Supernatural vs a Natural Uncaused Caused and Occam Razor

I just read something that I have been thinking about and it deals with a naturalistic view versus a super-naturalistic view of the cause of the universe and Occam Razor. Occam Razor simply means when you have two competing ideas that equally explains an observation go with the one that requires less explanation or the shorter explanation. In both ideas it is believed that the universe has a self-contained uncaused cause; in the naturalistic concept the universe itself is the self-contained uncaused cause while the super-naturalistic concept is a god is the self-contained uncaused cause of the universe, and thus Occam Razor would mean the naturalistic view should be accepted because it is the shorter explanation because of the one additional explanation of god for the theistic view. In other words, naturalism advocates the universe is itself the self-contained uncaused cause; while super-naturalism advocates that a supreme being is the self-contained uncaused cause. Now you have added something that requires an additional explanation: what is a supreme being?, who is the supreme being?, what evidence does god give for this supreme being’s existence? (I refuse to use a gender for god.) In all honesty both view may be false, we simply don‘t know, however I digress one of them is true because if a third alternative is given it would either be natural or supernatural. I too believe that there is an uncaused cause, because you would have to get to a point where there is something that was uncaused or you would have an infinite regression which is meaningless, because you would never explain anything, however using Occam Razor one would lean towards the universe itself being the self-contained uncaused cause because it requires one less step for explanation., therefore I accept the naturalistic point of view.

How do I know it's true?

I don’t believe that what Christianity professes is true, not just Christianity but any religion that make an unproven claim. What do I mean by true? True is something that is a provable or proven fact. Christianity is a faith or is based on faith, it is something that you have to accept on the word of another, but I have a difficult time just blindly accepting someone’s opinion that don’t have any provable evidence to back up it’s claim. How can we prove the tenets of Christianity’s claim? How can I prove that Jesus is sitting at the right hand of his father? As I type this it is almost laughable that people actually believe this, that is, that a god impregnated a virgin in a village in what was a Roman providence in the so-called middle east area that is now called Israel, this semi-divine being walked on earth, did miracles, knew he was going to be killed and he was going to rise three days later, and if you believe this you will be saved from the punishment this semi-divine being‘s father has created for people who don‘t accept this, believe something else, or even perhaps never heard. The reason this semi-divine being did this is because two naked people in a garden ate some fruit that his father had put in a garden and told them not to eat and they ate the fruit after they were convinced by a talking serpent. It is like me as an adult actually believing in Santa Claus and his eight tiny reindeer, without me being mentally ill or handicapped. However, a believer don’t think this is delusional but it actually happened because of a book put together by the Roman Catholic Church, the remnant or what is left of what was the Roman Empire. I can understand how someone can believe in an uncaused cause, an unknown intelligence that is innate in the universe or that is the universe, that caused the big bang or was the big bang, that goes from simplicity to complexity over an infinite amount of time, however, science hypothesizes that this universe will stop evolving and will one day die. This leads me to ask questions about science. How do I know science is true? How do we know the age of the universe? How do we know the age of the earth? How does science come to its conclusions? Why is this significant? Why do science believes that it is right? What happens if science is wrong? These are things which we should think about...

The Big Bang

I often hear apologist, discuss how it is impossible for the universe to have an infinite pass, this is one of the favorite arguments of William Lane Craig's Kalam Argument for the existence of god. Yet he uses the big bang for his argument. However, for there to have been a big bang there must have been something to bang. You cannot bang anything, if there's nothing to bang. Apologist also like to use the second law of thermodynamics, which in a close system energy experience entropy or things gets worse over time. They argue that if energy has existed forever then entropy would have destroyed everything by now. However, the apologist forgets the first law of thermodynamics which states in a close system energy is neither created nor destroyed, it changes from one form to another. If something is created then it comes into existence and did not exist before and if something is destroyed it no longer exist. Therefore if energy is neither created nor destroyed then it is reasonable to conclude that they have always existed, and if something has always existed then it does not have a creator or destroyer or point to something else. Therefore one could argue that energy could have always existed based on the first law of thermodynamics. Think about it....

Pope Benedict (Is-a-dict) goes to Africa!

I am writing about an article I just read on AP (Associated Press) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_re_af/af_pope_africa ) about Pope Benedict 16's first and current trip to Africa. His name should be Is-a-dict. Here is a man, telling Africans who have the highest rates of HIV/AIDS in the world to not use condoms, to use abstinence. Just because the last time he saw a vagina was birth does not mean everyone is cut from the same cookie mold, if it has been proven that condom use reduces the chance of HIV/AIDS infection it should be on the table for the fight against its spread. (please read: http://www.unfpa.org/hiv/programming.htm) If it has not been proven then his argument may have sustenance. Another thing that I disagree with Pope Benedict who is-a-dict is his statement of "the growing influence of superstitious religions". Is he kidding? Catholicism and its offspring of non-Catholic Christianity is not a superstitious religion? Superstitious comes from the word superstition, which is defined as a belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance. (American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition). First, according to Catechism of the Catholic Church about Holy Scripture "107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." " Therefore, if they accept that scripture is without error this means they believe that the earth was created in six literal days; women come from a man's rib; a snake convinced two people to doom humanity, or that a donkey, and a burning bush spoke human language; the entire world was flooded, covering the mountains to drown evil (this included little babies and children, innocent animals that did not get on the because only 2 were allowed); all animals, insects, and reptile species, millions of them, rode on one boat ; language variations stem from the tower of Babel; Moses had a stick that could part a sea or turn into a snake; the Nile turned to blood; that bats are birds; food rained from the sky in the middle of a desert; people were cured by the sight of a brass serpent; the sun stood still to help Joshua win a battle, and it went backward for King Hezekiah; men survived unaided in a fiery furnace; a detached hand floated in the air and wrote on a wall; men followed a star which directed them to a particular house; Mary was a virgin, she had Jesus and became a virgin again; that a cracker and wine turns into the actual body and blood of Jesus; Jesus walked on water unaided; fish and bread magically multiplied to feed the hungry; water instantly turned into wine; mental illness is caused by demons; that their founder, Jesus, died and rose three days later; that dragons, unicorns exist; people were healed by stepping into a pool agitated by angels; a disembodied voice spoke from the sky; Jesus vanished and later materialized from thin air; people were healed by Peter's shadow; angels broke people out of jail; a fiery lake of eternal torment awaits unbelievers under the earth ... while there is life-after-death in a city which is 1,500 miles cubed that will descend to earth and fit in the country of Israel, with mansions and food, for Christians only. If this isn't superstitious what is? This is as we say "the pot calling the kettle black", in other words, it is a superstitious belief system calling another superstitious belief system "superstitious", while thinking it's beliefs are not superstitious, this is bullsh!t. What hypocrisy and arrogance! If any of what I just wrote is based on logic and reason, help me find it. Think about it....

Black Socrates

Faith is not Truth

I think to understand something you need to define it. I think Faith is not truth. Faith means to persuade, it is defined as belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony. Truth comes from the word true which means firmness, moreover, according to Word History: "The words true and tree are joined at the root, etymologically speaking. In Old English, the words looked and sounded much more alike than they do now: "tree" was treow and "true" was treowe. The first of these comes from the Germanic noun *trewam; the second, from the adjective *treuwaz. Both these Germanic words ultimately go back to an Indo-European root *deru- or *dreu-, appearing in derivatives referring to wood and, by extension, firmness. Truth may be thought of as something firm; so too can certain bonds between people, like trust, another derivative of the same root." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from Dictionary dot com website. True is define as conformable to fact; in accordance with the actual state of things; correct; not false, erroneous, inaccurate, or the like; as, a true relation or narration; a true history; a declaration is true when it states the facts. Faith is a declaration that has not yet been proven. When something has been proven it is no longer faith, it becomes a fact or something true. This is why Mark Twain once stated or wrote " Faith is believing what you know ain't so", because it has not been proven true, it could be a prerequisite to truth but it could also be a prerequisite to something false. However, faith is useless if it cannot be testable, that is, I have a hypothesis, I believe or have faith that it is true, when I think of a test for my hypothesis then it moves from faith to something that is true or false. Once proven true others should be able to follow my methods and receive the same results. Faith is not truth and it is useless until it can be proven. I know some would say, that you cannot prove your going to be paid on payday, this is a true statement, they would say I have faith, I would however disagree, because I have a way of proving that I will be paid, if I have access to the accounts balances from which payment is made, I can reach a conclusion. Also, I have pass experiences of being paid and this is another form of evidence. Now compare this to faith on the religious view point, I have been told by others that Jesus is coming, they say if you believe on the Lord Jesus you will be saved, can these statements be proven? What evidence both past and present do they present? Therefore, until they provide a way to test or prove their claim, their claims are useless. Think about it...

Black Socrates

Why Pray?

Why do theist, especially the theist of Abrahamic based religions, which are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, pray? According to the American Heritage Dictionary, God is a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. My argument and conclusions are:

Premise: Most theist conceive of their god as omniscient.
Premise: Omniscient is defined as having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
Inference: God already knows what a theist need, because he perceives all things.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is no need to pray to god for a need, because he knows your need because he perceives all things.

Premise: Believers pray for healing, guidance, and other needs.
Premise: God is omniscient
Inference: God does not hear prayer because he already knows
Conclusion: Therefore, god does not answer prayer.

As a result, when I see believers leaning their heads on the temple walls in Jerusalem, praying prostrated to the east, or standing up with their heads bowed and eyes close, I laugh. I have never heard a Christian (this is the religion of my upbringing) pray, "God I thank you for everything you are doing or about to do, because you already know, amen". I am 40 years old, and I have never, heard an old deacon or a minister or anyone who's leading a group prayer get up and say a prayer like this in my life. Unless, deep down inside they don't believe in an omniscient god, and I think this is really the case, because if you believe in an omniscient god, why pray? Therefore, when I see a believer praying, I must conclude their god is not omniscient. Think about it...

The Elijah Challenge

Yesterday, on my drive home I thought about god and if there is such a being as we humans define him or her, i.e. omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresent. This led me to ask; why does this being with these attributes seems so inept and impotent: I would ask a terrorist, why do you have to act on behalf of your god, why doesn't this being do something himself or herself without the aid of the terrorist, why does a christian need to witness or proselytize on behalf of their god to an unbeliever, the best way to convince a skeptic is by evidence, why doesn't this supernatural being or supreme being do anything to authenticate his or her existence? How is it, that we humans have to act on our god(s) behalf, for example, Joyce Meyers and Creflo Dollar and others Christians have missions to feed, clothe, and built shelters in so-called developing countries, why doesn't their god do it himself to prove to these people that he exist, then his believers can start from that point. Why are there apologist like William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Frank Turok, Norman Geissler, and Lee Strobel? Isn't this proof that their god does not exist, that he cannot prove himself directly, how is it, he always needs a middle man? The Christian will say, god gave us dominion over the earth and he watches over his word, so that it will not come back to him void, in other words, for him to go back on his declaration of giving humanity dominion is something he will not do, and therefore he does not interfere in human affairs, if the so-called death and resurrection of his son Jesus is not the biggest interference in humanity then what is? In other words, We are told that god does not interfere in human affairs but he did in Jesus, isn't this a contradiction. I think religious skeptics should have what I coin, the "Elijah challenge", if the believer's god(s) exist, the believer should be able call down fire from heaven. In 1st Kings 18 Elijah challenged the priest of Baal to prove whose god was the true god. Why don't skeptics challenge the next apologist to a fire calling contest with the believer having to prove their god(s) existence (the unbeliever does not have the burden of proof), this would end the debate. Think about it...