🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <h%7pd.181407$df2.125158@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>news:RnUod.15328$l65.11153@clgrps13...
>> In article <PaSod.319584$%k.59888@pd7tw2no>, CalgaryBill@shaw.ca says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"SilverStar" <you.dont.get@it.com> wrote in message
>> >news:hGQod.309646$Pl.266071@pd7tw1no...
>> >> Helper Monkey Assault Squad 7 wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:40:51 GMT, DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com
>> >> > (Danie|_ Swan) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>>>No, faith is belief in something without proof.  Since proof
>> >doesn't exist
>> >> >>>>faith can be based on a hunch, a "gut feeling", or highly
>> >developed tools of
>> >> >>>>reasoning.  Personally, I choose the latter to build my faith on.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Ok. I'll bite. How do your highly developed tools of
>> >> >>>reasoning lead you to believe in God?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>They don't, they've led me to atheism.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh well, so much for that argument.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, and it's still just a belief. A blind leap of faith, choosing to
>> >> ignore any possible evidence that may show up to the contrary. The
>> >
>> >Bullshit.  An atheist is reasonably likely to accept evidence ...
>> >measurable, reproducible events would allow many atheists and agnostics
>> >to re-evaluate.  Then apply Occam's razor to such evidence ... if the
>> >scientific method could not debunk such evidence, I'd certainly
>> >reconsider.  Unfortunately, no such evidence has arisen during the
>> >entire history of mankind.
>> >
>>
>
>No more than a theist is likely to accept evidence that is measurable and
>reproduceable.  Sufficient evidence is a very subjective thing.  For some
>theists and atheists only absolute certainly would do.  For others, a
>reasonable indication would do.  For others, no amount of evidence will do.
>

Hey at least you're learning from me while pouting, eh?



>> Occam's razor is not the scientific method, it is form of methodological
>> reductionism called 'parsimony' which can be used to compliment the
>scientific
>> method in judging hypothesis.  Parsimony can be used to evaluate data
>generated
>> by scientific inquiry but it's usefulness is somewhat restricted - your
>idea of
>> what the 'least complicated explaination' is and mine are subject to bias,
>so
>> it's impossible to determine objectively what is 'least complicated'.
>Occam's
>> razor is often misapplied by those seeking confirmation for theories that
>are
>> only the 'simplest' in the sense that they are the stupidest.  To many
>people,
>> the application of Occam's razor confirms God's existence.
>>
>>
>
>