Martian

I did not read your link because I'm already familiar with the concept. If you like, I can rephrase the question. What assumption have I made that you're taking issue with? So far as I can see, all I've done is expanded upon the underlying reasoning for the principle in question.

This, then, is the source of confusion. As I've stated above, during an investigation the principle of parsimony is properly applied at the hypothetical stage. We observe a phenomenon, we devise a possible explanation, then we use said principle to help us choose the best possible explanation to put to the test. Should the testing prove the hypothesis to be invalid we can go back and try again. As I've said all along, this is inapplicable to discussions of theology because we have nothing to test; we can use the principle of parsimony to inform a hypothetical bias, but cannot take it any further. Logically, no one unproven hypothesis is any more valid than another. If we have no proof we cannot logically conclude that your explanation is superior to mine or anyone else's. Therefore, the principle of parsimony, in the context of this discussion, is of no use to us.

I think you underestimate the layman. The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is not so difficult to grasp; the problem is not one of capacity so much as it is one of education.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame