I made up another comment with questions, but with the turn the discussion's taken, this might be a convenient time to politely exit the conversation.

Sad to leave things off with my own questions in mind. Hopefully they'll come up again, later.

Best to all.

In that discussion it appears to me that both sides have used the razor and claimed success. Anyone surprised at that?

Actually, I'm surprised you came away from that page thinking that's what it said. The discussion actually describes theists trying to explain away Occam's Razor or work around it, not use it, unless I missed something.

I don't think it's so much as a case of "no evidence" as much as "no testable hypothesis" I'm not trying to say that "god of the gaps" is acting in some way or filling a gap.

That is true, there are no testable hypotheses, and therefore no evidence.

And I don't believe it fair to eliminate the first cause in either case when there is only one in both cases.

That's begging the question. We don't know what caused the universe if there was a cause at all. Further, by your logic we could posit anything, like Baal, Thor, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all of them are equally likely, so we should believe in all of them...or at least not rule them out. But, I suspect that you rule out all but Yahweh, correct? Why is that?

What I'm saying is that either energy/matter or consciousness is first cause. I don't see that the case is successfully made for either. You simply make your choice based upon experience and belief. I do not believe the razor applies to that choice.

Occam applies because "goddidit" is just an extra, non-explanatory layer that isn't necessary. "We don't know" is the most intellectually honest answer to the question of what caused the big bang, if anything did. Adding a god layer means that not only don't you know how the big bang worked, but now you've added a whole mess of other questions about this god figure. So, you've answered nothing and added a whole new layer of complexity and questions. Occam throws it out.

Ironic that Occam was a Franciscan friar. Fascinating discussion about the razor here: Occam's Razor Discussion in Wikipedia. Quite a few paragraphs about the application of the razor to theistic/atheistic theories.

I realize that Wikipedia is not always absolutely correct. But is accessible and interesting nonetheless. Caveat emptor.

In that discussion it appears to me that both sides have used the razor and claimed success. Anyone surprised at that?

I don't think it's so much as a case of "no evidence" as much as "no testable hypothesis" I'm not trying to say that "god of the gaps" is acting in some way or filling a gap. And I don't believe it fair to eliminate the first cause in either case when there is only one in both cases.

What I'm saying is that either energy/matter or consciousness is first cause. I don't see that the case is successfully made for either. You simply make your choice based upon experience and belief. I do not believe the razor applies to that choice.

The initial premise of the big bang theory, from what I have read, is eternal matter and energy.

That is one possibility, but we simply don't know enough yet to say that.

I simply fail to see why one is more valid than the other.

Occam's Razor.

To me it is a miracle that anything exists at all. There is no provable explanation for any of it.

No provable explanation or none proven yet? Either way, if you use that gap in our knowledge to insert your god, then it is a god of the gaps fallacy.

If I can't prove either side, I must keep an open mind. Even if I favor one side over the other, which I do.

That's refreshing, but reason does demand that one side bear the burden of proof. One side of this makes positive assertions, and unless those positive assertions have been proven or at least have evidence, logic demands that we favor the other side. You seem to favor the side with no evidence, however.

If we are more cooperative, we can do more in the way of alleviating suffering, and furthering the well being of the human race.

Exactly, we can do more, and that's the whole point. God obviously isn't going to do anything about it.

What I ment to say was that to attribute such qualities (that it hovers) to God is ridiculous. It's not an seperate entity. That's the problem with most westernt cultures - all nouns must correspond to some thing.

I understand that you probably weren't trying to make the assertion that God is something that hovers, but to prove a wholly another point. But still you should try to be precise in theese kind of things.

As for the argument in hand one could say that for God all the people in the world make up the "child of god" and while others suffer, some live in idyll. Just as in that parents analogy - sometimes parents let the children experience the bad things for themselves and sometimes they help the children.

PS. please note that I do not represent any major (nor minor for that matter) religion.

Let me try to say it a different way. If you still feel that I'm saying that the big bang theory is counter intuitive, then so be it.

The initial premise of the big bang theory, from what I have read, is eternal matter and energy. The initial premise of a theist theory is eternal consciousness. In both there is no beginning.

I simply fail to see why one is more valid than the other. Eternal anything is not testable and must be taken as an assumption.

To me it is a miracle that anything exists at all. There is no provable explanation for any of it. It would be hypocritical for me to say to someone, "You are wrong" given the importance of that base assumption. I also feel that the reverse is true.

I'm very interested in making a case for open-mindedness and cooperation and truth-seeking and not so much in winning an argument about the origin of the universe. If I can't prove either side, I must keep an open mind. Even if I favor one side over the other, which I do.

If we are more cooperative, we can do more in the way of alleviating suffering, and furthering the well being of the human race.

I advocate using reason reasonably. Eternal matter smaller than a nuclear particle, yet containing enough energy to spawn the entire universe after it blows up is no more plausible than God, IMHO. In either case you can use logic to make your arguments from there, but in both cases the first assumption is just that, an assumption (eternal matter or eternal spirit), and selecting it is an act of faith.

Are you actually contesting the validity of big bang theory on the grounds that it's counter-intuitive, or am I misreading?

For number 2, I don't really want to go into it, but I do find it odd when theists take a post modernist stance.

Two things:

1.) I think anyone; scientist, layman, theist or atheist can act with such "knowing". I'm doing it now. It is not necessarily bad unless it is also accompanied by arrogance or intolerance, etc.. All sides are capable of those vices, which are often mitigated by age and experience. I'm not pointing a finger at the "arrogant scientist". Being a theist, I know plenty of arrogant theists. And I need to be aware of when I am arrogant, patronizing, condescending, etc., so that "Who I am doesn't speak so loudly that you can't hear what I am saying." (paraphased from som long forgotten source)

2.) Easy mistake to make. It does provide an opportunity to expand a bit, though. I might have mentioned relative "truth" which even though accompanied by congruence, peer agreement, body commotion etc. can be at odds with "Truth", which is absolute.

We often act as though we have all the answers.

Like, when people say that god is the answer to all? Scientists generally will tell you when they don't know something. So, where does this untrue belief in the arrogant scientist come from? Theists, on the other hand, really do know all, because they have a ready answer for everything. Unfortunately, their answers generally are no more informative than, "I don't know."

However, truth is unaffected by our experience.

What do you mean by truth? Some things are wholly true or not regardless of our experience. One does not equal three, regardless of our experiences, for instance.