My last question was questioning your applicability of Occam's Razor, which is where I suspect we disagree.
From a previous post of yours to Crash (#94):
Ringokid writes:
I would actually use occams razor to suggest the simple truth that God sustains the universe by his will...
...nature is aught but the will of god but to know the mind of God is to know how nature in it's entirety works and that we don't know, we are getting close though
Which is fair enough.
But when we say that "God sustains the universe by his will", have we really used Occam's Razor and not
multiplied entities unneccessarily?
After all, what you're saying is that
before there was a Universe at all, there was a will. An atheist might just say the Universe just happened or just is (in the same way that God just happened or just is).
You seem to be saying that it is simpler yet to believe that a force of will created the Universe - but is this any closer to an explanation? All the things I know which have a force of will of their' own (Sylas's hair excepted) have brains which are incredibly complicated machines. Will implies psychology, itself an astonishingly difficult subject to understand and comprehend. Will requires atoms and molecules, interactions between them, neurons, synapses + all that guff. Will is a very very complicated thing.
I guess I'm asking why you think that something, anything at all, having a will an be considered to be an irreducible explanation, and the simplest explanation of them all.
Why do you think its possible to have a will without a Universe?
PE
[This message has been edited Primordial Egg, 05-04-2004]
404 Not Found
™ Version 4.2