03 Dec '16 21:38>16 edits
Originally posted by Eladarhow so?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."
If this definition of Occam's razor is true, then you are stuck.
.
You put your faith in one theory over the other.
No faith required; just logic and/or evidence.
It is something that you believe in that can't be proven.
What do I believe in that "can't be proven"?
I have no problem with something that can be demonstrated to be true even if it is simply an unproven theory
That is a self-contradiction.
How can you have a theory "demonstrated to be true" that is "an unproven theory"? If it is demonstrated to be true then that demonstration proves the theory therefore it isn't an unproven theory.
It is interesting that you assert here you "have no problem" with something that is self-contradictory.
But then to jump to other things which are not repeatable,
how is goddidit repeatable? How it God created the universe or the Earth or that being invisible and therefore unobservable ghosts that can float through solid walls etc experimentally repeatable?
In contrast, the laws of physics and many things in the natural world can be observed. Actually, to 'repeat' it isn't scientifically necessary for it to be scientific as long as you can directly or indirectly observe it and it doesn't matter how indirect that observation is.
We cannot make a star explode in an experiment thus it isn't 'repeatable' in that narrow sense and yet via observation it is still a scientific fact that stars can explode.
Only a complete idiot would say that since you believe in gravity you must believe that God does not exist and the super natural does not exist.
Nobody I am aware of, including I, says or believes this. Not sure how 'gravity' relates to this but, with or without the law of gravity, I don't even agree to just "you must believe that God does not exist and the super natural does not exist."
-why this "must"? You can rationally assign a very low probability to it given logic, lack-of-evidence, more logical explanations, etc, just like you can can rationally assign a very low probability to the law of gravity being false given logic, evidence etc, but that probability is still non-zero and there is no "must" believe it is false. Totally rational non-self-contradictory beliefs about the external world (as opposed to those of purely mathematical/deductive truths) are always probabilistic rather than absolute certainties.