Set theory is wrong because Occam said not to multiply entities beyond necessity.
So that’s it. Necessity is like, something you can pretty much throw in anywhere, and I mean, so like, anything that I don’t like I just call unnecessary, then point to an instance of a necessity and BAM I’m right you’re wrong and it’s all thanks to my good pal Occam.
But scientific laws should be clearly written. No? And is good writing pure aesthetics? Or does it reflect something deeper? I’m sure there’s some fine line between reductionism and clarity.
I dunno man. I think mathematicians should abandon set theory as it is obviously flawed. I mean, Occam wouldn’t approve, and he’s a really old guy who people took seriously for a very, very long time.
Wasn’t Occam a Christian or something? All powerful things are flawed.
I just had an atheist try and defend himself by referencing a simplified version of Occam’s razor. I wanted to tell him Occam was a Christian that the argument originated out of the need to please the religious powers that be of his time, but instead I just said, “Occam’s razor is dead”.
I’m starting to feel as though it’s my duty to educate atheists on the fact that what they believe is just that, a belief, or a matter of faith, and that because of this I cannot philosophically distinguish between the two positions on God, you know, the old “God” vs. “-God” thing. At least the Xtians can recognize that simply believing something doesn’t make it true.
I think it depends. God is often defined by rationalists. Conceptions such as “unmoved mover” are ultimately incoherent.