RE: Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?
March 11, 2018 at 12:15 am
(This post was last modified: March 11, 2018 at 12:34 am by GrandizerII.)
(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.