Changes

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.

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]]. His version of the [[Kalam Cosmological Argument]] argues against [[atheism]], and that Occam's Razor would only require the existence of one god. <ref>Strobel, 2004</ref>

== Bibliography ==

== Bibliography ==