Occam's Razor

[Northern Christian]

Occam's razor states that the simplist explaination to a problem is probably the correct one. Isn't the theory that God created everything over just a few days much simpler than the theory that the stars, planets, and cell originated by themselves, followed by cells connecting together over several million years to form extremely complex organisms?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Occam's razor states that the simplist explaination to a problem is probably the correct one. Isn't the theory that God created everything over just a few days much simpler than the theory that the stars, planets, and cell originated by themselves, followed by cells connecting together over several million years to form extremely complex organisms?

Here's a different statement of Occam's Razor: "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." - http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

Based on that definition, it seems simpler to take God out the equation and go with purely natural processes.

 

[Northern Christian]

Here's a different statement of Occam's Razor: "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." - http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

Based on that definition, it seems simpler to take God out the equation and go with purely natural processes.

Evolutionists say that "this must have happened" and "that must have happened at that time," and so on, while Creationists can explain the origins of everything with Genesis 1. Let's keep God in the picture, and throw out the "entities" such as "the world had to be this tempurature at this time," "comets had to hit the earth at this time," "the first cells had to originate by themselves," and so on.

 

[Freodin]

Even if you have God in the picture, you still have the temperatures, the comes, the natural laws, changes in organisms...

So God only does add another "entity" - without providing additional informations.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Evolutionists say that "this must have happened" and "that must have happened at that time," and so on, while Creationists can explain the origins of everything with Genesis 1. Let's keep God in the picture, and throw out the "entities" such as "the world had to be this tempurature at this time," "comets had to hit the earth at this time," "the first cells had to originate by themselves," and so on.

Supposedly I find an origin story that is simpler than Genesis. Does that mean it is correct and Genesis is false?

 

[Freodin]

The universe poofed into existence last thursday - you can´t get much simpler than that.

 

[Northern Christian]

Supposedly I find an origin story that is simpler than Genesis.

Can you please explain how the big bang theory and the theory of evolution are simpler than Creationism?

 

[Northern Christian]

The universe poofed into existence last thursday - you can´t get much simpler than that.

That's a strawman that Creationists do not claim.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Can you please explain how the big bang theory and the theory of evolution are simpler than Creationism?

Can you please explain to me how the natural processes that exist in the universe are more complex than God? Because really, this is what you seem to be advocating.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

That's a strawman that Creationists do not claim.

But it's a simpler explanation of origins. Therefore, according to your 'logic', it must be correct.

 

[Northern Christian]

But it's a simpler explanation of origins. Therefore, according to your 'logic', it must be correct.

No, it is not a simpler explaination, nor does it have any evidence to support it.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

No, it is not a simpler explaination, nor does it have any evidence to support it.

First, it is a simpler explanation. No 6 days of creation, no thousands or millions or billions of years of Earth's history. Just *poof* last Thursday. That's it, that's all.

BUT, now you trot out the 'evidence card'. Well, that's a whole different ball game. Anyway, the cumulative physical evidence from the last 200 years of scientific research points to the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution as being explanations for the natural phenomenon they cover.

 

[Freodin]

I did not claim that creationist claim that - I do. It is as Pete said, simpler.

No, see, the problem is that "God" is not really a simpler explanation, but a non-explanation. By inserting God into this, you simply take a question and remove it. You do not answer it.

So it is with my variant of "last thursdayism". It provides an outwardly simple explanation, but only by getting rid of every question via the verb "poof".

How did this happen? Why did it happen? Where does all the history come from?

Well, it "poofed". Simple.

Same with "God did it".

 

[Arikay]

So its not about a simplier explination, only your explination?

Its funny that you say Creationists dont claim the "created with age" guess.
As I remember reading an article at ICR (a creationist organization) that claimed just that, as an excuse why tree ring dating didnt line up with the flood.

I also find it funny when creationists, typing on computers and taking advantage of modern medicine say we should drop science and say "god did it" (the simplist explination)

Guess what happens when we say "god did it" or "then a miracle happend" and leave it at that?

Why did his disease get better?
"god did it" or "a miracle happend"
Poof, end of most modern medecines.

There would also be a big chance that the scientific advancements that built up to create a computer would never had advanced either.

So maybe you should thank science for not saying "god did it" and leaving it at that.

 

[Northern Christian]

BUT, now you trot out the 'evidence card'. Well, that's a whole different ball game. Anyway, the cumulative physical evidence from the last 200 years of scientific research points to the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution as being explanations for the natural phenomenon they cover.

Well, 200 years of biased and guided information, much of which is questionable. 200 years ago there was a ton of evidence for "spontaneous generation," the theory that life quickly rose from non-living things. For example a farmer once left a bag of corn in his barn, and in the morning he kicked the bag and several rats came out of it. "Evidence" indeed.

Junk science gets thrown away, my friend.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Junk science gets thrown away, my friend.

Hence, YECism was thrown away some 200 years ago.

 

[Melange_Thief]

Then I don't see why we still have creation "science".

 

[Freodin]

Well, 200 years of biased and guided information, much of which is questionable. 200 years ago there was a ton of evidence for "spontaneous generation," the theory that life quickly rose from non-living things. For example a farmer once left a bag of corn in his barn, and in the morning he kicked the bag and several rats came out of it. "Evidence" indeed.

Junk science gets thrown away, my friend.

This, my friend, is a strawman.

Yes, the theory of spontaneous generation (which, BTW, has nothing to do with abiogenesis) was "thrown away" because it was disproved (disproven?).

The same will happen when the theory of Evolution is falsified - which has not happened yet.

But that does not depend on spontanues generation nor on flat earth nor on caloricum.

A scientific theory stands and falls on its own.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Occam's razor states that the simplist explaination to a problem is probably the correct one. Isn't the theory that God created everything over just a few days much simpler than the theory that the stars, planets, and cell originated by themselves, followed by cells connecting together over several million years to form extremely complex organisms?

Ok, I'll play along.

To explain where the universe came from, "Goddidit."

This begs the next obvious question: What about God?

Well, God lives in heaven with His angels.

Heaven? Angels? Where's that? What are those?

Well, it's a long story (insert years of theology and apologetics here) and we're not even getting into Satan, hell, and the demons...

Let's review: So far, to explain this universe, it has become necessary to invent a whole new one, with an omnipotent ruler.

Let's try the next logical question: If God created everything, Who/What created God?

Nothing. God is eternal, Alpha and Omega...

Whoa, hold on. How come this universe couldn't be like that?

Because the Bible says so.

And we believe the Bible because....?

Because the Bible is His inspired Word

Which we know because....


You'll notice that at this point we're completely off-topic.

And this sounds simpler to you?

 

[DrLao]

Occam's razor states that the simplist explaination to a problem is probably the correct one.

Occam's razor does not state that. It states that everything else being equal the simplest explanation is likely the correct one. Meaning that if you have two theories that explain the evidence equally well, go with the simplest one. Occam's razor is not where you start evaluating theories, it is where you end. It is the last test between two competing theories. Even one piece of evidence favoring the more complicated theory will cause it to win out. In the case of creationism vs. evolution, evolution wins on many, many evidentiary points.

I know creationists are eager to avoid messy things like evidence, but that won't work here.