Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
482 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, AZPaul3, dwise1, jar, kjsimons, Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 475 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,606 Year: 5,252/14,102 Month: 173/677 Week: 32/26 Day: 4/10 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is A Materialist View Less Parsimonious?
ringo
Member
Posts: 19252
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 22 of 42 (789082)
08-10-2016 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phat
08-10-2016 7:32 AM


Re: Mind Over Matter
Phat writes:

One wag said it succinctly: In the beginning there was either God or Dirt.


Dirt is more plausible. At least it doesn't hide from us or expect us to have faith in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 08-10-2016 7:32 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19252
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 32 of 42 (789186)
08-11-2016 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by mike the wiz
08-11-2016 2:32 PM


Re: Mind Over Matter
mike the wiz writes:

Now can you just show us how that dirt could create itself into a sand castle on it's own?


We can see how sand is sculpted into dunes by the wind. We can see how stone is sculpted into arches, etc. by the wind. The wind is a known entity.

You are proposing an additional entity, an unknown and unevidenced entity - a designer or "god". Hence, your scenario is inerently less parsimonious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 08-11-2016 2:32 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by mike the wiz, posted 08-11-2016 3:40 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19252
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 37 of 42 (789202)
08-11-2016 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by mike the wiz
08-11-2016 3:40 PM


Re: Mind Over Matter
mike the wiz writes:

It is the great number of assumptions that is the most unparsimonious. Even if I assume God, there are still millions more assumptions for materialism.


It isn't just the raw number of asumptions that matter. Quality of assumptions is more important than quantity. If I make a thousand small assumptions, all based on real-life observations, that's much better than making one huge assumption based on nothing.

(By the way, I don't even like caling God an assumption. In science, assumptions don't float around isolated in space; they're all interconnected. The conclusion from one experiment is the assumption for another. God doesn't qualify.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by mike the wiz, posted 08-11-2016 3:40 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021