1
#403825
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
#403841
Jake Steel
nope.
2/11/2008 2:56:39 AM
#403857
Caustic Gnostic
Tell us how he did it.
Otherwise, nope.
2/11/2008 3:21:15 AM
#403858
DarkfireTaimatsu
Big invisible man = more believable than actual, testable science? Not really.
2/11/2008 3:23:02 AM
#405841
King Duncan
nope. Working within the bounds of reality is always simpler than relying upon the supernatural.
2/13/2008 5:58:54 AM
#538868
Amos
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
or
the Universe alone?
Take your time. I'm sure you can learn to count.
6/12/2008 6:33:59 AM
#538933
Cabraxas
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
#620495
643 66 666
Simplest and the most LIKELY.
8/7/2008 7:32:05 PM
#620654
Natasha
No. Because then you have to explain God, which adds infinite complexity.
8/7/2008 9:09:11 PM
#620683
Canadiest
No, Becaue God is one more (impossible) addition
That YOU know that God is another
8/7/2008 9:19:45 PM
#620693
Quantum Mechanic
no
8/7/2008 9:25:10 PM
#1080061
It´s not true, that´s why its justification has to be complex.
12/27/2009 4:52:10 AM
#1130233
Kieranfoy
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
#1130794
Canadiest
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
#1130830
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
#1394078
Alex
Occam was a philosopher, not a scientist. Ergo, you can't apply it to science.
4/19/2012 8:58:02 AM
#1394116
Swede
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
#1394121
JohnTheAtheist
Occams razor would give you a lot of trouble when you try and explain how god originated.
4/19/2012 1:01:49 PM
#1491684
ytej
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
#1491795
xyz
So who made God, then?
1/8/2013 9:46:28 AM
#1491915
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
1