The principle of parsimony
I'd recommend the incisive application of Occam's Razor.
Careful; you could lop off this entire discussion. Ockham was a theologian who chose not to apply his razor to religion; and he was probably right. In spiritual matters, there is little agreement of which entities have been needlessly multiplied. (I'd categorize myself as an absurdist mystic hedonist utilitarian, if you're wondering.)
most of our disputes are not about this principle but about what counts as necessary. To the materialist, dualists multiply pluralities unnecessarily. To the dualist, positing a mind as well as a body, is necessary. To atheists, positing God and a supernatural realm is to posit pluralities unnecessarily. To the theist, positing God is necessary. And so on. To von Daniken, perhaps, the facts make it necessary to posit extraterrestrials. To others, these aliens are unnecessary pluralities. In the end, maybe Occam's razor says little more than that for atheists God is unnecessary but for theists that is not true.
- http://skepdic.com/occam.html
see also http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci212684,00.html
I put it to you that you are both getting lost in false ontologies and discussing semantics rather than substance.
Of course, Ockham would have deleted THIS post I'm typing as well, but I leave it here in the hopes it may amuse you.
Careful; you could lop off this entire discussion. Ockham was a theologian who chose not to apply his razor to religion; and he was probably right. In spiritual matters, there is little agreement of which entities have been needlessly multiplied. (I'd categorize myself as an absurdist mystic hedonist utilitarian, if you're wondering.)
most of our disputes are not about this principle but about what counts as necessary. To the materialist, dualists multiply pluralities unnecessarily. To the dualist, positing a mind as well as a body, is necessary. To atheists, positing God and a supernatural realm is to posit pluralities unnecessarily. To the theist, positing God is necessary. And so on. To von Daniken, perhaps, the facts make it necessary to posit extraterrestrials. To others, these aliens are unnecessary pluralities. In the end, maybe Occam's razor says little more than that for atheists God is unnecessary but for theists that is not true.
- http://skepdic.com/occam.html
see also http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci212684,00.html
I put it to you that you are both getting lost in false ontologies and discussing semantics rather than substance.
Of course, Ockham would have deleted THIS post I'm typing as well, but I leave it here in the hopes it may amuse you.