Everything from nothing

Originally posted by C Hess
Occam's razor.

I'm not sure what Occam's razor has to do with the only thing any of us have about the
beginning is faith?

Originally posted by C Hess
Yes, it could be the eternal part.

Could be?
If we are only doing could be, anything could be!

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not sure what Occam's razor has to do with the only thing any of us have about the
beginning is faith?

If you have more than one explanation, the one with the least unknowns is the more probable. That would be the one that doesn't require a superintellect.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Could be?
If we are only doing could be, anything could be!

We've observed energy (in various forms). We can't create it. We can't destroy it. We've never observed your god. Therefore, the "could be" of energy being the eternal component is far more probable (from our perspective) than the "could be" of your god. Just sayin'. 🙂

Originally posted by C Hess
If you have more than one explanation, the one with the least unknowns is the more probable. That would be the one that doesn't require a superintellect.

But "more" probable (or even "most" probable) doesn't mean "is". What "is" could be the least probable. Probability doesn't really have much to do with what "is".

Occam's razor is by no means proof. Or, more clearly, Occam's razor isn't, by any means, proof.

Originally posted by C Hess
If you have more than one explanation, the one with the least unknowns is the more probable. That would be the one that doesn't require a superintellect.

Why should God be rejected, just because He does not fit your world view?

Originally posted by C Hess
We've observed energy (in various forms). We can't create it. We can't destroy it. We've never observed your god. Therefore, the "could be" of energy being the eternal component is far more probable (from our perspective) than the "could be" of your god. Just sayin'. 🙂

Actually a lot of people have God in their lives, just because your blind to Him doesn't mean
He isn't real.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do people honestly think everything could have come from nothing?

If so how?

LOL.

I can just see Obama at the judgment seat of God.

Obama: "You didn't make that you know".

God: (Eyes roll) "Hear we go again......"

Originally posted by Suzianne
But "more" probable (or even "most" probable) doesn't mean "is". What "is" could be the least probable. Probability doesn't really have much to do with what "is".

Occam's razor is by no means proof. Or, more clearly, Occam's razor isn't, by any means, proof.

Of course not. But I'm the kind of guy who always goes with the most probable, and only ever change my mind when some other explanation turns out to be more probable still. I'd prefer testable explanations, but lacking that, I'll go with the one that assumes the least. This is probably why I'll always remain an atheist.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why should God be rejected, just because He does not fit your world view?

It's not because he doesn't fit my "worldview", I'd happily change my mind about god's existence, it's that he seems so unlikely to exist, and unnecessary for understanding nature.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Actually a lot of people have God in their lives, just because your blind to Him doesn't mean
He isn't real.

They believe they have god in their lives. There's a difference between actually having an undetectable presence in your life, and simply believing that you do. I understand that it's to belittle your beliefs to say this, and I don't wish to offend, I truly don't, but I think it's important to understand that difference.

Or, if he truly exists and is a part of your lives, tell me how I can get in touch with him in a manner that I can't dismiss as a psychological phenomenon. For instance, if I have to be in a certain state of mind for him to reach me, that only tells me I have to trick my brain into thinking something is there, when it's really not. I shouldn't have to do anything but look, to experience his presence, if he's real. If I must "want" to know him, go out of my way to experience him, and never doubt in his existence, that seems like the perfect setup for a self-delusional confirmation bias trip, and as pleasant as that sounds, I think I prefer reality.

Sorry for being somewhat rude. Just ignore me if I'm too much of a bummer.

Originally posted by whodey
LOL.

I can just see Obama at the judgment seat of God.

Obama: "You didn't make that you know".

God: (Eyes roll) "Hear we go again......"

Obama's a christian, right?

Originally posted by C Hess
Obama's a christian, right?

He says he is so it must be so, right?

Originally posted by whodey
He says he is so it must be so, right?

I see no reason to think otherwise, but then again, I wouldn't know from the diversity in christian denominations what exemplifies a "true" christian, other than that he professes to believe in christ as his saviour, by calling himself a christian, right?

Originally posted by Suzianne
But "more" probable (or even "most" probable) doesn't mean "is". What "is" could be the least probable. Probability doesn't really have much to do with what "is".

Occam's razor is by no means proof. Or, more clearly, Occam's razor isn't, by any means, proof.

Occam's Razor is formally proven by Bayes Theorem.

It means that simpler explanations are more probable a priori, and thus have a higher
burden of proof, or in other words require much more/stronger evidence.

There is no evidence what so ever for gods [of any kind] which you admit.

The evidence we do have is very probable in the case of a natural universe formed by the
laws of physics and is infinitesimally probable in the case of a supernaturally formed universe
created by a god.

Thus the prior probability of 'god did it' being the correct explanation is infinitesimal.

The probability that the presently known facts would be explained by 'god did it' as opposed to a natural
explanation is also infinitesimal.

Thus the probability that 'god did it' is the correct explanation is an infinitesimal fraction of an infinitesimal
fraction.

Being unbelievably generous still outputs a probability multi-millions to one against 'god did it' being a valid
explanation.

YOU further want it to be a specific god that 'did it'. Which reduces those odds still further.


Thus, it is demonstrated beyond any and all reasonable doubt that the universe was not created by a god.