Christian apologist: The literal resurrection of Jesus requires the fewest number of assumptions compared to the multi-step hypothetical, very improbable, natural explanations for the origin of the Resurrection Belief posited by skeptics. Therefore, using the principle of Occam’s Razor, the Resurrection is more probable than any of these natural explanations. And in regards to the origin of the universe, wouldn’t Friar Occam posit that the most likely scenario, predicated on the fewest number of assumptions, is that God directly created our space-time universe, rather than the complex, multi-step theories of atheistic scientists?
Gary: Before we proceed discussing this topic, my Christian friend, would you kindly answer these two questions:
–Would you agree that a supernatural explanation is always the most parsimonious (the most frugal; requiring the fewest assumptions and steps) explanation for any odd event?
–If a natural explanation exists to explain the origin of the Resurrection Belief, even if that natural explanation involves multiple steps, involving multiple very rare natural events, making this cumulative natural explanation very improbable, at what point is a supernatural explanation more probable for the origin of this belief than the very rare, very improbable, but still possible multi-step cumulative natural explanation?
Christian apologist: In regards to the first question: No, I wouldn’t. In regards to the second question: I’m no logician, but I would have to follow logic and reason, even if it conflicted with my worldview.
Regarding the Resurrection: As I understand Occam’s Razor, the very beginning, the premise. Because a cumulative, natural explanation of the resurrection involves multiple unnecessary assumptions.
Regarding the origin of the universe: Thus, Occam’s Razor seems to me to imply that the best solution which explains the existence of mind, reason, consciousness and personhood is the supernatural explanation. Because it involves the least number of assumptions.
Your hypothetical “possibly supernatural god” creating multiple universes each of which evolve beings who then use machines to create more universes is certainly built upon a number of unnecessary assumptions. One God creating our space-time universe (including humans and human consciousness and reason) ex nihilo is all that is necessary. Your hypothetical situation is forced to posit an infinite number of assumptions, all in order to escape having the Judaeo-Christian god create it from nothing. Basically your version has too many unnecessary steps, whereas mine doesn’t. In my scenario one God is all that’s needed to do what your scenario needs possibly billions of beings (the original, first of whom may have been divine) to do.
Gary: Is it possible that you are misusing the accepted modern usage of Occam’s Razor? It is certainly possible that the Catholic friar (Occam) who conceived of the principle now known as Occam’s Razor intended to apply it to all odd events, but this is not the modern usage of this principle, at least not by the educated class of our society. The proper usage of Occam’s Razor in the modern world is just as the caption above states:
The answer that requires the fewest assumptions is GENERALLY the correct one.
You are instead using the following variation:
The answer that requires the fewest assumptions is ALWAYS the correct one.
You are not using the principles of good critical thinking if you insist on using your antiquated version of Occam’s Razor. Your arguments based on this alternative interpretation are foolish and naive to modern educated people, my Christian friend. And you never really answered my question about the Resurrection. Telling! You won’t answer it because you know your answer will appear foolish to educated non-Christians. An improbable natural explanation is always more probable than a supernatural explanation—in the real world—but maybe not in yours.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
End of post.
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
Gary, as I said to you yesterday, I have never said the simplest solution is always the correct one.
As for Occam’s Razor itself, though named after 14th c. Franciscan Friar William of Ockham (misspelled Occam), it wasn’t “conceived” by him; it got named after him because he invoked its use more than other writers. However Ockham wasn’t the first to cite a variation of the axiom; Aristotle held that “the more limited, if adequate, is always preferable,” and Ptolemy considered it best “to explain phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible.” Some three hundred years after the Medieval genesis of Occam’s Razor, Royal Astronomer Sir Isaac Newton declared that “we are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.”
No did the good Friar intend it to apply only or even chiefly to “odd events.”
And finally, there’s no such thing as an “antiquated version of Occam’s Razor” or an “accepted modern usage” of Occam’s Razor by the “educated classes”, there’s just the usage of Occam’s Razor. By anyone. Whether they’re from “the educated classes” or not.
The website New Science explains Occam’s Razor:
“Occam’s Razor can be thought of in terms of basic probability theory. All things can be ascribed a probability of happening. As such, any assumptions one adds to a theory introduce further possibilities for error, and if an assumption isn’t improving the accuracy of a theory, it just increases the probability that the theory is wrong. This isn’t limited to strictly natural explanations but can also apply to supernatural explanations, thus we’re only committed to postulate the existence of one creator god, not two or more.”
Nowhere in their definition do the word “natural” or the phrase “odd events” appear.
Readers, which scenario seems more likely using Occam’s Razor?
Hypothesis A) God or a god created the space-time universe.
Hypothesis B) Isn’t possible our creator was a non-supernatural being in another universe? Is it possible that other universes exist? If so, is it possible that a mortal in another universe, conducting a scientific experiment, accidentally caused a big bang explosion which resulted in our universe? Another creator, possibly mortal, in another universe. And repeat this scenario a million times until you get back to an original creator, who may have been a supernatural being.
I ask you, dear readers, which hypothesis is built upon the fewest unnecessary assumptions?
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
I reject the preposterous suggestion that a supernatural explanation (a god did it) is more probable than even the most improbable cumulative natural explanation even if that natural explanation involves multiple improbable separate events. It is possible, though HIGHLY improbable, to flip heads on a coin toss twenty times in a row. This natural explanation involves TWENTY independent events to occur. Lee would have us believe, based on Occan’s Razor, that it is more probable that a God caused the coin to perform a supernatural miracle. Ridiculous.
LikeLike
Gary, as I said to you yesterday, I have never said the simplest solution is always the correct one.
As for Occam’s Razor itself, though named after 14th c. Franciscan Friar William of Ockham (misspelled Occam), it wasn’t “conceived” by him; it got named after him because he invoked its use more than other writers. However Ockham wasn’t the first to cite a variation of the axiom; Aristotle held that “the more limited, if adequate, is always preferable,” and Ptolemy considered it best “to explain phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible.” Some three hundred years after the Medieval genesis of Occam’s Razor, Royal Astronomer Sir Isaac Newton declared that “we are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.”
Nor did the good Friar intend it to apply only or even chiefly to “odd events.”
And finally, there’s no such thing as an “antiquated version of Occam’s Razor” or an “accepted modern usage” of Occam’s Razor by the “educated classes”, there’s just the usage of Occam’s Razor. By anyone. Whether they’re from “the educated classes” or not.
The website New Science explains Occam’s Razor:
“Occam’s Razor can be thought of in terms of basic probability theory. All things can be ascribed a probability of happening. As such, any assumptions one adds to a theory introduce further possibilities for error, and if an assumption isn’t improving the accuracy of a theory, it just increases the probability that the theory is wrong.”
Nowhere in their definition do either the word “natural” or the phrase “odd events” appear.
Readers, which scenario seems more likely using Occam’s Razor?:
Hypothesis A) God or a god created the space-time universe.
Hypothesis B) Isn’t possible our creator was a non-supernatural being in another universe? Is it possible that other universes exist? If so, is it possible that a mortal in another universe, conducting a scientific experiment, accidentally caused a big bang explosion which resulted in our universe? Another creator, possibly mortal, in another universe. And repeat this scenario a million times until you get back to an original creator, who may have been a supernatural being.
I ask you, dear readers, which hypothesis is built upon the fewest unnecessary assumptions?
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
If Occam’s Razor truly states that “The answer that requires the fewest assumptions is ALWAYS preferred” I reject it as nonsense. I don’t care how many very intelligent theists (Aristotle, Occam, Newton) claim it is true.
The good news for fans of the good friar is, there is no evidence that he actually said what Lee and his fellow Christian apologists claim he said. Check out this excerpt from data science article on this topic:
William of Occam (a.k.a. Ockham or Ocham) is attributed a variety of different “quotes” pertaining to a problem-solving principle based on parsimony / simplicity. They usually state something close to: simpler solutions are preferable to more complex ones; simpler explanations are preferable to more complex ones. However, this idea is not unique to William of Occam, and there is actually no direct quote from him that one can produce to support that he even made such claims in his works. The closest one gets to are these two quotes:
“Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem”, translating to “Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” and “Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora”, translating to “It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer.”
Hardly enlightening stuff, given that the force of evolution drives all organisms towards minimalism and cognitive misery: expending unnecessary energy to achieve a given result tends to get punished by nature through death on the individual level and extinction at the species level
Keywords to note here are “beyond necessity” and “can be done with fewer”. Note that “necessity” is not defined in the first quote, while in the second it is implicit that we get the same end result. We’ll return to these in the next section. Other formulations of this principle were provided by many thinkers both long before and after Occam, including the likes of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Newton, Bertrand Russell, and Karl Popper. Aristotle’s formulation, for example is that “We may assume the superiority, other things being equal, of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.”. Put more simply:
“other things being equal, simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones”
Leaving the issue of authorship or originality aside, I argue that this very common-sense idea is often and almost inevitably perverted when used in an actual argument of practical consequences. The most often type of misquoting and, following from it, misapplication of the simplicity principle ascribed to Occam is to simply drop the ceteris paribus qualifier, the “other things being equal” part of the principle. Without it, it becomes simply:
“simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones”
and is thus ripe for misapplication
Source: https://towardsdatascience.com/stop-using-the-occams-razor-principle-7281d143f9e6
Gary: Hear! Hear! I’m happy to hear that I am not the only person who believes that Christian apologists’ usage of Occam’s Razor is flawed, and thankfully due to their own misinterpretation of what the good friar said, not due to what he actually said. Bottom line: Occam’s Razor CANNOT be used to defend absurd supernatural claims such as resurrecting corpses and creation ex-nihlo by first century Galilean peasants!
No one with even a sixth grade education believes that comparing supernatural claims with natural claims meets the first criteria of Occam’s Razor: “other things being equal”.
Case closed!
LikeLike
It blows my mind that “a supernatural explanation (resurrection) best fits the data” is promulgated by apologists as an argument that should somehow convince skeptics, atheists, or former Christians.
LikeLike
Yes, Lee and other apologists want us to believe that instead of Occam’s Razor stating that “all other factors being equal, the explanation with the fewest assumptions is generally preferred” it should instead read “the explanation with the fewest assumptions should always be preferred”. This is just stupid. Full stop. Stupid. And Lee is not stupid. He is a very intelligent guy so I do not understand why he keeps pushing this distorted version of Occam’s Razor.
Let’s use Lee’s distorted version of Occam’s Razor in a scenario of a rope pulling contest.
According to the correct version of Occam’s Razor: all other factors being equal, the team with the strongest members will generally win a rope pulling contest. But Lee’s distorted version says: the team with the strongest members will always win a rope pulling contest. Is this true? No. What if the team with the strongest members all have the flu and can barely stand up? What if some of the members of the strongest team have been paid off to let the other side win? So assuming that the team with the strongest members will always win is naive. Generally win, yes. Always win, no. In the two scenarios given, all other factors are not equal!
To top it off, Lee then claims that one of the members of team A is an omnipotent superhero!
Absurd!
Lee has violated the first part of Occam’s Razor: “all other factors being equal”. Having a supernatural member of one of the rope pulling teams invalidates Occam’s Razor. All other factors are definitely NOT equal.
Let’s see how Lee does this for the Resurrection Belief: Lee: The explanation with the fewest assumptions is always the preferred explanation so since “a god did it” only requires one assumption and the very improbable, cumulative, multi-step natural explanations of skeptics require many (highly improbable) assumptions, the one supernatural explanation is the preferred explanation according to Occam’s Razor!
No!
All other factors are NOT equal, Lee. You have introduced an omnipotent superhero into the equation. The first principle of Occam’s Razor has been violated, so you cannot use Occam’s Razor to support your resurrection superstition!
LikeLiked by 1 person
BILL: It blows my mind that “a supernatural explanation (resurrection) best fits the data” is promulgated by apologists as an argument that should somehow convince skeptics, atheists, or former Christians.
LEE: Gary would argue that a supernatural explanation is never to be preferred however, there are times when, rationally, a supernatural explanation is the only explanation that fits all the data.
It is because so many atheists have a prior commitment to materialism that they can’t budge from that any counter-explanation, no matter how unlikely or improbable, is to be preferred, so long as it gets them off the hook of believing the supernatural explanation.
Thus Gary’s multiple, infinite mortal scientists creating universes until eventually one creates ours. Ockham would say that multiple scientists are unnecessary when one God creating our universe is all that is necessary.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
You are violating the first component of Occam’s Razor: “all other things being equal, …”.
LikeLike
You claim that “so many atheists have a prior commitment.” I daresay this is ever-so-true of Christians as well. 🙂
LikeLike
Nor have I ever denied that. I’ve admitted my biases several times.
That being said (again), total objectivity is neither possible, nor even necessary.
But this die-hard, almost paranoid skepticism many non-believers in these forums have which automatically mistrusts anything the gospels say and assumes either a careless mistake or deliberate falsehood (often the latter) thus demands 100% proof for any gospel assertion, be it the historical existence of Nazareth or the miracle of the loaves and fishes, which masquerades as critical thinking, isn’t critical at all.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Nonsense. I for one do not view the Gospels any differently than I do any other ancient work of religious propaganda. We should neither accept in toto nor reject in toto all claims in these texts. We must examine each and every claim in these texts to verify the historicity of each individual claim.
LikeLike
GARY: Nonsense. I for one do not view the Gospels any differently than I do any other ancient work of religious propaganda. We should neither accept in toto nor reject in toto all claims in these texts. We must examine each and every claim in these texts to verify the historicity of each individual claim.
LEE: The italicized part of your post above says it all. You view the gospels as “religious propaganda.” Thus you’re already prejudiced against them. Otherwise you’d simply refer to them as ancient historical texts or something similar.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.
–the author of the Gospel of John
What other ancient author, claiming to record historical events, adds at the end of his book that he hopes that the reader will come to believe in X (Zeus, Ra, Jupiter, Baal) as God, Creator, and Granter of eternal life due to what he or she has just read??
Give me a break.
The Gospel authors themselves admit to writing religious propaganda! Admit it, Lee!
LikeLike
GARY: The Gospel authors themselves admit to writing religious propaganda! Admit it, Lee!
LEE: I have no problem admitting that the gospels were/are aimed at persuading (initially first-century AD) people that Jesus was/is the Messiah. But that admission doesn’t mean that the gospels deliberately falsified the historical record, which is what is implied by your use of the phrase religious propaganda.
Why use that particular word? Because it subtly–actually not-so-subtly pushes the idea that because the gospels are trying to convince you to believe something, they aren’t above using subterfuge and deception, which is what we normally mean to imply when we use the word “propaganda.”
If I say that under Communism Pravda was nothing but Soviet propaganda you don’t automatically think “fair and balanced,” you think “lying and dishonest.”
Religious propaganda makes people think of, at worst, Jim Jones and The Peoples’ Temple, at best, the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses.
You might not have intended to send out that signal; maybe you’ve been doing this so long you aren’t even consciously aware of it, but I noticed.
I doubt you’d refer to the Torah or Mishnah as “religious propaganda.”
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
If King Josiah’s scribes invented the Torah, as I suspect, then yes, the Jewish Bible is propaganda.
LikeLike
GARY: If Occam’s Razor truly states that “The answer that requires the fewest assumptions is ALWAYS preferred” I reject it as nonsense. I don’t care how many very intelligent theists (Aristotle, Occam, Newton) claim it is true.
LEE: Gary, you keep saying I’ve said this but I have never said this! Please go back and carefully re-read what I wrote.
I have never said that the answer which requires the fewest assumptions is always to be preferred. Nobody, least of all me, is advocating a blind adherence to Occam’s Razor in every situation. Yet Occam’s Razor is about finding the simplest solution that works.
GARY: The good news for fans of the good friar is, there is no evidence that he actually said what Lee and his fellow Christian apologists claim he said. Check out this excerpt from data science article on this topic:
LEE: Gary, see the following from Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Ockham, however, mentioned the principle so frequently and employed it so sharply that it was called “Occam’s razor” (also spelled Ockham’s razor).”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Occams-razor
So yes, Ockham did say what I claim he said..
GARY: “Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem”, translating to “Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” and “Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora”, translating to “It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer.” . . .
Remember what New Scientist said:
“Occam’s Razor can be thought of in terms of basic probability theory. All things can be ascribed a probability of happening. As such, any assumptions one adds to a theory introduce further possibilities for error, and if an assumption isn’t improving the accuracy of a theory, it just increases the probability that the theory is wrong.”
https://www.newscientist.com/definition/occams-razor/
LEE: So Ockham would argue that it is “futile” to posit multiple, possibly infinite, mortal creators of universes until you get to ours, when one is all that is necessary.
There is nothing illogical about my use of the Razor here. William Lane Craig has made essentially the same argument I am making:
“So in inferring to a Creator of the universe, it would be a violation of Ockham’s Razor to postulate more than one Creator, because one Creator suffices to explain the phenomenon calling for explanation (viz., the beginning of the universe).”
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P50/ockhams-razor
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Question: Is it possible that a mortal is the creator of our universe?
LikeLike
\In my last it should’ve been “William Lane Craig.”
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
I corrected it for you.
LikeLike
GARY: Yes, Lee and other apologists want us to believe that instead of Occam’s Razor stating that “all other factors being equal, the explanation with the fewest assumptions is generally preferred” it should instead read “the explanation with the fewest assumptions should always be preferred”. This is just stupid. Full stop. Stupid. And Lee is not stupid.
LEE: Again, Gary I AM NOT SAYING THIS. This assertion is a straw argument. It is just stupid. Full stop. Stupid. Gary is not stupid and can read.
Gary’s scenario of an infinite number of mortal scientists (initially kicked off by one who might have been divine) creating an infinite number of universes until finally one creates ours, is, under Ockham’s Razor, multiplying unnecessary assumptions, because one creator God is all that is necessary to explain how our universe got here. That’s all I’m saying.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Which explanation requires the fewest assumptions:
Sorry, Lee, but the first explanation requires the fewest assumptions.
LikeLike
How? It assumes that a) not just that other universes are possible b) that other universes actuallyexist (not proven at all by modern science) c) that that universe was fine-tuned identically to ours so that life life could evolve d) that conscious, thinking life did evolve e) that this conscious, thinking life-form somehow was able to cause a Big Bang which then created our universe.
And it begs a number of questions, such as: who or what created that preexisting material (the idea that our universe was created by gods plural from pre-existing proto-matter is Mormon cosmology) which your hypothetical creator used to created our universe.
Gary, can you really not see that your scenario is built on a literal mountain of unnecessary, improbable assumptions?
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
This explanation for the origin of our universe only assumes the existence of other universes with mortal beings. The existence of multi-universes is not some hair-brained idea I just came up with. Many scientists consider it a strong possibility. And the idea that there are other planets within even our universe that may contain life is a real possibility according to modern science.
So the assumptions in this explanation may not be simple but they are not unheard of.
2. Our universe was created out of nothing by a supernatural creator.
This explanation assumes that something can come from nothing and that supernatural beings exist with the power to create complex universes.
This explanation contains very speculative assumptions.
No, the first explanation is the preferred explanation according to Occam’s Razor.
LikeLike
Gary, Ockham doesn’t take into consideration whether a particular theory is “hair-brained” or “a real possibility” or not, only whether it is a necessary or unnecessary assumption. We’re not talking about possibilities, only probabilities.
Alternate universes and an infinite regression of mortal scientists are unnecessary assumptions because one creator god could do in less time and with less effort what your theoretical infinite regression of mortal scientists could do, thus that scenario is the simplest, thus more likely than yours, to be the correct one. Under Ockham’s Razor. No it doesn’t prove it’s true, it just establishes the probability that it’s more likely to be true than your scenario.
But because you’re a committed materialist, you’re forced to seriously consider any “natural” theory, no matter how wild or improbable it sounds, over a supernatural one. your commitment to materialism backs you into a corner you can’t escape from. Thus anything is more plausible than the supernatural to you. this is irrational. It is rational in this case to at least consider the possibility of a supernatural explanation.
God’s existence and the inference that he created the space-time universe is entirely rational
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Nope. I am only arguing for the origin of one universe. Ours. My explanation for the creation of OUR universe requires much fewer assumptions than yours.
LikeLike
GARY: Nope. I am only arguing for the origin of one universe. Ours. My explanation for the creation of OUR universe requires much fewer assumptions than yours.
LEE: Gary, this is your alternate, hypothetical scenario:, as stated to me
“Isn’t possible our creator was a non-supernatural being in another universe? Is it possible that other universes exist? If so, is it possible that a mortal in another universe, conducting a scientific experiment, accidentally caused a big bang explosion which resulted in our universe? Another creator, possibly mortal, in another universe. And repeat this scenario a million times until you get back to an original creator, who may have been a supernatural being.”
Thus your alternate scenario depends upon the creation of an infinite number of other universes before ours was created. How is this based on “fewer assumptions” than mine (God created our space-time universe ex nihilo)?
I’m not a logician but even I can see that your scenario is built upon assumption after assumption.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Wrong. We are not discussing the origin of all things. We are discussing the origin of ONE universe. Our universe.
My explanation for the origin of our ONE universe involves much fewer assumptions than your very improbable explanation which involves multiple improbable assumptions, beginning with the astronomically improbable assumption that a first century Jewish peasant created the universe out of nothing prior to his own birth!
LikeLike
GARY: Wrong. We are not discussing the origin of all things. We are discussing the origin of ONE universe. Our universe.
LEE: Gary, unless you have an inside track nobody else knows about, our universe IS “all things.” The idea of multiple universes is just a theory which hasn’t been proven yet. As far as modern sciences know, this universe is all there is.
Read your hypothetical scenario again, carefully (these are your exact words):
“Isn’t possible our creator was a non-supernatural being in another universe? Is it possible that other universes exist? If so, is it possible that a mortal in another universe, conducting a scientific experiment, accidentally caused a big bang explosion which resulted in our universe? Another creator, possibly mortal, in another universe. And repeat this scenario a million times until you get back to an original creator, who may have been a supernatural being.”
To explain the creation of our one, known universe, you posit the creation of multiple other universes preceding ours. Thus, your theory needs an infinite number of universes in the past to explain our one, known universe.
Again, this ain’t rocket science.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Nope. I only posit one (non-mortal) creator for our one universe.
Simply repeating yourself is not going to improve your argument, Lee.
LikeLike
That may be what you meant but it isn’t what you wrote:
“If so, is it possible that a mortal in another universe, conducting a scientific experiment, accidentally caused a big bang explosion which resulted in our universe? Another creator, possibly mortal, in another universe. And repeat this scenario a million times until you get back to an original creator, who may have been a supernatural being.”
So what you actually wrote argues for a chain of multiple creations of multiple universes by multiple beings, possibly mortal, until you eventually get back to an original, creation of an original universe by a possibly supernatural being.
Again, it may not be what you meant, but it’s what you wrote.
How am I misunderstanding it?
Pax.
lee.
LikeLike
Please specify which issue you are asking me to address:
LikeLike