Does Occam's Razor favor Creationism?

[Gunslinger08]

Does Occam's Razor favor Creationism over the primordial soup theory?

 

[Cobalt]

Repost from a looooong time ago.

 

[cKGunslinger]

D) FSM, FTW!

 

[Howard]

I thought Occam's Razor was a method, not a solution.

 

[NatePo717]

For those who don't know what Occam's Razor is.

It has to do with the Scientific Method and basically says that the easiest explanation is usually the one to go with.

 

[DAGTA]

People aren't going to vote according to Occam's Razor. They're going to vote according to which one they wish to believe.

 

[OccamsToothbrush]

Primordial soup. It requires a whole lot fewer suppositions for simple life forms to spring from nothing than it takes for a supreme being to spring from nothing.

 

[robothouse77]

how could either be considered 'the simpliest explanation'? they both seem simple to me

 

[Malfeas]

No, it favors science. And in fact was a arguing point FOR the existence of god because there was no proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: robothouse77
how could either be considered 'the simpliest explanation'? they both seem simple to me

Infinite recursion, for one.

 

[chuckywang]

Yeah, it's simplest to think that there was a "God" that nobody knew how he came to be that created man and a paradise out of nothing, and then from his rib, he created a woman cause the man felt lonely. Only he wanted to tempt them, and therefore they got kicked of their paradise, therefore establishing the human race.

So simple and logical.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Does Occam's Razor favor Creationism over the primordial soup theory?

Occam's Razor is like giving a guestimate...
It starts you off in a direction... which may or may not be right...

It really gives you jack squat.

 

[Lonyo]

You have to make a lot of assumptions about God, his power and his Creation to take Creationism as being the beginning, while primordial soup requires only one specific set of conditions, so it is a lot simpler IMO than creationism.


Since you cannot say precisely how likely it is for God to exist, I think the only factor to consider is which is simpler, not necessarily most likely, and IMO primordial soup is most simple.

 

[blue1friday2]

Positing an unknowable being is waaaaay more complicated having a scientific theory based on observable data. (Of course, there is a whole slew of problems that come along with making assumtions based on empiricism.) Sorry... I'm a philosophy major.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: chuckywang
Yeah, it's simplest to think that there was a "God" that nobody knew how he came to be that created man and a paradise out of nothing, and then from his rib, he created a woman cause the man felt lonely. Only he wanted to tempt them, and therefore they got kicked of their paradise, therefore establishing the human race.

So simple and logical.

Actually it would be, God created Man vs We all evolved from single celled organisms.

 

[sunase]

Interesting, I always thought Occam's Razor was "simplest is right". Actually, it's "as few assumptions as possible" according to the wiki someone linked. Therefore the primordial soup theory is free to use a very complex framework (modern chemistry) without that counting against it.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: sunase
Interesting, I always thought Occam's Razor was "simplest is right". Actually, it's "as few assumptions as possible" according to the wiki someone linked. Therefore the primordial soup theory is free to use a very complex framework (modern chemistry) without that counting against it.

Does modern chemistry support this theory?

 

[Kadarin]

Occam's Razor = "No primordial soup for you!"