Hi, all.
Ockham's Razor is an interesting topic, as many like to cite it is grounds for rejecting God, but the real meaning of Ockham's Razor is slightly different from that, allow me to give you some background.
William of Ockham, who was a Philosopher, decided that you can never prove God. Hooray, a well thought out idea. But does that mean we can't justify our belief? Hell no! Well thats what Will said.
Everyone knows the famous quote: "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.", and many take this to in effect mean, "don't overcomplicate things".
William of Ockcham's origional thesis was that since we shouldn't make things more complicated than necesary, God is a logical belief, he is the simplest thesis of all.
"But wait!" I hear you cry, "God isn't simple! He's VERY complicated and there are lots of problems with him! Suffering! Contrdiction! DRAMA!", but be still for a minute, and I'll explain.
What is the most simple explanation for the universe existing? God (listen closely, I didn't say the best, I said the simplest), what could be simpler? God makes the universe, and thats it, or you could go into the science, which is very complicated. Now think about this, God is a simpler explanation here, certainly, he doesn't need to be all loving, or have any of the Biblical properties of God, he can be the Philosophical God which means we don't have all those horrible Suffering problems and so on.
But is he the best explanation? Well, the other ideas we have are backed up with evidence, but are more complicated. Why is it not simple to believe in the supernatural, thats why we have it right? A simple explanation for something that is more complicated than we can understand.
All that said, (and it is a long introduction), why is Ockham's Razor right at all?
Bear in mind that anything you use in science should probably be backed up by some kind of logic or sense experience. So here is your challenge, try to logically prove that Ockham's Razor is valid, or even empirically.
Now listen closely to this: This has nothing to do with Chrisitianity itself, not really, so remember that were talking about a simple Philosophical God here, not a Jesus type God, so no problem-of-evil-Jesus-can't-be-man-and-God-evolution-OWNZ-J00-type posts, please. Also, if we must debate if God is a simple idea at all, can we please make a new topic? This one is primarily about the justification of Okham's Razor.
Ockham's Razor is an interesting topic, as many like to cite it is grounds for rejecting God, but the real meaning of Ockham's Razor is slightly different from that, allow me to give you some background.
William of Ockham, who was a Philosopher, decided that you can never prove God. Hooray, a well thought out idea. But does that mean we can't justify our belief? Hell no! Well thats what Will said.
Everyone knows the famous quote: "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.", and many take this to in effect mean, "don't overcomplicate things".
William of Ockcham's origional thesis was that since we shouldn't make things more complicated than necesary, God is a logical belief, he is the simplest thesis of all.
"But wait!" I hear you cry, "God isn't simple! He's VERY complicated and there are lots of problems with him! Suffering! Contrdiction! DRAMA!", but be still for a minute, and I'll explain.
What is the most simple explanation for the universe existing? God (listen closely, I didn't say the best, I said the simplest), what could be simpler? God makes the universe, and thats it, or you could go into the science, which is very complicated. Now think about this, God is a simpler explanation here, certainly, he doesn't need to be all loving, or have any of the Biblical properties of God, he can be the Philosophical God which means we don't have all those horrible Suffering problems and so on.
But is he the best explanation? Well, the other ideas we have are backed up with evidence, but are more complicated. Why is it not simple to believe in the supernatural, thats why we have it right? A simple explanation for something that is more complicated than we can understand.
All that said, (and it is a long introduction), why is Ockham's Razor right at all?
Bear in mind that anything you use in science should probably be backed up by some kind of logic or sense experience. So here is your challenge, try to logically prove that Ockham's Razor is valid, or even empirically.
Now listen closely to this: This has nothing to do with Chrisitianity itself, not really, so remember that were talking about a simple Philosophical God here, not a Jesus type God, so no problem-of-evil-Jesus-can't-be-man-and-God-evolution-OWNZ-J00-type posts, please. Also, if we must debate if God is a simple idea at all, can we please make a new topic? This one is primarily about the justification of Okham's Razor.
