Quote:
|
Originally Posted by OTM Al
No it doesn't. Occam's Razor says exactly what you just did is completely wrong. Multiple convoluted explanations needed to explain something.
Here's an explanation that satisfies this criteria
Two different guys wrote the two passages. One or both didn't know what actually happened.
|
But your "explanation" is simple-minded based on a
faulty assumption; therefore, it's not a real explanation. My explanation, however, does not assume that both passages are referring to cause of death. What we have here is a classic case of someone reporting something from different (
but not necessarily contradictory) perspectives -- just as multiple witnesses could report what happened in a car accident, and their reports could differ in some details. In such a scenario, we don't wax simple-minded and say that that neither of them or one of them were clueless because of the differences in their accounts.
I don't believe the Law of Parsimony's intent was to invite simple-minded "explanations". Furthermore, using the criteria you just did should make you an ardent and faithful believer in the Creator. What is easier to say: That "in the beginning God created the heavens and earth", or once upon a time Nothing somehow went BANG in a very big way in a perfect vacuum and voila!!! -- Something magically or miraculously appeared?
Boxcar
