Ok, I have seen this spelled Occam and Ockham in this article. Which one is it?--Elamdri 06:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Since William of Ockham lived before spellings were standardised there is no real correct spelling. However, the village he was from is spelt Ockham these days, so maybe that should have primacy. [] Chrysogonus 07:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
- Wikipedia spells it Occam, so I am going to guess that "Occam" has become the contemporary spelling.--Elamdri 08:43, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Regarding the concept of a 'fundamental' assumption, it is perhaps best that for the purposes of the article we define a fundamental assumption as being a one which serves as, or is an essential part of the theory (adapted from dictionary.com's primary definition of "fundamental").
Now then, as regards the disputed final line However, every theory only requires one fundamental assumption, which is to assume that the theory itself is true. While it may very well seem that this is the case, in assuming that the said theory is correct, you would in fact be required to accept all of the fundamental assumptions inherent in the theory itself, as such the argument in question is circular.
I would like to link Kalam Cosmological Argument here, to a subsection of an existing article, but I am unsure how to do this, can somebody help me? http://www.conservapedia.com/Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God#Kalam_cosmological_argument DanH 00:13, 24 December 2007 (EST)
I've hear Occam's Razor used to validate creationism (though not necessarily new-earth creationism, and not necessarily ruling out the possibility that God guided evolution) as well. The fact is, there are so many variables in Earth and in this universe that had to fall perfectly into place for human life to exist. If the gravitational force were too weak, stars would never have formed, and we'd just have random hydrogen and helium atoms. If it were too strong, then everything in the universe would collapse on itself. Plus at least 200 other examples that allowed life on Earth to exist, and/or allowed the Universe itself to exist and possibly support life. The odds of all of those randomly falling into place are something like 600 quintillion to 1. If the chance of God existing, creating the Universe, and setting those principles is more than 1 in 600 quintillion, then we can conclude that creationism in some form (either old-earth or new-earth) is correct. Of note, however, this does not rule out, and in some ways even implies, that God created and guided evolution. I'll try to find a source. Gregkochuconn 20:18, 15 February 2012 (EST)