zodiac9 Apr 2006

Theory #1 ISN'T much of a theory. That's why it's a GOOD theory. It just says, this appears to have happened. A corollary to #1 should be: Of course, that's just how we think the universe started (ie, from nothing), but we could totally be wrong on that.

It's like this: Say my socks are missing.

(A) Something occured which caused my socks to not be where I left them, though I could be mistaken about where I think I left them.

(B) Ghosts exist and, in addition to haunting people and seeking justice for their wrongful deaths and occasionally just wanting to send loving messages to their mourning loved ones, they also steal socks, because ghosts are masters and guardians of all socks, with ectoplasmic properties that allow them to physically manipulate socklike materials.

Obviously, (B) is more interesting, it attempts to explain more things, and it's more personally gratifying, but out of the two theories, which assumes the least? Which introduces the fewest new concepts? Besides that, (A) allows (B) to possibly be true, while (B) does not allow (A) to be true. Advantage: (A), unless you're just looking to "spice things up," which is why I said so to Dovina.

PS-Did you click on the Wikipedia link? It cogently presents the magic/faith argument against applying Occam to God.