(February 19, 2011 at 8:24 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: 1. You're trying to shoe horn a scientific scenario onto a theological proposition. The two never fit and no useful conclusions can be drawn.
Science, where? We aren't talking about testing hypotheses or the complete lack of the ability by theists to come up with a decent hypotheses to begin with, it's a 'Considering these circumstances, what hypotheses is more simple in terms of the amount of information needed to describe the state of affairs that is demanded' - That's philosophy, not science, it's all a priori.
And it's more like Theology is incompatible with reason, not just science.
Quote:2. You don't show how the simple solution has to be the correct one.
That's because the simple solution isn't necessarily the correct one, we should simply prefer the more simple hypothesis.
Quote:Looking at the founding fathers model for First Cause, they propose ultimate simplicity: Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 6,7): "God is truly and absolutely simple." Your supposition denies this POV.
Simply asserting it does not make it so.
Here's an example;
Fred and Tom are identical clones, Fred is taught 100 things, Tom is taught 1000 things. Who is the more complex of the two? Tom would be the more complex of the two as his mind contains 900 more pieces of information than that of Fred.
An omniscient deity has all the information that exists in his mind, that being is more complex still.
.
