[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Will:
Re: Occam's Razor

The way I understand to use this principle is to not introduce extra complexity into an explanation when there is no evidence to support it.

The principle as I understand it is to not introduce more complexity than is neccesary to explain a hypothesis. The difference is subtle, I will grant, but it is there. Although it's not the basis of my argument against it's use in this case.

Most theists who will actually think about why they believe in god(s) (as opposed to blindly accepting it), will say that it would be impossible to conclusively prove or disprove the existance of said god(s). I also think that it would be quite impossible to prove either way.

On this point the three of us are in total agreement. (You, me and Occam. )

It's just adding an extra layer of complexity to what we know, and there is no real evidence to support it. Therefore, it's invalid.

Here's where I think your use of the principle fails. You have already stated you believe that the exsistnace of God to be unprovable, and by applying the razor you say the lack of proof means that God does not exsist. That seems to me to be very circular logic at best. And it also assumes that everything is "knowable" by us, an assumption which I do not accept, although I cannot refute, and which you cannot support. Only time will tell I suppose on that point.

And the issue of this thread has not been been whether or not God exsists, a point which we both agree cannot be proven or disproven here. It has been mainly "Do you really know what you think you know?". If some of the accepted assumptions that seem to support the origin of species by natural selection are incorrect it by no means proves the exsistance of a creator. But adhering to the belief in evolution regardless demonstrates the same level of faith ascribed to those that believe in the origin of species by act of creation.

Geoschmo

[ December 14, 2002, 19:01: Message edited by: geoschmo ]