Quote:
Originally Posted by Altair
Your reasoning that ''it isn't proven'' because it does not incorporate some 'supernatural power' is flawed. To put it simply, with the principle of parsimony we go with the simplest explanations that requires the least assumptions, and avoid unnecessary concepts.
|
According your own logic, do you support the following sentence:
“We do not have any reason to believe that there are other causes of cancer than those known today (smoking, sunburn,...). Therefore the likelihood for further causes is about zero.”?
Not my sentence: “It isn't proven that natural selection is the only force that leads to evolution” is flawed (the sentence is 100% correct), but rather your assumption that the parsimony of a given theory is reason enough to say that the probabilities of competing less parsimonious theories are about zero.
So again, would you say it is senseful to say: “The probability of further causes of cancer beside those known today is about zero because this position is more parsimonious than a position that would consider further causes”?
If not, why do you think it's reasonable to say: “The probability that there are further influences on evolution beside natural selection is about zero because this position is more parsimonious than a position that would consider further causes”?
---------------------
There are further problems with the atheists’ (and your) view. It is not even the cases that atheism is the most parsimonious theory to explain evolution – but I will come to this later.