My definition of God: All-powerful, all knowing, loving, just, the creator of the universe, eternal, not bound by time. He also sent his his son/himself to die for our sins. If I think of anything else to add I'll post it.

Occam's razor, furthermore, gives no evidence of that type of god, let alone any god.

Which Ockam's Razor are you guys using there are many different variations.

"Assume no unnecessary entities"

Is pretty useless when faced with the existence of God, how do you define unnecessary? If you can come up with anything you consider more plausible then you can claim that Ockam's Razor suports that theory based on nothing more than the idea that it's simpler. The problem is that Ockam's Razor (as has been said several times) doesn't excuse the researcher from actually conducting an empirical study. Such a study would be useless when faced with the questions of God's existence so Ockam's Razor is useless when faced with that question. William of Ockam said as much himself. It's a wonderful way to decide where to begin a search; it's a lousy way to end one.

Just to clear some things up, Occam's razor is certainly not a "scientific principle". It may be used as a rule of thumb by scientists when considering competing hypotheses, but it is by no means a logically rigorous or scientific. As has been said before, invocation of Occam's razor does not prove anything. It is precisely an inductive tool applied to situations in which the logical rigor of proof cannot be reached.

"you have a theory but not a law." -diplomat

Sorry to nitpick, but you mean, you have a hypothesis but not a law. Theories, in the scientific context, are much more akin to scientific law. They are both accepted to be truths for the purposes of scientific prediction and application to technology. A law is usually a very specific model of a phenomenon that can often be expressed by a simple mathematical equation and has been empirically shown to be generally true. A theory is a broader account of multiple phenomena and is made up of and unifies various scientific laws.

"God does not need a creator, as before he created the universe there was no time. Time is one of the dimensions of our universe. It is impossible for God to be created outside of time, as that assumes a cause (the action of creating), and an effect (God), and there can be no cause and effect outside of time." -Conservative Man

I'm glad you recognize that time need not exist outside of our universe. It's sort a peculiar character that one can say the Universe is roughly 13.75 billion years old, but it has always existed. It both has an age, and is ageless. However, while you have correctly reasoned that a God outside of our universe need not have a cause, you have somehow missed the step that our universe need not have an external cause. Cause and effect are properties within the universe, but need not apply to the universe itself.

"the human condition is far too complex and miraculous to have been created by accidental physical interactions. The fact that the sun rises and falls (vaguely stated) alone is incredible, let alone the fact that we compose poems to describe the beauty of a sunset, and then consider the poems abstractly. I think it is far simpler that this is the plan of a supreme being, rather than to have happened accidentally. The idea of a creator God has existed as long as conscious man has existed, and nothing that science has given us in that time has come close to disproving it. I'd say that that alone proves that 'God exists' is the simpler choice of the two." -COTW

It's amusing that you used the example of the sun rising and setting, since it is at least well known that it is simply the Earth's revolution that gives rise to this phenomenon. While it might invoke sentimental feelings, it is very much within our grasp to comprehend the natural and purposeless physical interactions that give rise to this phenomenon.

It is a fitting example because it was not so long ago in our history that the sun's rising and falling did invoke a great deal of religious and spiritual reverence. Countless deities and creators of the past were based upon the sun, and they have all been disproved by a more modern understanding of science. It may be that the idea of a creator God has existed for all of human history, but it has taken many different forms, from the blood of a frost giant, to the ejaculation of Atum, to "Let there be light", the majority of these have been firmly discredited by scientific understanding.

As thunder was taken away from Thor and given to atmospheric static, as disease was taken away from the Devil and given to microscopic pathogens, as talking snakes were taken from a literal Genesis and banished to mere allegory, modern God has shrunk to hiding within the yet still inexplicable. You would be right in saying our understanding of consciousness is juvenile at best, but denouncing it as miraculous is a denigration to human understanding and scientific progress. The barrier to understanding consciousness, abstraction, and aesthetics is as unbreachable as the sky is untouchable to land walking apes, which is to say, not at all so, unless you simply flap your fleshy arms and conclude therefore that it is impossible without miracle.

This thread started with conservative man contrasting the big bang versus the creation of the universe by a concious god. The point conservative was making was that the latter was the simpler explanation. I would like to point out that an all conscious god is not a simple explanation at all if you wish to base your case on reason alone (faith and divine revelation is another argument all together). A conscious god also requires explanation (and objective evidence consistent with known facts).

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive ideas? I have no problem with theBig Bang Theory, it was actually the atheists that originally repudiated that one as a static, uncreated, universe would be more useful to the argument against God than an universe that could be shown as having been created.

They don't have to be mutually exclusive, but that was how conservative man framed his argument.

I was reading an article by a physicist recently and got this quote regarding Ockam's Razor that I thought was quite funny:

"Sometimes the Universe has a different idea of simple than we do"

I guess that was more accurately about the Principle of Parsimony.

There's not much of a difference between the two, and it's a good quote.

@Chrisp: thanks for the correction.

@conservative man: "God does not need a creator, as before he created the universe there was no time. Time is one of the dimensions of our universe. It is impossible for God to be created outside of time, as that assumes a cause (the action of creating), and an effect (God), and there can be no cause and effect outside of time. " That's already quite a few a priori assumptions as to the characteristics of your god AND a rather curious claim as to when something needs and explanation or not. I think you just demonstrated my point better than I could have done, mate ;)

I didn't read through the whole thread, but I think Occam's razor is not an accurate way of proving things. Take this example:

Theory A: The universe was created by a supreme, omnipotent being.
Theory B: The universe was created when a tiny volume of matter and energy exploded.
Theory C: The universe is just an illusion created by one's mind.

Theory A assumes there is an omnipotent being, and he can create matter, space, time, etc. Theory B assumes that all matter, space, time, etc. was confined to an infinitely small space at one point. Theory C assumes that humans can dream.

According to Occam's razor, Theory C is correct. However, most people do not believe in Theory C.

@Spyman: I never said the big bang was wrong. In fact the big bang helps me show that God is real

@rayNimagi: I believe that A and C are equally simple, as each started with one mind. (God only later made the universe). And I choose to believe in God, not the illusion universe. (that would be a good movie name)

@Wotam: I'm not assuming God is not bound by time, I know God is not bound by time, because time exists with the universe. God existed before the universe. Therefore he is not bound by time, and can't have a creator.

Man this creationists are funny as hell :-)

"Therefore he is not bound by time, and can't have a creator. "

No, you can only conclude that he need not be bound by time. It could very well be that outside out universe some analogue of time exists, and there is nothing to suggest that if a being created our universe, they themselves did not have a creator. It is simply that it need not be the case. However, you still haven't addressed the fact that your argument works equally well for the idea that the universe need not have a creator or first cause, given that cause and effect are properties within the universe and do not necessarily apply to itself. If you're accepting that time, cause, and effect are properties that may only exist within out universe, then between the possibilities of a Creator or none, Occam's razor would shave off that which assumes the existence of another being.

That is the issue with trying to think outside the Universe... I mean, from our point of view there is nothing, but there very well could be something, or somethings that by their very nature are impossible for us to imagine. Who the h**l knows what properties of physics would bind an all-powerful being? And wouldn't they have to, if we expected him to be an intervener?

The point of all this of course, is to say that calling God's consciousness, or his intervention, as simpler than other Scientific explanations, is to make totally unwarranted assumptions about the nature of God's interaction with the world (which seems logically like it would have to be pretty damn complex) that border on the absurd in terms of hubris.

Let's face it; you don't know, and probably cannot know. So stop trying to belittle the people that accept their ignorance of all the answers but are trying to figure out the most we can.

Let's not forget that at the time that we got the most out of Occam's razor (in matters dealing with astronomy i.e. the universe), our investigations were mostly confined to positional astronomy, and discerning movement of stars relative to the sun and earth. Occam's razor as it applies to this debate was particularly useful discerning orbital paths and making assumptions which led important discoveries (such as putting the sun in the center of the solar system).

It wasn't until Renaissance that science began a major conflict with religion. With more evidence producing techniques such as light wave modelling and newtonian mechanics, it gave us more conclusive evidence for the discoveries. The victory was for these new methods because they could be empirically defined and investigated. The victory was also for Occam's Razor (and, you could say bumped it up a bit) as it proved to correspond with (and in some cases, lead to) those discoveries.

Did we give Occam's Razor too much credit? It certainly has been surpassed in the field of science by the aforementioned techniques. Is it too much to contend that it cannot apply to the more abrstract concepts of the Universe (creation of stars, time, etc. ) as well as it applied to positional astronomy, which of course, involved far fewer variables. Those variables usually being only that which can be observed by the naked eye.

2nd par. correction* 'evidence-producing'

@COTW; Killer 135; Conservative Man

In a way I am really surprised by the arguments that are popping up in this discussion and I feel that I should address at least some of them. Philosophy is quite a tricky business: you need to not only keep track of your arguments consistency but also of the consistency of your premises.

Let me point out a problem in Killers arguments. It is not the number of assumptions that you are dealing with alone, but also, the nature of the assumptions themselves. Let me give you an example along the lines of what you are saying. Let's take your example of "waking up from a BBQ dream" and adding option D) Everything that happened (dream, you, desert) was just a thought in the consciousness of some unnamed being. Is this the most likely answer to you? Here it seems the only assumption I make is that such a consciousness exists, right?But it's not the number of assumptions but their internal complexity/simplicity that matter. The fact is, that a consciousness pre-existing all matter is something that we can not envision or understand. We can however take things from that exploding ball of energy, and explain how atoms formed and joined, how stars lit up, how complex molecules formed and (we are beginning to understand) how those complex molecules came to life, and further, how we came into being and how our cognitive abilities are organized and how they function, and even what poetry is at cellular level of synaptic interactions. Now a consciousness at the start, surpassing our own, necessary to create ourselves (whom we can't even fully understand) is adding complexity to the system. It's restating the problem in a different form, without offering any possibility of finding a solution.

Probably the best presentation of Occam's razor would be: you have a stool, that doesn't topple and stands properly on the floor. How many legs does it have: 3, 4 or 5. Well, 3 is enough. In the same way you could say, the physical laws we have, is enough to explain everything, before introducing another factor let's really show that it can't be explained with what we've got. And if we introduce another factor, then let's really show how it works.

Also, faith is something to be argued about: mostly to exercise the intellects of people who like to answer "STFU". Also, my consciousness can not create matter. Can yours? If it can, then I'm impressed.

@ Tom

"Probably the best presentation of Occam's razor would be: you have a stool, that doesn't topple and stands properly on the floor. How many legs does it have: 3, 4 or 5. Well, 3 is enough."

But lots of stools have four, right? Which shows again that Ockam's Razor doesn't prove anything and shouldn't be used to preclude a discussion. It's a wonderful tool to be used in a physical search. If it's used to preclude the metaphysical in a physical study then that's great. If it's used to preclude the metaphysical out of a desire to preclude thinking in metaphysical terms then not so much.

I don't refute any part of the Big Bang Theory. However, it isn't science to say "that's all there is", that's the philosophy of Naturalism/Materialism. The problem is that they both presume to know about what's out there and so neither are neutral stances.

A) the Naturalist says basically (if I'm followng the basic flow of the argument and admittedly I'm not in any detail): Here's the Big Bang Theory and there is no reason to presume that there is anything acting upon this evidence as it could happen this way without such activity. Therefore there is no reason to change my beliefs.

B) A theist might say (I'm one so in actuality a theist is saying): Here is the Big Bang Theory. It is entirely in congruity with what I already believed. That is, that God created the universe. There is no reason to presume that God didn't have a hand in this, since Ockam himself said that his razor was useless when contemplating the existence of God. Therefore there is no reason to change my beliefs.

In both cases Ockam' razor got left in the Big Bang Theory. Once there is no way to test a hypothesis then Ockam's Razor becomes just another presumption.

**The problem is that they both [naturalism and any of various form of theism] presume to know about what's out there and so none are neutral stances.**

Truly. It doesn't really have an impact on whether or not one believes from an evidence standpoint.

The Razor is a tool for intuitive reasoning about complicated issues that do not allow you to make an in-depth analysis. It never proves anything.

also @ Tom This last bit

"Also, faith is something to be argued about: mostly to exercise the intellects of people who like to answer "STFU". Also, my consciousness can not create matter. Can yours? If it can, then I'm impressed."

made little sense.

For instance my consciousness creating matter has nothing whatsoever to do with any other being's ability to do so. It simply cannot be precluded on those grounds. A dog presumably cannot design and build a Ferrari, yet they exist. The dog's inability has no bearing upon the man's ability.

Well, I don't think that Ockam's razor can be used for this purpose. I was just trying to show what my understanding of it is. It seemed to me that people took a scientific "tool" and tried to show here how inadequate it is - but it isn't, it's great for what it is meant for.

As far as stools go: yeh, 4 legs are better for square bases. And I think I did make some sense, in that last paragraph. I don't like it when people jump atheists with arguments for how inadequate the theory of evolution, the theory of the big bang and geology are poking holes in the tools and the data (which are obviously there, and we know it!) then offering an alternative that doesn't hold out to the same principles they apply to science, and ending the argument with something offensive like STFU you are just not open.

What I meant about consciousness creating things: yes dogs can not envision a ferrari, human consciousness can. But our consciousness is rooted in matter (I'm sorry for being such a materialist) and I think all consciousness is rooted in matter/energy; further, to manipulate matter you need some form of organization of matter already - the reason we can make ferraris is because of brain cells, muscles etc. -unless, it just comes from initial chaos.

For some reason I only saw part of this discussion when I posted a reply and it was only one page. Hmm this is quite interesting though.

"What I meant about consciousness creating things: yes dogs can not envision a ferrari, human consciousness can. But our consciousness is rooted in matter (I'm sorry for being such a materialist) and I think all consciousness is rooted in matter/energy; further, to manipulate matter you need some form of organization of matter already - the reason we can make ferraris is because of brain cells, muscles etc. -unless, it just comes from initial chaos."

Which at some point it did (come from initial chaos that is). Which is why Naturalism is a competeing philosophy and not a scientific theory. That's the weakness of Ockam's Razor in this position. It's a good principle when used in conjunction with scientific study. It's not so good when used as part of a philosophical argument. If you can't make a study of the issue then you cannot rule out entities as uneccessary.

On the subject of stools, three legged stools are superior to four legged stools because three points will always lie on a plane, whereas four points may not, thus four legged stools might have that annoying wobble!

A) The naturalist would say, the Big Bang theory is the most accurate model of the beginning of the universe that we have. It is mere speculation as to what happened before it, and due to the breakdown of physical laws within singularities anything that came before the Big Bang can have no physical effect on the universe that came after, at least according to our most modern understanding.

B) A deist would say, hey well maybe some sort of being was responsible for the Big Bang. I mean, it could be right? Could be God's loving, could be God's farting, could be a hyper-intelligent race of lizard-like folk spawning a new universe for the centennial "Spawn the Best Universe Contest." Who could possibly know? But I sort of think it's God. However, since this all preceded the singularity, and there has been no evidence so far of incongruities within our physical laws that might indicate supernatural or external intervention, I must conclude that if such a being(s) was responsible for the Big Bang, then they certainly have no further role to play in the existing universe.

C) A theist might say, hey well, maybe some sort of being was behind the Big Bang... and it was God! I mean, it could be right? Who's to say otherwise? Oh, and he doesn't approve of homosexuality, listens to my prayers for health and that new promotion, and if you don't listen and do what this book says you'll go to a place of eternal torture. Oh and he loves us all. Hey, I mean, you can't know for sure that it's not true right? Occam's Razor's got nothing on us, baby!