AJ/QUOTE..<<>.Actually, they're not.
The theistic default position violates Occam's Razor.>>

love the way..you dont explain..how it relates..TO OC
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=occam's+razor+examples&i

..<<>.Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose two explanations are equally likely. In this case the simpler one is usually better.>>

not which is more true
nor which more scientific
nor more commonly held/and other thesis*

nothing relates//to the point..and yoUR REPLY
under occums razer..this indicates..you got nuthin/specificly

lets test the shultz-theory..[of nothing]

<<I wasn’t necessarily targeting..you specifically.>.

true..but irrelivant..to topic

<<..I was pre-empting a form of argument >>

now the arguement..isnt linked to
nor explained/under oc*..=nuthin

<<..Well, there are certain things..such as water running downhill that I would consider pretty worldview-independent>>

YEp..but that by oc*=..noT A REAL LOT

<<>.(and there’s no reason why anything that could qualify as a god couldn’t make themselves that self-evident).>>

GREAT..FINALY..NO REASON WHY..YEP CORRECT
BUT HANGON..DO KIDS CHANGE BEHAVIOUR..if dad is in the room

OK
NOT occums raiser..its disputable
there are endless testiments..that god does..MAKE HIMSELF SELF EVIDENT

OC8/refited/needs more info
BETTER GNOSIS

<<..that’s why I showed you how..we can still make a determination of what is reasonable to accept and what is not,..even if we really are so trapped by our worldviews.>>

YEP
THE IMAGE..of a shot foot..comes to mind
there Is no god..because..we can..MAKE*..A Determination*..[of what is reasonable*

and what is unreasonable..
[SIMPLY BASED ON..WHATs more likely]..NOT TRUE*.

IS IT MORE LIKELY A MAN WITH A GUN..
WILL ..a]..have a gun...[or B]..kill someone/]

LETS EXAMINE..THE DEAD..cant own nuthin..cause THEY GOT DEAD
DEAD CAnt own nuthin..[but wait..patent LAW..extends the right to own..LONG AFTER..'DEAD'..ah but then they CAN OCCUPY BY SPIRIT POSSESSION..and confound the foolish..and wise alike.

ok i think a]
clearly to have posesion/means he lives

[i know its nonsense..but rubbish in..rubbish out
give me facts..just truths..or that you believe=true[FOR YOU]

ok..for you=its not important
unless your unsure..see a previous quote/..of pericules?]

occams RULE=nothing.

Nonsense, Trav.

>>Pericles, your analogy fails because it still smuggles in the assumption that there is a neutral worldview.<<

Where exactly is this assumption "smuggled in", pray tell?

I assume you are referring to the space capsule analogy. The default position is ignorance. No need for justification. And you can enter the module with any worldview you like, and the result is the same. You can even believe the moon is made of green cheese, that will not have an impact on your default position concerning the space capsule.

(Although if you did eventually find yourself on the moon, your worldview might be severely tested...)

>>I see no reason to accept that there is a neutral set of metaphysics, or a neutral philosophy of life.<<

Nor I. It requires a level of education, or at least the ability to hear and see, before you would be able to establish your metaphysical or philosophical starting point. But whichever way you polish it, if you started that journey without a belief in a Christian God, you would also end the journey without such a belief.

Unless, of course, along the way you were introduced to the Bible. In which case, you might choose to go down that path. But without it, you wouldn't be able to reach the same point, would you.

And this is an interesting statistic.

>>99.5% or more of self described Atheists in Western countries do in fact believe that the cosmos is all there is<<

I think that might be an invented number, Trav.

Now, if you had said that 100% of atheists believe that this life is all they have, I would readily believe you.

AJ Philips,

>>Actually, they're not. The theistic default position violates Occam's Razor. <<

You have a point here, although my “yes” did not include the theist position but referred to the alternatives as you clearly put them:

(a) that there is Something beyond the physical, and
(b) that the physical world is all that exists.

The theist position is (a) PLUS belief in the existence (as that Something or within it) of God who communicates with us both ways.

You are right that the Occam’s Razor principle can be seen as a strong argument in favour of (b). And - answering your objection to Trav - disbelief in (a) necessitates (b) and vice versa, since they are formulated as propositions A and non A.

From Wikipedia: "(Occam’s Razor principle) states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced."

So this principle depends essentially on whether there arise circumstances that could prevail over this simplicity. Newtonian physics was certainly simpler than what we have now but its simplicity had to be “traded for greater explanatory power” because of new empirical facts.

In case of (a) vs (b) there are no such empirical (i.e. verifiable or falsifiable by science) facts that would compel me, for instance, to “trade in simplicity”: The “greater explanatory power” comes from outside natural science (history, psychology, sociology etc) AND my personal life experience, not from what I know about natural science.

Again, thanks for making me try to better articulate my beliefs/thoughts.

Pericles,

>>if you started that journey without a belief in a Christian God, you would also end the journey without such a belief.<<

This might be true if by “journey” you mean reasoning in a theist-atheist debate, not in real life. People who were brought up as atheists and became Christian converts are a legion, not only in former Communist countries, although admittedly not as many as those who went the other way around. Actually, adult converts tend to be the more sincere Christians, sometimes even too zealous and “conservative”.

george/quote..,,<<..adult converts tend to be the more sincere Christians, sometimes even too zealous and “conservative”...>>

FOR BALANCE..its more true..without..the classifier..'Christians'

adult converts tend to be the more sincere ,as they have seen the issues/problems..and went looking..for a truth/that explains thing..

they..[we]..tend tO LOOK DEEPER..get involved by testing things themselves..unlike those force fed the cure..by parentals..desperate to guide their loved ones..upon a safer path..FOR LIVING.

sometimes these parents [and mature converts]....ARE even too zealous and “conservative”...FOR THOSE NOT SIMULARILY MOTIVATED...[thus creating the karma..of fallen away children]..that then become their anti-thesis.

some find god
only to loose their kids..[thats why we have the simple kiddy versions]..kids should be forbidden..knowing..till they ask/then like the santa scaM..GIVE EM THE TRUTH..god loves you/god is looking after your puppy..now.

as adults allow the full truth..of how we together trad many wrong paths..to now see the right path=..is by love of other/that..ye do to the least..ye did to god.

thing is god is person-ALL..one to oNE
LET THE KIDS KNOW GOD MAKES THEIR BODY/LIVE..THATS IT.
TEACH THEM THE FORMULA..NOT THE MATH.

where life is there is god..
[love grace mercy..sustaining OUR LIVING
VIA HIS LIGHT..THAT..sustains US OUR LIFE..that we reveal/HIS WILL..IS OUR DE-LIGHT...that his will is we find love..via giving grace mercy..we show we 'get it'.

That's not at all where I was coming from, George.

>>This might be true if by “journey” you mean reasoning in a theist-atheist debate<<

I meant, quite simply, that you cannot arrive at Christianity from first principles. To reiterate:

>>...if you started that journey without a belief in a Christian God, you would also end the journey without such a belief. Unless, of course, along the way you were introduced to the Bible.<<

And this only underlines my point for me...

>>People who were brought up as atheists and became Christian converts are a legion<<

Quite. They were "converted". They did not apply their own reasoning to the question "is there a God, and if so, what would one look like". So my position stands - that without intervention no-one could reach a position that "there must have been this guy called Jesus", which - I am making just the tiniest of assumptions here - is the fundamental starting-point of being a Christian. As you yourself said:

>>The Bible is about what God said, did, etc, no arguments for His existence. That is tacitly assumed.<<

Fons et origo.