Timeline for Evil God Challenge: What if an evil god is just trolling humanity and that explains why there's good in the world?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| yesterday | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | @GraySheep I can assure you that you are at least 50% correct, which is about the level of a monkey hitting the keyboard. ;-) | |
| 2 days ago | comment | added | Gray Sheep | I think you are an evil German, Peter. | |
| 2 days ago | comment | added | AmagicalFishy | On the other hand, if you try to apply Occam's Razor to the Evil-God and Benevolent-God worlds, the obvious question is: Why would one be a "simpler" explanation than the other? Either way, regardless of my opinion of the question, Occam's Razor isn't an answer. | |
| 2 days ago | comment | added | AmagicalFishy | @Peter-ReinstateMonica Yes, specifically in the sentence: "Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed 'theoretical scrutiny' tests and are equally well-supported by evidence." By using Occam's Razor here, you must be implying that the Evil-God and No-God worlds are both equally well supported by evidence. That's what you meant, correct? Or was it just a lazy attempt to legitimize disparaging religion as "essentially paranoid"? | |
| 2 days ago | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | @AmagicalFishy I believe I heard "evidence" somewhere? | |
| 2 days ago | comment | added | AmagicalFishy | @Peter-ReinstateMonica i.e. - Assumptions about the existence of an evil trolling god that rules the universe or whatever aren't dismissed by a mere invocation of Occam's Razor. If you believe the "simpler" explanation of existence is absent of a god or whatever other entity [which you seem to], and the OP doesn't [which they seem not to], then you're at an impasse. | |
| 2 days ago | comment | added | AmagicalFishy | @Peter-ReinstateMonica Occam's Razor is a philosophical heuristic—not an answer to the question. A religious person using Occam's Razor comes to different conclusions than does an Atheist using it. A quote taken from Wikipedia: "Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may. Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed 'theoretical scrutiny' tests and are equally well-supported by evidence." | |
| Jul 4 at 19:26 | comment | added | Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine | The core of this answer is absolutely on point — but it’s let down by the sideswipe “…like all religions…”, which is a huge and unnecessary distraction, as the comments are showing. There are plenty of pro-theistic arguments that are much more sophisticated than this question, and can’t be demolished quite so briefly. (I’m not religious myself, but recognise that some pro-god arguments are easier to dismiss than others.) | |
| Jul 3 at 19:40 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | @AmagicalFishy In my opinion, the level of thought exposed by the answer corresponds to the level of thought exposed by the question.-- Can you elaborate why and how you find the principle of Occam's razor arbitrary -- generally and specifically? I find it enormously helpful in general and cannot see here specifically how the idea to explain the workings of the world from (known) first principles is not superior to telling an extrinsic story on top. | |
| Jul 3 at 16:52 | comment | added | AmagicalFishy | Er... I assume, from this post, that you don't like religion, but merely stating "Occam's Razor" isn't really an answer to... anything. I think this is a pretty low-effort answer. Occam's Razor isn't some philosophical axiom that you can invoke whenever something conflicts with your prior assumptions. | |
| Jul 3 at 14:32 | comment | added | Fabius Wiesner | @Peter I am not very knowleadgeable, but assuming Wikipedia is well written and not biased, in the "Faith and reason" paragraph of William of Ockham page, he seemed to separate science (even science of 1300) from religion, very modern to my eyes (although I am probably biased), anyway centuries before others. | |
| Jul 3 at 13:48 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | @FabiusWiesner I didn't want to complicate a simple argument so I didn't add that tangent to my post but: In pre-historic times, imagining an animated nature is probably a very reasonable thing to do. With growing knowledge, Occam's razor led to monotheism (why would every well have its own fairy if He simply created all water and the laws that govern it!?). In Occam's time, a single creator was the best and simplest explanation with the fewest variables. (Paradoxically, it was the only thing he found necessary!). That has only changed with modern science. Occam was a genius -- in the 1300s. | |
| Jul 3 at 13:09 | comment | added | Fabius Wiesner | Although Occam himself was a theologian, so either he didn't apply the razor rule to the argument, or he applied it in a way different from yours. | |
| Jul 2 at 13:38 | history | answered | Peter - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |