re: #165 Right Brain

Its not a position, I am noting the holes in the arguments, and he is producing the most: whenever someone uses “think” “feel” or “believe” in a question they are violating the rule of parsimony, which is what can be done with fewer assumption is done in vain with more. This rule, also known as Occam’s razor is really the foundation of science. Once again, my favorite instructive tool when I taught philosophy was “What High School do you think you went to.” The problem is a verbal tick that introduces assumptions, he does it constantly, she never does, because, ta da, she’s a scientist.

Now go back and listen to how many times he uses “think” in a question and how many times she does, ie none. She is the one presenting an argument with one assumption ie God made the universe. And to follow his belief we have to have literally hundreds of assumptions, he adds to them every time he opens his mouth. He has not been around scientists that much, his Phd. is in history.

I couldn’t help noticing that you refer to holes in his arguments, without mentioning a single one specifically. As far as assumptions goes, empirical science endeavors to proceed with as few assumptions as possible. She, otoh, premise everything on a really big and empirically untestable assumption, and tries to argue against the empirically testable with it.

My BA is in philosophy, and it is the major track in my humanities interdisciplinary MA. If you were indeed a philosophy teacher, which your comments have led me to most sincerely doubt, I have contempt for your teachers and pity for your students. Especially since you mention Occam’s Razor, which says that, all other things being equal, the simplest explanation requiring the least explanatory entities while still accounting for all the observable phenomena to which it is supposed to apply is most likely the best. This is the logical principle that many people have invoked in argument against the existence of an intelligent designer, which, in order to possess the intelligence and will necessary for it to create the universe, would itself of necessity have to be more complex than the universe itself, and would therefore require even more explanation that the universe alone requires. And this hypothetical deity’s creator would of necessity be required to be more complex still, and IT’S creator even MORE complex, in an infinite regression…ever more complex turtles, requiring ever more explanation, all the way down a bottomless pit.