Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Applying Occam's razor to theory of Jesus birth.
17886 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 4/18/13 , edited 4/18/13
Applying Occam's razor to Jesus's birth, we can introduce it to a few known Hypothesis in order to come up with the most likely theory.


.
1. Jesus was born from an affair with another man (very likely possibility compared to being a virgin birth. )

2. The fact that Jesus was fictional character based off from other religions who have used the idea of a virgin birth 1000's of years before the birth of that religion. ( Horus's virgin birth )

3. Jesus was born from a Dracs who do virgin births. ( not very likely.)...

4. Jesus is born from a God who could not find a better way to create him self a human body.



Now using Occam's Razor what is the most likely outcome to how Jesus came to be?

Do you maybe have any other theories that was not on the list?

Feel free to debate and refute any of the possibilities?

Debate and challenge each other to aid on this thinking exercise?





...Notes...
Occam's razor "simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones"

Dracs "come from the movie Enemy Mine: that is a 1985 science fiction film"

Theory " scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

introduce "Bring a subject to the attention of (someone) for the first time."
15003 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 4/18/13 , edited 4/18/13
I just believe what the bible says about an angel coming to marry and telling her she will birth the son of god and his name will be Jesus.

Getting techinical is kind of dirty and its like doubting what your taught, but I think the seed of god was placed inside Marry the virgin. By the angel god sent. Kinda of like artificial insemination except there was no contact besides maybe a light touch.

If you are reading this and have no belief. Please do not attack me with some lame comment other than what I have said in correction of what you think.

Most of the time I stay off this topic because I can tell you alot

Oh yeah and God is God he can do whatever the heck he wants that surpasses the humans imagination. Thats why we are so opinionated on the topic of topics because we have no true answer to give.
12190 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / San Diego
Offline
Posted 4/18/13
mmm interesting, I am not particularly versed in christianism / catholicism but they are very interesting religions. I like reading about all the major ones and there is always something you can take from each of them.
Now, if the stories are true, have shades of truth or allegory I am not sure. But they sure are great and form part of our culture.
3523 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 4/18/13 , edited 4/18/13
The problem with applying Occam's razor to any theory is that it's not an arbiter of scientific logic...it's no more than a general guideline in the development of philosophical models.

You're better of using bottom-up logic. Give me a computable theory. There's nothing remotely scientific about your methodology.

shifting the burden of proof is all you're doing...
Posted 4/18/13
I don't see any equalities which might allow for a simple explanation.
3523 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 4/19/13

Elektrawnik wrote:

I don't see any equalities which might allow for a simple explanation.


Well, if you want a calculable representation you need only turn to life. We know that males have two distinct chromosomes XY and that women simply have two X chromsomes. Let's Suppose I toss a double-sided coin( inwhich both sides have heads) 10 times (or 10 double sided coins once) and ask what is the probability of getting at least heads in 10 tosses. We could do this in two ways one is to sum probabilities P(10 at least head in 10) or we can simply go:

log10^h= h

The likely-hood of Jesus being born due to asexual reproduction is as likely as a coin with heads on both sides coming up tails...
Posted 4/19/13

spacebat wrote:


Elektrawnik wrote:

I don't see any equalities which might allow for a simple explanation.


Well, if you want a calculable representation you need only turn to life. We know that males have two distinct chromosomes XY and that women simply have two X chromsomes. Let's Suppose I toss a double-sided coin( inwhich both sides have heads) 10 times (or 10 double sided coins once) and ask what is the probability of getting at least heads in 10 tosses. We could do this in two ways one is to sum probabilities P(10 at least head in 10) or we can simply go:

log10^h= h

The likely-hood of Jesus being born due to asexual reproduction is as likely as a coin with heads on both sides coming up tails...


That seemed simple enough, but Jesus impregnated Marry with himself.
3523 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 4/19/13

Elektrawnik wrote:


That seemed simple enough, but Jesus impregnated Marry with himself.


Well then it wasn't a virgin birth and we have nothing to argue about. Jesus was a legitimate birth. XD
3523 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 4/19/13 , edited 4/19/13

spacebat wrote:


Elektrawnik wrote:
That seemed simple enough, but Jesus impregnated Marry with himself.


Lets move on... I feel like I am getting dumber posting in a thread about occum's razor. For god's sakes it's a tool of philosophy; only theologists and business majors use it...even Descartes knew how completely useless it was for reasoning beyond the metaphysical... XD

Posted 4/19/13

spacebat wrote:


spacebat wrote:


Elektrawnik wrote:
That seemed simple enough, but Jesus impregnated Marry with himself.


Lets move on... I feel like I am getting dumber posting in a thread about occum's razor. For god's sakes it's a tool of philosophy; only theologists and business majors use it...even Descartes knew how completely useless it was for reasoning beyond the metaphysical... XD



Descartes didn't differentiate between man and machine. Ergo, he was a nutter.
20 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 4/20/13 , edited 4/20/13
How about you try reading the good book. Mary was a virgin, God put himself in her womb. Since God was not a by product of you know what, then Jesus started out perfect and free from sin. This is different from the way men and women are normally born because a) Mary was still a virgin and b) because all men and women start out evil like their fathers since Adam and Eve.

Since every thing and the bible has never been proven to be incorrect (rather there is proof it's correct), and because the Gospels are cannon or in other words the accepted historical text, I don't see why there is a debate.

Let me just be clear, there is no artificial semen placed in Mary, and God did not have sex. Since God is a different kind of being it's best not to think about it in terms of things one knows, since there is no other example of an event like this through out history to compare it to.
3523 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 4/20/13

Cardinalkirby wrote:

How about you try reading the good book. Mary was a virgin, God put himself in her womb. Since God was not a by product of you know what, then Jesus started out perfect and free from sin. This is different from the way men and women are normally born because a) Mary was still a virgin and b) because all men and women start out evil like their fathers since Adam and Eve.

Since every thing and the bible has never been proven to be incorrect (rather there is proof it's correct), and because the Gospels are cannon or in other words the accepted historical text, I don't see why there is a debate.

Let me just be clear, there is no artificial semen placed in Mary, and God did not have sex. Since God is a different kind of being it's best not to think about it in terms of things one knows, since there is no other example of an event like this through out history to compare it to.


And yet she was still inseminated with the seed of god...

not a virgin birth.
20 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 4/20/13 , edited 4/20/13

spacebat wrote:


Cardinalkirby wrote:

How about you try reading the good book. Mary was a virgin, God put himself in her womb. Since God was not a by product of you know what, then Jesus started out perfect and free from sin. This is different from the way men and women are normally born because a) Mary was still a virgin and b) because all men and women start out evil like their fathers since Adam and Eve.

Since every thing and the bible has never been proven to be incorrect (rather there is proof it's correct), and because the Gospels are cannon or in other words the accepted historical text, I don't see why there is a debate.

Let me just be clear, there is no artificial semen placed in Mary, and God did not have sex. Since God is a different kind of being it's best not to think about it in terms of things one knows, since there is no other example of an event like this through out history to compare it to.


And yet she was still inseminated with the seed of god...

not a virgin birth.

Do yourself a favor and read persons post before posting. I said there was no semen, which = virgin birth .
3523 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 4/20/13 , edited 4/20/13

Cardinalkirby wrote:


spacebat wrote:


Cardinalkirby wrote:

How about you try reading the good book. Mary was a virgin, God put himself in her womb. Since God was not a by product of you know what, then Jesus started out perfect and free from sin. This is different from the way men and women are normally born because a) Mary was still a virgin and b) because all men and women start out evil like their fathers since Adam and Eve.

Since every thing and the bible has never been proven to be incorrect (rather there is proof it's correct), and because the Gospels are cannon or in other words the accepted historical text, I don't see why there is a debate.

Let me just be clear, there is no artificial semen placed in Mary, and God did not have sex. Since God is a different kind of being it's best not to think about it in terms of things one knows, since there is no other example of an event like this through out history to compare it to.


And yet she was still inseminated with the seed of god...

not a virgin birth.

Do yourself a favor and read persons post before posting. I said there was no semen, which = virgin birth .


Sure there was. God semen... or whatever god calls it he inseminated Mary with. I think Christian's call it "the holy spirit".
20 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 4/21/13

spacebat wrote:


Cardinalkirby wrote:


spacebat wrote:


Cardinalkirby wrote:

How about you try reading the good book. Mary was a virgin, God put himself in her womb. Since God was not a by product of you know what, then Jesus started out perfect and free from sin. This is different from the way men and women are normally born because a) Mary was still a virgin and b) because all men and women start out evil like their fathers since Adam and Eve.

Since every thing and the bible has never been proven to be incorrect (rather there is proof it's correct), and because the Gospels are cannon or in other words the accepted historical text, I don't see why there is a debate.

Let me just be clear, there is no artificial semen placed in Mary, and God did not have sex. Since God is a different kind of being it's best not to think about it in terms of things one knows, since there is no other example of an event like this through out history to compare it to.


And yet she was still inseminated with the seed of god...

not a virgin birth.

Do yourself a favor and read persons post before posting. I said there was no semen, which = virgin birth .


Sure there was. God semen... or whatever god calls it he inseminated Mary with. I think Christian's call it "the holy spirit".


You do realize that even if there was semen (which there wasn't) as long as Mary was intact then its a virgin birth. I'm sorry but that's just how it is. Technically no " you know what" = still a virgin birth.
There was no semen but I'd still be right if there were.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.