Does the existence of God and Occam's razor disprove science?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheDefaultMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheDefaultMan

Guest
Does the existence of God and occam’s razor disprove science and prove occasionalism (the view that God directly causes all things and that there are no secondary causes)?

Think about it. If God (Pure Actuality, Subsistent Existence itself, Pure Being etc.) exists and causes/sustains everything else in existence then wouldn’t it go against occam’s razor to posit that there are other things that cause that aren’t God (secondary causes) if God is sufficient cause all things?

And if this is the case, wouldn’t this disprove the Thomist idea of concurrentism, and wouldn’t this disprove the possibility of science (since no regularities truly exist)??

Thanks in advanced.
 
Something can—and does—have more than one cause. For example: my existence is caused by my parents, and theirs by their parents, on down the line. If even one of those generations did not pass on their genes, I would not exist. If one ancestor paired with someone other than who they paired with, I also would not exist, as my existence as me is dependent upon my specific genetic code. Therefore, I am also caused by all of my ancestors.

And: All that exists is ultimately caused by God. I exist. Therefore, I am ultimately caused by God.

In conclusion, my primary, or ultimate, cause is God. However, I also would not exist if not for my parents and all my ancestors. Therefore, they too are causes. Therefore, secondary causes necessarily exist.

This is also, it seems, the simplest explanation of all the data (Occam’s Razor).
 
Occam’s Razor doesn’t mean removing all parts willy nilly. Less parts isn’t always a simpler explanation.
 
Occam’s razor does not deliver proof, it guides thinking in areas of uncertainty, which is actually the opposite of proof.
 
Last edited:
While you existence is dependent on you specific genetic code, depending on other factors, you may still exist even if your genetic code was slightly different but close enough.
 
Occam was a Franciscan Friar…the principle just says that IF “several possible ways something might have happened, the way which uses the fewest guesses is probably the correct one”…but that’s based on the available information. If you come across a fallen tree on a hill, a good “guess” would be that a strong wind blew it down. If there are scorch marks, it was probably lightening. If there is debris, something knocked it down. All guesses could be “correct” it’s also possible that all are “correct”.

Occam’s razor is just a “tool”, it doesn’t actually “prove” or “disprove” anything…the evidence does.
 
I think you have to distinguish between the various sorts of cooperation in nature, and the sort of causation that is of God. God’s unique causation brings things to be that were not.

The other example of “helper causing”, like parents pro-creating, are not the same type of causation.
We say parents pro-create a child, not cause the child. Parent’s help in this, they don’t bring the child to be from nothing.

Observe: if they did have the same type of causative powers, then why don’t they have the exact child they want, and have that child every time they have sex? To a large degree, the creation of a child is out of their control.

That type of participation is of a whole different type than God’s unique action in causing something. In fact, in God causing (or acting) and being are one thing.
Quite a fertile mystery to contemplate.
 
Last edited:
TheDefaultMan said:
Does the existence of God and occam’s razor disprove science and prove occasionalism (the view that God directly causes all things and that there are no secondary causes)?
Click to expand...
Have you ever actually taken a hard science class?
 
You seemed to just state your position as opposed to argue for it.

My argument was that if God existed, God (as he is Pure Acruality/Subsistent Existence itself) would have sufficient explanatory power to explain everything in existence. It would also be more in line with occam’s razor if we remove secondary causes since God could just cause everything directly and secondary causes have no logical need to be posited, ergo, occam’s razor would have you cut off secondary causes in your belief system.
 
Well yes, simplicity alone isn’t what Occam’s razor is about. That being said, occam’s razor also takes into account explanatory power, and since God is Pure Actuality/Subsistent Existence itself then he must be sufficient to directly cause things therefore the existence of secondary causes need not to be posited to make sense of the universe given occam’s razor.

Also PS: It’s your old “atheist” (not anymore I’m leaning theist but still not sure) pal back in the forum 😉
 
Last edited:
Occam’s razor is actually necessary for inductive reasoning, which is a form of proof.
 
Occam’s razor, the idea that you cut out unnecessary assumptions that complicate propositions, is necessary for logical induction (things like science and philosophy to a great extent)
 
Yes. Have you ever taken a philosophy ckass on scholastic philosophy?

What I was saying was that secondary causes, things that aren’t God that can cause or bring about an effect in things, need not be posited if we assume God’s (Pure Actuality/Subsistent Existence) existence and occam’s razor since God is sufficient to explain all that exists and positing secondary causes must be cut out of your framework (given occam’s razor) since they complicate things more.

The thing about this is that believing in secondary causes is necessary for science to be possible since science needs to presuppose certain laws of nature/regularities for it to work. These wouldn’t exist of God only caused things directly.
 
Last edited:
No I think you’re misunderstanding me.

What I’m saying is that if we posit the existence of God and use Occam’s razor then we’d arrive at a conclusion that secondary causes probably don’t exist.

If secondary causes don’t exist then science would me impossible since we need to assume regularities/laws of nature for science to work and these wouldn’t really exist if God directly caused everything.
 
lets posit God created everything, including science, and razors
 
so really , given no more assumptions should be made then necessary, God created everything, including this minute you are reading myreply
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top