Questioner wrote...
Is it more logical to say there is one God?
Adam Deen wrote...
I think so; one way to approach this is by employing Occam’s razor. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.[i] Basically, it makes more sense not to postulate causes beyond necessity, if one cause is sufficient to explain the given data then that one cause is enough.
The cosmological argument states that the universe must be the result of a "first cause" and that that first cause must be God and the teleological argues that the design and order of the universe is due to a supernatural designer i.e. God. The existence of one God explains all the data for these arguments, it would be unnecessary to postulate more Gods to explain the data when one God is enough.
So in conclusion, it is more logical that there is one god than many.
[i] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
6 comments:
if you apply occams razor, there must be no god.
the simplest solution is that the universe is a process, or part of a larger process. the fact that we do not presently understand precisely how does not of itself invalidate this solution.
the scientific evidence for the universe being a physical process is substantial whereas the scientific evidence for the existence of god is zero.
occam's razor favours the simple, not the simplistic. tom
Occams Razor cannot be applied to the universe.
For Occams Razor applies to the most simplest of explanations. Saying that the universe arose by the laws of physics, doesn't leave a simple answer. For one can always ask'where did those huge variety of laws come from'? The laws of physics are contingent upon the universe itself, and it is not neccesary, like the postulation of a neccesary God.
Because God is neccesary, that would entail that no one can ask where he came from, what is his nature etc...and thus he become sthe most simple of explanations. He just 'IS' as he ever was.
As for your comment about there being no scientific proof for the existence of God, and there is for a physical process. I found teh statement a bit pointless becaus eis stating the obvious.
To say that there is no God because science can't prove him, is a tad simplistic itself. I can't prove my computer was made in a facory, or that my mother loves me via scientific means, but neverthless it doesn't mean its not true.
Rememeber science is the study of nature, not the explanantion of nature. The explanation of nature must be found on other reasons, and the best one is God, designer God, or some cosmic intelligence if you would prefer not to use the term 'God'. Abdullah.
of course you prove that your pc was made in a factory - at any rate to a 99.99999% probability.
emotional truths are indeed different but do not seem to be relevant.
early man did not understand thunder, so imagined storm gods to explain it. in the temple at mecca there were allegedly 360 idols, 1 for each day of the solar year (365/6 less the inter-year special days) and no doubt they all had roles in various phenomena.
as our knowledge grew, we realised that storms had perfectly natural causes, just as diseases do.
of course science seeks to explain. that's its sole purpose! It may not always succeed, it may be wrong and it may revise its theories. that is to say, it can evolve. islam might try and follow science's good example....
what you are doing is reverting to using a god to explain something that you do not understand.
that guarantees that you never will understand. tom
Dear Tom.
Please forgive the typos in my last email.
Yes you can prove my computer was made in a factory. But the proof is not a scientific one, its a rational one. You see design, and you attribute a designer.
Imagine someone comes from an amazon jungle. He has never seen a computer. Would you accept that he should not deduce the computer was designed because he has no prior knowledge on how computers are designed?
As for your comment about the thunder and their being an explanation for it. Well, ok, but this has nothing to do with Islaam, for even the pagan arabs knew that their were casual explanantions behind phenomena.
When believers talk of God being the creator behind the universe, they mean the very fabric of the laws that produce the what we see.
I leave you to revers and ponder what anonymous left us with
- what we see is the product of law - Hence a First Cause.
Assalamu'alaykum wr.wb
Prof. of Logic Madsen piere said in his book "How to Win Every Argument The Use and Abuse of Logic" http://books.google.com/books?id=Gh5UjNNc0v4C&printsec=frontcover
beside he still critizm about causa prima. but his argument about universe just make "occam razor argument" sounded aplicated to universe.
he identified in page 37 about universe is
2.the universe is not in the universe, it is the universe
3. everything in the universe, is universe
so, that mean human, mountain or ocean, air all is limited in universe..and yess they are universe. so universe is limited. and yess they are from nothing to go nothing again.viola.
wassalamu'alaykum wr.wb
Post a Comment