Originally posted by spiritmangr8ness
A problem should be stated in its basic and simplest terms. In science, the simplest theory that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is ...[text shortened]... ers are dependently-related manifestations of the working of the mind."
- Sean Robsville
No, God is non parsimonious. God cannot be tested for, extrapolated out of the system, or in anyway verified. We simply cannot actually prove god exists. Physical phenomena on the other hand can be shown to exist. In terms of explaining things existance is quite a critical condition that must be met.
Let's for a second, take a simple example.
You do your laundry and hang it out on the washing line. After a couple of hours you go out and your clothes are dry. Now you have two possibilities. (A) the energy from the sun and wind caused the evaporation of water, and you clothes dried, or (B) God did it.
So which do you choose? By your logic and reasoning both would be equally probable. I would choose A every time.
This is a limited example of course, but the principle could be applied to any situation. Do balls fall back to earth when kicked in the air because of the gravitational attraction between two bodies described by Professor Newton, or is God right there, pushing the ball back to earth
at exactly the correct rate to fool us into believing gravity to be the correct explanation?
God is either devious, or not real.