Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?

[rskovride]

 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.

How about this one.


How did the universe come to exist?

a) supernaturally 

b) naturally


Apply razor.

[Silver]

All these razor applications is making us look like emo cutters.

[Ravenshire]

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.

And, we have many testimonials to that.

[RoadRunner79]

...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.

There are certainly different ways of saying what is known as Occams Razor.  If you look at the wiki on it, it even says that Occam stated in a number of different ways.  However I'm not saying that these are saying different things.  My personal preference is "Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity" (Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate) which is credited to John Punch (1639) and I think that sometimes with the talk of assumptions, that the foundation of the razor get's forgotten.

As to your postulate:    I wouldn't use Occam's Razor here.  In fact I suspect that it would be a misuse of it.  What would be the reasoning here, that "I don't know" has no assumptions and is to be preferred over anything with a slightest of assumptions.  I'm sure the solipsist would love that.  Or maybe we would use it subjectively to deny (and not listen to) that which differs from our world view.  After all, those things which don't fit into our worldview are going to seem like larger assumptions (subjectively anyway). 

In any case, Occam's Razor is a general guideline, so I don't think that it is very useful as an argument.  I would even go so far to say, that focusing to much on the word assumptions is straying away from the foundation of the "razor" (do not multiply beyond necessity).

Even if you slightly rephrase the argument, it's still a matter of making a case for ones position.  And I don't think that a overly simplified version of that discussion is appropriate to apply the razor to.   One might even say that type of thing could fall into the category 1 complaints in the article which the OP brought up.

---

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

Actually the definition for "parsimony" means to be frugal or extreme economy. I'm not sure where you got your definition from. However in this context I didn't mean to imply anything different. As I mentioned, in reference to Occam's Razor, versions of the word "simple" are often seen, and I don't think there is any distinction being made with the word "parsimonious" when they are interchanged. I don't think that I have ever seen "parsimony" defined in quite the way you have, but nerveless I wasn't trying to convey anything different. Frankly I think it is the context with both words that conveys that particular meaning. In the end, the goal is that we not make things more complicated than need be.

You may also be interested to look up the Principle of Simplicity...

[Succubus]

---

Succubus
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.

No! Fuckin no!

I fire arrows into the top of your head you empty headed animal food through water, I make castanets out of your testicles already, I make all your sons the widow dressers join the army, I flood your Freeview telly channels with adverts for fanny ointments, I strangle your aunties with the foreskins of flaccid Inglish penises, I vacate by bowels in your salmon mousse, I surface your speculum's with 60 grade carborundum paper, I make you vote for Brexit, I make you accidenty send...

One. Last. Time.



Where did the universe come from.

a) God made it.

b) We don't know.

Now apply the razor. And this is the last time Y'all have to get it right.

Blessed is he, who savvy the postulate of Billy, and good sense, he shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he truly talks proper. His brother's keeper and the educator of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and misunderstand my brother Billy's message.

The book of Samuel Jools:

[GrandizerII]

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

Actually the definition for "parsimony" means to be frugal or extreme economy.  I'm not sure where you got your definition from.  However in this context I didn't mean to imply anything different.  As I mentioned, in reference to Occam's Razor, versions of the word "simple" are often seen, and I don't think there is any distinction being made with the word "parsimonious" when they are interchanged.  I don't think that I have ever seen "parsimony" defined in quite the way you have, but nerveless  I wasn't trying to convey anything different.  Frankly I think it is the context with both words that conveys that particular meaning.   In the end, the goal is that we not make things more complicated than need be.

You may also be interested to look up the Principle of Simplicity...

This is what you said previously in response to Hammy:

Also... you don’t just automatically go with the simplest idea no matter what.... I don’t think you understand this either.

I'm going by the words you're using here, and it seems to me that you weren't thinking of simplicity in terms of "explanation" and "evidence", but merely in terms of the simplicity of the idea itself.

I distinguish between parsimony and simplicity to make it clear that parsimony isn't mere simplicity. However, if you understand what simplicity is supposed to mean scientifically and philosophically speaking, then great.

After all:

“Ockham’s razor”, which is often interpreted as enjoining us to prefer the simplest theory consistent with the available evidence

http://www.iep.utm.edu/simplici/

---

---

Succubus
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.

No! Fuckin no!

Yes! Fuckin yes!

One. Last. Time.

Where did the universe come from.

a) God made it.

b) We don't know.

Now apply the razor. And this is the last time Y'all have to get it right.

Once again, you can't apply the razor here because 'b' is just a statement of ignorance. It's not an attempt to explain anything, dude.

[RoadRunner79]

Actually the definition for "parsimony" means to be frugal or extreme economy.  I'm not sure where you got your definition from.  However in this context I didn't mean to imply anything different.  As I mentioned, in reference to Occam's Razor, versions of the word "simple" are often seen, and I don't think there is any distinction being made with the word "parsimonious" when they are interchanged.  I don't think that I have ever seen "parsimony" defined in quite the way you have, but nerveless  I wasn't trying to convey anything different.  Frankly I think it is the context with both words that conveys that particular meaning.   In the end, the goal is that we not make things more complicated than need be.

You may also be interested to look up the Principle of Simplicity...

This is what you said previously in response to Hammy:

Also... you don’t just automatically go with the simplest idea no matter what.... I don’t think you understand this either.

I'm going by the words you're using here, and it seems to me that you weren't thinking of simplicity in terms of "explanation" and "evidence", but merely in terms of the simplicity of the idea itself.

I distinguish between parsimony and simplicity to make it clear that parsimony isn't mere simplicity. However, if you understand what simplicity is supposed to mean scientifically and philosophically speaking, then great.

After all:

“Ockham’s razor”, which is often interpreted as enjoining us to prefer the simplest theory consistent with the available evidence

http://www.iep.utm.edu/simplici/

---

No! Fuckin no!

Yes! Fuckin yes!

One. Last. Time.

Where did the universe come from.

a) God made it.

b) We don't know.

Now apply the razor. And this is the last time Y'all have to get it right.

Once again, you can't apply the razor here because 'b' is just a statement of ignorance. It's not an attempt to explain anything, dude.

Glad we cleared up that misunderstanding.

[robvalue]

Maybe it could be rearranged like this. It's a slightly different take which you've probably seen before, but I think it's relevant.

Assuming that there is something that has always existed (which is a prerequisite for most "God" claims), which of these scenarios is more likely:

(a) Our environment has always existed in some form.

(b) There is a being called God which has always existed, with [whatever set of attributes it's being given at the time], and nothing else existed, until it decided to create our environment out of nothing, somehow.

Basically (b) does no more to explain how something can always exist, while adding extra layers of complexity, and raising a lot more questions at the same time.

[Whateverist]

 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.

How about this one.


How did the universe come to exist?

a) supernaturally 

b) naturally


Apply razor.

Not even sure what a hardcore believer would say here.  Something like ..

b) comes from a) and a) comes from ... oops ... here we just have to confess how puny we are and how mighty art our God.  Join us and be as an infant in the loving arms of our lord.  Abandon your pride and dignity and trust in God.

BARF

[The Grand Nudger]

Why anyone considers whether it's plausible or more plausible (more than, effectively, any other explanation) that a three or four thousand year old god climbed off the pages of the storybooks, hopped into a time machine, went back a few billion years, and created the cosmos in which it's storybook home exists.....escapes me.