Starboy

Leigh, and my point is that in all cases I am aware of, parsimony is moot, because in time the question will work itself out without resorting to Ockham's razor. And what finally clinches it is not some lame philosophical concept but the results of exeriment on nature. Parsimony IMO is just a fancy way to invoke intuition but let people think you are doing something profound.

Starboy

Ockhamite

Don't posit unnecessarily

If the observed natural laws of our world can explain some event...then why posit a complex convoluted explanation requiring preposterous presumptions with logic-defying requirements.

Maybe aliens are doing crop circles. But this explanation presumes aliens, it presumes they could travel to Earth, it presumes they would have a reason to do elaborate geometrical designs in a corn field. It presumes they would never do 'em while anyone was watching with a camera. On the other hand, if an individual(s) can duplicate a crop design with minimal equipment in the dark of the night, surreptitiously ....why....why not accept this simpler explanation.

Maybe a supernatural entity created our world, determines our lives, and answers our prayers. But if our cumulative, acquired knowledge reasonably explains the world around us.....why not accept this more simple, rational explanation. No need to posit an all-powerful god to do that which is done by natural law. No need to presume an unnatural explanation.
Compared to natural law, 'god-did-it' is exceptionally complex, outrageously presumptive and unquestionably the least likely explanation to be correct.

Relative to a more complex explanation, the value of simplicity is the fewer number of presuppositions, that, must of necessity be supported.

Starboy

Ockhamite, tell me, do you honestly think that the explanation of people making crop circles vs. aliens is a better explanation because it is simpler? They both have the same number of causative agents. Both causative agents are complex beings. I think most folks would go with the people version because there is no evidence to support the existence of aliens and there is plenty of evidence to support the existence of people. It doesn't have anything to do with simplicity. I see this kind of example used to explain parsimony all the time. Why do you think it is an example of Ockham's razor?

An example of Ockham's razor would have two theories equally plausible and both explaining the same phenomena but one would be simpler than the other. In this example the two theories are not equally plausible.

Starboy

Asha'man

I think you had better read what I said again, you have clearly misread, and you are the one that is "suspecting what you wish to suspect."

I said that the genealogies look like a fabrication. I said that I suspect there are more. That doesn't mean everything is a fabrication, just that there is more than one.

Do you really want to hear my theory? I think the birth narratives are also a fabrication, but they are there to hide the fact that Jesus was a bastard of the conventional sort. I think the genealogies are a fabrication, but they are there to fit Jesus into the prophecy of a Messiah. I think the insane trial sequence with Pilot is a fabrication, but it is there to hide the fact that the Sanhedrin tried and then stoned Jesus to death for blasphemy. I think the crucifiction is a fabrication, but it is there to shift the blame to the Romans and take advantage of the resentment and anger of a larger audience. I think the empty tomb might be real, but the stories of seeing a risen Jesus is a fabrication, it is there to hide the fact that the corpse was simply moved or hidden. I think the story was changed significantly, several times, by different people for different reasons, and that the original story is probably lost forever.

Tercel

Most commentators actually go the other way and say that the first is unlikely (since the Sanhedrin doesn't appear to have had the political power to pass such a sentence) and that the Gospel writers tried to take the blame off the Romans and put it on the Jews in order to make themselves not seem so bad from the Roman authorities' point of view (since the Romans were sporadically persecuting the Christians).


BTW, on a completely unrelated subject, what was your opinion of Crossroads of Twilight?

Ockhamite

Starboy....

A theist said," God-did-it is the simplest explanation...it's only three words." Did he think this simple parsimonious revelation trumped the enormity of words needed to describe the complexity of our natural laws? No doubt the chemistry involved in a spontaneous remission of cancer is complex beyond words relative to ...'an answered prayer'.
Simplicity/Complexity and plausibility has everything to do with the supportable assumptions of your theory and nothing to do with how many words or how you articulate your theory. If medical science has documented numerous spontaneous total remissions of cancer....you have a plausible simple explanation. If an 'answered prayer' requires a supernatural, all-powerful, entity willing to listen and respond to a prayer.....you have an implausible, highly complex theory.

Radorth

Ah....OK, and then we'll discuss how a Christian and a skeptic can agree that a certain theory is far more rational.

It seems more plausible that Joseph got her pregnant and did not wish to admit it, I suppose. At least then you don't have to prove such an enormous plot involving more than two people, and you don't have to explain as much. This is simpler and just as plausible. Then again, in those days sex out of wedlock was quite a big deal so I'm not sure how it would have went down.

As plausible as anything I can think of.

Ah yes, another completely unprovable theory with no evidence of any kind, either external or internal. It is more plausible that he was crucified and I see no need to cover up a stoning by the Sanhedrin. It would hardly negate the value of Jesus' death to the apostles. It's not like the OT prophesy's that he will die on a cross- in which case you might have reason to doubt. I see nothing "insane" about the trial sequence at all. It seems almost predictable.

Not too far fetched. But of course you have not one single witness, even one of the many apostates, nobody saying it was a hoax, even under the duress of persecution. This fact has always amazed me and the only explanation is that the later Christians burned all the evidence. Of course we have no evidence there were widespread search and destroy missions. Then we have the problem of plot upon plot, cover ups, doing an amazing editing job with nobody saying anything, and more theories about why that is.

And of course the quantity of negative details are implausible except in a true story IMO, and certainly make your theories completely implausibe. People who would go to the lengths to cover up what you say they did, would never include all these details.

So again Durant's theory shines compared to anything I have seen on II, in plausibility, in simplicity. in covering all the facts. In two pages or less, he leaves no stones unturned, never stretches our credulity to the limit, torture scripture verses to say what he needs them to nor asks us to read a huge paper with all sorts of unprovable assertions of its own.

Here's my theory. All of the parables and sayings of Jesus are true. The miracle stories are plausible enough to me, as I have seen a completely deaf child healed. The birth, resurrection and ascension stories are not easily defended, except they had no credible detractors. The swoon theory is intellectuallly more plausible. But then of course my faith was never based on intellectully obtained data.

So glad you disagree with Durant. He did some notable damage, and had the wisdom to treat his readers as if they were highly intelligent.

Rad

Starboy

Ockhamite, my point exactly. Ockham's razor is not much of an argument.

Starboy

Fiach

I am not sure who commented on the irrationality of Occam's razor. It may have been Ingersoll but I'm not sure.

"To every complex phenomenon observed, there is a simple answer. And it is always wrong."

Human Birth: The mechanisms of intercourse, sperm fertilisation of a traveling ovum, implantation in the uterin wall, the very complex gene mediate process of embryology, the autonomic processes of term uterine contractions, cervical dilation, and foetal positioning factors and finally birth, with risks of umbilical cord wrapped around the neck. And finally, "waa, waa." That is the true and COMPLEX anser.

Human birth Simple Anser: The stork brought me.

Earth Origin: Big bang, millions of years then protons/electrons, millions of years and proto stars, fusion of Hydrogen atoms to heavier and heavier atoms in the resulting nuclear furnaces. Supernova, second generation stars incorporating heavy metals produced in the proto stars and making more heavy metals and elements, more supernova. The gas clouds condense into spirals of hydrogen and heavy metals. The Iron, Uranium, Lead forms the cores of planets like Earth and accumulate by collision of dust into rocks, rocks into boulders, and many boulders into a planet that grows as more rocks and boulders land on it making it molten. A thousand or two thousand years go before it cools down and rain accumulates. H, O, CO2, N, Ph, K, Mg, Calcium, etc. form molecules that form strings that later have properties of replicating. Then a complex story of nucleodes and mutational adaptations, new species as conditions changed and 500,000 years later we occur.

Earth Origin: Simple answer: God conjured the Earth, day and night, the plants, then sun, then animals then man-woman all by magic words in 6 short days.

Fiach

Radorth

Asha'man asserts:

Asha'man answers himself:

I like this thread. I don't have to do anything. I can just post what skeptics say to each other, even to themselves, and win the argument.

Rad