Quote# 3462

Occam's razor states that the simplist explaination to a problem is probably the correct one. Isn't the theory that God created everything over just a few days much simpler than the theory that the stars, planets, and cell originated by themselves, followed by cells connecting together over several million years to form extremely complex organisms?

Northern Christian, Christian Forums 30 Comments [7/1/2003 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom

Tom S. Fox

I said it before, I'll say it again:


2/11/2008 2:38:34 AM

Jake Steel


2/11/2008 2:56:39 AM

Caustic Gnostic

Tell us how he did it.

Otherwise, nope.

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

King Duncan

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

Quantum Mechanic


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

Dr. Shrinker

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


Occam's razor states that the explanation which explains the facts and has the fewest assumptions is the most likely.

Your explanation fails on both counts.

7/28/2013 4:05:14 AM


Someone that dumb should leave sharp things like razors well alone

7/28/2013 4:58:27 AM

Which god?

7/28/2013 6:57:52 AM

Quantum Mechanic


10/20/2013 10:57:28 AM

1 2 | top: comments page