Your thoughts on religion/god/whatever you worship

[Wynken]

Occam's Razor is a pretty weak device. Several centuries ago, we couldn't tell the difference between a world with bacteria and a world without, but, beyond all logic, the stuff remains...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Cydnar]

Continuance of an argument without obvious end of agreement however, is a clear sign that no finality will be found.

Live your life by your own devices, and be content knowing you have lived well.

[Lord Anglekos]

Continuance of an argument without obvious end of agreement however, is a clear sign that no finality will be found.

Live your life by your own devices, and be content knowing you have lived well.

Now this is something I can agree with. Religion is an ultimately pointless matter to discuss, always.

[Rayse Valentino]

Occam's Razor is a pretty weak device. Several centuries ago, we couldn't tell the difference between a world with bacteria and a world without, but, beyond all logic, the stuff remains...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Oh man, you should've used a more vague example, because I got this on lock.

To start, here's another way to state Occam's Razor: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

Remember what the leading theory was before bacteria? A little something called the Four Humors. "Essentially, this theory held that the human body was filled with four basic substances, called four humors, which are in balance when a person is healthy."

So then what happened? Oh right, they discovered bacteria. Now, you had two competing theories. Bacteria was observable through one of them newfangled microscopes, so it definitely existed. The four humors technically existed (blood exists after all), so the question was: Which of these theories was correct? If we apply Occam's Razor, the simplest explanations came overwhelmingly from bacteria. You could keep both to 'teach the controversy' as some suggest we do for creationism, but people back then understood the importance of Occam's Razor, or at least the type of thought that is associated with it.

Another way Occam's Razor is stated is as follows: "Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."

So you can see how this applies to God. It has nothing to do with absence of evidence, but choosing the simplest of the two theories. "If the concept of a God does not help to explain the universe better, then the idea is that atheism should be preferred."

I admit that due to countless interpretations of what your various deities do you for and how they assist the natural world, applying the razor is tricky business, so you can go around it by claiming that believing in God is a leap of faith and that your belief should be independent of reason. I choose not to make this leap of faith for your deity or any of the countless others, if you go that route. Otherwise, I apply the razor.

[Wynken]

When evaluated to their fullest logical extent, I believe you'll find that belief in all things or any things is a leap of faith. But I'm not really interested in starting a debate on skepticism. The point is merely that tossing the word faith into an argument, or using it as a means to denounce a belief system, is helplessly futile if not entirely self defeating.

In any event, you seem to have missed my previous point. Being of course that Occam's Razor really only works in combination with empirical evidence or, in the least, strong inductive/deductive reasoning. It only works when you can actually see or understand what it is you're using it to evaluate. Even then it's not a sound method for actually ascertaining truth. I can't say that, based upon Occam's Razor, the Sun must be a flaming chariot because the tri-alpha process is far more complex. We understand nuclear fusion, and we've seen it take place. Much like the discovery of bacteria, one day we will all witness God, and then there will be no further doubts.

[Rayse Valentino]

Since you've separated your belief in God from the realm of reason and science, you are using your faith alongside the razor. They do not have to be in conflict unless you claim there is evidence of God.

That said, I agree with your last statement. Clearly when your deity reveals himself to us, I will become a fervent believer. Until then, I see no reason to complicate my view of the world.

edit: Also it doesn't take a 'leap of faith' to accept observable evidence but w/e.