Tom S. Fox
I said it before, I'll say it again:
OCCAM'S RAZOR DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!
2/11/2008 2:38:34 AM
2/11/2008 2:56:39 AM
Tell us how he did it.
2/11/2008 3:21:15 AM
Big invisible man = more believable than actual, testable science? Not really.
2/11/2008 3:23:02 AM
nope. Working within the bounds of reality is always simpler than relying upon the supernatural.
2/13/2008 5:58:54 AM
Actually, Occam has his own definition of simplicity: the least number of ontological entities. That is, something is simpler if it assumes fewer existing things. So, which is simpler:
God and the Universe
the Universe alone?
Take your time. I'm sure you can learn to count.
6/12/2008 6:33:59 AM
Goddidit,,,one word,,, so obviously this is what Occam had in mind all along. Why didn't we figure this out decades ago? We're so stupid, it all makes sense now!
Occam's (or Ockham's) razor does NOT say that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. The principle prescribes that ontological entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. If a phenomenon can be explained without assuming the existence of an entity, then philosophers and scientists should not assume the entity's existence. We have evidence of evolution, we do not have evidence of the existence of a god.
6/12/2008 9:17:43 AM
643 66 666
Simplest and the most LIKELY.
8/7/2008 7:32:05 PM
No. Because then you have to explain God, which adds infinite complexity.
8/7/2008 9:09:11 PM
No, Becaue God is one more (impossible) addition
That YOU know that God is another
8/7/2008 9:19:45 PM
8/7/2008 9:25:10 PM
It´s not true, that´s why its justification has to be complex.
12/27/2009 4:52:10 AM
As the great Greg House said, "Smaller, yes, but is one cause (god) simpler? Chase shows you a baby and says two mammals exchanged fluids, I tell you one stork dropped it off. Which is simpler?"
3/8/2010 10:50:02 PM
The two parents, as the stork theory still involves the parents, the stork is an addition. House is good for asking questions JUST to bug people.
3/10/2010 10:05:38 AM
No, goddidit doesn't work as an explanation in this case. The key word is "simple" not "absurd."
3/10/2010 10:57:59 AM
Occam was a philosopher, not a scientist. Ergo, you can't apply it to science.
4/19/2012 8:58:02 AM
It's not an explanation, stupid. It just brings forth more questions, like "who or what created God?" and "why is your creation myth more plausible than any other creation myth?".
4/19/2012 12:47:45 PM
Occams razor would give you a lot of trouble when you try and explain how god originated.
4/19/2012 1:01:49 PM
Occam's Razor states you choose the one with the fewest assumptions, I wish people would stop doing that.
1/8/2013 5:45:40 AM
So who made God, then?
1/8/2013 9:46:28 AM
Thats not quite what Occams razor says but its close. The problem comes when you suggest God. It leads to which God, who made God, where did God live before creating this Universe and a ton of why and how questions.
1/8/2013 3:11:24 PM