(February 19, 2011 at 9:36 pm)theVOID Wrote: Where did I attempt a material justification of the immaterial?You're trying to solve the problem of pre existence - a material consideration, are you not? In your thinking, are you allowing for a non material answer?
(February 19, 2011 at 9:36 pm)theVOID Wrote: Do you see a flaw in my thinking or are you just going to moan?Yes I saw flaws. That's why I listed them.
(February 19, 2011 at 9:36 pm)theVOID Wrote: Suppose event x is as follows "Bob hears hooves", Ex A is "it was a horse" Ex B is "it was an escaped circus Zebra" - Based on hearing the hooves Bob should conclude that it was A rather than B, why? Because explanation A is the simpler explanation, the state of affairs can be described with less information - It would be irrational for Bob to believe that it was B.
I would agree that B contains irrelevant information. Thus the two scenarios are unequal, not simple and complex.
You said "That's because the simple solution isn't necessarily the correct one". I respond: then an argument from simplicity is irrelevant.
(February 19, 2011 at 9:36 pm)theVOID Wrote: A being can not be both simple and all knowing, they are an impossible combination.You're arguing without looking into the subject. Go find out what Divine Simplicity entails first before dismissing it.