Occam's Razor Applies To The Theory of God!

Con claims that I did not read the definition. After reading his last round, I am not sure he did. 'we may assume the superiority ceteris paribus [all things being equal] of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.' Postulates in this context is synonymous with “assumptions”. The word “hypotheses” is simply thrown in at the end as an alternative way of thinking about it even though the former term used already makes it clear. Translated into simple English: “All things being equal, the explanation (demonstration) which is derived from the fewest assumptions is superior”. This definition is no different than any other conventional definition of OR (Occam’s Razor), so I see no reason to go back to whatever Aristotle or whomever Con wants to quote says about it. This debate is about what OR is and how it applies to the theory of God. Not whatever semantic argument Con may try to use to make it seem like we’re talking about some other version of this logical principle. Application of Occam’s Razor Con claims that OR is used only where the assumptions are pure speculation. That is simply false. OR is a method of reasoning where one measures the weight of the assumptions necessary to presume any given explanation is true. The weight of those assumptions can then be compared to that of any alternative explanation presented for the same phenomenon. The one that weighs the least is then accepted as the most likely explanation. There is nothing in this process that excludes any assumption from being scrutinized by this method. In my baseball analogy, the presumption that the baseball flew through the window is in fact an assumption, and must go through the same measuring process as any other. It matters not whether that assumption is based on pure speculation. Of course in the analogy we may not think of the ball flying through the air as a big assumption because it is not. We know baseballs are made for the purpose of flying through the air, and we know people use them for that purpose. We also know that baseballs break windows all the time, so while it is a very small assumption given the circumstances, it is still an assumption and must be weighed along with any other. The concept of pure speculation does not enter into the equation at all. Con agrees that in my basic analogy we would accept a baseball flying through the window as the most reasonable conclusion. But he then goes on to say that if [insert strange psychotic jacking off in the car story here] was something we know to be happening then we would be correct in assuming that it might explain the scenario. Indeed we would be, that is completely irrelevant. First of all Con is now adding to the analogy. OR applies only when all else is equal. So in this newly updated analogy Con presented both explanations require a small amount of assumptions since both explanations are consistent with reality as we have experienced it. The fact that both explanations require few assumptions does not mean that they can’t be weighed against each other to determine which one weighs less. Con made the comment that it “could even be correct” referring to the psychotic jack offer theory. Whether it is actually correct is again irrelevant. If we had enough evidence to conclude that it was correct then the amount of assumptions required for it against any competing explanation would not be close. With every new piece of information that emerges pointing towards one explanation, the amount of assumptions required for the alternative explanation to be true grow larger. For example if the Jack offer comes out and admits to placing it there then the baseball through the window explanation requires us to assume that he is lying, which makes that explanation “weigh more” because it is an unjustified assumption. That is how OR works. There is never a point in comparing alternative explanations where this concept does not apply. Applying Occam’s Razor to God Con has essentially made no argument here since this debate has so far been focused entirely on what OR is. The only thing he has stated is “only if God was a purely speculative phenomenon could OR be used”. While I have shown that pure speculation is irrelevant to whether OR can be used, I would still argue that the theory of God is pure speculation. There are two different types of arguments for God: argument based in reality, and arguments that are not based in reality. Since God is predominately defined as a being that exists outside of reality then arguments based in reality are inherently invalid. You cannot use the natural to prove the supernatural, thus speculation is all that any conclusion about existence outside of our reality can be based on. And arguments not based in reality is practically the definition of speculation. It is because of this that using God as an explanation requires assumptions one can barely begin to measure. Meanwhile the belief in a Godless existence requires far fewer assumptions. One for example can posit that the universe came from nothing, which as far as we can tell is exactly where virtual particles come from. One can also posit that the universe has always existed in some form, which is consistent with the established scientific fact that matter and energy can never be created or destroyed. Granted, there are still many assumptions required in either of those explanations, but far less than that of an invisible, metaphysical (whatever that is), all powerful, and all intelligent being who created us and watches over us just hopping that we will worship him. The point is that regardless of whichever explanation you choose, you are still choosing the one you think requires the fewest amount of assumptions. That process has a name, it’s called Occam’s Razor.