Occam's Razor

[vajradhara]

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.

thank you for the post.. and you have the right of it as well.

something else to keep in mind... it does not unequivically state that it is correct.. it says "likely" which would, naturally, allow for the inclusion of both theories to be considerd equally valid.

hurray for the limiation of verbal communication

 

[Jet Black]

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

it is, because it discards the necesity for an infnitely powerful onmiscient sentient atemporal perfectly good being with some kind of master plan. "it just happened last thursday" is still an unnescessary overcomplication though, "it just happened" is really about the simplest explanation you can get.#, however it is an incorrect application of occams razor drawn from your initial error.

 

[Received]

Side thought:

Would it not be simpler to believe that God (/Prime Mover/First Cause/etc.), for whatever unknown reason, created the universe, rather than having a sort of anti-induction in relation to an atheistic universe and nothing times nobody equals everything?

Of course, we are probably going to get different answers. But in this case, ockam's razor is being applied to metaphysical grounds, rather than scientific.

 

[Arikay]

Im not sure we could use Occams Razor in philosophy because it states that all Evidence being equal, and in philosophy its all very relative.

However, I would think Agnostic would be the simplist, because it says there could be a god or not, but that it would be pretty impossible for us to know. So it encompases more possibilites, in a simple statement.

Side thought:

Would it not be simpler to believe that God (/Prime Mover/First Cause/etc.), for whatever unknown reason, created the universe, rather than having a sort of anti-induction in relation to an atheistic universe and nothing times nobody equals everything?

Of course, we are probably going to get different answers. But in this case, ockam's razor is being applied to metaphysical grounds, rather than scientific.

 

[LightBringer]

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?

Strawman fallacy. Your logic is eating itself.

Occams razor is meanto to prune off un-necessary elements, while still taking all evidence into account. Something that creation does not do.

 

[Jet Black]

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?

Occam's razor is there to remove pointless additions and entities... for example, if there appears to be a force that attracts all objects with an nature that is proportional to the inverse square of the distance between the objects, then the addition of a team of invisible elves on flying carpets who push everything round according to precise mathematical fomula is an unnescessary addition to this.

 

[lucaspa]

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?

Only if that explanation fits the observations. Since the theory that God created everything over just a few days is contradicted by observation, it doesn't matter whether it is simpler or not.

Sorry, but Occam's Razor is a GUIDE, not a law.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

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?

Note the word "probably." Using Occam's razor in attempt to prove something is impossible.

Also, you are confusing simpler with faster. The theory that a stalactite formed by the work of a sculpter over a few days is faster than formation by evaporation of calcium-carrying water over millenia, but it is more complex because it adds the entity of the sculpter.

 

[Volos]

Originally Posted by Northern Christian
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.

Well….
Creationists say “this must have happened" and "that must have happened at that time," and so on. How is this any different?

Originally Posted by Northern Christian

Originally Posted by Pete Harcoff
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.

And just how much evidence does Creationsim have to support it?