@ killer

I feel that your designation of assumptions is narrow and too rigid. It's not so much a 'counting' of assumptions; rather, an investigation of the complexity of assumptions. However, I do admire your ambition to prove Occam wrong :)

And here I was, asking you politely to quit talking out of your ass.

1.) You can't 'argue' faith. Argue does not mean discuss, or yell at one another. To argue means to support a point in organized debate. -- to present reasons for or against a thing--

While yelling senselessly and providing no solid basis for your words may be how you communicate, in the strictest sense, it is not argument.

Ergo, since faith is believing in something without evidence to support your claim, you cannot argue faith.

Now eat me.

@COTW "I do admire your ambition to prove Occam wrong".
Occam's Razor only says what is the most likely explanation.

@ puppykicker
Have you followed this thread? Do you understand what's going on, or are you just trolling around for a fight? What we are discussing is Occam's Razor and it's implication in this debate. If you would actually read some of my previous posts, you would actually find that I agree with you (though I don't want to bestow you any credit). If you have nothing intelligent to contribute, please go away.

btw, I happen to like puppies, prick

"Occam's Razor only says what is the most likely explanation."

Yes, however it is a respected enough principle to realign leading scientific theories

@cotw
"Occam's Razor is a theory that basically says that the least complicated option is usually the correct one"

Occam's Razor is used for scientific theories. God is no scientific theorie, and creationists like you are by far everything but scientists. So Occam's Razor isn´t of any use for religious matters. I like you creationist you are not very clever but very amusing :-)

@ Miro,
First of all, the quote is not attributed to me. Second, I agree with you. I very clearly stated that it is a scientific principle and should not be applied to faith-based arguments. Third, stop calling me a 'creationist' in a 'you-against-me' sense. My posts in this thread were meant to contribute to the discussion @ hand. I don't remember jumping in and saying "God is real, everybody! I can prove it! I want to convince you!"

The way that this thread has transpired and spiralled downhill is exactly the reason why I stayed on the sidelines in previous similar debates. Goodnight all.

Hmm i must have totally missunderstood :

"But they are overlooking the fact that you to explain existence, you have to go back to the first thing that existed. Atheists think that the first thing that existed was all the matter in the universe all scrunched up into a singularity. Christian think the first thing in the universe was God's consciousness. You tell me, which is simpler, all the matter in the universe, or one consciousness? "

Again, that is not my quote. Please be more careful.

@cotw: a scientist might use Occam's Razor to choose between alternative hypotheses but it proves NOTHING, you have a theory but not a law.

"Occam's Razor is not a legitimate proof of a lack of god."

QFT.

As Occam himself was a man of the Church it would seem unlikely that he would agree with anyone using Occam's Razor to try and argue against God. Let us take two seneraios
A) Occam's Razor is the tool that will finally prove or disprove God but no one has yet thought of usuing it for this purpose despite it existing for donkey's years.
B) Occam's Razor will be no use whatsoever in the God debates on this site as it has never been of use in such debates before.
Hmmm.... which one could it be....

I'm not going to argue for or against Occam's Razor as an argument in the 'God exists - doesn't exist' debate as it is, as has already been said a couple of times, simply not capable of doing so.

What I would like to point out is that the idea of God as a first principle is infinitely more complex than anything rationalists might otherwise claim with respect to how the Universe came into being, as it asserts the existence of something incredibly complex, i.e. the all-powerful, all-knowing entity that they call God, without concerning themselves with the obvious question: where did he come from? Essentially, this is Augustine's ancient argument of the 'first mover' and it has been rejected a trillion times over by modern philosophy. I find it depressing in the extreme but also highly curious how creationists keep repeating long-falsified hypotheses as if the sheer force of repetition will somehow revivify them.

I think y'all are considering Occam's chainsaw moreso than his razor ;-)

I cut my face the last time this topic came up.

Have since switched to electric.

This is where your logic fails.

Occam's razor is the idea that the most plausible explanation is the true one. The supposition you are attempting to prove is essentially that there is no explanation. That is precisely why Occam's razor does not apply.

I agree w/ you rlumley, that was precisely my first post. Btw, what's QFT?

Quoted for Truth.

I didn't read any of this thread. Sorry if I ripped you off.

you didn't, I'm glad you agree. QFT (quit f-ing talking? quit f-ing trolling?) please translate as I have seen it several times before.

OH! quoted for truth, thanks... I totally missed that one

@Wotan: "where did he come from?"
God does not need a creator, as before he created the universe there was no time. Time is one of the dimensions of our universe. It is impossible for God to be created outside of time, as that assumes a cause (the action of creating), and an effect (God), and there can be no cause and effect outside of time.

@Con
I am still laughig about that post, you know nothing about that issue like any other human. But you are coming up with such a nonsense, made my day :-)

i´m still laughing, that´s too funny sry :-)))

@Miro:
A better way of putting Con's thought would be that if God had a creator, he would not be God--rather, his creator would be God. You have to go back to an uncaused cause if you want God, I believe is Con's point.

"Those stupid, circular, endless religion threads are EVERYWHERE!!!"

@baum: That was not my point. My point was that because God is not bound by time, he does not need a creator.

It's pointless to argue about the characteristics of god (timeless, all powerful, etc.) when nobody has ever even proven such a being exist. Stop putting the the horse before the carriage and prove god exist. Then we could argue about his qualities.

Funny, I just realized I used the expression all wrong, but hey... hopefully you can hold ur laughter for later and still get the point I was trying to make.

@nnfolz: Timeless would always have to be a characteristic of God (whether you believe in him or not) because he existed before the universe and time began with the universe.

But you have to first know what God is to be able to prove his existence. If that's even possible.