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

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

There would still be science because all science does is to observe what is, figure out how and make predictions based on the first two questions.

God and science aren’t enemies, despite what some of the more extreme viewpoints would have you believe.

 

[chessnerd321]

You have some pretty fundamental misunderstandings of Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor basically says “Among a set of explanations with equal explanatory power, we should favor the one which requires the fewest assumptions.”

“God does everything” doesn’t have equal explanatory power to science, which explains in much greater detail. So Occam’s razor doesn’t even seem close to applying to that situation.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

Actually it does.

If God has sufficient explanatory power for all things that exist, which I’d arguebthat if he did exist then he would, then positing the existence of secondary causes is an unnecessary assumption since it would be s(name removed by moderator)ler to sau that God caused things directly without middlemen or secondary causes.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Actually it does.

If God has sufficient explanatory power for all things that exist, which I’d arguebthat if he did exist then he would, then positing the existence of secondary causes is an unnecessary assumption since it would be s(name removed by moderator)ler to sau that God caused things directly without middlemen or secondary causes.

That requires the assumption – the enormous assumption – that all of the consistencies which we observe in natural phenomena are entirely coincidental.

Now, if you want to argue that a particular branch of esoteric science, such as the “turtles all the way down” world of subatomic particles to explain every phenomenon, starts getting into Occam’s Razor, I can entertain that. But nah, areas of science like beam theory and organic chemistry aren’t violating Occam’s Razor because these are primarily inductive.

 

[buffalo]

Properly reasoned empirical (observable, repeatable, predictable) science does not conflict.

 

[Usagi]

Except of course that secondary causes are observed all the time. Occam’s razor suggests opting for the simplest explanation that fits all the evidence, not outright ignoring the evidence.

 

[chessnerd321]

positing the existence of secondary causes

We don’t have to posit them at all. They’re in front of our very faces. You were caused by God in an ultimate sense, but you’re also caused by your parents. That’s in no way an assumption.

No offense, but while your efforts to think philosophically are admirable, you’re just going to be spinning your wheels until you have a better grip on the terminology at play.

Not that I’m an expert by any means, many posters on here spank me silly when we debate, and I’m nowhere near as well read as I could be.

 

[IWantGod]

occam’s razor

The principle is to not look for more causes than what is necessary to explain something, so for example the idea that the moon is being moved by an invisible hand is going to be cut by Occam’s razor because it is not necessary for explaining the movement of the heavenly bodies scientifically.

And you must learn to understand the difference between physical explanations and existential causes. While physical relationships have some power over what will become actual in the nature of physics, physical causes don’t actually cause existence.

 

[Dovekin]

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.

God is irregular?

God does directly cause everything. Some things are ’created’ with regularity built in. Others not. It helps us understand if we assume things happen regularly, according to regulae, rules. The regularities may exist as the way God directly causes things, not as distinct secondary causes. But secondary causes is a convenient way to say it.

Unless you think God is changing and capricious, instead of unchanging and wise.

 

[STT]

What is concurrentism?

 

[JSon]

The ultimate discovery of hard science is Quantum Physics, which says everything is a probability. Science is very good at observing and predicting what is probably going to happen. But, the latest discoveries of quantum physics boggle our minds because they seem counterintuitive. One of the greatest deposits of Catholicism to the secular world was rational thought. Without Catholic religious, it’s unlikely there would be science. Science is very valuable and has done great things for humanity. I dare say that science is a gift of God to man. It is a predictor of what will happen. We get in trouble when we make it an authoritative God. You are right that God is the ultimate cause, so science’s value is as a predictive tool of what God is probably going to do.

 

[JSon]

concurrentism

Concurrentism is the philosophy that God is immediately, causally involved in every event in nature, and yet so are creatures. Therefore, any natural effect is the result of causal contributions from both God and creature.

 

[buffalo]

Concurrentism is the philosophy that God is immediately, causally involved in every event in nature, and yet so are creatures. Therefore, any natural effect is the result of causal contributions from both God and creature.

As in God’s providence and our free will?

 

[STT]

Concurrentism is the philosophy that God is immediately, causally involved in every event in nature, and yet so are creatures. Therefore, any natural effect is the result of causal contributions from both God and creature.

I know about it then. It is about the fact that God is sustainer of everything including your free will and we only decide. It is about divine knowledge of about all real processes in time too. There is a however an old challenge for this: I can ask God about what I am going to do and I do otherwise.