what happens when i get bored?
Mar. 19th, 2006 06:34 pmsomething totally bizarre. but since i have nowhere better to write this i will inflict it on you
poor people. so anyway, it's about occam's razor, evolution and creationism. why were these
things on my mind, do you ask? i guess because my little brother came home from his
baptist church school and informed me that evolution was wrong. it made me sad. they don't
teach the students at that school to question things like that. anyhow.
so, occam's razor is a good argument for evolution, right? don't assume more things than
necessary. so evolution is simpler because you don't need to posit a god. but here's the
thing: laws of the universe don't count as assumptions, and a lot of people would argue that
god falls into the same category as laws of the universe. so if that's the case, and you've got a
universe set up with a god who can perform great and mighty acts, then occam's razor would
tend to go with creationism. after all, it's simpler to say that an omnipotent god brought the
world into being than to say that, yes we have an all-powerful god, but he decided to create
the world through this long, drawn-out process of evolution, and to explain that we have to
posit all sorts of other things, like reasons (does god get bored? he just needed some
entertainment? well in that case we're assuming human emotions...). so if you believe in an
omnipotent god, divinely driven evolution makes no logical sense. which is a pity, cause
that's what i believe. oh dear. someone blast holes in my argument.
poor people. so anyway, it's about occam's razor, evolution and creationism. why were these
things on my mind, do you ask? i guess because my little brother came home from his
baptist church school and informed me that evolution was wrong. it made me sad. they don't
teach the students at that school to question things like that. anyhow.
so, occam's razor is a good argument for evolution, right? don't assume more things than
necessary. so evolution is simpler because you don't need to posit a god. but here's the
thing: laws of the universe don't count as assumptions, and a lot of people would argue that
god falls into the same category as laws of the universe. so if that's the case, and you've got a
universe set up with a god who can perform great and mighty acts, then occam's razor would
tend to go with creationism. after all, it's simpler to say that an omnipotent god brought the
world into being than to say that, yes we have an all-powerful god, but he decided to create
the world through this long, drawn-out process of evolution, and to explain that we have to
posit all sorts of other things, like reasons (does god get bored? he just needed some
entertainment? well in that case we're assuming human emotions...). so if you believe in an
omnipotent god, divinely driven evolution makes no logical sense. which is a pity, cause
that's what i believe. oh dear. someone blast holes in my argument.
no subject
Date: Mar. 20th, 2006 08:08 am (UTC)and I think that it is simpler to believe that God directed evolution than that evolution happened on its own because the chances of it happening were so small.
^_^ maybe that works.