Changes

Let us take for an example the origin of intelligent life on Earth. One possibility for intelligent life is naturalistic [[evolution]] via [[natural selection]]. A second possibility is that God used evolution as His means of creation. Occam's Razor allows us to eliminate God from the hypothesis, since the idea is an unnecessary additional assumption. The 'simpler' explanation (that which makes fewer fundamental assumptions) is that God had nothing to do with the development of Intelligent Life and that it came about as a result of natural processes. Therefore, the earlier explanation is the most reasonable to believe.

Let us take for an example the origin of intelligent life on Earth. One possibility for intelligent life is naturalistic [[evolution]] via [[natural selection]]. A second possibility is that God used evolution as His means of creation. Occam's Razor allows us to eliminate God from the hypothesis, since the idea is an unnecessary additional assumption. The 'simpler' explanation (that which makes fewer fundamental assumptions) is that God had nothing to do with the development of Intelligent Life and that it came about as a result of natural processes. Therefore, the earlier explanation is the most reasonable to believe.

The problem with this use of the principle is that it assumes that naturalistic evolution ''can'' explain the origin of intelligent life.  Most theists would argue that God is not an unnecessary additional assumption, but a ''necessary'' additional assumption.  Creationists would further argue that ''evolution'' is an unnecessary additional assumption—If you assume that God could create life, there is no need to assume that He needed to use evolution to do so.

The problem with the atheist example above is that it assumes that naturalistic evolution ''can'' explain the origin of intelligent life.  Most theists would argue that God is not an unnecessary additional assumption, but a ''necessary'' additional assumption.  Creationists would further argue that ''evolution'' is an unnecessary additional assumption—If you assume that God could create life, there is no need to assume that He needed to use evolution to do so.

Christian apologist [[William Lane Craig]] also has used Occam's razor to argue against [[polytheism]]. He argues that the [[Kalam Cosmological Argument]] argues against atheism, and that Occam's Razor would only require the existence of one god. <ref>Strobel, 2004</ref>

Christian apologist [[William Lane Craig]] also has used Occam's razor to argue against [[polytheism]]. He argues that the [[Kalam Cosmological Argument]] argues against atheism, and that Occam's Razor would only require the existence of one god. <ref>Strobel, 2004</ref>