Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Occam's Razor sucks bo-bo's...

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 4:29:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
...and should never be brought up in a discussion in which one actually wants to have a discussion. I've seen it used several times over the last few days, and it irks me that theists allow it. I will never give credibility to a position held by someone who uses the Razor in their argument. Here's why...

The use of Occam's Razor by anti-theists is deceptive, and it allows them to make presuppositions that are never challenged by theists. One of the biggest presuppostions is that Occam's Razor favors their position because it is the most likely, or most probable. I call bunk on that (see the passage at the end of this post).

Invoking Occam's Razor is an admission that you don't have enough information about the subject to prove your position. Therefore, you have to resort to using probabilities, or likelihoods. Using probabilities is further proof that there is missing information.

If you are missing information, how can you possibly know whether that information is critical enough that, if known, might change your conclusion??

So...

a) You have to admit that you don't have all the info
b) You don't know if the missing info is critical, or not
c) With missing info, you can't even be sure that you're interpreting the info that you DO have, correctly
d) New knowledge always raises more questions. You can't possibly know what further questions might arise if you did have more info on the subject

With those huge problems looming, how can you possibly think that the probabilites and likelihoods that you are using to invoke Occam's Razor, are even accurate or valid?? You can't, you just simply prefer to think that they are.

With those problems existing, you have to hypothesize like crazy (and have faith), in order to come to a conclusion. So much so, that Occam's Razor no longer favors your conclusion. It takes less hypothesizing to simply beleive that God did it.

Occam's Razor is a lazy debater's way of giving a fancy name to their own lack of knowledge, hoping that their opponent is dense enough to give in when they claim they can know what is most likely, or most probable.

A theist should never allow the Razor to be used against them. When the onus is placed where it should be, the right questions are asked, and the truth pointed out, about the anti-theistic position, Occam's Razor will almost always support the theist's position.

So, Occam's Razor shows that the logical conclusion is that God exists.

What??...You don't buy that??

Good, I'm glad you dont buy it, because you shouldn't. But by the same token, you shouldn't try to sell it to us either.

I really like this passage on OR from wikisynergy...

"In frontier subject areas, there is often a simple paranormal explanation for an occurrence, and also conventional explanation which is more complex. To apply Occam's razor to these situations, one must set aside any ideas about which explanation is likely to be true merely because it is conventional. If you have a conventional explanation which is complex, and a paranormal explanation which is simple, and both explain the data equally well, then Occam's razor says you should choose the paranormal explanation. Occam's razor is an intellectual tool which has very narrow applicability, but has been much abused in debates."
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 5:09:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 4:29:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
...and should never be brought up in a discussion in which one actually wants to have a discussion. I've seen it used several times over the last few days, and it irks me that theists allow it. I will never give credibility to a position held by someone who uses the Razor in their argument. Here's why...

The use of Occam's Razor by anti-theists is deceptive, and it allows them to make presuppositions that are never challenged by theists. One of the biggest presuppostions is that Occam's Razor favors their position because it is the most likely, or most probable. I call bunk on that (see the passage at the end of this post).

Invoking Occam's Razor is an admission that you don't have enough information about the subject to prove your position. Therefore, you have to resort to using probabilities, or likelihoods. Using probabilities is further proof that there is missing information.

If you are missing information, how can you possibly know whether that information is critical enough that, if known, might change your conclusion??

So...

a) You have to admit that you don't have all the info
b) You don't know if the missing info is critical, or not
c) With missing info, you can't even be sure that you're interpreting the info that you DO have, correctly
d) New knowledge always raises more questions. You can't possibly know what further questions might arise if you did have more info on the subject

With those huge problems looming, how can you possibly think that the probabilites and likelihoods that you are using to invoke Occam's Razor, are even accurate or valid?? You can't, you just simply prefer to think that they are.

With those problems existing, you have to hypothesize like crazy (and have faith), in order to come to a conclusion. So much so, that Occam's Razor no longer favors your conclusion. It takes less hypothesizing to simply beleive that God did it.

Occam's Razor is a lazy debater's way of giving a fancy name to their own lack of knowledge, hoping that their opponent is dense enough to give in when they claim they can know what is most likely, or most probable.

A theist should never allow the Razor to be used against them. When the onus is placed where it should be, the right questions are asked, and the truth pointed out, about the anti-theistic position, Occam's Razor will almost always support the theist's position.

So, Occam's Razor shows that the logical conclusion is that God exists.

What??...You don't buy that??

Good, I'm glad you dont buy it, because you shouldn't. But by the same token, you shouldn't try to sell it to us either.

I really like this passage on OR from wikisynergy...

"In frontier subject areas, there is often a simple paranormal explanation for an occurrence, and also conventional explanation which is more complex. To apply Occam's razor to these situations, one must set aside any ideas about which explanation is likely to be true merely because it is conventional. If you have a conventional explanation which is complex, and a paranormal explanation which is simple, and both explain the data equally well, then Occam's razor says you should choose the paranormal explanation. Occam's razor is an intellectual tool which has very narrow applicability, but has been much abused in debates."

Your humor, seriousness and flatout knowledge makes me like you more and more as the das go by.
TheAsylum
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 5:12:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 4:29:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Invoking Occam's Razor is an admission that you don't have enough information about the subject to prove your position. Therefore, you have to resort to using probabilities, or likelihoods. Using probabilities is further proof that there is missing information.

Nobody is denying that there is missing information. Nobody can prove that God either exists 100% or he doesn't exist 100%- some of the more militant atheists have even conceded to this. Probability, or chance, is a way of making the best guess based on INFERENCES. It's not just some random half-assed hypothesis, it's a conclusion based on current knowledge.

If you are missing information, how can you possibly know whether that information is critical enough that, if known, might change your conclusion??

It might be, but should we suspend all discussion until this information is acquired? As more information pops up, new information will be demanded. Again, this is just a way of theists stalling the BOP.

So...

a) You have to admit that you don't have all the info

Nobody is admitting otherwise.

b) You don't know if the missing info is critical, or not

Nobody is admitting otherwise.

c) With missing info, you can't even be sure that you're interpreting the info that you DO have, correctly

No, we can't be sure that it is the truth- there is after all, only one possible truth. However, when in the absence of complete truth, the most likely option should be taken as correct because it is based on the evidence that is present.

d) New knowledge always raises more questions. You can't possibly know what further questions might arise if you did have more info on the subject

Nobody is admitting otherwise.

With those huge problems looming, how can you possibly think that the probabilites and likelihoods that you are using to invoke Occam's Razor, are even accurate or valid?? You can't, you just simply prefer to think that they are.

Occam's Razor is based on current information, not possible information in the future. If you were using that type of thinking, then OR would never be useful because information is never completely complete. Occam's Razor is based what we currently know.
With those problems existing, you have to hypothesize like crazy (and have faith), in order to come to a conclusion. So much so, that Occam's Razor no longer favors your conclusion. It takes less hypothesizing to simply beleive that God did it.

We draw inferences based on current evidence, therefore making it not a hypothesis. Actually, it still favours our position because of the current evidence, little is in favour of God (there needs to be none against God).

Occam's Razor is a lazy debater's way of giving a fancy name to their own lack of knowledge, hoping that their opponent is dense enough to give in when they claim they can know what is most likely, or most probable.

Cool.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 5:13:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, the paranormal explanation is often more complex because it requires the existence of entities which are not normally perceived to be there, therefore decreasing the chances of it occurring.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 5:30:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 5:09:21 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:29:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
...and should never be brought up in a discussion in which one actually wants to have a discussion. I've seen it used several times over the last few days, and it irks me that theists allow it. I will never give credibility to a position held by someone who uses the Razor in their argument. Here's why...

The use of Occam's Razor by anti-theists is deceptive, and it allows them to make presuppositions that are never challenged by theists. One of the biggest presuppostions is that Occam's Razor favors their position because it is the most likely, or most probable. I call bunk on that (see the passage at the end of this post).

Invoking Occam's Razor is an admission that you don't have enough information about the subject to prove your position. Therefore, you have to resort to using probabilities, or likelihoods. Using probabilities is further proof that there is missing information.

If you are missing information, how can you possibly know whether that information is critical enough that, if known, might change your conclusion??

So...

a) You have to admit that you don't have all the info
b) You don't know if the missing info is critical, or not
c) With missing info, you can't even be sure that you're interpreting the info that you DO have, correctly
d) New knowledge always raises more questions. You can't possibly know what further questions might arise if you did have more info on the subject

With those huge problems looming, how can you possibly think that the probabilites and likelihoods that you are using to invoke Occam's Razor, are even accurate or valid?? You can't, you just simply prefer to think that they are.

With those problems existing, you have to hypothesize like crazy (and have faith), in order to come to a conclusion. So much so, that Occam's Razor no longer favors your conclusion. It takes less hypothesizing to simply beleive that God did it.

Occam's Razor is a lazy debater's way of giving a fancy name to their own lack of knowledge, hoping that their opponent is dense enough to give in when they claim they can know what is most likely, or most probable.

A theist should never allow the Razor to be used against them. When the onus is placed where it should be, the right questions are asked, and the truth pointed out, about the anti-theistic position, Occam's Razor will almost always support the theist's position.

So, Occam's Razor shows that the logical conclusion is that God exists.

What??...You don't buy that??

Good, I'm glad you dont buy it, because you shouldn't. But by the same token, you shouldn't try to sell it to us either.

I really like this passage on OR from wikisynergy...

"In frontier subject areas, there is often a simple paranormal explanation for an occurrence, and also conventional explanation which is more complex. To apply Occam's razor to these situations, one must set aside any ideas about which explanation is likely to be true merely because it is conventional. If you have a conventional explanation which is complex, and a paranormal explanation which is simple, and both explain the data equally well, then Occam's razor says you should choose the paranormal explanation. Occam's razor is an intellectual tool which has very narrow applicability, but has been much abused in debates."

Your humor, seriousness and flatout knowledge makes me like you more and more as the das go by.

Thanks, I appreciate that. I just really enjoy arguing about religion and in doing so I've had to do alot of independent research.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 5:33:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 5:30:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/25/2012 5:09:21 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:29:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
...and should never be brought up in a discussion in which one actually wants to have a discussion. I've seen it used several times over the last few days, and it irks me that theists allow it. I will never give credibility to a position held by someone who uses the Razor in their argument. Here's why...

The use of Occam's Razor by anti-theists is deceptive, and it allows them to make presuppositions that are never challenged by theists. One of the biggest presuppostions is that Occam's Razor favors their position because it is the most likely, or most probable. I call bunk on that (see the passage at the end of this post).

Invoking Occam's Razor is an admission that you don't have enough information about the subject to prove your position. Therefore, you have to resort to using probabilities, or likelihoods. Using probabilities is further proof that there is missing information.

If you are missing information, how can you possibly know whether that information is critical enough that, if known, might change your conclusion??

So...

a) You have to admit that you don't have all the info
b) You don't know if the missing info is critical, or not
c) With missing info, you can't even be sure that you're interpreting the info that you DO have, correctly
d) New knowledge always raises more questions. You can't possibly know what further questions might arise if you did have more info on the subject

With those huge problems looming, how can you possibly think that the probabilites and likelihoods that you are using to invoke Occam's Razor, are even accurate or valid?? You can't, you just simply prefer to think that they are.

With those problems existing, you have to hypothesize like crazy (and have faith), in order to come to a conclusion. So much so, that Occam's Razor no longer favors your conclusion. It takes less hypothesizing to simply beleive that God did it.

Occam's Razor is a lazy debater's way of giving a fancy name to their own lack of knowledge, hoping that their opponent is dense enough to give in when they claim they can know what is most likely, or most probable.

A theist should never allow the Razor to be used against them. When the onus is placed where it should be, the right questions are asked, and the truth pointed out, about the anti-theistic position, Occam's Razor will almost always support the theist's position.

So, Occam's Razor shows that the logical conclusion is that God exists.

What??...You don't buy that??

Good, I'm glad you dont buy it, because you shouldn't. But by the same token, you shouldn't try to sell it to us either.

I really like this passage on OR from wikisynergy...

"In frontier subject areas, there is often a simple paranormal explanation for an occurrence, and also conventional explanation which is more complex. To apply Occam's razor to these situations, one must set aside any ideas about which explanation is likely to be true merely because it is conventional. If you have a conventional explanation which is complex, and a paranormal explanation which is simple, and both explain the data equally well, then Occam's razor says you should choose the paranormal explanation. Occam's razor is an intellectual tool which has very narrow applicability, but has been much abused in debates."

Your humor, seriousness and flatout knowledge makes me like you more and more as the das go by.

Thanks, I appreciate that. I just really enjoy arguing about religion and in doing so I've had to do alot of independent research.

Same so, as you can see, im off the wall but not that much so by my research. I feel we all have our own interpretations and ability to see, some vary and rightly so.
TheAsylum
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 5:34:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 5:13:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Also, the paranormal explanation is often more complex because it requires the existence of entities which are not normally perceived to be there, therefore decreasing the chances of it occurring.

Love your sig. I appreciate you quoting me correctly.
TheAsylum
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 5:59:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 5:34:49 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/25/2012 5:13:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Also, the paranormal explanation is often more complex because it requires the existence of entities which are not normally perceived to be there, therefore decreasing the chances of it occurring.

Love your sig. I appreciate you quoting me correctly.

Quoting you out of context is too easy.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 6:03:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Theists use a slew of fallacies to avoid falsification. The biggest of which is the ad-hoc hypothesis, to which the atheist can either spend a lifetime debunking what is, to put it bluntly, a series of retarded arguments or they can appeal to Occam's Razor and turn the table on the theist to actually prove their case -- which they should be doing from the start.

If you are one such theist that evokes the ad-hoc hypothesis to get out of a jam, then you have no right to complain about Occam's Razor, nor would you get any sympathy from me on the matter.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 6:19:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 4:29:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:


The use of Occam's Razor by anti-theists is deceptive, and it allows them to make presuppositions that are never challenged by theists. One of the biggest presuppostions is that Occam's Razor favors their position because it is the most likely, or most probable. I call bunk on that (see the passage at the end of this post).

Occam's Razor says to pick the hypotheses that makes the least assumptions based on the evidence as the most likely hypotheses

Not to choose the one that is most likely,but as a way of discovering which is most likely.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 6:24:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 4:29:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
If you have a conventional explanation which is complex, and a paranormal explanation which is simple, and both explain the data equally well, then Occam's razor says you should choose the paranormal explanation.

Well there's your problem. You don't know what Occam's Razor is.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 6:30:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 6:24:59 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:29:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
If you have a conventional explanation which is complex, and a paranormal explanation which is simple, and both explain the data equally well, then Occam's razor says you should choose the paranormal explanation.

Well there's your problem. You don't know what Occam's Razor is.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 6:49:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 6:24:59 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:29:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
If you have a conventional explanation which is complex, and a paranormal explanation which is simple, and both explain the data equally well, then Occam's razor says you should choose the paranormal explanation.

Well there's your problem. You don't know what Ockham's Razor is.

Law of Parsimony: God is the single most complex being by far. He's theologically simple, which makes him metaphysically complex. His infinite power makes him infinitely complex. God is the single most complex being one can imagine, and all other solutions are simpler, even the MWH is simpler by far.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 7:39:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 5:12:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:29:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Invoking Occam's Razor is an admission that you don't have enough information about the subject to prove your position. Therefore, you have to resort to using probabilities, or likelihoods. Using probabilities is further proof that there is missing information.

Nobody is denying that there is missing information. Nobody can prove that God either exists 100% or he doesn't exist 100%- some of the more militant atheists have even conceded to this. Probability, or chance, is a way of making the best guess based on INFERENCES. It's not just some random half-assed hypothesis, it's a conclusion based on current knowledge.

Theists are not allowed to make inferences, they are shot down and not allowed in the discussion. If we can't prove something, then it's not allowed, so why in the world are inferences from atheists allowed to stand unchallenged?? We are required to prove every claim that we make, but you guys get away with just throwing out unproven, or unprovable assertions, and we are required to accept that as an adequate refutation?? This is not an intellectually fair way to debate.

Yes, it is a half-a$$ed hypothesis because you don't even know enough about the information that's missing to even be able to put a percentage on your likelihood of being right. You don't know if you have a 90% or a .6% likelihood of being right.

You don't even know what the info you do have means, with regards to the existence of God. Does a naturalistic explanation rule out God?? Does a naturalistic explanation mean that God used an orderly procedure so that our ever-expanding knowledge would eventually lead us back to Him??
By the time that we have a conclusive explanation, will it even be a naturalistic explanation??

If you are missing information, how can you possibly know whether that information is critical enough that, if known, might change your conclusion??

It might be, but should we suspend all discussion until this information is acquired?

No, not at all. But we also shouldn't be claiming that things mean one thing, when we really don't know that. We shouldn't be calling our opponents irrational, when we're standing on epistemologically equal footing. We shouldn't insult one side for admitting to faith when we ourselves use that same thing. We shouldn't be demanding one side meet a BoP, and claiming victory if they can't, when we simply duck out of having any BoP ourselves. Don't pretend that you aren't making claims of your own. Be honest and fight fair.

As more information pops up, new information will be demanded. Again, this is just a way of theists stalling the BOP.

See, here we go again. It's getting hot in the kitchen so let's go back to old faithful, "theists have the BoP". You can't handle holes being poked in your position so you need to get the discussion back to where the theist is on the defensive.

But wait...how does the theist have BoP on Occam's Razor when you're the one who is claiming that it's a valid way of reaching a conclusion??

So...

a) You have to admit that you don't have all the info

Nobody is admitting otherwise.

b) You don't know if the missing info is critical, or not

Nobody is admitting otherwise.

c) With missing info, you can't even be sure that you're interpreting the info that you DO have, correctly

No, we can't be sure that it is the truth- there is after all, only one possible truth. However, when in the absence of complete truth, the most likely option should be taken as correct because it is based on the evidence that is present.

lmao...seriously?? When in the absence of complete truth, insert what you want to beleive and stamp yer feets until everybody just accepts that yours is the most likely explanation?? How is your position supported by the evidence?? What evidence do you have that shows that the universe and life created themselves by random chance??

d) New knowledge always raises more questions. You can't possibly know what further questions might arise if you did have more info on the subject

Nobody is admitting otherwise.

With those huge problems looming, how can you possibly think that the probabilites and likelihoods that you are using to invoke Occam's Razor, are even accurate or valid?? You can't, you just simply prefer to think that they are.

Occam's Razor is based on current information, not possible information in the future. If you were using that type of thinking, then OR would never be useful because information is never completely complete. Occam's Razor is based what we currently know.

Then OR is not dependable when you know that you have missing information, and the interpretation of the existing evidence is unclear. You have no dependable grounds to say that your position is the more likely one.

With those problems existing, you have to hypothesize like crazy (and have faith), in order to come to a conclusion. So much so, that Occam's Razor no longer favors your conclusion. It takes less hypothesizing to simply beleive that God did it.

We draw inferences based on current evidence, therefore making it not a hypothesis. Actually, it still favours our position because of the current evidence, little is in favour of God (there needs to be none against God).

If it's not a hypothesis then what is it?? It certainly isn't fact, and given that you admit that there's missing info, there's great potential for it being wrong or incomplete. So it can't be considered dependable in any way. You can CLAIM that it makes your position more likely if you want, but a rational person will realize that you really have no grounds for making that assumption.

How do you know that it doesn't favor God?? Do you have a divinity detector?? How would you recognize evidence that does favor God??

Occam's Razor is a lazy debater's way of giving a fancy name to their own lack of knowledge, hoping that their opponent is dense enough to give in when they claim they can know what is most likely, or most probable.

Cool.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 8:14:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lol Medic. Again with the "you can't prove it" nonsense.

At 8/25/2012 7:39:14 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/25/2012 5:12:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

Nobody is denying that there is missing information. Nobody can prove that God either exists 100% or he doesn't exist 100%- some of the more militant atheists have even conceded to this. Probability, or chance, is a way of making the best guess based on INFERENCES. It's not just some random half-assed hypothesis, it's a conclusion based on current knowledge.

Theists are not allowed to make inferences, they are shot down and not allowed in the discussion. If we can't prove something, then it's not allowed, so why in the world are inferences from atheists allowed to stand unchallenged?? We are required to prove every claim that we make, but you guys get away with just throwing out unproven, or unprovable assertions, and we are required to accept that as an adequate refutation?? This is not an intellectually fair way to debate.

There are so many unproven assertions in this paragraph that it's really funny.

1. Of course theists can make inferences, they do them all the time ex. The Universe is fine tuned. Ergo, God exists. Or something like that.

2. What are these unsubstantiated assertions that atheists make?

3. Since when do atheists not have to provide proof for their assertions? Their assertions are usually based on scientific evidence, which implies proof.

Yes, it is a half-a$$ed hypothesis because you don't even know enough about the information that's missing to even be able to put a percentage on your likelihood of being right. You don't know if you have a 90% or a .6% likelihood of being right.

Again, you are conflating future approximations with current approximations. Unless you want to completely throw inferences out the window- which is what probability is based on- the only possible way to 'measure' if something is likely or not is through probability. Future evidence may come up that will likely change the probability, which is a trait solely given to people of no faith.

You don't even know what the info you do have means, with regards to the existence of God. Does a naturalistic explanation rule out God?? Does a naturalistic explanation mean that God used an orderly procedure so that our ever-expanding knowledge would eventually lead us back to Him??
By the time that we have a conclusive explanation, will it even be a naturalistic explanation??

Wut?

It might be, but should we suspend all discussion until this information is acquired?

No, not at all. But we also shouldn't be claiming that things mean one thing, when we really don't know that.

If you want to use this as ammunition against atheists then it's ultimately going to backfire against you- painfully.

We shouldn't be calling our opponents irrational, when we're standing on epistemologically equal footing.

Epistemological as in how we obtain evidence? No. Epistemological as in whether we have the same evidence? No.

We shouldn't insult one side for admitting to faith when we ourselves use that same thing.

Probability is not faith. Faith is incontrovertible belief in one side over another. Probability is subject to change when future information becomes apparent; faith is not subject to change, hence the term blind faith.

We shouldn't be demanding one side meet a BoP, and claiming victory if they can't, when we simply duck out of having any BoP ourselves.

When you realize what each side is arguing for, yeah you should kind of demand it considering that one side is based on evidence, while the other is based on a lack thereof.

Don't pretend that you aren't making claims of your own. Be honest and fight fair.

k

As more information pops up, new information will be demanded. Again, this is just a way of theists stalling the BOP.

See, here we go again. It's getting hot in the kitchen so let's go back to old faithful, "theists have the BoP". You can't handle holes being poked in your position so you need to get the discussion back to where the theist is on the defensive.

Lol k. When you learn the definition of words, you'll agree with me.

But wait...how does the theist have BoP on Occam's Razor when you're the one who is claiming that it's a valid way of reaching a conclusion??

The Theist has the BOP on providing evidence for a deity. Proving existence for Occam's Razor is not necessary, it is simply a logical tool. Oh wait.. You aren't one of those theists who denies logic?

c) With missing info, you can't even be sure that you're interpreting the info that you DO have, correctly

No, we can't be sure that it is the truth- there is after all, only one possible truth. However, when in the absence of complete truth, the most likely option should be taken as correct because it is based on the evidence that is present.

lmao...seriously?? When in the absence of complete truth, insert what you want to beleive and stamp yer feets until everybody just accepts that yours is the most likely explanation??

Lmao....no. I'm not inserting what I believe; scientists are making approximations based on the current evidence that they have as to what the origins of X or Y are, which are completely liable to change. In fact, it's you that is just inserting what you believe with no way to change this belief. That is the epitome of ignorance.

How is your position supported by the evidence??

Laws of Physics, Biology, Chemistry, you know...that sort of stuff.

What evidence do you have that shows that the universe and life created themselves by random chance??

.....Did you just seriously state that how life was created was random?

Then OR is not dependable when you know that you have missing information, and the interpretation of the existing evidence is unclear. You have no dependable grounds to say that your position is the more likely one.

*Sigh*. This is getting boring. OR is based on the evidence that you have and making logical inferences off of it. These inferences may not be correct because all the information is not known, but speculating upon future evidence is just stupid.

Anyways, at least my ground is based on the observations of our universe and falsifiable evidence, contrary to the opposing ground, which is based upon observations of a 4 000 year old text and unfalsifiable blind faith no matter the evidence.

With those problems existing, you have to hypothesize like crazy (and have faith), in order to come to a conclusion. So much so, that Occam's Razor no longer favors your conclusion. It takes less hypothesizing to simply beleive that God did it.

We draw inferences based on current evidence, therefore making it not a hypothesis. Actually, it still favours our position because of the current evidence, little is in favour of God (there needs to be none against God).

If it's not a hypothesis then what is it??

Theory.

It certainly isn't fact,

Nope.

and given that you admit that there's missing info, there's great potential for it being wrong or incomplete.

Yup.

So it can't be considered dependable in any way.

Of course it can. Look up to the multiple times that I've already explained this.

You can CLAIM that it makes your position more likely if you want, but a rational person will realize that you really have no grounds for making that assumption.

I definitely have more grounds for making an assumption than you, considering that my assumptions are based on observation and experience, not an unfalsifiable feeling.

How do you know that it doesn't favor God?? Do you have a divinity detector?? How would you recognize evidence that does favor God??

How do you know that it does favor God?? Do you have a divinity detector?? How would you recognize evidence that doesn't favor God??
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 9:13:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 4:29:28 PM, medic0506 wrote:
...and should never be brought up in a discussion in which one actually wants to have a discussion. I've seen it used several times over the last few days, and it irks me that theists allow it. I will never give credibility to a position held by someone who uses the Razor in their argument. Here's why...

The use of Occam's Razor by anti-theists is deceptive, and it allows them to make presuppositions that are never challenged by theists. One of the biggest presuppostions is that Occam's Razor favors their position because it is the most likely, or most probable. I call bunk on that (see the passage at the end of this post).

Invoking Occam's Razor is an admission that you don't have enough information about the subject to prove your position. Therefore, you have to resort to using probabilities, or likelihoods. Using probabilities is further proof that there is missing information.

If you are missing information, how can you possibly know whether that information is critical enough that, if known, might change your conclusion??

So...

a) You have to admit that you don't have all the info
b) You don't know if the missing info is critical, or not
c) With missing info, you can't even be sure that you're interpreting the info that you DO have, correctly
d) New knowledge always raises more questions. You can't possibly know what further questions might arise if you did have more info on the subject

With those huge problems looming, how can you possibly think that the probabilites and likelihoods that you are using to invoke Occam's Razor, are even accurate or valid?? You can't, you just simply prefer to think that they are.

With those problems existing, you have to hypothesize like crazy (and have faith), in order to come to a conclusion. So much so, that Occam's Razor no longer favors your conclusion. It takes less hypothesizing to simply beleive that God did it.

Occam's Razor is a lazy debater's way of giving a fancy name to their own lack of knowledge, hoping that their opponent is dense enough to give in when they claim they can know what is most likely, or most probable.

A theist should never allow the Razor to be used against them. When the onus is placed where it should be, the right questions are asked, and the truth pointed out, about the anti-theistic position, Occam's Razor will almost always support the theist's position.

So, Occam's Razor shows that the logical conclusion is that God exists.

What??...You don't buy that??

Good, I'm glad you dont buy it, because you shouldn't. But by the same token, you shouldn't try to sell it to us either.

I really like this passage on OR from wikisynergy...

"In frontier subject areas, there is often a simple paranormal explanation for an occurrence, and also conventional explanation which is more complex. To apply Occam's razor to these situations, one must set aside any ideas about which explanation is likely to be true merely because it is conventional. If you have a conventional explanation which is complex, and a paranormal explanation which is simple, and both explain the data equally well, then Occam's razor says you should choose the paranormal explanation. Occam's razor is an intellectual tool which has very narrow applicability, but has been much abused in debates."

The Fool: Honestly you really have no Idea what you are talking about. You are using the TERM Occum's razor without the concept it refers to. If you change any part of the meaning you have just changed Topics. A term never needs to needs to be subjective exept the emotional connotion. Lets say you give a Term a subjective meaning. All I have to do is ask you what you are using the term to refer to. IF you can't answer then you have no idea of what you are talking about. If its vague then you have foggy, or confused thoughts. If you can give a clear demarcation criteria, then You know what exactly what you are talking about. All that 'void' crap is nonsense. So are all powerfull. infinite, great, or maximally, being, and the rest are Bullsh!t. For we all know 'everything' by the age of 'FIVE' but its absolutly useless if we don't know the particlars it consist of. Its your responsibity to know exactly what the hell you are talking about. If someone ask you what you mean by the term 'God' and you don't know right away what you are talking about. THEN COME BACK WHEN YOU CAN FIGURE IT OUT!!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 11:35:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wow, I've never seen Occam's Razor be so misunderstood. I would love to debate this with you.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 11:38:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Occam's Razor
- is useless when discussing the supernatural
- almost always prefers the paranormal position
- sucks bo-bo's

What resolution would you prefer? I'm open to others.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 12:07:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I just realized that Occam's Razor applies when the two theories are the same, not different.... Awkward waste of time....lol.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 12:31:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Grow up medic. It's appalling that you have too bad mouth such a tool of reason, then make nasty allegations. Never should be bought up in a discussion ? how fu*cking dishonest is that.

Now say I'am having a conversation with some one who's proposition is irrefutable because of all the auxillory premises they throw, think conspiracy theories.

How do you argue against it if you can't invoke occams razor ? remember you can't prove them wrong.

You have messed up on what occams razor has said I think, don't worry, I will challenge you to a debate on this, you enemy of reason :)
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 5:31:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 12:31:39 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Grow up medic. It's appalling that you have too bad mouth such a tool of reason, then make nasty allegations. Never should be bought up in a discussion ? how fu*cking dishonest is that.

Now say I'am having a conversation with some one who's proposition is irrefutable because of all the auxillory premises they throw, think conspiracy theories.

How do you argue against it if you can't invoke occams razor ? remember you can't prove them wrong.

You have messed up on what occams razor has said I think, don't worry, I will challenge you to a debate on this, you enemy of reason :)

Don't waste your time writing up a challenge. I will only accept it if it's resolution is relevant to the reason that I brought it up in the first place. What it really means is irrelevant, as I'm having to argue against how it's used, but usually misused, in discussions.

And I'm not an enemy of reason, I'm the voice of reason attempting to try and wrest myself from the grasp of those who hide me away and substitute their own faux-truths, claiming to be me. Unhand me you wretched heathens and let true reason prevail throughout the land!! :)
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 7:33:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

aka, Occam's Razor. Both theories have to come to the same conclusion, otherwise it is not a valid to use Occam's Razor.

Atheism concludes "there are no gods"
Theism concludes "there is a god"

Two separate conclusions, therefore it is not valid to use Occam's Razor.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 7:42:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 6:03:50 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Theists use a slew of fallacies to avoid falsification.
We need fallacies for that? Avoid falsifications at all cost.
TheAsylum
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 8:27:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 7:42:19 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/25/2012 6:03:50 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Theists use a slew of fallacies to avoid falsification.
We need fallacies for that? Avoid falsifications at all cost.

That's the spirit! Intellectual honesty be damned!
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 12:18:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 5:31:59 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/26/2012 12:31:39 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Grow up medic. It's appalling that you have too bad mouth such a tool of reason, then make nasty allegations. Never should be bought up in a discussion ? how fu*cking dishonest is that.

Now say I'am having a conversation with some one who's proposition is irrefutable because of all the auxillory premises they throw, think conspiracy theories.

How do you argue against it if you can't invoke occams razor ? remember you can't prove them wrong.

You have messed up on what occams razor has said I think, don't worry, I will challenge you to a debate on this, you enemy of reason :)

Don't waste your time writing up a challenge. I will only accept it if it's resolution is relevant to the reason that I brought it up in the first place. What it really means is irrelevant, as I'm having to argue against how it's used, but usually misused, in discussions.

And I'm not an enemy of reason, I'm the voice of reason attempting to try and wrest myself from the grasp of those who hide me away and substitute their own faux-truths, claiming to be me. Unhand me you wretched heathens and let true reason prevail throughout the land!! :)

The thing is you're misunderstanding Occam's Razor.

Say you want to explain why sticking a car key in your car turns on the engine. There are two sets of premises which can lead to a derivation of the answer:

1. A. Energy from physical and chemical reactions comes from oil.
B. Oil is in the car.
C.. The car uses energy

2. A.Energy from physical and chemical reactions consistently comes from oil.
B. Oil is in the car.
C. The car uses energy.
D. Invisible, intangible gremlins ferry the electrons from one spot to another depending on how much oil they see.

"Probability" has nothing to do with whether 1 or 2 is a better option, because A-D are assumptions/premises. It'd be like asking the probability of the moon being made of cheese inside a proof with the premise "If the moon were made of cheese..."

At the same time, both 1 and 2 are able to explain the phenomena.

Why should we empirically investigate based on the premises of 1 but not 2?
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 1:29:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
medic0506 said:
so, Occam's Razor shows that the logical conclusion is that God exists.

No. Occam's Razor by definition states the opposite. Why? Because God is infinitely complex. Your presuppositions to the meaning behind Occam's Razor has entirely undone it's most basic purpose, that if something can be understood by the human mind then it is instantly and irrevocably not an act of god.

God is omnipresent, omnipotent, exisitig in every second in every square nanometre and aware of everything from every individual atom to every eight billion megaton celestial exposion more commonly referred to as a supernova. Paradoxially so. The requirements to scientifically explain even one aspect of god's persona are unreachable by human mind. Therefore, whenever god is brought into anything, Occam's Razor simply states that god didn't do it, doesn't exist, or is not responsible. You aren't against the use of the Razor for any rational or methodical reasons, I just don't think you like the fact that it as a concept removes god from any and all equations.

Which is a good thing, by the way.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 1:34:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 1:29:04 PM, Veridas wrote:
medic0506 said:
so, Occam's Razor shows that the logical conclusion is that God exists.


No. Occam's Razor by definition states the opposite. Why? Because God is infinitely complex. Your presuppositions to the meaning behind Occam's Razor has entirely undone it's most basic purpose, that if something can be understood by the human mind then it is instantly and irrevocably not an act of god.

God is omnipresent, omnipotent, exisitig in every second in every square nanometre and aware of everything from every individual atom to every eight billion megaton celestial exposion more commonly referred to as a supernova. Paradoxially so. The requirements to scientifically explain even one aspect of god's persona are unreachable by human mind. Therefore, whenever god is brought into anything, Occam's Razor simply states that god didn't do it, doesn't exist, or is not responsible. You aren't against the use of the Razor for any rational or methodical reasons, I just don't think you like the fact that it as a concept removes god from any and all equations.

Which is a good thing, by the way.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 6:47:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 8:14:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Lol Medic. Again with the "you can't prove it" nonsense.

That's funny coming from an atheist. I mean that's your entire spiel against theists, "You can't prove it". So why does it seem nonsensical when the tables are turned??

There are so many unproven assertions in this paragraph that it's really funny.

1. Of course theists can make inferences, they do them all the time ex. The Universe is fine tuned. Ergo, God exists. Or something like that.

And, as I said, they're shot down as being irrational, illogical, etc., unless we can prove them empirically.

2. What are these unsubstantiated assertions that atheists make?

The universe created itself, or it has always existed. Life began spontaneously by chance, etc.

3. Since when do atheists not have to provide proof for their assertions?

Since always. I've been arguing with atheists for a long time and I'm still waiting. In our pm discussion, I'm still waiting.

Their assertions are usually based on scientific evidence, which implies proof.

Not. They are based on incomplete information, and the interpretation of the existing evidence that you prefer to use. You can't "imply" proof. You either have it, or you don't. The need to imply proof is proof that you don't have proof, so your proof really isn't proof, or else it would do what proof does.

Again, you are conflating future approximations with current approximations.

And you're completely ignoring the implications of any future information, and what it might mean to what you think you now know.

Unless you want to completely throw inferences out the window- which is what probability is based on- the only possible way to 'measure' if something is likely or not is through probability. Future evidence may come up that will likely change the probability, which is a trait solely given to people of no faith.

But if you don't know if that probability is dependable, then it may be doing more harm to your research than good. Your statement above, that I bolded, is an admission that you know that your info is incomplete, and likely to change. Yet you continue to assert that you can establish an accurate probability, and say what is or isn't likely. Occam's Razor cannot help you determine if God is likely or not, in spite of your probabilities. Just like it can't help me prove that He exists. It's totally useless in this debate, except as a means for atheists to steer the discussion in their favor. The way many atheists use Occam Razor it shouldn't even be called a razor, it should be called Occam's Chainsaw. If scientists used it the way many of you guys do, it would eliminate entire fields of study.

You don't even know what the info you do have means, with regards to the existence of God. Does a naturalistic explanation rule out God?? Does a naturalistic explanation mean that God used an orderly procedure so that our ever-expanding knowledge would eventually lead us back to Him??
By the time that we have a conclusive explanation, will it even be a naturalistic explanation??

Wut?

Can you answer those questions??

It might be, but should we suspend all discussion until this information is acquired?

No, not at all. But we also shouldn't be claiming that things mean one thing, when we really don't know that.

If you want to use this as ammunition against atheists then it's ultimately going to backfire against you- painfully.

Not if I'm right. :)

We shouldn't be calling our opponents irrational, when we're standing on epistemologically equal footing.

Epistemological as in how we obtain evidence? No.

There's no assurance that your way is a bit more accurate than mine.

Epistemological as in whether we have the same evidence? No.

We do have the same evidence, we just interpret it differently. Ultimately though neither of us can prove that our interpretation is correct, thus we are on equal footing.

We shouldn't insult one side for admitting to faith when we ourselves use that same thing.

Probability is not faith. Faith is incontrovertible belief in one side over another. Probability is subject to change when future information becomes apparent; faith is not subject to change, hence the term blind faith.

Deny it all you want, but when you use a probability, you take it on faith that it's accurate and that you're interpreting the info correctly. You can't prove that it means what you say it does, so yes, you are using faith.

I don't have blind faith, I have reasoned faith. God doesn't want us to use blind faith.

We shouldn't be demanding one side meet a BoP, and claiming victory if they can't, when we simply duck out of having any BoP ourselves.

When you realize what each side is arguing for, yeah you should kind of demand it considering that one side is based on evidence, while the other is based on a lack thereof.

You act as if you corner the market on evidence, but I've already shown how you can't possibly know that the evidence favors your position. You do not meet your BoP by simply claiming that your side uses evidence and ours doesn't.

As more information pops up, new information will be demanded. Again, this is just a way of theists stalling the BOP.

See, here we go again. It's getting hot in the kitchen so let's go back to old faithful, "theists have the BoP". You can't handle holes being poked in your position so you need to get the discussion back to where the theist is on the defensive.

Lol k. When you learn the definition of words, you'll agree with me.

Enlighten me oh wise one.

But wait...how does the theist have BoP on Occam's Razor when you're the one who is claiming that it's a valid way of reaching a conclusion??

The Theist has the BOP on providing evidence for a deity.

Correct, and I've done that, and we're still discussing it in the pm. Let's not have 2 fronts of battle.

Proving existence for Occam's Razor is not necessary, it is simply a logical tool.

I'm not asking you to prove it's existence. You want to use it against theists so if it's challenged then it's on you to prove it a valid argument.

Oh wait.. You aren't one of those theists who denies logic?

No I don't deny logic, I champion logic. When you present me with logic we will finally agree on something. :)

Lmao....no. I'm not inserting what I believe; scientists are making approximations based on the current evidence that they have as to what the origins of X or Y are, which are completely liable to change. In fact, it's you that is just inserting what you believe with no way to change this belief. That is the epitome of ignorance.

You admit that your info is incomplete, you admit that your best guess is an approximation, you admit that future evidence is likely to change what you now think, but yet you still claim that the evidence you have means that any type of supernatural explanation for the origins of the universe is totally irrational. And you call me ignorant, and unwilling to change my position?? Ha.

How is your position supported by the evidence??

Laws of Physics, Biology, Chemistry, you know...that sort of stuff.

No I don't know, you'll have to explain it to me. How do these laws, which are based on incomplete information thus subject to change, prove your position??