Occam’s Razor is a little silly to apply to the discussion of theism vs. atheism. (Please note here that I am not saying Christianity vs. atheism. I intentionally said theism vs. atheism, because it is silly to assume someone will accept Jesus is God without first accepting there is a God.) There are also a number of problems with this discussion. For the most part, I’m going to leave the problems with this discussion alone, except for one. STOP CITING WIKIPEDIA AS A SOURCE!!! If you cannot find a better source for your information than wikipedia, then your information should be assumed incorrect. Okay, now that the teacher in me is done screaming I’ll talk about why Occam’s Razor is silly in this discussion.
The first reason that Occam’s Razor is silly in this discussion is because you are misquoting it. Occam’s Razor states, “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.”. Issac Newton stated it as, “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” Many scientists implement it by stating, “when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.” So, Occam’s Razor is not that the simplest explanation is usually correct, but rather gets into multiplying entities. Now, entity is a necessarily vague word. This word is used because an entity can be anything: causes, beings, energies, properties, etc. So in applying Occam’s Razor we need to minimize the number of entities we utilize. Possibly an example is in order here.
Let’s say that I have two unusual events happening in the same place at the same time. Occam’ Razor tells me that these events are probably related, because if they are related then I only need one predecessory cause instead of multiple predecessory causes. Thus the number of entities, in this case unobserved causes, is minimized. However, Occam’s Razor tells me nothing about how they are connected or what that predecessory cause is.
Okay, got that? I want to minimize the number of entities. If I apply Occam’s Razor to a proof of atheism I get the following. The Universe has no creator, it’s creation is a spontaneous anomaly, it is a chemical reaction with no catalyst. Thus there is exactly one entity added to the equation that is the entity that something can come happen without a cause. If I apply Occam’s Razor to a proof of God I get the following. The Universe must have had a creator, because everything has a creator. But, what created this creator: nothing. So still, something exists without a cause. Therefore I have still introduced only one entity, and IT’S THE SAME ENTITY. I have simply inserted it at a different place.
If you are going to argue that theism introduces two entities, you are incorrect. Saying something must have done this because the law tells us it must have been done is not inserting an entity it is actually avoiding the insertion of an entity. For example if I see a bullet hole in a street sign, and I say that at some point, some person shot a gun and the bullet went through this sign. I have not multiplied the entities, because natural law dictates the existence of those entities from the observed result. On the other hand, if I observe the hole and say, wow there’s a wizard around here making spontaneous bullet holes in signs then I have added the entity of magic.
Thus Occam’s Razor cannot be used as a logical proof for, or against, the existence of God.
As proof, I would like to submit exhibit A. William of Occam himself stated that this axiom is proof that God’s existence cannot be deduced by reason alone. Anyone who has read the documents from Vatican I will know that this did not win him any friends in Rome.
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
Oh, an just so we’re all on the same page, I’m Catholic.
