reply to post by MordosKull
If your argument is really about the validity of Occam's Ranzor and not trying to disprove God, well, you have chosen an unanswerable and decidedly
biased position to pose your argument. Let us shift that argument to another aspect that is more on target.
Carl Sagan was keen on using the Occam's Razor argument to deny UFOs. That was and is a spurious argument to deny something that shows validity in
thousands of data records, but he did it anyway because it was the only tool in his scientific backpack that he could pull forth. And if one trusted
the sacred halls of ivy as always being exactly correct and precise in their guesstiments then, you had no choice but to shrug and say, "I suppose
they are right. can Carl Sagan, the social gadfly scientist on Johnny Carson be WRONG?"
My real counter argument to yours is that Occam's Razor is built around natural science and what is know at any particular time. If for example, if
no scientist ever saw a bird, an insect, or an aircraft fly, there is no way they would believe that such a phenomeana such as "flying" was
possible. They would have no grounds for suspecting as much because nature, gravity, as they understood it, simply would not allow it, and that was
exactly why such activities were never seen, Their "proof" of that application of Occam's Razor was right there in front of everyone's eyes and
hardly could be argued against.
The key fallacy of Occam's Razor that it literally believes it own stuff. In other words, in what it knows only. If scientists don't know that X
is possible then of course it is not possible and they'll come up with another solution. With UFOs, that solution was and continues to be denial and
any other explanation they can imagine. To suggest other live forms out there coming here in marvelous ships was idiotic and so much more complicated
explanation than saying, "No."
So here's the point, UFOs are beyond the pale of the natural operations of everyday Nature as we accept it. But the good news if you haven't
noticed, is that Science is bring us around to realizing that eventually we might want accept UFOs as being exactly what they appear to be. But first
they must convince themselves of the absolute truth of that.
I am not a believer in the concept of God. I do believe that the Universe is--for the want of a better word--sentient. Deep meditation tells me
that. Such a determination, once it reaches enough traction in the general population and scientific circles, will probably result in the rebirth of
the God concept as simply a reference to the living Universe. 'Course, that won't be too far off of what most religions believe at their core, is