Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

God And Parsimony

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 11:38:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I used to think that the idea of God violated parsimony, because to believe in God, you had to believe in:

(i) The natural world
(ii) A supernatural world

However, I always found a "supernatural world" to be an unnecessary assumption, and we can explain everything assuming naturalism. However, if one is an idealist, then God is actually more adherent to Occam's Razor than non-idealistic Atheism. This is because if you are not an idealist (whether Theist, Atheist or not), you have to believe that both:

(i) The material world exists
(ii) Minds/ mental properties exist

However, if you are an idealist, you only have to adhere to (ii), not (i) as (i) is an unnecessary assumption. Since the Atheist, or dualistic Theist has to believe in the material world and mental properties, the idealist only has to believe in minds/ mental properties.

Thus, the theistic idealist's conception of God doesn't violate parsimony like a dualistic interpretation. Plus, there is the interaction problem. Also, I would argue that there are serious problems for Atheistic idealism.
Gold
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 3:22:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2013 2:54:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Deism is a type of Theism" - William Lane Craig

Not sure why you felt compelled to quote Craig, but nonetheless...

I could see how the argument could be made that these two frameworks are related if generalized definitions for the two are used. On the other hand, colloquial or more strict definitions would require a considerably greater amount of effort.

Regardless, how a word is/could/ought to be defined is arbitrary and subjective in nature, allowing an orator to go about using "their" lexicon in any way they see fit with little-to-no objection being possible by those who feel that the said orator's lexicon is mistaken/lacking/wrong.

So as the idiom goes, "To each his own."