Methinks Russell’s Teapot is a better argument, given the situation, than Occam’s Razor.
I saw this TedTalk over the weekend and thought it was applicable to the discussion.
The Science Delusion
A very interesting talk.
When he said that there is documented evidence that the behavior of crystals and rats worldwide change based on the behavior of isolated crystals or rats (respectively), the audience should have gasped. That they didn’t suggests that either they beleive that he’s daft, or they haven’t clue of the implications of those observations.
I did like his suggestion that the (changing) values of universal constants be published periodically (weekly was his suggestion); there would be a market for these values (e.g., you could go long big G (the gravitational constant) if you thought that it was going to rise, or short the speed or light, or whatever).
Of course, scientists think that Rupert Sheldrake is a whack job.
Who would try to prove that something doesn’t exist? That doesn’t even make sense.
Somebody whose stated premise is that it doesn’t exist.
Welcome to (true) atheism.
Sorry I had to break my promise not to post in WC, but in reading R11
Analogous to its counterpart in a court of law, the required standard of proof can change according to the nature of the hypotheses and the seriousness of the consequences of making a mistake.
The whole argument here has been what should be the null hypothesis. Logically, the null hypothesis should be “god does not exist”.
Can you prove that?
I mean, y’know, logically?
agreed. since basically every civilization over the past 15,000 years of human history believed in some form of deity, it seems like the natural null hypothesis is “god does exist”. it’s up to you to prove that he doesn’t as not believing some form of god goes against human nature, according to history at least.
Good grief people, Occam’s razor – it’s how logical normal people think. You DO NOT start with some wacky theory when the observations do not demand you start there. Well, unless you are biased, which of course religious people are…
What is this love affair you have with Occam’s razor?
It’s not a theorem; it’s a principle that’s true more often than not. Not always.
Get a grip.
Well, isn’t it Occam’s razor to be a theist or at least a deist? It has to be the simplest solution that a higher power exists. Furthermore, when you use the phrase ‘logical normal people’, you seem to be referring to the general population. A large majority of the general population believe in God. They believe that God is Love. It even says in the New Testament that ‘you have to have the mind of a child to enter the kingdom of heaven’. If that statement doesn’t parallel Occam’s razor, I’m not sure what does. Finally, you’re quoting Occam’s razor after a Catholic (Franciscan Friar no less) devised this principle. Don’t you think this furthers the case of his principle (Occam’s razor) leading to God? It has been highly successful in science and many other applications, but you still have to consider who is coming up with this principle and its effects on the perception of the world.
Purealpha thinks that atheism is normal; therefore, apparently, theism is abnormal.
I’m not sure why.
Yes, it was heard the first time you said this. Anyhow, this is what people who lack basic thinking skills always say, that basic thinking skills are just a theory. 
You have already been responsible for three logical fallacies on this thread. I suggest before you make fun of people for thinking, you effectively use logic to conquer your arguments without making a logical fallacy. ~
LOL @ logical fallacies. This whole thread is one big mental disaster.
The worst/best part of it is you think you are on the right side of the disaster.
Can someone just say something super offensive so this thread gets nuked?
Lets just say if you are muttering random logical fallacies like this in life, your words hold no value. The worst part about it is that I don’t even think you know you are doing it.
Thanks for being concerned, but I have zero interest in “words having value”.