Okay, so I'm not familiar with Occam's Razor. Can you explain it to me?Originally posted by Zantra
And yet the only truth we can really believe is the truth of our own circumstances. And yes to some people that includes a God, real, imagined or otherwise.Not quite sure I follow you. What does relevancy have to do with the truth? I think you're referring to what Mentat suggested earlier, as far as reality unbeheld? As far as what to believe, I believe truth and facts.
I believe that the sun in our solar system may eventually "wink out." So? ...My point exactly. And if the truth eventually holds that God doesn't exist, will religion be able to adapt?
Well science obviously thinks it has a better approach.First, "better" is a matter of opinion. Weather it's better or not, the truth still holds. Then given an option, would you choose the acceptance of a "better" philosophy over a truthful one? As to length of time.
Would you deny that your great great grandparents ever existed? They may be dead now, and have no relevence to your own "personal situation" now, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist or, had relevancy back then. Besides you are speaking of the difference between what has been proven and what has not (scientifically). In which case you cannot say just because an idea no longer "appears useful," that it never held any relevancy or, held any truth.Then why would we choose to believe that there is life on other planets as opposed to believing that we are the center of the universe, and the only life within it? Why do we believe that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth? Just because it's an older belief, does not make it a wiser one.