Is belief in spiritual or supernatural entities a sign of mental weakness or illness?

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This misunderstanding is probably where your misapplication stems from.

Misunderstanding or misapplication is probably not involved on my part.  Here is the definition and some of my papers relating to Occam's Razor

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Occam's razor

http://www.pantheory.org/

https://papers.pantheory.org/

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/18af/86eb09dbf86df826906392e2eb4c9f876d8d.pdf

https://www.pantheory.org/Technical-Papers.pdf

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&citation_for_view=7ONCj-kAAAAJ:d1gkVwhDpl0C

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2011/05/occams_razor_wh.html

“Occam's razor is an oft-cited principle which holds that simpler explanations, all things being equal, are usually better than more complex ones.”

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

double post

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm not a comparative religion person, but I expect a trinity is not unique to Christianity.  So I will go with another.  How about when Moses glowed after being in the presence of God.  The pattern I'd like to submit is ICP-OES.  Burning bush, God's presence....Moses glowed.  

 

I realize that, Ed.

 

But if you want to gain an insight into why we are so sceptical of your claims you will try and see this from our p.o.v.  To us, all of your claims are no better than the ones that Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and others make about connections between science and their holy books.  So, until you can cite something that specifically identifies Jesus as the one true god, we will treat your claims in exactly the same way as we would treat the claims made by these people of other faiths.  This is equal opportunity scepticism on our part.

 

As  a first step in bridging the gap of understanding between us, let me ask you these two questions.

 

Do you accept that Muslims, Sikhs and others can make just as good claims for connections between science and their holy books as you can?

 

Do you accept that they feel and see these connections just as strongly as you do?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

16 hours ago, pantheory said:

All else being equal, the simpler answer to explain reality is always the better answer of several choices.

 

9 hours ago, pantheory said:

Misunderstanding or misapplication is probably not involved on my part.  Here is the definition and some of my papers relating to Occam's Razor

 

“Occam's razor is an oft-cited principle which holds that simpler explanations, all things being equal, are usually better than more complex ones.”

 

 

No.  See how you have changed your description?  You started out by saying the the simpler answer is always the better answer, which is not accurate; then you changed it to simpler explanations are usually better ones, which is also not accurate.

 

 

13 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

The basis of Occam's Razor is when given a choice of two possible answers to a problem, the simpler answer is the better answer, all else being equal -- with no guarantees that either answer is correct. 

No.  It is not.  The basis of Occam's Razor is pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, which literally translates to, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.”  What this means is that as we attempt to form an explanation for something, we need to examine each individual complexity (or plurality, as William of Okham put it) in order to see if a) that complexity has merit of itself and b) that complexity is necessary for the overall explanation to be accurate.  If it has merit, and is necessary for the overall explanation, then we leave it in the explanation.  If it either does not have merit, or does not add anything to the explanation, then we throw it out.

 

There are three kinds of explanations: Papa Bears, which are too complex, Mama Bears, which are too simple, and Baby Bears... just right.  And Occam's Razor is the device we use to get to the Baby Bear explanations.  

 

Occam's Razor is not about finding the simplest explanation; it is about finding the most accurate one.  So, yes, you did misunderstand and you did misapply.  Because you are attempting merely to cite Occam's Razor as an excuse to oversimplify, which it is not meant to do.  Changing your description isn't going to change that; but better understanding can change it going forward.

[Edgarcito]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I realize that, Ed.

 

But if you want to gain an insight into why we are so sceptical of your claims you will try and see this from our p.o.v.  To us, all of your claims are no better than the ones that Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and others make about connections between science and their holy books.  So, until you can cite something that specifically identifies Jesus as the one true god, we will treat your claims in exactly the same way as we would treat the claims made by these people of other faiths.  This is equal opportunity scepticism on our part.

 

As  a first step in bridging the gap of understanding between us, let me ask you these two questions.

 

Do you accept that Muslims, Sikhs and others can make just as good claims for connections between science and their holy books as you can?

 

Do you accept that they feel and see these connections just as strongly as you do?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

No, bullshit Walter, let's address the example I gave first.  Quit asking more questions and let's look at what's on the plate.

 

Thx.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

No, bullshit Walter, let's address the example I gave first.  Quit asking more questions and let's look at what's on the plate.

 

Thx.

 

What I've described to you isn't bullshit, Ed.

 

It's the standard position that all sceptics adopt in the face of many, apparently equal, claims by people of many religions.  All of them claiming that the scientific evidence shows that only their god is the true one.  You would come to appreciate and understand this is our position, if you attempted to answer my questions.  Or, if you have already realized that you have no better case than any of those others, you might refuse to answer them. 

 

13 hours ago you said that you were not a comparative religion person.  However, we sceptics are comparative religion people.  Which is why, 19 hours ago, I asked you if you could break the deadlock and present any scientific evidence that specifically identifies only your god.  

 

But now you are asking me to shift from my chosen position and look at your example on your terms.

 

So, now that I've explained what my position is and why I hold it, could you please tell me why I must shift from it and do things the way you want?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

What I've described to you isn't bullshit, Ed.

 

It's the standard position that all sceptics adopt in the face of many, apparently equal, claims by people of many religions.  All of them claiming that the scientific evidence shows that only their god is the true one.  You would come to appreciate and understand this is our position, if you attempted to answer my questions.  Or, if you have already realized that you have no better case than any of those others, you might refuse to answer them. 

 

13 hours ago you said that you were not a comparative religion person.  However, we sceptics are comparative religion people.  Which is why, 19 hours ago, I asked you if you could break the deadlock and present any scientific evidence that specifically identifies only your god.  

 

But now you are asking me to shift from my chosen position and look at your example on your terms.

 

So, now that I've explained what my position is and why I hold it, could you please tell me why I must shift from it and do things the way you want?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

I have already admitted I am not a comparative religion person.  That's exactly why I didn't use the trinity example.  Then you or someone please tell me if someone else's god "shone like the sun" and I'll find another example.  Specifically JESUS shone like the sun....much like the brightness of an argon plasma....

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

I have already admitted I am not a comparative religion person.  That's exactly why I didn't use the trinity example.  Then you or someone please tell me if someone else's god "shone like the sun" and I'll find another example.  Specifically JESUS shone like the sun....much like the brightness of an argon plasma....

 

I understand that you aren't, Ed.

 

And this is the very core of the problem.

 

As sceptics we cannot start a discussion from the position that your claims are better than anyone else's.

 

Which brings me back to my question.

 

Can you please tell me why we should?

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I understand that you aren't, Ed.

 

And this is the very core of the problem.

 

As sceptics we cannot start a discussion from the position that your claims are better than anyone else's.

 

Which brings me back to my question.

 

Can you please tell me why we should?

 

 

 

 

Because you asked for a specific example that was unique to Christianity.  I've admitted that I am unaware whether someone else's god shines.  I am leaving that up to YOU to describe because you DO make the claim to have comparative religious knowledge.  Otherwise, you need to address the example cited.

 

Thx.

[walterpthefirst]

14 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Because you asked for a specific example that was unique to Christianity.  I've admitted that I am unaware whether someone else's god shines.  I am leaving that up to YOU to describe because you DO make the claim to have comparative religious knowledge.  Otherwise, you need to address the example cited.

 

Thx.

 

If you are referring to this...

 

So, can you break the deadlock and cite any scientific evidence that specifically identifies your chosen god?

 

...then you will see that your chosen example doesn't make the cut.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_deity

 

There are many gods that shine.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

 

 

No.  See how you have changed your description?  You started out by saying the the simpler answer is always the better answer, which is not accurate; then you changed it to simpler explanations are usually better ones, which is also not accurate.

 

 

No.  It is not.  The basis of Occam's Razor is pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, which literally translates to, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.”  What this means is that as we attempt to form an explanation for something, we need to examine each individual complexity (or plurality, as William of Okham put it) in order to see if a) that complexity has merit of itself and b) that complexity is necessary for the overall explanation to be accurate.  If it has merit, and is necessary for the overall explanation, then we leave it in the explanation.  If it either does not have merit, or does not add anything to the explanation, then we throw it out.

 

There are three kinds of explanations: Papa Bears, which are too complex, Mama Bears, which are too simple, and Baby Bears... just right.  And Occam's Razor is the device we use to get to the Baby Bear explanations.  

 

Occam's Razor is not about finding the simplest explanation; it is about finding the most accurate one.  So, yes, you did misunderstand and you did misapply.  Because you are attempting merely to cite Occam's Razor as an excuse to oversimplify, which it is not meant to do.  Changing your description isn't going to change that; but better understanding can change it going forward.

 

Prof., If you want to discuss this subject further PM me. I will start the topic Occam's Razor here. I don't want to continue off topic, which I've already said.

 

regards,  pantheory

[TheRedneckProfessor]

42 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Then you or someone please tell me if someone else's god "shone like the sun" and I'll find another example.  Specifically JESUS shone like the sun....much like the brightness of an argon plasma....

The Buddha did:

 

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_1lbud.htm

[walterpthefirst]

This might be of some help to you, Edgarcito.

 

 

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

 

 

To make a successful case in the forum Ed, you need to understand not only your own thinking, but ours as well.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

20 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

This might be of some help to you, Edgarcito.

 

 

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

 

 

To make a successful case in the forum Ed, you need to understand not only your own thinking, but ours as well.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

No sweat, although the pattern fits well, let's go back to water/spirit purification.  Moses used a staff of wood to purify water (spirit) in the desert.  Jesus used the Cross.  Water purification today is done through cellulose membranes.  And the Bible makes a direct comparison to water and Spirit.  Whether it be osmosis or reverse osmosis, here's another example of science in the Bible.....and the Bible came first.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Dude, didn't we already thoroughly debunk your holy ghost osmosis idea a few months ago?

[Edgarcito]

6 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Dude, didn't we already thoroughly debunk your holy ghost osmosis idea a few months ago?

No you didn't.

[Edgarcito]

[Edgarcito]

Look at the diagram....you can see the entire history of humanity and Christianity in the picture.  And in the end, via pressure, some go through, most don't....also, per the diagram.  Jesus on the Cross being the membrane.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No you didn't.

I'm pretty sure we did, in the following thread:

 

 

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm pretty sure we did, in the following thread:

 

 

I remember the discussion.  I don't remember anyone debunking anything.  We are talking patterns now.  This pattern is very very very close to the Bible.  I can explain the diagram to you if you would like as I see it.  I'll give you a hint.  The adding of the sugar is kind of like where God added humanity in Genesis....He thought he was adding sugar, lol, ....little did He know.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I can explain the diagram to you if you would like as I see it.

That won't be necessary.  I understand the analogy.

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

That won't be necessary.  I understand the analogy.

Thank you, I'll stop.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

No sweat, although the pattern fits well, let's go back to water/spirit purification.  Moses used a staff of wood to purify water (spirit) in the desert.  Jesus used the Cross.  Water purification today is done through cellulose membranes.  And the Bible makes a direct comparison to water and Spirit.  Whether it be osmosis or reverse osmosis, here's another example of science in the Bible.....and the Bible came first.

 

Not quite, Edgarcito.

 

There's no doubt that science look for patterns.  These patterns are then checked and tested to see if they are real.  When this can't be done in real time we can use forensic science to discover what (most likely) happened in the past.  But unless you can show how your biblical examples can be forensically tested, all you have is an untested pattern.

 

The finding and fitting of patterns in of itself does not qualify as bona fide science because no testing or checking has been done.  And the scientific method requires that these things be done.  As you must already know, because of your work.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Here you are, Ed.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

Your finding and fitting of patterns covers two (or possibly three) stages of the process.

 

Let's be generous and say three.

 

OBSERVATION / QUESTION

RESEARCH TOPIC AREA

HYPOTHESIS

 

But the following three are necessary to fulfil the process of the scientific method.

 

TEST WITH EXPERIMENT

ANALYZE DATA

REPORT CONCLUSIONS

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

Remarkably, even in this same thread, we have discussed the inability of science to adequate define.....and that's what you're going with?  I thought we were discussing patterns, the recognition process only.  

 

Come on Walter, rally the troops, you can do this.