tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post4196824343852469838..comments2024-03-29T03:30:25.637-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Atheists Attempt to Infur God's Non Existence From the Nature of NaturalismJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-77416248958761005822011-09-06T17:09:06.589-07:002011-09-06T17:09:06.589-07:00we have the parents we have. All people have short...we have the parents we have. All people have short comings. My folks were the best parents ever. I kow everyone thinks that of their own parents, but you are all wrong, mine were! Even so they had their faults.<br /><br />Occam never said take the most likely thing or even take the simple thing. He only said don't multiply entities beyond necessity. that only had to do with scholastic concept of essence.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-25795192362640842162011-09-06T12:29:26.276-07:002011-09-06T12:29:26.276-07:00Occam's Razor is a helpful tool in finding the...Occam's Razor is a helpful tool in finding the most likely solution, but the fact remains that what actually happens in any given scenario is not always what is most likely to happen.<br /><br />I experienced this personally in childhood, when sometimes my parents would refuse to listen to my somewhat complicated explanation for why something happened (even though it was actually the truth), and punish me based on what was most likely to have happened. It's not that they thought I was lying; it didn't get that far. They often wouldn't even allow me the chance to tell my complicated story. They saw the facts; they saw the simplest explanation for the existence of the facts, and they assumed this to be the truth. But sometimes they were wrong. <br /><br />They were good parents, on the whole-- but they were parents in an age when actually listening to a child was not really considered as a viable option-- and they erred in using an Occam's Razor mentality that ruled out complexity, even when complexity was the truth. <br /><br />So I think too much reliance on Occam's Razor can actually result in error. The world is often simply not simple.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-58347997752786125082011-09-03T07:23:25.057-07:002011-09-03T07:23:25.057-07:00I'm not real sure which side you are calling &...I'm not real sure which side you are calling "sophistic." It was actually written by a guy who claims to be a scientist. He's not good at communicating in my view.<br /><br />Since you are an atheist I am going to assume you mean my response to him is sophist. Of cousre you would find any theist response sophistic becuase as an atheist you have a totally vested interest in finding everything theists stupid and everything atheists say smart.<br /><br />Your analysis of what he's saying is probably correct but that doesn't make his original argument cogent.<br /><br />He is of course using all the basic science worship assumption gimmicks that atheists use, everything but actually thinking about what theists say.<br /><br />Perhaps you assume that references to things parsimony make it a done deal. I would hope you have more brains than that.<br /><br /><br />(1)Occm's razor cannot be against God. it has nothing to do with God. Occam believed in God so he never thought his Razor disproved God.<br /><br />Occam: "don't multiply entities beyond necessity." God: necessity. So god is not violating the Razor.<br /><br />The Razor doesn't prove anything anyway.<br /><br />(2) infinite regress is logically impossible I demonstrated a couple of days ago.<br /><br />If not it doesn't beat up on God. that's crazy to think that God "fails" becuase of infinite regress.<br /><br />of course modern atheists use the Razor for parsimony which Occam never did. the parsimony argument doesn't work against God. for one thing God is simple, for another God is much more elegant as a solution than naturism, which is an ideology not a theory.<br /><br />(2) I expalined "wasted space" (which is not wasted at all)that was part of my response.<br />btw you don't actually explain my it's sophist.<br /><br />(3) The conception of the ancinet Hebrews vis a vi the universe has nothing to do with modern theology or it's concepts of God. Modern theology has kept pace with modern thought. you might as well get used to it.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-39834748959681816542011-09-02T14:42:46.394-07:002011-09-02T14:42:46.394-07:00This is among the worst of some of the sophistic r...This is among the worst of some of the sophistic retorts I've read from CARM.<br /><br />I'm still reading but I had to get that out so I could stomach the rest of this diatribe.<br /><br />So far, it seems to me that the atheist is implying Occam's Razor in that their is a simpler, more parsimonious, explanation than a complex deity that fails first and foremost due to infinite regress. Only to fail again at explaining all wasted space, while not conforming to the biblical descriptions of a deity that has specific, much more anthropocentric, dimensions as created by a people that had no concept of a universe outside of a fixed firmament of lights (or even far outside of the Near East for that matter) Genesis 1, and eating food Genesis 18. But, like I said, I'm still reading.Beachbumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16872466812837980647noreply@blogger.com