Occam's Razor

Originally posted by Taoman
Yeeees. Sort of. My only difficulty with the usual "God" label is that "HE" is usually very defined and with a lot of human projections. I could possibly accept the label (I once did) if it didn't have all the dualistic attachments that usually go with it.
If one were to equate this Awareness that, as I understand it has always been Unborn, and thus Undying ...[text shortened]... unfortunately. We see it today.

Pardon the long post, but it is a BIG subject.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]But if I say I do know, and since you don't know, you can't say authoritatively that I'm wrong.
I can authoritatively say you lack the means to know and are thus wrong for saying you do. Whether you got lucky and chanced upon the right answer is irrelevant.

If we are both staring at a sealed box purported to contain, by some passer-by, a piece of pa ...[text shortened]... likely to be wrong. Indeed, I could even challenge the statement there is any number at all![/b]

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"I believe we are immensely arrogant when we think we can define the Divine Source so easily."

It is arrogant to think we can define God at all.

If there be a God, then only He can define Himself. Therefore, if God defines Himself, how do we learn about God?

Obviously it would have to be from God Himself.

That's as far as I'm going to go ...[text shortened]... thing you know we'll be arguing about the validity of the source of the knowledge of God.[/b]

Originally posted by Taoman
Yeeees. Sort of. My only difficulty with the usual "God" label is that "HE" is usually very defined and with a lot of human projections. I could possibly accept the label (I once did) if it didn't have all the dualistic attachments that usually go with it.
If one were to equate this Awareness that, as I understand it has always been Unborn, and thus Undying ...[text shortened]... unfortunately. We see it today.

Pardon the long post, but it is a BIG subject.


"I believe we are immensely arrogant when we think we can define the Divine Source so easily."

It is arrogant to think we can define God at all.

If there be a God, then only He can define Himself. Therefore, if God defines Himself, how do we learn about God?

Obviously it would have to be from God Himself.

That's as far as I'm going to go with this. The next thing you know we'll be arguing about the validity of the source of the knowledge of God.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The only (repeat: only!) source we have about god is through the bible. The bible is written by men with an agenda. Ergo - we don't know anything about god, until we know that the bible is true. How do we do that when the only (repeat again: only!) source that the bible is true is the bible itself. Conclusion. We know nothing about god for sure.

So let's debate about the validity of the bible.

Originally posted by josephw
We live IN the box. Nothing is sealed. All is observable. The issue is perception.

You say there is no God, but you also say you can't know. You most definitely don't have the authority to tell me I don't know.

Originally posted by Agerg
Oh but I do have such authority Josephw. We both know you are not in any way supernatural; and so lacking this property you have no basis for any speculation about supposed supernatural deities. You want to say Bible implies "God"? I say I don't believe your Bible

Originally posted by josephw
What gives YOU authority?

Since when does one need to be supernatural to know that God exists?

You don't believe the Bible? Then believe what you see.

All that exists is evidence for a creator. Your perceptions are askew, and your mind is in a box of ideas of your own making.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"So let's debate about the validity of the bible."


So you admit that the Bible is the only source of knowledge of God? And then you say it is unreliable.

What do you really know? You say the Bible was written by men with an agenda. If that is your final conclusion, then there is nothing to debate.

But it won't be me that closes the door.[/b]

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"So you admit that the Bible is the only source of knowledge of God? And then you say it is unreliable."

Yes, that is the only source, and at the same time, unreliable. Exactly so.

This has been debated, and been debated, and even more debated... So just accept that, scientifically speaking, there are a lot of things that do not make sense. You know that.

Originally posted by josephw
I know that you are not making any sense. 🙂

Please explain to me how you can believe on the one hand that the Bible is the only source for the knowledge of God, and then say it is unreliable.

Originally posted by Agerg
"The Hobbit" is the only original source for knowledge about Bilbo Baggins's escapades with dragons and hobgoblins. In spite of this, any claims that Bilbo Baggins actually existed based upon what is told in this book are not reliable

Same thinking can be applied to your Bible.

Originally posted by josephw
Not true.

The existence of the whole universe is credible evidence for a creator.

Originally posted by josephw
Not true.

The existence of the whole universe is credible evidence for a creator.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Not true. It is possible to create a theoretical framework for the existence of the universe without recourse to a magical creator, therefore, after Occam, it is not rational to imagine that magic was involved.