Occam's razor: a question for the religious, from an atheist?

Question

Given that there's no empirical evidence as to the existence or nonexistence of God, a supreme, ineffable and indescribably complex being, doesn't Occam's razor mean that by far the most reasonable assumption is his nonexistence?

Keep in mind that although this may be a nonissue to some, who may consider themselves to have proof of God's existence in the form of miracles or the Bible, but this does not, of course, apply to me.

I look forward to reading your responses.

Come on guys, there's no point in atheists posting to tell me how right I am..

Let me address the argument that the whole world is evidence of its creator in the same way that a watch is evidence of a watchmaker.
The world itself is unbelievably complex, but since it obviously exists, that complexity cannot be invoked as part of the razor on either side. The question of how an unbelievably complex world could sponaneously come into existence on its own is indeed daunting, but no more so than how an unbelievably complex God could do the same.

Answer 1

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
plurality should not be posited without necessity

That is the actual quote of William of Ockham, however the concept existed long before he did. More interestingly, William of Ockham was a Franciscan Monk, who did not use his favorite argument to question the existence of God, but rather to fight against Pope John XXII. Ockham believed, like most Franciscans that to truly represent Christ on earth, then one should live like Christ, no possessions, chastity, poverty, 3etc...Not to collect riches and empower a church. For this, he was excommunicated. A true believer, he was.

My problem with the removal of God from life's equation is the fact that there are things. I could whole-heartedly imagine and accept, no universe, no God, but there are things (planets, stars, people, etc..). Many have argued that nature is too complex and represents too much of a patchwork to be designed by some supreme force. It is true, that nature follows the path of least resistance and has created complex systems which if analyzed, seem to us as too complex, or more complex than necessary had God been designing things from the beginning, but I see that as a weak argument. It is more likely that no matter how confounded, complex, or convoluted an organisms evolutionary path has been or seems to us, it may still very well be the simplest, most direct outcome for the forces that were imposed upon it both inwardly and outwardly. It may be that God is life as much as anything else. Occam's Razor, however, if used to its finality, should also agree, that the simplest answer is that not only should there be no God, but there should be no things. And that's the rub, cause my life is so full of things that I barely have time to think about God.

Answer 2

There is empirical evidence of God's existence-simply look around you. God's hand can be seen absolutely everywhere.
I would counter that Occam's razor works the other way-that the theories that have to be created to deny God's existence are so complex, His existence is the most reasonable assumption.

Answer 3

Good question. I think there are two problems with the proposition stated above. The first is that the absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. Since the "God" explanation is in empirical terms a stunningly elaborate theorem, it begs for more proof than has been shown, and CERTAINLY begs for proof that does not assume the cause (which is a logical fallacy). Again, however, the fact that most Christians argue falsely for the tenets of their faith does not mean that their claims are false; merely that they are falsely argued.

As I understand it, Occam's razor maintains that the simplest explanation for a set of observable facts is usually the correct one. That's a VERY good guiding principle. Again, though, there can be exceptions. Darwin's theory of the Origin of Species and the Descent of Man has held up well against the test of time, despite not being directly testable, because its predictions have generally been consistently observable. That said, like many theories of, for instance, political science, it is good at predicting what is already known. One of the few good proofs of Darwin's theory that I've seen is the rapid speciation of fish in large bodies of fresh water. It's not only predictable but testable that in as few as six generations, fish of a single species begin to speciate -- that is, develop genotypical and phenotypical attributes that disallow interbreeding. The challenges to Darwin's theory have been many, but few have offered well-formulated tests that the theory has failed. One such example, however, is Darwin's prediction that mutation rates are relatively constant. Jean Baptiste Lamarck maintained that in times of environmental stress, animals' rate of mutation increased, and not just randomly, but in a direction that was directly responsive to the environmental stressor. The classic example offered is giraffes "evolving" longer necks when trees evolve to be taller and no longer bear fruit on low-hanging branches. In fact, in the case of environmental stress, Lamarck was right and Darwin was wrong: environmental stress causes changes in cell biology (primarily the structure of cell proteins as I understand it0 that affect the rate of telomeric decay, "accidental" crossover of chromosomal material during mitosis, and the copying of "junk" DNA into active codons during replication; thus increasing the mutation rate.

Things are seldom simple, and one thing I greatly hope for is that both Christians and empiricists will apply clear thinking to the problem and -- as Darwin was careful to do -- START with the assumption that they are wrong and try to prove their opponent's point. This technique, called "reductio ad absurdum", has been a staple of the scientific method, but in the age of sound bites and overhyped media exposure for every new discovery, often gets left by the wayside.

Answer 4

You first need to ask what created the universe. Then, if you follow the big bang theory, what created that. What created the nothingness that was before that, according to crack-pot scientists. Once you have found some solid evidence that those events just occured and things just evolved into you posting questions on the internet, then get back to me. Otherwise, as Einstein said,"The further my mind takes me, it leaves no logical conclusion except the existence of a Creator".

Answer 5

Geesh.

I had never heard of the term "Occam's razor", so I had to go to wiki to look it up. Thanks for making me look :)

Uhhhhhhhhhh...I think it means we should base our assumptions on as few facts as possible, but as many as it takes, to prove our theory. Did I get it right?

If we start with the assumption that we cannot comprehend something or someone as unique as God, proving or disproving Him would be impossible.

That's why we Christians hang our faith on the Bible. God gives metaphors and histories and journeys and parables to explain Himself and why we are here in a way we CAN comprehend.

Must you rule the Bible out entirely?

Answer 6

Really? Have you posted questions on here before? It's rather disheartening if you are looking for intelligent discussion...
I don't think we can look for empirical evidence of God's existence. As a person of faith, I have always resonated with Kierkegaard's approach of the "leap of faith." At some point, even with arguments of divine revelation, people of faith, accept the existence of God as a matter of faith.
I don't believe that faith and reason are antithetical however. And I certainly don't think "bllind faith" is a faith of substance.
Proof of God would remove the neccessity for faith though wouldn't it? At some point there is mystery, and that is what I embrace about faith.

Answer 7

In the seventeenth century the mathematician Blaise Pascal formulated his infamous pragmatic argument for belief in God in Pensées. The argument runs as follows:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

How should you bet? Regardless of any evidence for or against the existence of God, Pascal argued that failure to accept God's existence risks losing everything with no payoff on any count. The best bet, then, is to accept the existence of God. There have been several objections to the wager: that a person cannot simply will himself to believe something that is evidently false to him; that the wager would apply as much to belief in the wrong God as it would to disbelief in all gods, leaving the the believer in any particular god in the same situation as the atheist or agnostic; that God would not reward belief in him based solely on hedging one's bets; and so on.

Answer 8

If you believe in Occam's razor is the right logical reasoning for you then your assumption for his nonexistence is valid for you.

Answer 9

Dismiss the evidence, start the trial. Excuse the witnesses, move to closing statements. Pat yourself on the back, and hang em, hang em high!

Your razor is only valid, when you allow evidence. You assume their is none, because you haven't seen it. Therefore, it doesn't exist...pathetic...

Answer 10

interesting...but when, exactly, was Occam's razor carved in stone, declared THE infallible truth? the trouble with philosophy used as a means to disprove God's existence is that philosophy as a discipline is itself completely subjective and open to interpretation, regardless of how many doctoral dissertations it provides to budding philosophers eager to teach philosophy to others eager to teach it to other budding philosophers...