How you you apply "Acoms Razor" to the belief in God?

Question

Acoms Razor: The simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.

oops how would you apply...

Answer 1

William of Occam, Himself a catholic monk, did not mean to use the razor to deny belief in god, on the contrary to prove it, here is how.
That the universe is endowed with wisdom and intelligence in its functionings, that life exists and that is subject to rational laws, that these universal laws function perfectly and intelligently and that we have capacity to understand them and to unveil them is a sign of design, of intelligence.
The occam's razor in his own words states:
"Pluralitas non est sine necessitate ponenda"
Plurality must not be possed without necesity.

Which is more probable, that the universal arrangement of laws in the universe with all its perfect functioning and grandiosity are product of many convoluted chance random events, that out of chaos for some magical reason, imbued with randomness, order emerged out of non order, and that matter should behave as such without a conscious ordainer is less probable that simply a creator directed and ordained all.

Again: Matter by random chance arranged itself into order and reason, or it was ordained, what is more logical?

If you empty a box of scrabble into the floor, will it fall ordered in "hamlet"? or in chaos?

The occam's razor states that if the words fell down forming the full hamlet text, then, it is very improbable that it happened due to chance, but because somebody with intelligence caused it, this last explanation is the simplest and the best.

the same applies to the universe and to belief in God.

Answer 2

Its "Occam" or "Ockham" (I would say that "Occam" is right as this is the modern spelling of the village of Occam, where William of Occam came from).

"The simplest explanation tends to be the correct one" is a simplification of Occam's razor. To my mind its a gross oversimplification, I think Occam's razor is correct but "the simplest explanation...." assumes:

1. That the world is simple (if it were wildly complex then the wildly complex explanation would be correct)
2. That we can distinguish the simple from the complex! In one respect Einstein's theories are very simple, they all build from a few simple concepts. That doesn't stop my brain frying when I try and do more than understand the general drift of them.

Occams's razor is more accurately stated as an injunction against positing entities beyond necessity. Yeah, and what the **** does that mean? Well sometimes, in order to explain what you see, hear, smell etc you need to think that there is (posit) a thing (entity) that would explain what you see, hear smell, etc. So you have a certain set of sensations and the only available explanation (necessity!) is that there is a cup of coffee on the table in front of you. Occam's razor would say its ok to talk of a cup of coffee (because you NEED to in order to describe your sensations). Occam's razor says that you shouldn't start talking about a smell-producing-thing, a taste-producing-thing, a visual-thing all as seperate entities because you don't need to. Talking about the ONE thing, a cup of coffee, would do.

So how does this apply to the existence of God? Certainly atheism has less entities in it (one less : God), but is God "necessary" to explain your and my experiences? This is a lot less certain - pretty much down to you to decide.

(BTW William of Occam was a monk)

Answer 3

Occam's, Dear. Occam's.

It declares that submitting a more complex issue to explain an event does not in fact explain it. The insertion of God into the natural world adds more complexity to the explanation, and while Occam's razor does not say anything about the belief in God, it says plenty about the belief that any God intervenes in the workings of the universe.

Answer 4

That's a little bit of a simplification of Occam's Razer. A better definition would be whichever explanation requires the least extraordinary suspension of disbelief has a greater probability of being correct.

To me the least extraordinary explanation for, for example, life on earth, is that all the evidence we have is correct: God didn't create life, nature did.

Answer 5

The conception of "God" is not only unnecessary, but creates a whole host of problems when applied to our understanding of the universe. For example, there's the "How can a good God allow evil to exist?" question. But even in the more abstract and impersonal "Deist" conceptions of God as the "First Cause," which is derived from the premise that the universe, being finite, must have had a beginning and therefore a cause, the identification of the "God" of tradition with this cause is ultimately arbitrary. Not only that, but we have to make an arbitrary exception for this Cause/God to avoid the obvious further question "What caused God?"

Answer 6

Ockham's Razor, by William of Ockham, is a philosophical principle whereby the simplest explanation is deemed the best one. It is most appropriately applied to rational arguments and scientific theorems.

Belief in God comes from experience of Him. You either know of Him or you do not. He has either revealed Himself to you, or He hasn't. "Belief" in God is not a belief that He exists, but more accurately, a belief in "who" or "what kind of God" He is. Is He loving? Compassionate? Unfeeling? Sadistic? This is where belief comes in.

You can't "prove" your way to God's existence. Ockham's Razor is not relevant to the process of experiencing the existence of God.

Answer 7

A creator is the simplest explanation for all there is.

Try shaking a box full of electronic parts to accidentally make an IPOD

It can be done, but the odds are astronomical.

Answer 8

Occams?

Entities are not to be multiplied needlessly. The most important usage of this regarding god is that of invoking him as the first cause, it solves absolutely nothing.

Answer 9

God must be so complex anything else is simpler and therefore more correct.
btw occam's razor is the correct spelling.