Quantcast
Prove that evolution is what actually happened.

Forums - General Discussion - Prove that evolution is what actually happened.

Tagged games:

Runa216 said:
I just want to interject here and say you're all understanding Occam's Razor wrong. "The simplest solution is the best" is NOT Occam's razor, that's just lazy. No, the Razor is about making as few assumptions as possible.

God creating everything is simpler to grasp and to understand, but makes many grand assumptions (namely, that God exists, that God cares about us, and that God is omnipotent)

The Big Bang (or whatever other geneis theory you have) makes fewer assumptions because almost all aspects of the theory has scientific backing, so it's not about assumptions, it's about following the evidence.

Occam's Razor is a principle that generally recommends, when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Educate yourself before looking like a tool. Wikipedia (and Google) are both right at your fingertips.

Corrected.

Assumption count = 1.



Around the Network
padib said:
Runa216 said:
I just want to interject here and say you're all understanding Occam's Razor wrong. "The simplest solution is the best" is NOT Occam's razor, that's just lazy. No, the Razor is about making as few assumptions as possible.

God creating everything is simpler to grasp and to understand, but makes many grand assumptions (namely, that God exists, that God cares about us, and that God is omnipotent)

The Big Bang (or whatever other geneis theory you have) makes fewer assumptions because almost all aspects of the theory has scientific backing, so it's not about assumptions, it's about following the evidence.

Occam's Razor is a principle that generally recommends, when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Educate yourself before looking like a tool. Wikipedia (and Google) are both right at your fingertips.

Corrected.

Assumption count = 1.

No..no no no freaking no.  Just because I only CHOSE to list three doesn't mean there are only three assumptions to make.  That, and all of those assumptions are needed.  ASSUMING god exists, he'd still have to care enough to make the world.  Simply existing would not automatically lead to him creating us.  Assuming he existed and cared enough, he'd still have to prove omnipotent to create the universe, since omnipotence means "all powerful".  to create a universe he'd need to be as powerful if not more than the entire universe. Hence all three are required to assume that God created everything. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 3 this generation: 
Bloodborne, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III

Runa216 said:
padib said:
Runa216 said:
I just want to interject here and say you're all understanding Occam's Razor wrong. "The simplest solution is the best" is NOT Occam's razor, that's just lazy. No, the Razor is about making as few assumptions as possible.

God creating everything is simpler to grasp and to understand, but makes many grand assumptions (namely, that God exists, that God cares about us, and that God is omnipotent)

The Big Bang (or whatever other geneis theory you have) makes fewer assumptions because almost all aspects of the theory has scientific backing, so it's not about assumptions, it's about following the evidence.

Occam's Razor is a principle that generally recommends, when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Educate yourself before looking like a tool. Wikipedia (and Google) are both right at your fingertips.

Corrected.

Assumption count = 1.

No..no no no freaking no.  Just because I only CHOSE to list three doesn't mean there are only three assumptions to make.  That, and all of those assumptions are needed.  ASSUMING god exists, he'd still have to care enough to make the world.  Simply existing would not automatically lead to him creating us.  Assuming he existed and cared enough, he'd still have to prove omnipotent to create the universe, since omnipotence means "all powerful".  to create a universe he'd need to be as powerful if not more than the entire universe. Hence all three are required to assume that God created everything. 

Right, I'll grant you an extra one. Fixed.

Assumption count = 2.



Runa216 said:
I just want to interject here and say you're all understanding Occam's Razor wrong. "The simplest solution is the best" is NOT Occam's razor, that's just lazy. No, the Razor is about making as few assumptions as possible.

God creating everything is simpler to grasp and to understand, but makes many grand assumptions (namely, that God exists, that God cares about us, and that God is omnipotent)

The Big Bang (or whatever other geneis theory you have) makes fewer assumptions because almost all aspects of the theory has scientific backing, so it's not about assumptions, it's about following the evidence.

Occam's Razor is a principle that generally recommends, when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Educate yourself before looking like a tool. Wikipedia (and Google) are both right at your fingertips.


I think Ssenkahdavic and myself already addressed this issue in our discussion. It was poor wording on my part in the original post, Ssenkahdavic pointed it out, and I agreed. This hardly means we understand it wrong or that we are tools, especially given the fact that we agree with your bolded statement.

My point, and I believe his point as well, is that absent the evidence for the Big Bang, evolution, etc, there is a good case to be made that God is a simpler explanation. On a purely deductive or theoretical basis, Ockham's razor could be used to justify belief in any number things because we would just be looking for the explanation that results in the correct outcome that makes the least unnecessary assumptions. Without empirical evidence, there is a very likely chance that the utilization of Ockham's razor will result in the justification of a false statement. That was my main point. Ockham's razor should be used with caution because it is not a foolproof method for justifying explanations.



Runa216 said:
padib said:
Runa216 said:
I just want to interject here and say you're all understanding Occam's Razor wrong. "The simplest solution is the best" is NOT Occam's razor, that's just lazy. No, the Razor is about making as few assumptions as possible.

God creating everything is simpler to grasp and to understand, but makes many grand assumptions (namely, that God exists, that God cares about us, and that God is omnipotent)

The Big Bang (or whatever other geneis theory you have) makes fewer assumptions because almost all aspects of the theory has scientific backing, so it's not about assumptions, it's about following the evidence.

Occam's Razor is a principle that generally recommends, when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Educate yourself before looking like a tool. Wikipedia (and Google) are both right at your fingertips.

Corrected.

Assumption count = 1.

No..no no no freaking no.  Just because I only CHOSE to list three doesn't mean there are only three assumptions to make.  That, and all of those assumptions are needed.  ASSUMING god exists, he'd still have to care enough to make the world.  Simply existing would not automatically lead to him creating us.  Assuming he existed and cared enough, he'd still have to prove omnipotent to create the universe, since omnipotence means "all powerful".  to create a universe he'd need to be as powerful if not more than the entire universe. Hence all three are required to assume that God created everything. 


God does not need to care about us. For theistic religions, this is true. However, deism doesn't require God to care about us. Although there are probably different types of deism, under the more common forms, God is just required to create the universe (more of a first-cause). God's intentions, love, goodness are irrelevant to deists. In your response, you changed the assumption to caring about the world, which is different from saying he cares about us. Once again, this statement would be true for theistic conceptions of God but would hardly be necessary for a deistic conception of God.

Now, omnipotence and existence are assumptions I would make although I could see a case being made that God does not need to be omnipotent, just very very powerful.



Around the Network

GOD jsut invented time

now to make changes relevant to people,something had to change

evolution didn't itself occur but was relevant to what we did to ourselves like what we ate,where we lived ,etc

also if you look back at time recently then you would understand its a gradual change which we wouldn't even take into concern

but is you look at long term,only then we would understand what evolution means like 1000's of years



GameOver22 said:
Runa216 said:
padib said:
Runa216 said:
I just want to interject here and say you're all understanding Occam's Razor wrong. "The simplest solution is the best" is NOT Occam's razor, that's just lazy. No, the Razor is about making as few assumptions as possible.

God creating everything is simpler to grasp and to understand, but makes many grand assumptions (namely, that God exists, that God cares about us, and that God is omnipotent)

The Big Bang (or whatever other geneis theory you have) makes fewer assumptions because almost all aspects of the theory has scientific backing, so it's not about assumptions, it's about following the evidence.

Occam's Razor is a principle that generally recommends, when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Educate yourself before looking like a tool. Wikipedia (and Google) are both right at your fingertips.

Corrected.

Assumption count = 1.

No..no no no freaking no.  Just because I only CHOSE to list three doesn't mean there are only three assumptions to make.  That, and all of those assumptions are needed.  ASSUMING god exists, he'd still have to care enough to make the world.  Simply existing would not automatically lead to him creating us.  Assuming he existed and cared enough, he'd still have to prove omnipotent to create the universe, since omnipotence means "all powerful".  to create a universe he'd need to be as powerful if not more than the entire universe. Hence all three are required to assume that God created everything. 


God does not need to care about us. For theistic religions, this is true. However, deism doesn't require God to care about us. Although there are probably different types of deism, under the more common forms, God is just required to create the universe (more of a first-cause). God's intentions, love, goodness are irrelevant to deists. In your response, you changed the assumption to caring about the world, which is different from saying he cares about us. Once again, this statement would be true for theistic conceptions of God but would hardly be necessary for a deistic conception of God.

Now, omnipotence and existence are assumptions I would make although I could see a case being made that God does not need to be omnipotent, just very very powerful.

I'm pretty sure that God would just be lazy and not do anything with his omnipotence. Given that we cannot assume that he felt like creating, unless it's understood that he was simply driven to do it. In which case, God would be acting more like science than life. Choice differentiates life and non-life. So, we have to assume that he chose to create, unless God is not alive.

For example, you chose to interpret "care" as "have love and tenderness for", where the writer chose to mean "feel like".



theprof00 said:
GameOver22 said:
Runa216 said:
padib said:
Runa216 said:
I just want to interject here and say you're all understanding Occam's Razor wrong. "The simplest solution is the best" is NOT Occam's razor, that's just lazy. No, the Razor is about making as few assumptions as possible.

God creating everything is simpler to grasp and to understand, but makes many grand assumptions (namely, that God exists, that God cares about us, and that God is omnipotent)

The Big Bang (or whatever other geneis theory you have) makes fewer assumptions because almost all aspects of the theory has scientific backing, so it's not about assumptions, it's about following the evidence.

Occam's Razor is a principle that generally recommends, when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Educate yourself before looking like a tool. Wikipedia (and Google) are both right at your fingertips.

Corrected.

Assumption count = 1.

No..no no no freaking no.  Just because I only CHOSE to list three doesn't mean there are only three assumptions to make.  That, and all of those assumptions are needed.  ASSUMING god exists, he'd still have to care enough to make the world.  Simply existing would not automatically lead to him creating us.  Assuming he existed and cared enough, he'd still have to prove omnipotent to create the universe, since omnipotence means "all powerful".  to create a universe he'd need to be as powerful if not more than the entire universe. Hence all three are required to assume that God created everything. 


God does not need to care about us. For theistic religions, this is true. However, deism doesn't require God to care about us. Although there are probably different types of deism, under the more common forms, God is just required to create the universe (more of a first-cause). God's intentions, love, goodness are irrelevant to deists. In your response, you changed the assumption to caring about the world, which is different from saying he cares about us. Once again, this statement would be true for theistic conceptions of God but would hardly be necessary for a deistic conception of God.

Now, omnipotence and existence are assumptions I would make although I could see a case being made that God does not need to be omnipotent, just very very powerful.

I'm pretty sure that God would just be lazy and not do anything with his omnipotence. Given that we cannot assume that he felt like creating, unless it's understood that he was simply driven to do it. In which case, God would be acting more like science than life. Choice differentiates life and non-life. So, we have to assume that he chose to create, unless God is not alive.

For example, you chose to interpret "care" as "have love and tenderness for", where the writer chose to mean "feel like".


True, good point.



Jay520 said:
spurgeonryan said:
Reasonable said:
spurgeonryan said:
Reasonable said:
NNN2004 said:
its already disapproved many times.


Really.  Got any details because so far as I'm aware evolution has been dispproved... oh zero times.


What is that in your avatar cats mouth? True to what you said about evolution being disprobed zero times. I wonder how many times the religion or alien theory has been disprobed?

lol - it's not easy to speak around a chew stick, as this probes...

What the heck is a chew stick? and it was supposed to say "I wonder how many times ~that~ religion



*puts on detective hat*

I say you have a problem here. Don't worry, I'll get the answer you're looking for.

Using my excellent inference skills due to my PHD in Detectivism, I think I can accurately identify what this 'chew stick' actually is. I can confidently say that this 'chew stick' is some sort of stick, or stick-shaped object, used by animanls or humans for their chewing pleasure.

Don't ask me how I know this, because unless you have a PHD in Detectivism AND an IQ of over 9,000, it would take hours, maybe days, to explain the complexities of what I said. You just have to trust that I am correct due to my vastly superior intellect.

I have an IQ of 8999 so I will just have to guess that someone is putting something in the cats mouth, Looks like a piece of long grass or a straw? or maybe .... I dont know! Damn if only I had that one extra fake point! :P



    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter

spurgeonryan said:
Reasonable said:
NNN2004 said:
its already disapproved many times.


Really.  Got any details because so far as I'm aware evolution has been dispproved... oh zero times.


What is that in your avatar cats mouth? True to what you said about evolution being disprobed zero times. I wonder how many times the religion or alien theory has been disprobed?


This will become the true impossible to answer debate in this thread!



    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter