http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Science_and_the_scientific_method

"In science, Occam's Razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In physics, parsimony was an important heuristic in the formulation of special relativity by Albert Einstein,[36][37] the development and application of the principle of least action by Pierre Louis Maupertuis and Leonhard Euler,[38] and the development of quantum mechanics by Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg and Louis de Broglie.[9][39] In chemistry, Occam's Razor is often an important heuristic when developing a model of a reaction mechanism.[40][41]"

You are pointing the finger and saying I am ignorant yet you dismiss Occams razor in ignorance of its application to the scientific method. According to the principle of parsimony I do have an argument but it appears you can't be bothered to consider what I am saying. This is an intellectual laziness which seems to typify our culture today. It is an apathetic reasoning process that sees everything through the lens of stereotypes and generalities. If I am wrong about that I will happily admit it, and you still have ample opportunity to establish otherwise.

My argument is sound, logically, and if it were unsound it would be very easy to point out what the flaw is. I'll elaborate further:

Occams razors states that the theory with the least number of assumptions balanced against its explanatory power should be preferred to an argument with more assumptions and less explanatory power. The question is how do we explain the apparent fine-tuning in the Universe, a "goldilocks zone" for life. Scientists propose the multiverse theory which explains the favorable conditions as just being lucky, in that there are innumerable Universes and we just happen to be in the one that is very favorable for life. The problem with the theory is manifold; one, that is no observable evidence for the theory, and no way to test the theory. Two, it raises more questions than it answers because the mechanism that generates all of the Universes is even more finely tuned than the Universe itself, how did it get there, etc. It simply pushes back the problem another step. Eventually you must get to the point where a miracle occurs..ie, something came from nothing, or an eternal something which is infinitely fine tuned. According to Occams razor, the theory of an eternal Creator of the Universe should be preferred over *multiple* unobserved universes, that the fine tuning we observe isn't just apparent, but actual.

When you ask, why did God not do it "sooner", you do realize that you are making a temporal reference point? The bible says God "began" to do something because we are temporal beings and we think in terms of beginnings and endings, but we have no idea what that looks like in eternity. If your problem is simply with something being eternal, then maybe you haven't thought about the consequences of there not being anything eternal. You have to ask yourself the question, why is there something rather than nothing? You are facing two absurdities in this case; either an infinite regress of causes, or something coming from nothing. There has to be something eternal otherwise you are left with positing logically impossible outcomes. So, if there is something eternal, and whatever it is must be infinitely fine-tuned, and it ultimately created this Universe, you might as well call it God because it already possesses many of His attributes. Whichever way you turn, you are facing the Almighty.

The bible tells us why God didn't need to create light first:

Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty is its temple, even the Lamb.
Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they might shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb.

You should ask yourself, why do you object to the possibility of a Creator? Are your arguments just excuses to cover up the plain facts that have already been revealed to you by God, and the expression of your desire not to be accountable to Him? Something to think about..

Hi A10ANIS,

Could you please address the heart of my argument, that the principle of parsimony (occams razor) states that we should consider the theory of a Creator over the multiverse theory? Thanks.

To address some of your points:

Regarding your "fine tuner" argument; Such is the fine tuning of your "creator" that 98% of all life that has existed, is extinct. Which, apart from being incredibly incompetent and wasteful, points logically to random
selection/evolution.

It also points to a global flood which wiped out nearly all life on Earth around 4400 years ago. The speciation which occurred up until that time was lost, but new species have been created since then. The mass extinctions going on today have everything to do with human development and bad stewardship rather than any design flaw.

Also, your "a painting therefore a painter" point is a non-sequitur for if there were a "fine tuner," there would, by your own argument, have to be a creator of the fine tuner and so an inevitable regression.

We as Christians do not believe in created gods which are a delusion by definition; we believe in an eternal God who was not created. The infinite regression stops at the feet of the eternal God who has always existed. This line of reasoning is a problem not for Christians but for those who believe in the multiverse theory, because whatever the mechanism is which generates all of these Universes would be yet another Goldilocks zone, and so precisely finetuned as to be statistically impossible. You may as well posit a Creator at that point. I mean just ask yourself the same questions; what created the multiverse, what created it, etc.

No, Science has thrown off the shackles of myths and gods. Had they not, our lives would be controlled by theocratic dictators and we would still believe earth was the centre of the universe.

Interesting you would say this considering that in its infancy, pretty much all of the important discoveries were made by professing Christians. It was actually the environment of Christian Europe which nurtured science into what it is today.

Another point is, Christians don't believe in myths; Jesus Christ is not a myth, He is a real person who died for our sins and rose from the dead. He told us about who God is, because He was with God and He is God.

We no longer use the god of the gaps argument. We may never know all the answers but, just because we don't, we no longer lazily, ignorantly, insist that; "Hallelujah, God must have done it."

It is not a God of the gaps argument when the theory has greater explanatory power than what is being proposed. When even apparent fine tuning as been observed, which it has, the principle of parsimony would prefer the theory of a Creator to multiple unobserved universes.

http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/the-paradox-of-multiple-goldilocks-zones-or-did-the-universe-know-we-were-coming

"But today, I can view my second grade teacher's statement from a different point of view. Today, astronomers have identified over 500 planets orbiting other stars, and they are all too close or too far from their mother star. Most of them, we think, cannot support life as we know it. So it is unnecessary to invoke God.

But now, cosmologists are facing this paradox again, but from a cosmic perspective. It turns out that the fundamental parameters of the universe appear to be perfectly "fine-tuned." For example, if the nuclear force were any stronger, the sun would have simply burned out billions of years ago, and if it were any weaker the sun wouldn't have ignited to begin with. The Nuclear Force is tuned Just Right. Similarly, if gravity were any stronger, the Universe would have most likely collapsed in on itself in a big crunch; and if it were any weaker, everything would have simply frozen over in a big freeze. The Gravitational Force is Just Right."

The evidence shows the Universe is not an accident; the observation of fine-tuning leads naturally to the conclusion that there must be a FineTuner, much in the same way that the evidence of a painting leads us to the conclusion that there must be a painter. The favorable circumstances of the laws that allow life to flourish on planet Earth are by design.

Applying the principle of Occams Razor, postulating the existence of multiple unobserved universes to try to account for our favorable circumstances should be ruled out in favor of a theory of a Creator because there are fewer assumptions needed and there is greater explanatory power. Once the existence of even "apparent" fine-tuning has been observed, ruling out the theory of a Creator is illogical and contrary to reason according to the principle of parsimony.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+17&version=NIV

I appreciate your invitation. I would gladly visit you, but not for that purpose. I haven't been a Christian all of my life, so I am not unfamiliar with these types of experiences. I know what they are, and what is behind them. I know they are very important you, and I am not trying to condemn you; I am warning you that you are playing with forces that are beyond your control or understanding, and that they are malevolent in nature. I don't expect that you will believe me but I do pray that God will reveal this to you in a way that you can understand. Thank you again for your kind offer; I can understand your perspective on this. I might have thought in a similar way previously. God bless.

Sorry...hit the wrong button.

Thanks bro..I enjoyed it. It's always nice to have new music to listen to. I've never heard this artist before..how long has she been on the scene? Is this the kind of music you generally like?

In reply to this comment by jonny:
a bit of funk to loosen you up brother.... ;

http://videosift.com/video/Shining-Star

I believe in an Anerica that honors and acknowledges God for the blessings He gives this country, and the covenant the founders made with Him. I also believe that an America that doesn't do that, and in fact does the opposite, is headed for destruction.

In reply to this comment by skryboyd:
In reply to this comment by shinyblurry

If you want to make fun of me, feel free. It doesn't bother me. I also have nothing to apologize for, since I said what I said for UPs benefit. I hope she took it to heart and thought twice about what she was doing.

I really do look like Jesus, at least the white guy version. That's not a bad acid trip, that is just reality. Obviously there is no comparison, and I'll be to be the first to admit that I am an unworthy servant. I honestly don't think I am better than anyone else, and I don't judge anyone here. I judge their behavior, sure, but not their person.

You can call me delusional all you want, and I will call you foolish and ignorant. Doesn't really get us anywhere. If you just want to be immature, I can't stop you. I don't think anything bad about you, in fact I pray for you at times but I always have trouble pronouncing your name. God bless.



>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Again, reading comprehension? I didn't call her a harlot, I said she was acting like one. I don't think I am superior morally, as we are all sinners who deserve death and hell. However, God provides a superior morality, and if you aren't following that you are dead in your sins. I want to ask you, why do you always chase me around with this passive aggressive commentary? You cannot help but heap insults on me, but it is simply trite and immature from my POV. How about instead of nipping at my heels you actually engage me with some original thought. Do you have anything swimming around upstairs besides empty criticism?
>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I didn't call her names, I criticized her behavior. Perhaps english is your second language. I was honestly trying to get her to see that she was stepping over a line she didn't want to cross. Perhaps that doesn't seem loving, but there was an ugly spirit at work there and it needed to be confronted. In the midst of all the drooling male carnality, I was the only one attempting to be self-righteous.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I only called her a whore because I want to spread the love of Jesus Christ.

Oh, OK. Cool.


Calling someone a "harlot", while maybe a bit outdated, is exactly the same as calling them a whore.
There are many words that were once technical terms, that are now considered hurtful and mean-spirited. Words like: moron, retard, douche-bag, imbecile, idiot and yes, harlot, were once considered to carry no negative connotations at all. So using your example, there was a time long ago when a medical professional might have said something like: "Shinyblurry is a moronic retard who's personality resembles that of a bag containing the contents from a filthy harlot's freshly-washed vagina." But here in the twenty-first century, English doesn't have to be your first language for you to realize that when someone calls another person a harlot, they are trying to hurt their feelings and degrade them. Which in your case, was merely a function of trying to express your moral superiority.
And by the way: The word "English" is a proper noun, and should be capitalized.


Shiny, I tried engaging you when you first started commenting here. But you've proven time and again that you are completely incapable of "original thought". Your entire world-view is based on other people's interpretations of the bible, and a bad acid trip that convinced you that you looked like Jesus. I have some news for you: you're not Jesus. The only reason I leave comments on your posts anymore is to poke fun at your completely delusional view of the world. I was done attempting to engage you a long time ago.
You don't actually think that using a simile to insult someone makes the insult OK. You just think that there's someone out there dumb enough to care about your defense of your callous, insensitive comment that they might be swayed by your pathetic excuses. The irony is, if you weren't so insulting to everyone you condescend to, you might actually make the connections you're seeking.
I didn't leave a comment on your profile. I left a comment on Fusionaut's profile to make fun of you.

Again, reading comprehension? I didn't call her a harlot, I said she was acting like one. I don't think I am superior morally, as we are all sinners who deserve death and hell. However, God provides a superior morality, and if you aren't following that you are dead in your sins. I want to ask you, why do you always chase me around with this passive aggressive commentary? You cannot help but heap insults on me, but it is simply trite and immature from my POV. How about instead of nipping at my heels you actually engage me with some original thought. Do you have anything swimming around upstairs besides empty criticism?

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I didn't call her names, I criticized her behavior. Perhaps english is your second language. I was honestly trying to get her to see that she was stepping over a line she didn't want to cross. Perhaps that doesn't seem loving, but there was an ugly spirit at work there and it needed to be confronted. In the midst of all the drooling male carnality, I was the only one attempting to be self-righteous.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I only called her a whore because I want to spread the love of Jesus Christ.

Oh, OK. Cool.


Calling someone a "harlot", while maybe a bit outdated, is exactly the same as calling them a whore.
There are many words that were once technical terms, that are now considered hurtful and mean-spirited. Words like: moron, retard, douche-bag, imbecile, idiot and yes, harlot, were once considered to carry no negative connotations at all. So using your example, there was a time long ago when a medical professional might have said something like: "Shinyblurry is a moronic retard who's personality resembles that of a bag containing the contents from a filthy harlot's freshly-washed vagina." But here in the twenty-first century, English doesn't have to be your first language for you to realize that when someone calls another person a harlot, they are trying to hurt their feelings and degrade them. Which in your case, was merely a function of trying to express your moral superiority.
And by the way: The word "English" is a proper noun, and should be capitalized.

I didn't call her names, I criticized her behavior. Perhaps english is your second language. I was honestly trying to get her to see that she was stepping over a line she didn't want to cross. Perhaps that doesn't seem loving, but there was an ugly spirit at work there and it needed to be confronted. In the midst of all the drooling male carnality, I was the only one who thought she was still a lady who was selling herself short.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I only called her a whore because I want to spread the love of Jesus Christ.

Oh, OK. Cool.

Your attempt to ban me was all about your personal prejudice, and nothing to do with the truth. I have been viciously insulted by many, but I don't see you crying out for justice. Again, I didn't criticize UsesProzac, I criticized her behavior, which definitely crossed the line, not to mention sinful. If I didn't think UsesProzac didn't have some intrinsic value as a human being, I never would have said anything.

the saddest thing about this statement is that the ironic hypocripsy of it is completely lost on you. this brand of stupidity is precisely the reason why the bible states that any one who says in their heart there is no god is a fool.


In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
If anything, our discussion has reminded me of why I detest people like you. You've rekindled my passion for arguing on this subject because it bothers me when people simply refuse to budge on a position. Unwavering opinions are inherently ignorant because they don't allow for criticism.

If you walk away from our discussions with anything let it be this; I am your enemy so long as you refuse to allow for the possibility that your position could be refuted; or in other words, as long as you are unreasonable. I will come at you with all tenacity and rigor presently available to me to exercise my belief that being unreasonable is a bad thing. Fictitious beliefs often cause real harm, and I intend to "show you the light" as it were.

I'm talking about just as a layman. You go from one thing to the other between one post yet have the nerve to tell me I'm wrong when you haven't even done a thorough investigation into the things you're asserting are true, let alone what I am saying.

As far as proof goes, no one can argue you into a faith you don't have. I will just say as I have continued to say that God will reveal Himself to you if you dilligently seek Him. Since you haven't, don't be surprised that you don't see any evidence in the void of your unbelief.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
I didn't change my position, I merely refined it. I still believe the universe goes on for bi-directionally fourth dimensionally (that is, goes on without end, both forwards and backwards, in time) for infinity and thus had no beginning (and thus no creator). While you're right, and I will certainly concede that this is not anything close to my area of expertise, I am good at studying and understanding the abstract and literal language of academic papers (something people take for granted when I tell them I'm an English major) and I feel like my rudimentary understanding of the theories and what I've read allows me to make up my own mind on the subject thank you very much.

Am I a physicist? cosmologist? Certainly not. But I'm intelligent enough to understand the concepts without needing to take up a doctorate on the subject.

And you have some balls to ask me to admit that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Here's one for you, how can you prove that your own religious experiences are not the product of some brainwave fluctuations that YOU don't fully understand? Case in point, these people all left feeling like they had a religious experience, when in fact there was basically just a magnet on their head.