By TANWEER
Added: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 18:48:54 UTC

Time and again on this forum have I heard Occam's Razor used as an argument against God, and to justify a great many postulated (and completely unfounded) explanations for a great diversity of things.

For those who aren't aware (though I hazard a guess that most people on this forum probably are), Occam's Razor is actually summarised quite well by Wikipedia:

The principle is popularly summarized as "the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one." The principle of Occam's Razor recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions (aka postulates, entities). It is also important that the two hypotheses be equal in other respects; for instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place.

It may also be noteworthy to say it is named after 14th century Father William of Ockham, a Franciscan Friar, logician and theologian.

I propose two questions:

1. Is Occam's Razor valid?

2. Is God truly a more complex explanation for the existence of the cosmos than, say, a multiverse or living in a computer simulation?

TAGGED: CRITICAL THINKING, DEBATE POINTS, PHILOSOPHY, REASON