Occam's Razor= All major religions are false.

[classy]

Originally posted by: Alchemist99
Since all major religions deem themselves to the be the only truth and salvation,
the simplest answer is they all are wrong.

Discuss

I am sure you will have the chance to discuss this with Jesus.

 

[Mo0o]

Looks like somebody just watched Contact

 

[OccamsToothbrush]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Alchemist99
Since all major religions deem themselves to the be the only truth and salvation,
the simplest answer is they all are wrong.

Discuss

I have been saying something similar for years. The fact that there are so many different religions and sub-religions and so many different "gods" then that is an indictment on them all. If there is a creator there can only be ONE.

What is this, Highlander?

Instead of looking at the "all religions contradict each other" theory, look at something far more damning. All religions contradict themselves. There's not a religion on earth whose mythology holds up to scrutiny. They're all just cobbled together from pieces of other mythologies and are almost always written by so many different people that the stories can't stay straight.

 

[JonnyStarks]

Well, that about wraps it up for God then. What's next for the scholars of ATOT?

 

[Triumph]

Misuse of the RAZOR, but I tend to agree with the point. It's like driving. Everyone thinks they are a good driver, and everyone thinks everyone else is a bad driver. Obviously everyone cannot be right, thus everyone is a bad driver.

Except for me.

 

[DrPizza]

"The correct religion was Mormon. That's right, Mormon."

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: OccamsToothbrush

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Alchemist99
Since all major religions deem themselves to the be the only truth and salvation,
the simplest answer is they all are wrong.

Discuss

I have been saying something similar for years. The fact that there are so many different religions and sub-religions and so many different "gods" then that is an indictment on them all. If there is a creator there can only be ONE.

What is this, Highlander?

Instead of looking at the "all religions contradict each other" theory, look at something far more damning. All religions contradict themselves. There's not a religion on earth whose mythology holds up to scrutiny. They're all just cobbled together from pieces of other mythologies and are almost always written by so many different people that the stories can't stay straight.

I agree, how does what I say contradict that? I was just replying to the OP along similar lines, I never said there was a creator......just that IF there was one there could only be ONE.

 

[OccamsToothbrush]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: OccamsToothbrush

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Alchemist99
Since all major religions deem themselves to the be the only truth and salvation,
the simplest answer is they all are wrong.

Discuss

I have been saying something similar for years. The fact that there are so many different religions and sub-religions and so many different "gods" then that is an indictment on them all. If there is a creator there can only be ONE.

What is this, Highlander?

Instead of looking at the "all religions contradict each other" theory, look at something far more damning. All religions contradict themselves. There's not a religion on earth whose mythology holds up to scrutiny. They're all just cobbled together from pieces of other mythologies and are almost always written by so many different people that the stories can't stay straight.

I agree, how does what I say contradict that? I was just replying to the OP along similar lines, I never said there was a creator......just that IF there was one there could only be ONE.

What you say doesn't contradict that, it just misses the point. It's like saying that smoking is bad for you because the cigarettes are too expensive. That might be true, but it's not the key factor. Yes, all religions fall into the "if any one is right then the others are all wrong" logical paradox, but that isn't the point as it's arguing the entire thing as a "Mr Smith lives in the red house and drives a blue car" logic puzzle. The real point is that religions don't hold up alone, there's no need to apply that sort of comparative logic. They fail on their own merits and their own internal logic, that's far more important than failing for any other reason.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Which I understand completely, but the subject in consideration is something that can NEVER be proven, and there can never be any non-circumstantial evidence. Evidence isnt even a requirement. It is also a subject in which several people have come to independent conclusions, with their own absolute certainty that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Which changes the game entirely.

When we're discussing a scientific or logical concept such as global warming, then you are absolutely right, and I agree with you. But thats not what we're discussing.

The first example I gave is very similar to the OP. Most religions have some theory on the origin of the universe, and whichever (if any) is right would be the religion that is "right." I just added in one more theory of the origin of the universe - the generally accepted scientific theory, which is equally unprovable. So using the OP's logic I've just disproved the scientific theory of the origin of the universe.

But I haven't proved anything, just like he hasn't.

yllus is right, the OP misapplied - not misspelled confused: ) - Occam's Razor.

 

[tyler811]

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: BD2003

Which I understand completely, but the subject in consideration is something that can NEVER be proven, and there can never be any non-circumstantial evidence. Evidence isnt even a requirement. It is also a subject in which several people have come to independent conclusions, with their own absolute certainty that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Which changes the game entirely.

When we're discussing a scientific or logical concept such as global warming, then you are absolutely right, and I agree with you. But thats not what we're discussing.

The first example I gave is very similar to the OP. Most religions have some theory on the origin of the universe, and whichever (if any) is right would be the religion that is "right." I just added in one more theory of the origin of the universe - the generally accepted scientific theory, which is equally unprovable. So using the OP's logic I've just disproved the scientific theory of the origin of the universe.

But I haven't proved anything, just like he hasn't.

yllus is right, the OP misapplied - not misspelled confused: ) - Occam's Razor.

Perhaps he has misapplied occams razor in a sense, but even in any case, the argument still has a certain degree of merit.

The scientific theory of the origin of the universe is only unprovable in a certain narrow sense. It can not say anything as to what happened before the big bang, or why there was a big bang in the first place. But that does not invalidate any part of what it does concern, which is what happens AFTER the big bang. Its understood quite clearly that science can probably never say much of anything as to *why* we are here.

But there is a large difference between something that can say something nearly definitively, and back it up, such as what science says about what happened after the big bang, and between a fairy tale that describes two young adults frolicking in a garden.

In essence they deal with two different things: what happens - science is the authority; and why it happens - science can only answer in a narrow sense, we turn to religion and philosophy for this.

Its like a schoolyard fight. One says the other did it, half the people in one group disagree with the other half, and in reality, theyre probably all lying.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: yllus
Both your interpretation of Occam's Razor and the logic in your statement are incredibly idiotic.

I'm not being mean, just upfront. What you wrote was pure idiocy.

QFT...it seems the kiddies are getting hold of all the buzzwords lately with this Intelligent Design hoopla. Especially the discussion that science is also not necessarly true.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Perhaps he has misapplied occams razor in a sense, but even in any case, the argument still has a certain degree of merit.

The scientific theory of the origin of the universe is only unprovable in a certain narrow sense. It can not say anything as to what happened before the big bang, or why there was a big bang in the first place. But that does not invalidate any part of what it does concern, which is what happens AFTER the big bang. Its understood quite clearly that science can probably never say much of anything as to *why* we are here.

But there is a large difference between something that can say something nearly definitively, and back it up, such as what science says about what happened after the big bang, and between a fairy tale that describes two young adults frolicking in a garden.

In essence they deal with two different things: what happens - science is the authority; and why it happens - science can only answer in a narrow sense, we turn to religion and philosophy for this.

Its like a schoolyard fight. One says the other did it, half the people in one group disagree with the other half, and in reality, theyre probably all lying.

Alright, do you honestly believe that the existence of multiple unprovable theories about the same thing means they're all wrong? It is utterly illogical and nonsensical. I think you're letting your bias against religion (which you just made obvious) cloud your thinking. The OP borders on idiocy, and you're defending it because you agree with the conclusion.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: BD2003

Perhaps he has misapplied occams razor in a sense, but even in any case, the argument still has a certain degree of merit.

The scientific theory of the origin of the universe is only unprovable in a certain narrow sense. It can not say anything as to what happened before the big bang, or why there was a big bang in the first place. But that does not invalidate any part of what it does concern, which is what happens AFTER the big bang. Its understood quite clearly that science can probably never say much of anything as to *why* we are here.

But there is a large difference between something that can say something nearly definitively, and back it up, such as what science says about what happened after the big bang, and between a fairy tale that describes two young adults frolicking in a garden.

In essence they deal with two different things: what happens - science is the authority; and why it happens - science can only answer in a narrow sense, we turn to religion and philosophy for this.

Its like a schoolyard fight. One says the other did it, half the people in one group disagree with the other half, and in reality, theyre probably all lying.

Alright, do you honestly believe that the existence of multiple unprovable theories about the same thing means they're all wrong? It is utterly illogical and nonsensical. I think you're letting your bias against religion (which you just made obvious) cloud your thinking. The OP borders on idiocy, and you're defending it because you agree with the conclusion.

well said. there is no good counterpoint to this post.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: BD2003

Perhaps he has misapplied occams razor in a sense, but even in any case, the argument still has a certain degree of merit.

The scientific theory of the origin of the universe is only unprovable in a certain narrow sense. It can not say anything as to what happened before the big bang, or why there was a big bang in the first place. But that does not invalidate any part of what it does concern, which is what happens AFTER the big bang. Its understood quite clearly that science can probably never say much of anything as to *why* we are here.

But there is a large difference between something that can say something nearly definitively, and back it up, such as what science says about what happened after the big bang, and between a fairy tale that describes two young adults frolicking in a garden.

In essence they deal with two different things: what happens - science is the authority; and why it happens - science can only answer in a narrow sense, we turn to religion and philosophy for this.

Its like a schoolyard fight. One says the other did it, half the people in one group disagree with the other half, and in reality, theyre probably all lying.

Alright, do you honestly believe that the existence of multiple unprovable theories about the same thing means they're all wrong? It is utterly illogical and nonsensical. I think you're letting your bias against religion (which you just made obvious) cloud your thinking. The OP borders on idiocy, and you're defending it because you agree with the conclusion.

well said. there is no good counterpoint to this post.

Maybe not in your limited thinking. To those with a shred of a clue there is.

In some cases multiple theories DO NOT necessarily mean that they're all (or all but one) wrong. However, when those theories are inherently contradictory then yes, they are forced to disprove each other.

Take the origin of the universe since we're talking about religion in this context. The Christians think it was created by THEIR God. The Jews think it was THEIR God, the Hindus THEIR Gods and so on and so forth. If any of those theories is correct then the others are all wrong as the universe could only have come into existence in one way. We might not have all the facts of which way, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a theologian to understand that it could not have happened EVERY way. In the case of religion if one is right then the others are wrong because each is maintaining itself as an absolute.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: BD2003

Perhaps he has misapplied occams razor in a sense, but even in any case, the argument still has a certain degree of merit.

The scientific theory of the origin of the universe is only unprovable in a certain narrow sense. It can not say anything as to what happened before the big bang, or why there was a big bang in the first place. But that does not invalidate any part of what it does concern, which is what happens AFTER the big bang. Its understood quite clearly that science can probably never say much of anything as to *why* we are here.

But there is a large difference between something that can say something nearly definitively, and back it up, such as what science says about what happened after the big bang, and between a fairy tale that describes two young adults frolicking in a garden.

In essence they deal with two different things: what happens - science is the authority; and why it happens - science can only answer in a narrow sense, we turn to religion and philosophy for this.

Its like a schoolyard fight. One says the other did it, half the people in one group disagree with the other half, and in reality, theyre probably all lying.

Alright, do you honestly believe that the existence of multiple unprovable theories about the same thing means they're all wrong? It is utterly illogical and nonsensical. I think you're letting your bias against religion (which you just made obvious) cloud your thinking. The OP borders on idiocy, and you're defending it because you agree with the conclusion.

well said. there is no good counterpoint to this post.

Maybe not in your limited thinking. To those with a shred of a clue there is.

In some cases multiple theories DO NOT necessarily mean that they're all (or all but one) wrong. However, when those theories are inherently contradictory then yes, they are forced to disprove each other.

Take the origin of the universe since we're talking about religion in this context. The Christians think it was created by THEIR God. The Jews think it was THEIR God, the Hindus THEIR Gods and so on and so forth. If any of those theories is correct then the others are all wrong as the universe could only have come into existence in one way. We might not have all the facts of which way, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a theologian to understand that it could not have happened EVERY way. In the case of religion if one is right then the others are wrong because each is maintaining itself as an absolute.

you just said exactly what mugs was pointing out. maybe you should take your own advice and get a clue.

 

[Alchemist99]

Ok some final thoughts, Occams razor proves or disproves nothing its just a principle
a logic tool if you will. I think you could write some Religious theory using Occam's razor.
It's theoretical at best.

With all the complexities of religion and the improbable nature of accurately discerning
truth, I still hold to the point that the simplest and least complicated answer is that they are all false. This is not proof that they are but simply using Occams Razor in this limited
hypothesis is the answer that I come up with.

I'm not a scientist or theoretician or brilliant , but I often question the world around me and while some of my theories may not hold that much water, I don't see anyone else on this planet with a lot of real answers. When it comes to the theory of life and what this is all about, the bottom line is Imo we are all just making best guesses, some better than others but still a guess none the less, contrary to what your ego might think.

 

[ixelion]

God is perfect, perfection necessitates existance, therfore god must exist.

BOOYA!

LOL. there are a LOT of holes in this argument so dont even bother.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: BD2003

Perhaps he has misapplied occams razor in a sense, but even in any case, the argument still has a certain degree of merit.

The scientific theory of the origin of the universe is only unprovable in a certain narrow sense. It can not say anything as to what happened before the big bang, or why there was a big bang in the first place. But that does not invalidate any part of what it does concern, which is what happens AFTER the big bang. Its understood quite clearly that science can probably never say much of anything as to *why* we are here.

But there is a large difference between something that can say something nearly definitively, and back it up, such as what science says about what happened after the big bang, and between a fairy tale that describes two young adults frolicking in a garden.

In essence they deal with two different things: what happens - science is the authority; and why it happens - science can only answer in a narrow sense, we turn to religion and philosophy for this.

Its like a schoolyard fight. One says the other did it, half the people in one group disagree with the other half, and in reality, theyre probably all lying.

Alright, do you honestly believe that the existence of multiple unprovable theories about the same thing means they're all wrong? It is utterly illogical and nonsensical. I think you're letting your bias against religion (which you just made obvious) cloud your thinking. The OP borders on idiocy, and you're defending it because you agree with the conclusion.

No, it doesnt necessarily conclude that they are all 100% wrong, which I've already made more than clear.

But the fact there they are all contradictory, all absolute, and alternative explanations exist which explain why this situation of contradiction exists certainly lends some doubt that any of them are completely "true".

The application of occams razor as intended by the OP is quite simple.

Whats more likely and more simple of an explanation: that out of the thousands of religions and the few major world religions, that one is "true" and the others are false, or rather, none of them are 100% true, since that would require the rest to be false?

And please do explain where I let my bias against religion be shown, because I dont remember saying anything derogatory or completely impartial.

Unless you consider the fact that I dont think that creationism belongs in the same discussion as evoltuion an anti-religious bias. In that case, I'm definitely biased.

My own personal thoughts find no contradiction between science, philosophy and religion. They each have their own relevant sphere, with some natural overlap, and problems only occur when they start to overstep their boundaries. I fully understand that our world relgions are thousands of years old, and are necessarily burndened with thousand year old thinking when it comes to explanations of scientific matter. But I dont hold that against them, and I dont use that to justify to myself that theyre wrong. I can see that they were the best possible explanations for certain phenomena at the time, understand they are outdated, and modify my understanding as such. And I fully believe that religion is quite relevant as a moral and social institution, and as a way of explaining and understanding things that science can not ever possibly even touch.

But when one religion claims to be better than all the rest, and to be right where others are wrong, I just ignore it, because while I can not *prove* otherwise (nothing can be 100% proved anyway!), I can certainly convince myself beyond a reasonable doubt that its very, very unlikely.

 

[thehstrybean]

I ask the idiotic OP this:

Question: Which is easiest? (And therefore correct according to Occam's Razor, as you say)
A) A being that we cannot fathom created everything around us. This being was here before time, created time, controls time, and is not bound by time. We cannot understand this being.

OR

B) All of the matter that now makes up the universe was held in an infinetly small mass that had an extremly hot tempature. The ball blew up (general, I know) and through expanding and cooling, created galaxies, stars, planets, and a perfect carbon base for human life to form. This ball of matter came from somewhere, where is unknown. (Face it, it had to come from somewhere! The LAW of Infinite Matter states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, so where did it come from?)

So which is easier? A or B? In my mind, A is the CLEAR choice..

EDIT: I also find it interesting that your username is alchemist. Nothing like trying to make gold from sh!t....

 

[0roo0roo]

ugh, u envision an infinitely complex and powerful being in A. that makes A far more complicated. sure you can simplify god into nothingness, but that isn't being rational.

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: Alchemist99
Since all major religions deem themselves to the be the only truth and salvation,
the simplest answer is they all are wrong.

Discuss

science, in and of itself is a religion. Heck even math, at its most atomic statements are are based on assumptions.

 

[Alchemist99]

Originally posted by: thehstrybean
I ask the idiotic OP this:

Question: Which is easiest? (And therefore correct according to Occam's Razor, as you say)
A) A being that we cannot fathom created everything around us. This being was here before time, created time, controls time, and is not bound by time. We cannot understand this being.

OR

B) All of the matter that now makes up the universe was held in an infinetly small mass that had an extremly hot tempature. The ball blew up (general, I know) and through expanding and cooling, created galaxies, stars, planets, and a perfect carbon base for human life to form. This ball of matter came from somewhere, where is unknown. (Face it, it had to come from somewhere! The LAW of Infinite Matter states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, so where did it come from?)

So which is easier? A or B? In my mind, A is the CLEAR choice..

EDIT: I also find it interesting that your username is alchemist. Nothing like trying to make gold from sh!t....

Well I hope you realize that even if you take my proposed scenario that all major Religions are false under this limited premise, that still doesn't rule out a creator, or a god or higher power. Because the religions of man are so varied and just through simple logic we must conclude that man likes to make up religions as there are so many, this once again does not rule anything out as far God possibilities, but it does put forth the undeniable fact that there are so many false religions and that man can ultimately convince and contrive almost anything.

People have said I'm and idiot and I will repeat if your so smart then you tell me what the true religion and what our purpose is about, in an intellectual non faith based ?oh I just
know kind of way?.

Part of why I threw out this notion was to create dialog, and a way to get a number of conclusion- opinions of which I can ponder and hopefully gain insights I may not have previously considered, does this make me the idiot??? Hmm well if so then so be it.

 

[Captante]

I think the problem here is that using a rule of logic to attempt to define somthing as illogical as religion is pointless...you simply can't have an objective conversation with the vast majority of people on this topic.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Alchemist99
Since all major religions deem themselves to the be the only truth and salvation,
the simplest answer is they all are wrong.

Discuss

science, in and of itself is a religion. Heck even math, at its most atomic statements are are based on assumptions.

You have my vote for most idiotic post in a long time.