Position:Home>Philosophy> Occam's Razor vs. Intelligent Design; Can It Be Used?
Question: Occam's Razor vs!. Intelligent Design; Can It Be Used!?
"The version of the Razor most often found in Ockham's work is Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate [Plurality ought never be posited without necessity!.]"
http://en!.wikipedia!.org/wiki/Occam's_Raz!.!.!. Occam fought Aquinas on the topic of "essences!." Aquinas agreed with Aristotle that essences were "in the things themselves!." (Kant would later concur!.) Because the Church was backing Aquinas, Occam had to flee to the French Crown!. Occam said essences were "conceptual!." Wonder of wonders, along comes Ayn Rand and says the same thing, using it as a tool to fight Kant!.
Occam fought Aquinas, whom Rand defended for his Aristoteleanism!. She did admit that Aquinas was no more right on some things than Aristotle himself, with whom she knew how to disagree, and she said so, and why!.
Www@QuestionHome@Com
"The argument from design stands or falls on whether it can be demonstrated that some aspect of the universe such as its origin or biological life could not have come about naturally!. The burden of proof is !.!.!. on the supernaturalist to demonstrate that something from outside nature must be introduced to explain the data!."?- Victor Stenger, Has Science Found God!? (draft: 2001), ch!. 4
"The argument from design rests on the notion that everything, but God, must come from something!. However, once you agree that it is logically possible for an entity to exist that was not itself created, namely God, then that entity can just as well be the universe itself!. Indeed, this is a more economical possibility, not requiring the additional hypothesis of a supernatural power outside the universe!.!.!.!.?!.!.!. To [creationists], it is not a matter of logic anyway, but common sense!. They see no way that the universe could have just happened, without intent!. "How can something come from nothing!?" they continue to ask, never wondering how God came from nothing!."
- Victor StengerWww@QuestionHome@Com
Smells like the stench emitted by the lover of arguments!. Not even Razor and Soap will remove the YaoiRand residue!.
!.!.!.cleanse yourselves, readers, with de Fontenelle!.
Entretiens sur la pluralite des mondes!.
http://books!.google!.com/books!?id=VGoFAAA!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
You are assuming that there isn't a necessity to assume that God created existence!. You are simple ignorant of any necessity for God to create existence!. Since you are ignorant of that necessity, it would be reasonable for you not to pluralize the origin of existence until you were given that necessity!. I am also ignorant of that necessity and therefore I do not pluralize the origin of existence, however I am not ignorant of God's existence, therefore although I remain ignorant of the origin of existence, it is reasonable for me to except the existence of God assuming that my knowledge of God is logically inconsistent with other simpler or more likely reasons for the same knowledge, which I believe it is!.
If I were to attempt to convince you of the existence of God, then it would fall upon me to provide the inconsistancies that would demonstate the necessity for plurality!. However, I that is not my goal!.Www@QuestionHome@Com