Chuzzlewit, you sophist, you...<gg>
(Sophist, of course, defined in the modern sense, as "weasel".)
Not guilty of any fallacy? Then why did you bring up Ockham's razor in the first place?
Let me return you to Sidney's original post:
..Because we don't know so many things we cannot say with assurance that God does not exist. So any assertion to the negative is more likely to be just prejudice while assertions to the positive are more likely to be true. The reason being that the believer is basing their belief on the knowledge of their experience on a personal level with God while the disbeliever is basing their assumption on a lack of knowledge about God.
We have agreed (haven't we?)that Sidney committed a logical fallacy here, by shifting the burden of proof to you. But where, oh where, in the above post, did he "invoke a supernatural explanation" for anything? What hypothesis did he advance that inspired you to invoke Ockham's razor? I quote:
It [Ockham's razor] states that given a choice between two equally plausible explanations of a phenomenon one chooses the simpler. By invoking a supernatural explanation for the phenomena you are simply shifting the answer upstream...
Well? In your response, please cite chapter and verse from Sidney's post.
And if you still plead not guilty, we will have to bring you up on charges of bad writing, which is an even more serious charge than faulty logic...(hee, hee!)
Joan |
