The new Church

Why do you see them as different? They are the same, except physical explanations of God's actions are easier for infants to comprehend.k

 

K
Not the same.
An arena that allows structures/systems comes first.
Then the stuctures/systems. [say..a god]

As reality is EVERYTHING [the term 'outside reality' is meaningless]
Then to say god came first is contradictory

And occam NOWHERE has spoken of 'gods actions'.
how could he?

Occam

 

i'm not so convinced there is any such thing as an inviolable nature of anything. only that some things happen more often then others and some things happen more often when other things happen first. this neither requires the existence of a god nor the nonexistence of anything.

there are patterns that are observable, otherwise existence would be 'white noise' and we would not. but i see no reason to take anything as inviolable, only self consistent over a longer duration then we have existed or found ways of observing.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Themnax

True..occam never said he 'knew' any of this. Just that it is
less contradictory, given the 'self consistancy over a long duration'
that reality has displayed.
If that consistancy has always been consistant..
Then a thinking being [god] is unlikley to exist 'before' a reality
and it's laws that allow thinking beings to exist [as structures/system]

Occam

 

Absolutely not. None of those concepts are given by sense-data, unassisted by pure reason. Read Berkeley, read Hume, read Kant.

Okay, you've said that already. But you still haven't told me how to choose between two empirically underdetermined theories.

I'm starting to think that you'd like Hume and Kant.

I'm not sure if you're refering to Newton's ideas concerning God or absolute space. As I understand it, Newton was something of a deist. On absolute space, Newton believed in it but realised full-well that the matter was underdetermined.

 

Common Sense

Starting to drift far from the intitial concept of the dogma

Human methods to fact, no matter what they are.
Cannot show at this time that any evidence exists to support
the theory that reality was created.
Nor can any chain of reason/logic do so.

That was the point of this thread, to shift a meme too long accepted
by most without questioning [that reality was created]
To a more suitable status. That of speculation.
Thus giving an 'eternal reality' and a 'created reality' equal status.
The duration of reality [finite or infinite] is indeterminate

Kant..have read 1/2 of critique of pure reason. [& have forgotten it, easy to do with a book so dense]
As to hume.. have read some essays. More interesting than kant,
but thats just personal taste.
Dont elevate any particular philosopher. Just use whatever ideas fit with/in
occams framework/method to understanding. [& personal philosophy]
Have lifted ideas from scores of philosophers,writers and even just
people with common sense

Occam

PS.. yes 'empirical' was wrong term.. you are correct

 

It isn't. God is the foundation of reality, God is what "reality" is built upon, God is the ultimate foundation of all you see.

You spoke of reality.

 

Kharakov

Of course, you can insert your idea of god into reality anyway you wish.
For occam is talking about the duration of reality [finite or infinite]
And that an eternal reality causes some obvious problems for the concept of reality being created by a god.
and just as a note,
your comment 'you see' smacks of a smug arrogant knowing similar to a racist saying
"you see, white people are simply more intelligent"

Yes occam spoke of reality, but not of gods actions.
The parameters finite and infinite are not actions. but qualities.

Occam has stated nothing as fact.
The dogma is a logical foil to lever the preconception that
creation is a fact, to where that idea actually belongs...speculation.

Occam

 

let the delusions disappear! first goes creationism, then time, space, cause and effect.

 

No, God made my ideas of reality and I only do what I am created to do.

You are totally confused Occam, "all you see" means everything you see (like the computer monitor in front of you right now is part of all you see). You take a negative stance to the truth and see things in it that are not there. This is the main reason you (and those like you) do not perceive God.

God's actions are what you call reality.

 

why do you waste your time kharakov?

 

mati

time space and causality are in the set called [observable phenomena]
creationism is in the set called [human speculation]

Occam

 

everything your saying goes back to pythagoreanism.

 

I don't.

 

what is needed then is a way to differentiate between observable phenomena, that which has been observed by humans and is susceptible to misperception... and human speculation. Causality is refined speculation, speculation based on observable phenomena. So maybe then we need to differentiate between speculation based on observable phenomena and that which isn't based on perceptions. But even our perceptions are susceptible to error but at least it lends itself better to documentation and testing ala the scientific method.