Occam's Razor Applies To The Theory of God!

It should be noted that my opponent agreed to the definitions when he accepted this debate. I use Aristotle's definition because firstly it is actually present in Aristotle's works, and it is, as I am sure you can note, more precise in general. Occam's Razor states that if there are two competing theories, which are equally valid, then we may consider the superiority of that theory which uses fewer postulates, assumptions or hypotheses. Often I have seen atheists state that since the theory that God does not exist uses fewer postulates than the theory that God does exist, according to Occam's Razor, we may assume the superiority of the thesis that God does not exist. This is however only possible if it can be showed that Occam's Razor can indeed be applied to God. My opponent's analysis is correct that he need not show that atheism uses fewer postulates, he only need show that Occam's Razor applies to God. The problem is that he cannot do so by simply arguing that Occam's Razor applies to everything, it does not. I am not undermining Occam's Razor but take the example of the First Law of Thermodynamics. It is one of the world's fundamental laws and states: the internal energy of an isolated system is constant. Now would it be denying the law to state that it does not apply to those systems which possess diathermic walls or an open system, I think not. The same way Occam's Razor is quite simple. It applies to theories which are based on 'hypotheses' or 'postulates' which are speculative. Noting that there are certain proofs for God, even if they are incorrect, they are present and first it must be shown that these proofs are nothing more than hypotheses if one should wish to apply Occam's Razor. You see even the miss-attributed quote states: 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem' that 'Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity'. Has my opponent truly shown there is no 'necessity' to believe in God, has he truly tackled the points and the arguments which seek to make God a contingent, or a necessary phenomenon. He has not, and as he has not, he cannot apply Occam's Razor. My opponent starts his round by admitting that in this context postulates 'is synonymous with "assumptions. ' Double_R says I am playing a semantic game, and he is right. While sometimes semantics are used to troll, often semantics are important. Just as we cannot take our the word 'isolated' from the First Law, we cannot take away the word 'assumption' from Occam's Razor. As Double_R is Proposition and has accepted the Burden of Proof the onus is upon him to show that any proof or belief in God is purely speculative, or purely based on assumptions. He must show that there is no rational, or analytic proof of God. My opponent is trying to shift the goalpost as they say. First of all are baseballs made for flying through the air? I thought they were made to play baseball, and hit the ball with a bat. Meh, I must be wrong. In any case right now, while this theory is not based on speculation, the others are. For me to say that an alien came and threw the baseball is pure speculation. Or for me to assert that this baseball was the case of magic is pure speculation. Occam's Razor here is being applies to the alien story or the magic story. If Occam's Razor is applied to the baseball story then we would say that that story is false. For Occam's Razor is used to disprove phenomenon ab absurdo. My opponent has actually in a way conceded this debate for just as this baseball theory has some proof, God also has some proof. While we apply Occam's Razor to every other phenomenon to conclude that this is the most likely we do not apply Occam's Razor to the ball theory itself. Unless of course if there is a competing theory, is there an argument that seeks to disprove God with fewer premises than those which seek to prove God, there may be but without proof I cannot work on much. Especially since the next round will be my opponent's last round (to keep an equal number of argument rounds). I ask that any proof that comes now be disregarded. Again my opponent accepts that if we knew that a person liked jacking off after breaking windows, we would assume that to be true. Here we would have a competing theory which is not based on speculation and uses fewer premises. Is it clear what I wish to portray? Either my opponent prove that all the proofs for God are speculative, or he show that the proofs against God use fewer assumptions than those for God. He has done neither. You see when he says that the universe came from nothing he should enunciate this further, and then after doing so actually show how this assumes less than what a proof of God assumes. Until he does this, which he cannot now for the time has passed, the resolution collapses. Please vote Con! Ajab