Thanks for the comment; I think it aligns well with many of the rest of the comments as well. I actually would be interested to know what you mean by “fails any economy criteria.” I’m not familiar with that term.
An explanation is usually said to be economical if it is simple, general, elegant etc. In other words, whatever criteria you want to use in addition to ‘consistent with evidence’- this is mostly (entirely?) covered in these parts by discussing the complexity of the hypothesis. I’m just using it as a catch-all term for all those sorts of criteria for a good hypothesis. To make God seem like a ‘good’ hypothesis for something you need to pretty much invert your usual standards of inference.
Duh! In reading your response, it seems so simple, but for some reason when I read “economy” the first time, I just blanked as to what it would mean. I guess I’ve not been active enough around here lately. I understand, now. Complexity, more parts = lower probability by definition, Occam’s razor, etc.
I’m thinking your point is that any phenomenon’s explanation automatically decreases in economy when introducing beings and concepts vastly foreign to observation and experience. Would that be reasonably accurate?
Thanks for the comment; I think it aligns well with many of the rest of the comments as well. I actually would be interested to know what you mean by “fails any economy criteria.” I’m not familiar with that term.
An explanation is usually said to be economical if it is simple, general, elegant etc. In other words, whatever criteria you want to use in addition to ‘consistent with evidence’- this is mostly (entirely?) covered in these parts by discussing the complexity of the hypothesis. I’m just using it as a catch-all term for all those sorts of criteria for a good hypothesis. To make God seem like a ‘good’ hypothesis for something you need to pretty much invert your usual standards of inference.
Duh! In reading your response, it seems so simple, but for some reason when I read “economy” the first time, I just blanked as to what it would mean. I guess I’ve not been active enough around here lately. I understand, now. Complexity, more parts = lower probability by definition, Occam’s razor, etc.
I’m thinking your point is that any phenomenon’s explanation automatically decreases in economy when introducing beings and concepts vastly foreign to observation and experience. Would that be reasonably accurate?