Occam's Razor and God. Does it makes sense?

Question

Atheists often apply Occam's razor in arguing against the existence of God on the grounds that God is an unnecessary hypothesis. We can explain everything without assuming the extra metaphysical baggage of a Divine Being.

... then let's argue which is simpler: God creating the universe or the laws of physics doing the same thing.

When physics can't explain something we change the physics (that's called science) When something God does makes no sense, we say "Some things God does is beyong human comprehension."

I agree it's easier to say "God made the universe" but then you are left with two things... God and the Universe. Without God, you are just left with a Universe.

Answer 1

Getting involved in a thesis that involves explaining how every single thing in the universe developed is exactly the type of thing that Sir William would seek to avoid. Everything can not be explained logically in the universe without involving and accepting many pluralties. Common sense ruled Occam's Razor and he would have argued that the entire universe could not have possibly been collected into one small point no matter what the math says. At some point, he would argue, as the math caused the size of the universe to get smaller and smaller, you should stop the math instead of using it to create an metaphysical singularity.

He argued that revelation should take precedence over reason in matters of religion. Occam used the razor to point out the futility of arguing in favor of or against the existence of God. "Plurality should be accepted with necessity".

Something can not be created naturally from nothing is a typical Sir William statement.

Answer 2

Just because one is easier to SAY, it doesn't make it simpler. Let's put it this way:

Our universe is like a vast puzzle. One that we're still figuring out. It doesn't matter how the puzzle got here or who cut the pieces, it is still complicated and has many pieces.

Many theists would solve some of the problems with our puzzle by saying it's just a small piece of an infinitely large puzzle with an infinite number of pieces. Our universal puzzle still had just as many pieces and just as much complexity as before, but the picture on it makes more sense when viewed in the context of the infinitely more complex puzzle.

And that's where Occam's razor comes in. Occam says that you don't get closer to putting one puzzle together by mixing a second puzzle in with it, much less an infinite number of puzzles. Thus atheists claim that adding god to the picture doesn't EXPLAIN the complexity of the universe, it just makes it LOOK small because you've put it next to something so incredibly massively complex (which, by the way, you also haven't explained).

What atheists don't point out is that Occam's razor is a rule of thumb, not a law. SOMETIMES the simplest explanation is not the true one, just usually. Even if someone didn't NEED a god to explain the goings-on in the universe, it doesn't exclude the presence of one. Absence of proof is never proof of absence. Any scientist will tell you that.

Answer 3

Conversely, God may well be the simplest way of explaining the universe. After all, there is an awfully tricky challenge involved in going right back to a universal beginnig, scientifically.

I am a scientist myself, but consider this:

God came first in the minds of those attempting to explain the universe. Surely this puts him in position of "the simplest explanation", a la Occam's Razor.

Answer 4

First of all you cannot apply Occam's Razor to God.

Occam's razor is a scientific deduction method. God is not science. It annoys me when people insist that he must be proven by science or that he could be and then we would all have to accept it. God is part of many people's faith, and faith, any good scientist will tell you, should have as little part as possible in science (philosophically this eventually breaks down... but that's another topic). We cannot expect science to explain our faith either.



For shits and giggles let me say that dispite related classes I can not comprehend god. God has been inadaquetly described to me as something quite beyond my imagination, bigger than anything my human brain could ever grasp.
Physics on the other hand, with some time in classes and wasting over homework, makes perfect sense to me.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -Fellow agnostic Carl Sagan

Answer 5

Many atheists declare to suppose in good judgment. On what foundation although? Logic are not able to be installed a scan tube, you can not see it with a telescope, and also you can not stub your toe on it. It exists, it has continually existed, and it'll continually keep to exist. But this is a supernatural phenomenon that comes from a supernatural God, who exists, has continually existed, and can continually exist. So atheists are borrowing good judgment from a Christian international view. Christians have a foundation for believing in good judgment, due to the fact it's the system of God's knowledge.

Answer 6

I'm going to paraphrase from Richard Dawkins

When we ask "Where did we come from?" the question is actually much deeper. What we're really trying to determine is; Where does organized complexity come from? To answer the question by saying something that is infinitely more organized and complex doesn't answer the question. To me whether or not there is a god is irrelevant. If there is, Where did he come from? How did organized complexity start?

Answer 7

It's simple to say god created the universe but scientists are just trying to find out how he did it. Maybe god triggered the big bang.

Answer 8

we can explain most things without assuming the existence of God, but not everything...

Answer 9

god is an excellent mathematician of highest order and black hole has no hair!