Pretty difficult to "prove" in a literal sense without a time machine, but it's a lot more believable than magic, easy to apply Occam's razor as well as per my previous post. You could also make some sociological arguments regarding man's desire to explain the world around him and the supernatural was simply the first explanation they could invent given the lack of scientific knowledge. There are many other good arguments, but they won't prove anything definitively.

I still want to know how someone makes the leap from deism to theism per sky previous post. I simply cannot fathom this leap in light of all the available mythologies out there. I'm basically an agnostic, and can almost see the motivation for being a deist, but making the jump to a personal, emotional god is just beyond me.

Which is why "prove" is your word, not mine.

Loaded terms like "magic" aside, so far this is only your opinion.

Occam's razor only discriminates between sufficient explanations. If you had two evidence-based explanations that both accounted for the phenomenon you are trying to explain, Occam's razor would tell you to prefer the one with the least elements. However, since you have yet to produce even a single such causally sufficient explanation, Occam's razor has no role in this.

Again, who's asking for proof? Just present the best evidence-based case you got, and we'll see what you're actually holding.

On what basis are you using the "mythology" label here? Presentable evidence, or your personal faith? If the former, let's see it.

+!

yea, C.S. Lewis is so overblown as some sort of a philosopher its crazy.

I didn't use the word proof. The poster which you initially responded to did.


If you believe in the Bible, you have to believe in magic, witchcraft, demon possession, faith healing, zombies, and a myriad of other mythological/fantastical/magical notions. I cannot make that leap hence my inability to understand the jump from deism to a theistic religion like Christianity.


We are discussing two scenarios: an omnipotent being as a first cause that is eternal with no beginning or end, who is also emotional, personal and takes an active role in shaping the universe through divine intervention/evolution/whatever methods you believe he uses. The other is that we have an eternal universe with no added external complexity. Occam's razor applies to our discussion.


Mythology:
1
: an allegorical narrative
2
: a body of myths: as a : the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people b : mythos 2 <cold war mythology>
3
: a branch of knowledge that deals with myth
4
: a popular belief or assumption that has grown up around someone or something : myth 2a <defective mythologies that ignore masculine depth of feeling — Robert Bly>

Seems Christianity and every other religion fits well in here. The Bible is full of myths: the worldwide flood, presentation of the "law" to Moses, the 10 plagues, the Exodus, the tower of babel, the virgin birth, the resurrection, various other miracles. The archetypes present in Christian myths are not unique to Christianity and have shown up in religion throughout thousands of years, they have simply formed a new narrative around them. I guess my main point of contention with you is that you view Christianity as somehow unique, which I don't understand.

The first paragraph of the Wiki article follows. Note the bolded.

"Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle which generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects. For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place."

Since you do not have even one sufficient explanation for the origin of religion, Occam's razor does not apply.

As in most instances of the loaded term fallacy, your use of "myth" here technically makes it under the wire. Still, the term has connotations in most people's minds that assume a conclusion you have yet to present an evidence-based case for.

Concerning some contents of Christianity being duplicated elsewhere, this does not make a case for their being made-up or otherwise false.

Sigh, you're not reading. I'm applying Occam's razor to how our two worldviews explain the existence of the universe. Your view, that a creator, an all-powerful being, directed its formation and continues to interact with it, or mine, that the universe itself has always existed and is eternal. Occam's razor favors the second scenario because it requires less complexity.

I'll get to the second part of your post later, but Christianity and the stories in the Bible most certainly fit with the definition of mythology. I don't need to provide proof of anything, they are myths the same as any other creation story, or dispersion of the population story, or worldwide flood story, etc. Or, are you going to try and tell me that every other current and historical religion is full of myths, but Christianity isn't, because you just "know?"

Is this an ironic joke where you accuse me of not reading and then proceed to reply to my post as if you had not read it?

I already know what you are trying to apply Occam's razor to. My response, which you seem to have missed since you did not address it, is that none of the explanations you are working with is (empirically) sufficient, i.e. provides (empirically) sufficient conditions for the facts it attempts to explain. Therefore you lack a necessary ingredient to apply Occam's razor (per the Wikipedia article excerpted again below), unless you don't claim to be dealing with testable reality and are instead making faith-based statements.

"Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle which generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects. For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place."

Now I know you're being purposefully obtuse. Your contention is completely irrelevant. Both scenarios describe the existence of the universe perfectly well and my hypothesis does it with less complexity and fewer assumptions. Occam's razor applies and you're desperately trying to save face. Now, there are other hypotheses that may also explain the existence of the universe and we could apply the same technique in their comparison. You couldn't even admit the Christian stories you believe qualify under the definition of mythology. Words have meanings, and they still have meaning even though you think your religion is special.

Is that consistent with the current scientific model of the universe? There is a lot of uncertainty about the nature of the Big Bang and the origin of the universe, but in at least some pictures it has a starting point.

Also, you have elevated Occam's razor to the status of a law of nature when it is in fact a formalism of science. As a law of nature Occam's razor would be a monumental failure. When simple explanations have been proposed and extended to areas where experimental evidence was not available, they have usually failed. Consider wave particle duality as one example. Before it could be tested it would have appeared horribly complex to imagine that the nature of matter varied depending on the mass of the particle.

The concept of God could be considered an unjustified complication scientifically, but that is very different than saying it is totally invalid.

What's far to random?

The explanation seems "obtuse" to you because you're caught being unable to make it work for your smoke-and-mirrors theory about religion. This is why you have yet to address my objection in a straightforward manner but instead argue against something I am not even saying. None of the explanations you have for religion is empirically sufficient. They may be sufficient, as any number of "magical" causalities would be, but they are not empirically sufficient as is necessary for an explanation to be scientific. The choice this leaves you with is either abandoning Occam's razor due to the lack of two or more (appropriately) sufficient explanations to compare, or admitting that you are conjuring a handwavy origins myth with no basis in actual observation. Liking neither of these options, you instead choose to do a fancy little dance with ad hominem flourishes.

To the worldview to which I'm applying occam's razor, it doesn't matter if either is currently accepted in science. They are both hypotheses to which we can draw a comparison. You also read too much into my conclusion. I'm not claiming the razor invalidated god as a possibility. It's just one more piece you can add to the overall picture. I would still like to see someone make an argument for the creator hypothesis that's not an appeal to ignorance.

What's far to random?

I fail to see how the hypothesis that the universe has always existed in some form, be it an infinitesimal singularity, or an expansive entity, or a cycle between the two fails to empirically satisfy. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Your post is also t tacit admission that religion, or god, does not empirically satisfy the existence of the universe.

I take it from your silence that you'be also ceded that the definition of mythology does indeed encompass the Christian stories.

Well, I wouldn't call asserting brute-fact existence of the universe less of an appeal to ignorance than asserting a creator. It really just depends on if you allow the possibility of absolute nothingness to come into the argument. If you allow the possibility, then it's just as problematic to explain why the universe exists as a brute-fact as saying God did it.

Why? Why should there be nothing rather than something?

I'm all for "there's always been something"

It's almost like saying "even if there was at some time nothing, that's something"

I know that doesn't make much sense lol

bump

Good *uckin question, OP.

God was an attempt to explain the unexplainable. Much of what was unknown in Biblical times is now availible via space documentaries on the discovery channel! The information is so accessible, and there is little divide amongst the academic community. Compare this to religious info, which is essentially a series of parables and metaphors which no one can agree on. Further, there are dozens of religions across the world which have radically opposing theories of creation, reincarnation ect.

In light of all the new facets of the universe we've unveiled, how can people cling to the primitive conclusions of our ancient ancestors? It truly baffles me...

One reason is the Sermon on the Mount. It's way ahead of our morality today. We're still trying to reach it and understand it.

It could be a picture of the future from someone who knows the future.

What the hell are you talking about?

Once again, you counter with complete non sense instead of an actual argument.

I just did what a lot of posters do and answered:

Re: Serious question, how can anyone in this day and age who is somewhat intelligent believe in

So you think there is a God because there's a section of the Bible which is unclear....

OP ,
yeah i totally agree. The only way i can make peace with it is to put the religious into several compartments they wouldn't recognise themselves,

1) Cultural - they do it to honour their family
2) Political - they do it to make a point ( like M. Ali and his rejection of a "white religion" )
3) Intellectual - you see this in all the threads here. People having meaningless intellectual masturbation. No belief, just game play
4) Comfort seekers - those who don't want to consider life as a meaningless moment on a rock which will die itself.

I just hope they do it to help the community ( which they NEVER are ), but ultimately i write them off and move on.