God forgive a child predator with a wave of a hand? Would you?

Would you have God forgive someone who promoted hate without justice? Would you be pleased to live in a world without justice?

[Valoran]

In other words you can't answer it, you don't care, it challenges your belief and therefore don't want to look into it, . . . .

Do you have anything better to offer than to extrapolate my reply into a baseless ad hominem?

Please answer the earlier question. How does this have anything to do with your misuse of Occam's Razor? Or are you simply trying to resort to the same intellectual bankruptcy of invoking the God excuse you spoke out against earlier?

Insults are unimpressive to a discussion.

I fail to see where I insulted anyone here. If you think the shoe fits on you, however, I'm sorry but there's little I can do about that.

There's a difference between, "God did it and I don't care how," and "God did it, I'm curious as to how."

If you're going to end up look for naturalistic explanations anyway, what exactly does invoking God add to or take away from the explanation? Can you explain how the God excuse adds any explanatory power to the hypothesis whatsoever?

I think I'll plan a new science program: one that explains scientific understanding without mentioning the scientists involved in the discovery. Let us eliminate Aristotle and Archimedes and Newton and Pasteur and Darwin and Madam Currie and Mendel and Einstein and Watson & Crick and Hubble and Hawkins and the rest in our education of science. After all, science is about the facts, not the people, correct?

So let us train our future scientists to consider the world of science without the ones who enabled us to get to where we are.

I'm not sure that you're understanding what I'm saying. Do the works of those scientists you named list God as an explanation or piece of evidence in any capacity at all? The answer is no. God has played no part and contributed nothing useful whatsoever in the scientific process (other than perhaps being invoked by some scientists as source of personal motivation and inspiration, but that falls squarely outside the scientific process and has nothing to do with the eventual research results).

I am saying that cop outs which have no explanatory power (e.g. the God excuse) are ignored by Occam's Razor since Occam's Razor is meant as a criteria for deciding between competing explanations, and cop outs present zero explanatory power and are not an explanation. The God excuse is a cop out since it fails at explaining even itself, much less anything else. How does that translate into eliminating Aristotle and Archimedes and everyone else you listed?

Occam's Razor was used to eliminate the belief in God, though.

Because as I've explained, that's how Occam's Razor works. It's definitely not the ONLY criteria that hypotheses may be judged, however, and you're more than welcome to present your case for God using other trains of logic. But trying to invoke God using Occam's Razor is nothing but a misuse of the principle, plain and simple.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Valoran