Open source and theology

[Dracice]

+1 lol

[SolomonDean]

And just one more thing. If I was to implement Occams razor when discussing the possibility of a all powerful god that we must worship etc... The only conclusion I can come to theoretically using that posit is there is no god and that its been aliens all this time. Call me crazy like I call people that worship something that does not exist crazy. Bah....all Naïve diversification unfortunately. The only real sin is believing in something without facts. Science does not need a god.

[Syd_Vicious]

Originally Posted by w_larsen

i allways found occams razor to be sligtly funny, because of empirical unverifiability of most things that's assumed to be true.

following isnt to be taken too seriously:

according to occams razor, wich of these are true?
a)light years away, there are huge balls of burning gass as result of universes singularity, wich at some point lost its stability for reasons not yet fully explained, and exploded making some regions more uneven than others. in result we see light traveling from things we call stars.

b) every night fairies light up little latterns. we call them stars.

That is easy you wouldn't choose b) because that would be the invention of a whole new system of life forms, that goes against Occam's Razors principle of unnecessary plurality. You already identify in a) things that are already common on the planet and there for easier to believe being simpler than the mental invention of additional complex life forms that exist beyond our atmosphere that turn on the night time lights. I think you just want to believe in fairies

The important thing though is kinda what Dean brought up, its not meant to justify a scientific answer its just a guiding principle.

Schrodinger's cat is also a form of argument used to come to a conclusion, following something to the point that it is reduced to the absurd. We can take Schrodinger's cat for a walk in this circumstance as well. He puts the cat in an airtight box according to his argument, so after 5 minutes the cat is dead anyways - bye bye Schrodinger's cat Also the observer, if viewing a dead cat through the arguments means, has been both been afflicted by the poison and radiation. So if the observer doesn't live, was the cat alive in the first place to a secondary observer or is Scrodinger just a crazy person playing with poison, radiation and a dead cat? Of course all these type things that deal with thought experiments are fallible. The good thing about being fallible is that it helps to drive opposing solutions and further studies within a field, just look at Maxwell's Demon for an example.

If you want to see a movie example of Schrodinger's Cat through the eyes of the quantum suicide machine, see Jet Li's One.

Inline with the OP this person believes in a deity having influence to combat what they view as evil corporations using open source development:

Occam's Razor: argument is adding additional elements that are not necessary for this event to occur: unnecessary element = deity

Hoyle's Fallacy: evil Microsoft exists so good open source spontaneously generated, thereby there is a deity and he supports open source.

Russell's Teapot: this person likely grew up believing that the deity combats evil through influence of various people and that people could be influenced by evil to combat the deity. If they had not grown up this way they may see themselves as being crazy looking through these different eyes.

Schrodinger's Cat: The deity is locked in an airtight box and is either alive or dead based upon the observer. Whether the deity influenced open source or not according to this model the answer is yes or no dependent upon the observer. (quantum theory arguments are not always helpful in this sense )

[Mattdoesrock]

Originally Posted by Syd_Vicious

Look at Occam's Razor, Hoyle's Fallacy, and Russell's Teapot if you want to guess where I stand on that person's statement

You forgot Seward's Folly.

[DkySven]

The cat Schrödinger puts in the box is a system in itself, so you could say that already forces the atom causing the gas to release to get out of superposition.

And I love Occam's Razor.

[Arafails]

The results of Schroedinger's experiment is always the same. Often the nurse at emergency is amazed by the amount of blood loss. The moral of the story is: Don't try it with a tiger.

Solomon, do you have actual evidence of the nonexistence of external entities, such as a god or gods? I bet you don't.

[SolomonDean]

Originally Posted by Arafails

The results of Schroedinger's experiment is always the same. Often the nurse at emergency is amazed by the amount of blood loss. The moral of the story is: Don't try it with a tiger.

Solomon, do you have actual evidence of the nonexistence of external entities, such as a god or gods? I bet you don't.

Sigh you people....Ok here goes.

There is a test, based on the ontological evidence against god, that you can do to try the existence of god. Pray, and ask god to provide you with a clear proof for his existence within a week. After that week, if you have got a proof that god exists, send me the evidence. If not, there are only three reasons I can think of that are plausible: (1) God does not exist, (2) God does not want to or (3) God can't give you this evidence. Because of the ontological evidence, alternative (2) and (3) are not worth your worship and thus they equal alternative (1). So if you get no response there is no god.

[Arafails]

That test post has two possible results, yes or maybe. You post three possible reasons for no response, so you even admit that the results are probably inconclusive. You don't have evidence.
Also, you missed the option that you don't actually want proof of your deity, even if you think you do, and they understand that. Can you imagine the effect on a person, having spent their life searching for their god or gods, of actually finding them?

[SolomonDean]

Originally Posted by Arafails

That test post has two possible results, yes or maybe. You post three possible reasons for no response, so you even admit that the results are probably inconclusive. You don't have evidence.
Also, you missed the option that you don't actually want proof of your deity, even if you think you do, and they understand that. Can you imagine the effect on a person, having spent their life searching for their god or gods, of actually finding them?

Fact Vs Belief never works out dealing with mundanes. If you cant see Religion is the single biggest reason of wholesale slaughter of countless Billions over the years then what can I say. Regardless if there is a .000000000000000000001% there is a god. I would make it my personal duty to overthrow him. Although I personally blame us for creating a god as an excuse to do whatever we want in his name. God is a scapegoat for irresponsibility, apathy and ignoring FACTS.


I am disappointed you didn't except the test in my last post as it was indented you just twisted it up and tossed it back at me like a true Believer. I rest my case.

[Arafails]

Originally Posted by SolomonDean

I am disappointed you didn't except the test in my last post as it was indented you just twisted it up and tossed it back at me like a true Believer. I rest my case.

throw new Exception("Test is not correctly indented");

Happy?

I mean, I guess you're not. You don't even understand what you're saying, and you're clearing getting very upset about it. I suggest you stop being an evangelistic atheist, it rarely works out well.