|
SpanishMatMaster -> Remains as final summary (12/17/2011 12:56:47 PM)
|
Remains the final summary:
A: My reasoning about Occam's Razor and Atheism, ultra-short version.
1. If you are rational, you have to consider that God does not exist.
note Aa: Consider that you do not have any kind of obligation to be rational.
note Ab: ... does not exist, until proven otherwise, as always in reason and same as "2+2=4 until proven otherwise" (see Appendix 1).
B: A bit more expanded.
1. If you are rational, you have to consider Occam's Razor a rule.
2. If you use Occam's Razor as a rule consistently, you conclude that God does not exist.
3(1,2). If you are rational, you conclude that God does not exist.
note Ba: The principle behind Occam's Razor, the Principle of Parsimony, the Skeptical Principle and the Preponderancy of the Negation.
note Bb: As a rule, not as a guessing or a suggestion. A hardcore rule, as hard as "I do have a nose".
note Bc: Occam's Razor does not lead to simple Solipism, because Solipism alone gives no explanation to, why we hallucinate exactly what we hallucinate.
C: More expanded
1. Reason tells us that we have a nose.
2. Without Occam's Razor being a rule, there is no way to discard Unoser.
3. Discarding Unoser is necessary to say that we have a nose.
4(2,3). Using Occam's Razor as a rule is necessary to say that we have a nose.
5(1,4). Using Occam's Razor as a rule is part of reason.
6. The "Hypothesis God" does not reduce the amount of unexplained information.
7(6). Using Occam's Razor as a rule, we have to conclude that God does not exist.
8(5,7). Using reason, we conclude that God does not exist.
note Ca: (2) is proven by Parsimony
Appendix 1: Comparing "2+2=4" and "God does not exist" on certainty.
1. We cannot be absolutely sure (certain, in a strict sense) that God does not exist, as our reasoning and/or data could be wrong.
2. We cannot be absolutely sure (certain, in a strict sense) that 2+2=4, as our reasoning and/or data could be wrong.
3. We cannot calculate the probability of the imaginable (and not imaginable!) scenarios where we are wrong on God, unless we use Occam's Razor.
4. We cannot calculate the probability of the imaginable (and not imaginable!) scenarios where we are wrong on 2+2, unless we use Occam's Razor.
5(3,4). We cannot say that "God does not exist" is more, less or equally probable as "2+2=4", unless we use Occam's Razor.
6(1,2). Both assertions are only true, until proven otherwise.
7. Using Occam's Razor, we can discard the scenarios, where 2+2 are not 4.
8. Using Occam's Razor, we can discard the scenarios, where God exists (see A, B, C).
9(7). Using Occam's Razor, the probability that 2+2=4 is 1. It is simply a fact.
10(8). Using Occam's Razor, the probability that God does not exist is 1. It is simply a fact.
11(6,10). God does not exist. The certainty of this assert is the same as for "2+2=4". Both are facts, until proven otherwise.
note 1a: See note Ba.
Unfortunately, there is not a single comma of this, which has been refuted by any message here or in the game's thread.
This is my position. I have asked already for anybody who could refute anything. Nobody seems to be able to.
If anybody else wants to give it a try, I recommend saying the first thing you disagree with, and only that one, in the demonstration [C] or the appendix [A1].
|
|
|
|
