Occam's Razor is not a legitimate proof of a lack of god.

Its merely a logical device used in debate it has no evidence or basis in fact surronding. As such it should have no real ramifications beyond that of any other opinion

@Abge: I was not using to prove a lack of God, I was using it as evidence (but not proof) FOR God's existence.

Occams razor does not present evidence for anything. Its a theory.

How many threads on God do we NEED???

And consider who this is coming from, mind you...the veteran (and starter) of many a debate on the subject here...

Come on, we always have these God debates, and we always seem to fall into the same factions and same trenches, I rarely see anyone swtich sides or change a viewpoint, it's just one side trying to convince the other they're wrong, and vice versa, with little to no movement on either side.

It's like trench warfare for philosophy!

Let it be...and let it die...good GOD! (pun intended)

It is my understanding that when the *evidence* supports two theories equally that the simpler of the two is more likely correct.

Occam's razor merely states that given two possible explanations the simplest one (i.e. the one that makes the least assumptions) is most likely the correct one.

Say you find a tree in the ground. You can say that A) the wind took it down or that B) aliens from mars came and shot a laser beam at the tree which brought it down.

Option B assumes aliens exist, they can travel to earth, they can shoot laser beams, they would want to shoot lasers at that particular tree and so on... Option A *only* assumes the wind exist and that it can knock down trees (two easily verifiable facts).

According to Occam's razor option A is more likely to be right.

Now, keep in mind, it doesn't prove A. It may very well be that aliens do exist, that they came and knocked that tree down, but in this case all we are saying is A is more likely, not true (for that we would have to gather evidence and such).

That being said... one can use Occam's razor in the god debate to a certain extent. If we take Science as A and religion as B then Option A) assumes nothing more than the existence of a natural world and Option B) assumes another plane exist which houses a being X characteristics (which vary from religion to religion).

Most likely A is right, it makes the least assumptions, but this is not by any means a definite prove of anything.

-------

Ohh and another thing: there are absolutely NO arguments that prove god doesn't exist. What we have are refutations of claims. Theist make a claim and the rest of us show why they are wrong or illogical. Atheist make no claim, therefore have to prove nothing.

"Occams razor does not present evidence for anything. Its a theory."

Occams razor is not a theory. As spyman said, it is a scientific principle that is used when 2 conflicting theories produce the same result. Since neither of the two contrasting ideas that were pointed out by conservative man cannot explain the instantaneous existence of matter, Occam's Razor cannot apply. The 'matter in a singularity' argument is indeed no simpler than the argument that God's consciousness existed first. Occams's Razor limits variables, and it seems that both theories each rely on a single variable.

I didn't refresh the forum before posting- but I was pretty much saying the same thing that nnfolz more clearly defined

Although it's my contention that Occam's Razor shouldn't apply to faith-based theories, if I were going to use it for proving/disproving the existence of God, I would say that:

the human condition is far too complex and miraculous to have been created by accidental physical interactions. The fact that the sun rises and falls (vaguely stated) alone is incredible, let alone the fact that we compose poems to describe the beauty of a sunset, and then consider the poems abstractly. I think it is far simpler that this is the plan of a supreme being, rather than to have happened accidentally. The idea of a creator God has existed as long as conscious man has existed, and nothing that science has given us in that time has come close to disproving it. I'd say that that alone proves that 'God exists' is the simpler choice of the two.

@nnfolz: Did you read any of the second part of my post? Occam's razor actually shows that it is more likely for God to exist, as a single consciousness before everything is created is much simpler than starting with the universe itself.

COTW +1 for your 3rd post.

@Conservative Man: "You tell me, which is simpler, all the matter in the universe, or one consciousness?" Easy, the first. The matter is common to both scenarios but the second requires a "consciousness" as well.

How about you try this one: for several thousand years one group have a theory that a being exists but they are unwilling or unable to prove it. The alternative is that the being does not exist.

There is now a big body of water in area that was once mostly dry with a river a long walk away. Option A) the river flooded due to a giant storm yet there was no thunder that you remember. Option B) The entire river shifted its course over one day. Now, Option A assumes that the river flooded and there was a big storm. Option B assumes the river changed course over one day. Option B has less assumptions yet I am sure Option A is the right option.

My example was based on nnfolz paragraph which states the one that has the least assumptions is likely to be right

So, as far as the making of the universe goes, let us look at it this way. All matter is already there, it has been there for a while. Then all of a sudden it expands and grows and starts forming planets with comets and stars! Meanwhile, it seems simple to say, there was a single conscious that made all that we know of today

"You tell me, which is simpler, all the matter in the universe, or one consciousness?" Easy, the first. The matter is common to both scenarios but the second requires a "consciousness" as well."

@diplomat-
You are incorrect. The matter is not common to both scenarios. The 'consciousness' having the ability to create matter

@cotw

"the human condition is far too complex and miraculous to have been created by accidental physical interactions"
You mean laws of nature? They are neither miraculous, nor accidental. I can´t believe a creationist is on this site, i allways thought they are a joke made up by american television :-)

Option A) the last two posters found my posts of little importance at all. Option B) they are multi-accounters who argue with each other. Option A assumes you saw my, post, read them, then found them complete non-sense, then ignored them. Option B assumes you are the same person and argue with themselves. Option B has less assumptions so based on nnfolz post, it is most likely

it's only a joke to you, Miro Kloseminded

@ killer
I did read your post and I didn't reply due to the frailty of your scenario.

"Option A) the river flooded due to a giant storm yet there was no thunder that you remember. Option B) The entire river shifted its course over one day. Now, Option A assumes that the river flooded and there was a big storm. Option B assumes the river changed course over one day. Option B has less assumptions yet I am sure Option A is the right option."

Option B doesn't have less assumptions than option A. It may explain the disappearance of the river, but not the creation of a lake. I tend to believe it was created by glacial runoff in a mountainous region :)

"it's only a joke to you, Miro Kloseminded"
A creationist on the site come on are you kiding me, you guys are not real. Is this really no joke by american media?

This is a stupid argument.

For all the talk of God or lack of God, there is no evidence proving or disproving the existence of a Creator figure.

You can't argue faith. STFU please. Thank you.

Okay, Change of scenario then COTW. One day you find that you are in a house in the middle of no-where. Yet yesterday you clearly remember being at a BBQ with your friends and family. there are no mountains to blame, and no nuclear war. What happened? Option A) Your house somehow moved to a new spot in the night.Option B) you are actually a native to a lonely dessert country, and dreamed all of the BBQ. yet you remember every word you said at the BBQ. Option C) All of humanity was wiped out by zombies and you are the sole survivor.Option A assumes the house can walk and it walked at night, to a place you never before saw. Three assumptions. Option B assumes that you are a native to a country, and it is dessert area. It also assumes that you had a dream. Four assumptions. Option C assumes that zombies took over Earth. It assumes they did it in one day, and it assumes that they left one survivor. Option A and B are tied at assumptions, yet Option B is by far the most likely.

..it's made of ice cream.

"For all the talk of God or lack of God, there is no evidence proving or disproving the existence of a Creator figure.

You can't argue faith. STFU please. Thank you."

I agree that you 'shouldn't' argue faith, as God is an a priori idea. But, as we have shown, you 'can' argue the existence of God exclusive of faith. As far as your last few words, you are not required to take part in this post. Do whatever you want, so may I politely say... You STFU!

@COTW "You are incorrect. The matter is not common to both scenarios. The 'consciousness' having the ability to create matter"

Well, that increases the complexity of your assumption: as well as exisiting the consciousness has the ability to create matter. Hypothesis A is looking better all the time.

"as God is an a priori idea"
no it isn´t creationist boy :-?