Jump to content


Photo

Occam's Razor. Does An Informal Argument...


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#21 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 December 2009 - 05:57 AM

I have a feeling that Thanos is going to get increasingly frustrated here because he is determined to make atheist talking points work on their own merit without actually examining them. We ask questions about the talking points... he comes back with more talking points. He won't last with that mindset. I either see the light bulb going on or insults starting to fly. The common occurrence unfortunately leans towards the second type of response.

View Post


Well, if posting propagandistic (even subtly so) you tube videos as answers, is any suggestion, then I agree Adam.

#22 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 December 2009 - 08:38 AM

Well, if posting propagandistic (even subtly so) you tube videos as answers, is any suggestion, then I agree Adam.

View Post

Hey wait, a second. I post youtube videos all the time... what's that say about me? :P :)

#23 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 December 2009 - 10:45 AM

Hey wait, a second. I post youtube videos all the time... what's that say about me? ohmy.gif  tongue.gif


View Post

If you use a video as your reply, then you have issues MR!!! laugh.gif



#24 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 October 2013 - 12:27 AM

I find it quite awkward on the part of Martemius, that he never answered the questions.



#25 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 October 2013 - 09:22 AM


I find it quite awkward on the part of Martemius, that he never answered the questions.

What was he going to say?

#26 graywolf

graywolf

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, science, German folk music.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Agnostic
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 October 2013 - 04:32 PM

I admit that the universe indeed had a beginning.  But must it have been caused?  Sometimes things operate without cause (I am thinking of radioactive decay here).  We just don't know what happened before the beginning; it is mere speculation and a matter of faith.  Something unimaginably, even infinitely dense and energetic. . .  does cause even make sense to ask here?  But that is outside the scope of this thread.  The basic idea of parsimony here is that the universe operates as an incredible mechanism and the addition of God operating it adds yet another layer.  I think we are looking in the wrong direction.



#27 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 22 October 2013 - 04:37 PM

I admit that the universe indeed had a beginning.  But must it have been caused?  Sometimes things operate without cause (I am thinking of radioactive decay here).  We just don't know what happened before the beginning; it is mere speculation and a matter of faith.  Something unimaginably, even infinitely dense. . .  does cause even make sense to ask here?

 

The measurable part of radioactive decay is caused by the decay of the radioactive substance.

 

 

The fact is that having the universe uncaused opens a can of worms pertaining to the nature of reality. IF the universe (everything) came from nothing without a cause, what is to stop such events happening again? All of science is based on the core principle "Ex nihilo nilhil fit" since in order to claim that the dependent variable was altered due to changing the variables of the experiment you must assume that the variables you changed were the cause of the observed results on the dependent variable, and this assumes that nothing (no thing) has interfered with the experiment.



#28 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 300 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 22 October 2013 - 05:29 PM

Re post 26: "Sometimes things operate without cause (I am thinking of radioactive decay here)."

Cause of radioactive decay is the electroweak force, no?

I'm not convinced that Big Bang tells us more than the Universe as we know it had a beginning. Who's to say what was going on before t=o (and who's to say before t=o is necessarily a contradiction?).

#29 graywolf

graywolf

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, science, German folk music.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Agnostic
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 October 2013 - 05:57 PM

Good point. Certainly not. If memory serves me correctly aren't strong nuclear forces more powerful?

#30 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 October 2013 - 09:51 PM

I admit that the universe indeed had a beginning.  But must it have been caused?


 
Your first statement defeats your second.

Premise 1: Everything that has had a beginning MUST have had a cause. (See: the Law of Causality).
Premise 2: By your own admission, “the universe indeed had a beginning”.
Conclusion: The universe “Indeed had a beginning”
 

Sometimes things operate without cause (I am thinking of radioactive decay here).


 
Operating without a cause, and having a beginning are two entirely different things. Not only are you committing “conversion by definition”, but you have committed a Non Sequitur as well, just by making such a statement.
 

We just don't know what happened before the beginning; it is mere speculation and a matter of faith.


We don't HAVE to know what happened "Before the BEGINNING", because there WAS a BEGINNING. And by definition a “BEGINNING” requires a BEGINNER to instigate the CAUSATION of the BEGINNING! Once again, see the Law of Cause and Effect!

 

Your post is rife with logical conundrums. Further, ‘Occam's Razor’ (or the law of parsimony) by definition is:  “a philosophical or scientific principle according to which the best explanation of an event is the one that is the simplest, using the fewest assumptions or hypotheses”. And since your argumentation is both illogical AND conflated with misnomers, it fails at the foundation of the law of parsimony!



#31 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 October 2013 - 09:57 PM

The measurable part of radioactive decay is caused by the decay of the radioactive substance.

 

 

The fact is that having the universe uncaused opens a can of worms pertaining to the nature of reality. IF the universe (everything) came from nothing without a cause, what is to stop such events happening again? All of science is based on the core principle "Ex nihilo nilhil fit" since in order to claim that the dependent variable was altered due to changing the variables of the experiment you must assume that the variables you changed were the cause of the observed results on the dependent variable, and this assumes that nothing (no thing) has interfered with the experiment.

Gilbo, you're on a wild goose chase arguing that (radioactive decay) because it has nothing to do with gray wolf's argument. It’s actually a red herring... He's trying to argue what happened BEFORE the beginning, after he agreed that there WAS a beginning. Radioactive decay has nothing to do with his real argument, and is actually going off topic.



#32 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 October 2013 - 01:29 AM

Gilbo, you're on a wild goose chase arguing that (radioactive decay) because it has nothing to do with gray wolf's argument. It’s actually a red herring... He's trying to argue what happened BEFORE the beginning, after he agreed that there WAS a beginning. Radioactive decay has nothing to do with his real argument, and is actually going off topic.

 

Thanks for the heads up :)

 

Though I am not sure what else Wolf can say about radioactive decay and still be in keeping with the beginning of the universe. I am hoping he was using it as an attempted analogy.

 

Simply put you've already explained to Wolf that there is a law called "cause and effect" which demonstrates that for each effect there is a cause. I also explained this as per the "ex nihilo nihil fit" principle which is a foundation block of science. Ergo for Wolf (or any other atheist) to claim the universe is uncaused from nothing then they have destroyed science.



#33 graywolf

graywolf

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, science, German folk music.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Agnostic
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 23 October 2013 - 09:41 AM

Word magic my friends. My friend was quite right, not only are you afraid to open your minds a little bit, but you are quite offensive. I believe Paul says something about not having love and being a clanging cymbal. You have succeeded in turning me away. You're going to have to modify your behaviour if you hope to win souls for Christ. Making a counterpoint and then insulting the other person seems to be the MO here. I am glad it brings you joy. Pure poison in my opinion.

#34 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 23 October 2013 - 09:53 AM

Word magic my friends. My friend was quite right, not only are you afraid to open your minds a little bit, but you are quite offensive. I believe Paul says something about not having love and being a clanging cymbal. Good day, I will not waste my words on such self importance. You have succeeded in turning me away.

 

Well, o.k. be sure and take the attitude with you on the way out, friend. The only one who succeeded in turning you away was you.

 

"not only are you afraid to open your minds a little bit,"

 

I am an ex-evolutionist who has studied Darwinian & neo-Darwinian books, literature, and video material for four decades. How does that automatically qualify me as someone who has not opened up his mind on the matter?

 

But let me lay it out plainly...to you and any other old earther that might be reading: 'old earth creationism' is a cop-out and a compromise of scriptural truth about the age of our world. If Moses chronologies are to be taken seriously and the fact that the family lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ MUST be correct in order to be legitimate so that He will some day rightfully sit upon the throne of David, then the old earth argument is, by scripture, declared to be false. NONE of the 76 names in Luke 3 of Jesus family line lived more than a thousand years but even if they did...that would still only equal 76 to 77 thousand years.

 

But those are the biblical considerations. Anyone who reads what we have posted here concerning R.A.T.E., zircons, helium accelerated decay rates, polonium haloes in granite rock or C14 found in almost everything on earth can know the scientific reasons for a young earth. Those are just a few.


  • Salsa likes this

#35 graywolf

graywolf

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, science, German folk music.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Agnostic
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:24 AM

I echo the words of Alistair McGrath when he said it's not about wining debates, but winning people to Christ. I noticed you did not respond to my counter about strong nuclear forces, but oh well. I would be a young earther but it requires too much mental gymnastics. You probably have a convoluted explanation for starlight, so I'll spare you the dissertation. I was arguing with an atheist one time and she debated in the same manner as you.
I'd better get back to my day job as a medicinal chemist. Take care..

#36 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:30 AM

I echo the words of Alistair McGrath when he said it's not about wining debates, but winning people to Christ. I noticed you did not respond to my counter about strong nuclear forces, but oh well. I would be a young earther but it requires too much mental gymnastics. You probably have a convoluted explanation for starlight, so I'll spare you the dissertation. I was arguing with an atheist one time and she debated in the same manner as you.
I'd better get back to my day job as a medicinal chemist. Take care..

 

Those things can be and have been answered on this website before. 

 

But we thought you said you were stepping out? Were you telling the truth?



#37 graywolf

graywolf

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, science, German folk music.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Agnostic
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:36 AM

If I were talking to an atheist, i would be inclined to show a little light from Christ. I'm outta here. Enjoy yourselves. I am reminded of CS Lewis' story about the dwarves huddling around their fire.

#38 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:52 AM

If I were talking to an atheist, i would be inclined to show a little light from Christ. I'm outta here. Enjoy yourselves. I am reminded of CS Lewis' story about the dwarves huddling around their fire.

 

Sir, you came here with an attitude and you are leaving with the same.

 

But should we believe you this time?



#39 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 October 2013 - 11:45 AM

Word magic my friends. My friend was quite right, not only are you afraid to open your minds a little bit, but you are quite offensive.

 

Huh? I answered your question and demonstrated how assuming the universe came uncaused from nothing would in effect destroy the foundations on which science has been established. If you cannot accept that, (or try to rebut it at least instead), then I am afraid it is you who is not willing to open your mind.

 

Do you think that having the belief of the possibility for things to pop in and out of existence, uncaused, would assist in the validity of an experiment, when an experiment is based on a controlled environment? You cannot control these uncaused "events" so therefore you can never be confident of the results you get are indeed the results YOU get.

 

As I said you have destroyed science.

 

I believe Paul says something about not having love and being a clanging cymbal. You have succeeded in turning me away.

 

Please point to where I have done so

 

You're going to have to modify your behaviour if you hope to win souls for Christ. Making a counterpoint and then insulting the other person seems to be the MO here. I am glad it brings you joy. Pure poison in my opinion.

 

I do not see any insults? However I do admit perhaps a gentler hand could have been used. Then again pandering to the crowd is another thing we do not want to do so its a fine line to walk.

 

 

 

I echo the words of Alistair McGrath when he said it's not about wining debates, but winning people to Christ.

 

I would agree. Perhaps we should keep in mind the atheist / evolutionist ego?

 

I noticed you did not respond to my counter about strong nuclear forces,

 

Was that a counter? What was your point then? Because nuclear forces are caused by the atoms they are associated with, (much like how each planet has its own gravitational force). Its simply a product of the existence of the atom. Now this fact has no relevance to the beginning of the universe in that atoms must first exist for there to be a strong nuclear force, with the beginning of the universe there are no atoms existing prior to it.

 

I had thought you only used it as an analogy, however you have now justified Ron's response in that it was your argument which is one that has no relevance to the topic. Comparing apples to oranges will never get you anywhere.

 

but oh well. I would be a young earther but it requires too much mental gymnastics.

 

Now THIS is an insult... Hypocrite much?

 

You probably have a convoluted explanation for starlight, so I'll spare you the dissertation. I was arguing with an atheist one time and she debated in the same manner as you.

 

And? Or was this an attempt at another insult?

 


I'd better get back to my day job as a medicinal chemist. Take care..

 

And? I better get back to sleep (its 4am) so I can fulfill my day as a research scientist.



#40 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,372 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:12 PM

Word magic my friends. My friend was quite right, not only are you afraid to open your minds a little bit, but you are quite offensive. I believe Paul says something about not having love and being a clanging cymbal. You have succeeded in turning me away. You're going to have to modify your behaviour if you hope to win souls for Christ. Making a counterpoint and then insulting the other person seems to be the MO here. I am glad it brings you joy. Pure poison in my opinion.

 

And what friend would that be? Sounds to me like you came here with preconceptions about the forum just looking for an excuse to take offense, make a spectacle, and storm off in a huff. Eight posts (one of which you apparently deleted as an "oops"), and on the fourth one you're lecturing us about love? Hmm. Right. Who's mind needs opening? dry.png






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users