Why Religious Apologists Cannot Possibly Win - part 2: The Occam's Razor Objection [audio redone]

Make sure to watch part 1 first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDhmngyAzeA

When applying a razor to the jugular vein of religious apologetics, one will inevitably get into a messy situation.



The alien deception hypothesis is not merely taking the notion of divine revelation but adds in the assumption of deception. Even if it were, that is still no reason why Occam's razor would favor Divine revelation.
Let's imagine that you witness a street magician pulling of an amazing trick to a bystander who has never seen magic tricks. He actually comes to believe that the street magician has actual real magical powers. Now you present him with the notion that it could also have been a trick. And his reply would be that using Occam's razor, real magical abbilities would be favored over a simulation of magical abbilities through deception and trickery. You see the problem with that kind of reasoning?

Some other great related videos:
"Miracles prove nothing" by SisyphusRedeemed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30xTjoJ8YMQ

"More on Miracles" (follow up video) by SisyphusRedeemed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYk03Bi0RFU

"Putting faith in its place" by Qualiasoup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo

Chapter 1 part 2 "epistemology and experience" of my own series "Debating World views"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJMrO79oT8E

Music by Paul Collier

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Atheism
• Religion
• Theism
• God
• prophecy
• science
• Jesus
• evidence
• resurrection
• history
• proof
• miracles
• Naturalism

[KnownNoMore]

@allistera22 ill probably have a new video out next week

[COEXISTential]

Also, isn't one of the measures of intelligence humour? Don't we generally see that the more intelligent a being is the greater the breadth of their humour - which is to say that more intelligent people still like toilet jokes, eg Monty Python, Tim Minchin, etc.

So how can we say that aliens don't make crop circles and then monitor our news feeds to have a chuckle over the ensuing debate?

The assumption seems to be that humans are devious/humorous whilst aliens are not into practical jokes.

[KnownNoMore]

@COEXISTential

You also miss the point here I'm afraid. Its not about whether aliens could be responsible for crop circles, of course they could. The point is that there is no inherent connection between crop circles and aliens. "crop circles -> therefore aliens" is not a logical conclusion

[COEXISTential]

I of course agree that almost any explanation requires less assumption than the theistic one, however there does appear to be a failure in the logic here.

You're effectively using the parting of the Red Sea to prove the existence of Aliens or God - but this is not what happens with such an argument. A Theist goes in "knowing" that God exists, a naturalist goes in assuming that an advanced alien intelligence is probable - each would use Occam's razor on the other. Don't you think?

[KnownNoMore]

@COEXISTential

"You're effectively using the parting of the Red Sea to prove the existence of Aliens or God"

No no, you're missing the point. My points is not that the parting of the red sea would prove either aliens or God. My point is that of two possible explanations: aliens or God, the alien explanation is based on less assumptions and comes very close to just the bare minimum of attributes required for such an event. Thats my point.

[JohananRaatz]

@M3PanoS I see. Yes, he would be outside of our physical universe. I just mentioned that, to make the idea more palatable for atheists, and to show that the Omega Point God can be understood in terms of something we can conceive of. I sometimes also draw a line between natural and physical. It's mostly semantics however.

[M3PanoS]

@JohananRaatz "The catch: The Omega Point actually is God -albeit a naturalistic God."

At that point why call God naturalistic? If the universe we live in is the natural world, and the universe that the person who controls us lives in is their natural world and so on and so forth then I think calling this Omega Point God naturalistic is misleading because the universe in which He exists is not natural for us. Also, would that make heaven your natural world if you're living there?

[M3PanoS]

@Mectrixctic Intelligence > Knowledge when it comes to truth.

[COEXISTential]

@KnownNoMore I didn't realise I was, but yes. Although I'm talking about the point of view that many take without realising that they're being presuppositionalist and aren't even really apologists.

I look forward to part 5 (as well as 3 & 4 :D ).

[KnownNoMore]

@COEXISTential

I think you are talking about presuppositionalism arent you? Well if you take a presuppositional approach in which you start with Christianity as God's revelation, then yes the whole alien argument becomes mute. But I address the presuppositional approach in part 5

[JohananRaatz]

@KnownNoMore Oh I see. Yeah said God wouldn't be strictly "supernatural" -although if it is encoded in the spin-foam space-time emerges from it could be thought of as "super-physical."

I dunno. I know that many religious scientists entertain these kinds ideas privately -Frank Tipler's with his "Physics of Christianity" book would probably be the best example of this.

(To be honest I do too though my views are a little more complex than just the Omega Point idea alone.)

[COEXISTential]

@COEXISTential Think of it this way: both parties agree that the Red Sea exists, both parties agree that there was a man called Moses (actually a supposition, but I digress).

So the basics of the argument are agreed.

But a theist "knows" God exists and argues FROM that point of view - not TOWARD it. Whereas you argue both from and toward the possibility that Aliens not only exist but are a better answer to the question of whether the Red Sea was parted... BECAUSE you don't believe in God.

[COEXISTential]

@COEXISTential Sorry, this is hard to get into 500 characters. A religious person arguing from the context of their knowledge of God takes it for granted that God exists so they're not going to include God as one of the elements to be pared away by Occam's Razor. The belief (or otherwise) in God is more fundamental than that. Your example could form part of an argument against God but it isn't such, in and of itself, for a theist. For an atheist, such as me, it is, but I was already convinced.

[COEXISTential]

@KnownNoMore No, I'm not missing the point. You're assuming that the assumption is made as part of the argument for or against the parting of the Red Sea, I'm pointing out that as the "knowledge of God" is brought to bear on the argument not as an element but as a pre-supposition that has nothing to do with the question. It would be equivalent to me saying that I will be making my points in Dutch, not English, today, even though English is all I speak.