The razor only addresses whether "creator" is sufficiently necessary. The specific nature of said creator as relates to humans theology isn't a function of the razor. Something's existence can be a postulate, even if its 'specific nature' is a matter of debate. For example: A cloud exists with an apparently amorphous appearance. you and I can both look at the same cloud, and think it looks like something different. While we may disagree with its appearance, neither of us would deny the cloud's existence. Occam's razor says the cloud is water vapor in the sky, that explanation doesn't fail just because you and I think the cloud doesn't look like the same thing.
Why do some extrapolate past Occam, to attempt to discredit it?
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date