Sunday, June 11, 2006
Idiotic comments on Peezee's blog
The following comments are typical of the pseudo-intellectual rabble Peezee tends to attract to his blog (Like flies to a pile of excrement.)
I would go with Ockham's Razor. It is the strongest argument against the existence of God, and the one most often misused by Christians who think "simple" means "easy for an idiot to understand."
I guess you could argue that Ockham's Razor falls under the category of math, since it's sort of a qualitative way of saying you can judge a hypothesis by multipling the probabilities of your assumptions. Either way, I can't see how anyone who properly understands it could possibly believe in God. Atheism would get a big boost.
Plus, I like the irony of an argument against religion named after a devout friar. I guess it was hard to know any better in the 1300s.
Posted by: Troutnut May 20, 2006 12:32 AM
Nonsense. Ockham's Razor is a heuristic device; it does not constitute proof (or disproof) of anything.
I would never question the utility of the community of mathematics, nor the headiness of correct calculation or discovery, but as Wittgenstein communicated - seems so long ago now - math can't touch God.
Precisely. That is the ultimate demonstration of God's nonexistence.
Posted by: Caledonian May 20, 2006 08:43 AM
I wonder if this is the same sophist who used to post to Monte Cook's message board? In any event, as someone with a mathematical background, I can say with confidence that the above comment is completely vacuous (As is the previous comment I cited.) Quite to the contrary, the coherency of mathematics and its amazing applicability to the universe (even when it is developed without an application in mind) speaks to God's existence. That is why the greatest mathematicians have been theists.
|
I would go with Ockham's Razor. It is the strongest argument against the existence of God, and the one most often misused by Christians who think "simple" means "easy for an idiot to understand."
I guess you could argue that Ockham's Razor falls under the category of math, since it's sort of a qualitative way of saying you can judge a hypothesis by multipling the probabilities of your assumptions. Either way, I can't see how anyone who properly understands it could possibly believe in God. Atheism would get a big boost.
Plus, I like the irony of an argument against religion named after a devout friar. I guess it was hard to know any better in the 1300s.
Posted by: Troutnut May 20, 2006 12:32 AM
Nonsense. Ockham's Razor is a heuristic device; it does not constitute proof (or disproof) of anything.
I would never question the utility of the community of mathematics, nor the headiness of correct calculation or discovery, but as Wittgenstein communicated - seems so long ago now - math can't touch God.
Precisely. That is the ultimate demonstration of God's nonexistence.
Posted by: Caledonian May 20, 2006 08:43 AM
I wonder if this is the same sophist who used to post to Monte Cook's message board? In any event, as someone with a mathematical background, I can say with confidence that the above comment is completely vacuous (As is the previous comment I cited.) Quite to the contrary, the coherency of mathematics and its amazing applicability to the universe (even when it is developed without an application in mind) speaks to God's existence. That is why the greatest mathematicians have been theists.
# posted by O'Brien @ 6/11/2006 10:25:00 PM 
