Where did the universe come from.

a) God made it.

b) We don't know.

Now apply the razor.

(March 10, 2018 at 9:37 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 9:01 pm)Succubus Wrote: Didn't we have a brief exchange yesterday on this subject where you agreed that your understanding of the BoP was flawed? And here we are again.

No I don't believe so.... where do you think it is flawed?

Quote:You're equivocating! As the man just said, and I quote:

"Well, I don't think you understand the difference between "simplest" and "most parsimonious".

The words parsimony, and simple, are not synonymous.

Ockam's Razor is often stated as "all other things being equal the simplest explanation is most like the best". Now I might agree, that sometimes people misunderstand simplest in this context, however it makes me wonder again; what it is you are taking issue with?

I would say "among competing explanations of otherwise equal explanatory power, the explanation [of the observed evidence/phenomenon/whatever] with the least number of assumptions is the most reasonable explanation". That's theoretically, of course. Practically, it means that among competing explanations, the explanation with the least number of assumptions is more likely to be the correct one, but parsimony is just one among many criteria to look out for when judging explanations.

The issue is that you showed a misunderstanding earlier regarding Hammy's use of the word "parsimonious".

(March 10, 2018 at 10:07 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 9:37 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: No I don't believe so.... where do you think it is flawed?



Ockam's Razor is often stated as "all other things being equal the simplest explanation is most like the best". Now I might agree, that sometimes people misunderstand simplest in this context, however it makes me wonder again; what it is you are taking issue with?

I would say "among competing explanations of otherwise equal explanatory power, the explanation [of the observed evidence/phenomenon/whatever] with the least number of assumptions is the most reasonable explanation". That's theoretically, of course. Practically, it means that among competing explanations, the explanation with the least number of assumptions is more likely to be the correct one, but parsimony is just one among many criteria to look out for when judging explanations.

The issue is that you showed a misunderstanding earlier regarding Hammy's use of the word "parsimonious".

How so?

(March 10, 2018 at 10:20 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 10:07 pm)Grandizer Wrote: I would say "among competing explanations of otherwise equal explanatory power, the explanation [of the observed evidence/phenomenon/whatever] with the least number of assumptions is the most reasonable explanation". That's theoretically, of course. Practically, it means that among competing explanations, the explanation with the least number of assumptions is more likely to be the correct one, but parsimony is just one among many criteria to look out for when judging explanations.

The issue is that you showed a misunderstanding earlier regarding Hammy's use of the word "parsimonious".

How so?

Oh, I see. Now we're going to pretend you didn't at all equivocate between "parsimonious" and "simple". The posts are there, dude. You can't tap dance your way out of this one.

(March 10, 2018 at 10:24 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 10:20 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: How so?

Oh, I see. Now we're going to pretend you didn't at all equivocate between "parsimonious" and "simple". The posts are there, dude. You can't tap dance your way out of this one.

Are you not familiar with the version of Occam’s razor which states that “all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is often best”? Do you think this means something different then the one with "parsimonious"? How many razors do you think old Bill had?

Edit to add.... you may note, that I might ask a question to get you to articulate your objection clearly and logically. You know; so we can examine the claim.

(March 10, 2018 at 10:24 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 10:20 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: How so?

Oh, I see. Now we're going to pretend you didn't at all equivocate between "parsimonious" and "simple". The posts are there, dude. You can't tap dance your way out of this one.

LOL.  Every time RR makes a mistake he does this.  Rather than just admit he was wrong, he pretends he doesn’t understand what the other person is talking about for ten pages until they get frustrated and take off.

Some atheists use dishonest arguments, no doubt about it. Most religious use dishonest arguments for their respective deity. The only way to not have a religious person use a dishonest argument is to not argue existence of their respective deity. That right there is equal opportunity for the religious, from an atheist's viewpoint. Plenty of religious people are perfectly fine reasoning their way out of a paper bag on almost any topic except for the doubt expressed by non-believers for their respective deity.

(March 10, 2018 at 10:42 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: ...Are you not familiar with the version of Occam’s razor which states...

RoadRunner, for the most part you have been given the benefit of the doubt with regard to your understanding of how to apply logic and reasoning, but with this claim of yours that there is more that one version of Billy's razor! You are straining your credibility to the limit.
Please tell me you are not a standard issue off the shelf apologist. Help me by addressing this very simple postulate:

Where did the universe come from.

a) God made it.

b) We don't know.

Now apply the razor.

(March 10, 2018 at 10:55 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 10:24 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Oh, I see. Now we're going to pretend you didn't at all equivocate between "parsimonious" and "simple". The posts are there, dude. You can't tap dance your way out of this one.

LOL.  Every time RR makes a mistake he does this.  Rather than just admit he was wrong, he pretends he doesn’t understand what the other person is talking about for ten pages until they get frustrated and take off.

Oh god he'd resorting to that again . It's testimony argument all over again

(March 10, 2018 at 10:42 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 10:24 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Oh, I see. Now we're going to pretend you didn't at all equivocate between "parsimonious" and "simple". The posts are there, dude. You can't tap dance your way out of this one.

Are you not familiar with the version of Occam’s razor which states that “all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is often best”?  Do you think this means something different then the one with "parsimonious"?  How many razors do you think old Bill had?

Edit to add.... you may note, that I might ask a question to get you to articulate your objection clearly and logically.  You know; so we can examine the claim.

Why is it you take us for idiots, RR? Why did you argue against resorting to the simplest idea in response to Hammy when he actually used the word "parsimonious" instead? And there is a difference between the two terms. Not all explanations that are relatively simple are relatively parsimonious, but all explanations that are relatively parsimonious are relatively simple. Simplicity, in this context, is defined in terms of the number of assumptions made, and parsimony is only partly defined in terms of simplicity.

Or in other words:

parsimony = simplicity + sufficient correspondence to observed evidence

---

(March 10, 2018 at 11:25 pm)Succubus Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 10:42 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: ...Are you not familiar with the version of Occam’s razor which states...

RoadRunner, for the most part you have been given the benefit of the doubt with regard to your understanding of how to apply logic and reasoning, but with this claim of yours that there is more that one version of Billy's razor! You are straining your credibility to the limit.
Please tell me you are not a standard issue off the shelf apologist. Help me by addressing this very simple postulate:

Where did the universe come from.

a) God made it.

b) We don't know.

Now apply the razor.

Well, 'b' isn't an explanation. It's just a statement of ignorance, so Occam's razor doesn't apply here (I think).

But yeah, 'b' is far more reasonable a stance to take than silly 'a'. God explanations fail on so many accounts and in so many ways I can't take such explanations seriously.