stenlis wrote:From my point of view you should be able to see the fallacy:
1, Just because you cannot explain the origins of the creator doesn't mean that there isn't one.
stenlis wrote:People often say - well, you have two philosophical theories - in one the matter/energy is eternal, in the other the matter/energy was created by some creator and *he* is eternal. Clearly the second theory is more complicated and therefore should be discarded because of the Occam's Razor.
This is just wrong.
To then point out the fallacy in the response is to entirely miss the point that the respons is intended to demonstrate the fallacy in their claim.
Occam's razor addresses unfounded assumptions, not complexity. In the philosophical dilemma you list, positing an eternal creator is an unnecessary and unjustified assumption and, therefore a violation of parsimony.
Sure! It's POSSIBLE! We're not talking about whether creators exist or not, we're talking about whether a creator is a plausible explanation for the universe.
We might say that a leprechaun inside our head receives images from our eyes and "sees" them and interprets them.
NOTE: We are not yet at a fallacy. It is fine to hypothesize that something in our head is doing this. The explanation begs the question "Well then, how does the leprechaun see?"
HERE is where the fallacy is: either one must acknowledge "Well, the leprechaun must have some mechanism by which his eyes work as well." OR one can fallaciously claim that: "Well the leprechaun's eyes just work." THAT is the crux of the fallacy.
stenlis wrote:... however, the claim that universe *doesn't* have a creator is just as unfounded as the creationist one
Sans_Deity wrote:stenlis wrote:"1, Just because you cannot explain the origins of the creator doesn't mean that there isn't one."
True, but no one's making that claim. You've completely fallen into the trap of forgetting the point of the discussion.
The truth doesn't necessary lie in the middle - neither does the default position, nor the 'current state based on evidence'.
The inability to demonstrate either possibility does not mean that the two possibilities are "just as unfounded".
I would elaborate on that. The truth doesn't necessarily lie in one explanation or the other or in the middle (whatever that might be) and the default position should be 'undefined'
stenlis wrote:Not the inability to demonstrate but the inability to formulate the hypothesis in a way that provides some kind of testability or at least to formulate it as a deduction of observed facts. You, me, the deists, the christians, the cosmologists - none of us can provide such a hypothesis. If you think you can, please do.
Sans_Deity wrote:stenlis wrote:Not the inability to demonstrate but the inability to formulate the hypothesis in a way that provides some kind of testability or at least to formulate it as a deduction of observed facts. You, me, the deists, the christians, the cosmologists - none of us can provide such a hypothesis. If you think you can, please do.
Utter nonsense. We don't have to come up with a hypothesis, we only have to realize that any hypothesis to address the issue necessarily makes an appeal to the supernatural. When we contrast this with the natural, it wins by default.
That which is rooted in what is known is more plausible than that which is rooted in the unknown or undefinable - because the undefinable is equivalent to nothing, and something is more plausible than nothing.
It's the reason why methodological naturalism is the default for science.
Thomas wrote:God is more real then science or logic because when you stop using science and logic you don't change, or stop being yourself, but when people lose faith in God they become depressed or confused and thus God is more concrete then logic and science.
Thomas wrote:Why? Can someone lose faith in science and abandon it? No, one can lose friends, houses, time but not science. Science is not nostalgic.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest