Atheists often claim that the idea of God violates Occam’s
razor (simplicity). They reason that it is more logical and scientific that
everything originated from one single, eternal, and unintelligent force than
from a highly complex God. However, there are also other considerations:
1.
Positing one omnipotent and omniscient God is
able to explain all phenomena. Meanwhile, naturalism (non-ID) cannot even begin
to explain many phenomena – the fine-tuning of the universe, the origins of
matter, energy, space, time, the laws of science (“natural” laws),
consciousness, freewill, DNA, the cell, life… The superior paradigm is the one
that can explain everything within its domain.
2.
Besides, an unintelligent non-omnipotent force
can explain nothing by itself. When we examine this hypothesis, we observe that
for a force to be causal, it must also be associated with time, space, matter,
and energy. As such, I think that it violates the simplicity criterion more
than God would. Also, it cannot explain why it remains immutable, universal,
and even elegant.
3.
Occam’s razor pertains to scientific phenomena,
rightly claiming that that the theory that requires fewer assumptions is
preferable to one requiring more. The God-hypothesis requires only one
assumption. Besides, God is pre-science. As such, there is nothing logical or
scientific that would militate against the theistic paradigm.
No comments:
Post a Comment