Occam’s Razor
Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
(Matthew 7:13-14) NKJV
Occam’s razor is a philosophical train wreck which has been used to delude people into believing hypotheses which are vastly more complex than their competitors.
Occam’s Razor is a problem-solving principle attributed to William of Ockham (c. 1287โ1347), who was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian. The principle can be interpreted as stating:
Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
– William of Ockham (c. 1287โ1347)
This is also stated as: all things being equal, the simplest explanation is best. Simple is best, right? However, there’s two major flaws in this logic:
The Philosophical Glitches of Occam’s Razor
- All things aren’t equal,
- What really happened is rarely the simplest explanation.
Who’s the Smartest?
Occam’s razor is cited as a reason why the heliocentric theory triumphed over Geocentrism, because it was too complicated to diagram the motion of the stars that we watch from the Earth. Bear that in mind.
The planetary and stellar system which astrologers GAVE UP trying to model is the one that we can watch every day. In contrast, it was very simple to draw a diagram which had the sun at the center because this isn’t observed, it’s purely theoretical.
There is a major problem here which Occam conveniently provided an excuse to ignore: we observe that the motions of the myriad bodies in the cosmos are too complicated for us to figure out. See that? We’re on Earth observing (empirically Geocentrospheric) and it’s too complicated to figure out. That means God is much smarter than we are.
If we can simplify the problem (technically speaking, side-step it) we can make it seem that we’re much smarter than God, in which case he isn’t really god at all. This is the reason why the scientific community adopted Occam’s razor: it makes them feel clever.
As a result, we can now say that Occam’s razor is the scientific embodiment of willful ignorance. It’s become a convenient way to dismiss the truth in favor of anything at all that harmonizes the popular science narrative of godless existence (SciPop) with whatever new technology just came out. The real test of scientific merit is: would it work well as the plot for an episode of Star Trek?
Assumptions in the Heliocentric Model
Let’s consider what assumptions must be made in the heliocentric model. It starts with Copernicus who explained the mental gymnastics necessary to imagine the cosmos from the frame of reference of the sun.
Copernicus’ Assumptions
- There is no one center of all the celestial circles or spheres.
- The center of the earth is not the center of the universe, but only the center towards which heavy bodies move and the center of the lunar sphere.
- All the spheres surround the sun as if it were in the middle of them all, and therefore the center of the universe is near the sun.
- The ratio of the earth’s distance from the sun to the height of the firmament (outermost celestial sphere containing the stars) is so much smaller than the ratio of the earth’s radius to its distance from the sun that the distance from the earth to the sun is imperceptible in comparison with the height of the firmament.
- Whatever motion appears in the firmament arises not from any motion of the firmament, but from the earth’s motion. The earth together with its circumjacent elements performs a complete rotation on its fixed poles in a daily motion, while the firmament and highest heaven abide unchanged.
- What appear to us as motions of the sun arise not from its motion but from the motion of the earth and our sphere, with which we revolve about the sun like any other planet. The earth has, then, more than one motion.
- The apparent retrograde and direct motion of the planets arises not from their motion but from the earth’s. The motion of the earth alone, therefore, suffices to explain so many apparent inequalities in the heavens.
These are all assumptions and none of them are self-evident. It’s like, you can imagine that you’re on the bridge of the star ship Enterprise if you want to, no one’s going to stop you. Popular science (SciPop) went on from that point to develop enough rationale to prove that you’re on the bridge of the Enterprise, even though you aren’t. It’s called Star Trek.
The endeavor runs into a lot of obstacles, and we have to tackle problems with the model. We’re not on the Enterprise, so how do we make it seem as if, not that we are, but that we could be. The following list are things that have to be resolved. This is inductive rationalization necessary to make the heliocentric model theoretically possible. Theory is the scientific word for faith, so each theory is an explanation of the mental gymnastics necessary to rationalize the assumption.
The Additional Assumptions of Heliocentricity
- We can’t believe what we see with our own eyes.
- The mass of the sun is greater than the Earth.
- Stellar parallax in a heliocentric geometry.
- Stars are suns.
- Red shift is a measurement of recession speed.
- Gravity bends space.
- Black holes are real.
- Dark matter exists.
rst set of 7 assumptions has to be multiplied by the second set of 8 to get 56. If you’re wondering why we’re multiplying rather than adding it’s because the system is circular. For instance, Copernicus provided the rationale for how to imagine heliocentricity. If you then produce Copernicus as proof of heliocentricity you just did something called circular reasoning.
However, the system is beset with problems and so we have to induce more rationale to resolve them. Here’s a list of the purported proofs of heliocentricity which are instructions for the mental gymnastics necessary to prove that something isn’t what it actually is.
Purported Proofs of Heliocentricity
| Phenomena or Individuals | |
| 1 | Aberration of starlight |
| 2 | Aether drag |
| 3 | Angular size of the sun |
| 4 | Aristarchus |
| 5 | Bessel and 61 Cygni |
| 6 | Bradley and Molyneux |
| 7 | Citing incorrect Geocentric models |
| 8 | Copernicus |
| 9 | Coriolis effect |
| 10 | Doppler and the Voyagers |
| 11 | Eclipses |
| 12 | Foucault pendulum |
| 13 | Gravitational assists |
| 14 | Gravity |
| 15 | Keplerโs Laws |
| 16 | Lorentzโ length contraction |
| 17 | Luminiferous aether |
| 18 | Mass of the sun / Newtonian physics |
| 19 | Moons of Jupiter |
| 20 | Phases of Venus |
| 21 | Procession of the equinoxes |
| 22 | Pulsars |
| 23 | Redshift / Universe expansion / Hubble Constant |
| 24 | Relativistic reference frames |
| 25 | Retrograde / relative motion |
| 26 | Sagans |
| 27 | Seasons and weather |
| 28 | Spacecraft |
| 29 | Special relativity |
| 30 | Stellar parallax |
| 31 | Stellar spectroscopy |
| 32 | Transit of the ISS during an eclipse |
| 33 | Transit of Venus |
| 34 | Variation in the sunโs orbital radius |
It’s vast and intricate, but the entire thing is an inductive rationalization of the premise of heliocentricity, none of it is proof of heliocentricity. Now we take our 56 assumptions and multiply them by the 34 above. We’re up to 1,904.
Assumptions in the Geocentrospheric Model
Here’s what we must assume in order for the Geocentrospheric system to be true:
- We can believe what we see with our own eyes.
Comparing Assumptions between the Competing Cosmological Models
Let’s see how Occam’s razor is looking. Which model, heliocentric or Geocentrospheric, has the fewest assumptions?
| Model | Assumptions |
| Heliocentric | 1,904 |
| Geocentrospheric | 1 |
What impact does this have on the scientific procedure, as used by peer review, known as Occam’s razor? How does this look when viewed through a gospel lens?
Occam’s razor is a philosophical tenet which epitomizes the strong delusion, the scientific embodiment of willful ignorance, an excuse to ignore the truth whenever it’s inconvenient. It’s a major deity in the atheist pantheon, the subject of a lot of special pleading.
– Occam’s razor, definition
Occam’s Razor – Navigation
| Section | Title | Scripture |
| 1 | Occam’s Razor | Matthew 7:13-14 |
| Occam’s Twitter | Isaiah 5:20 | |
| Occam’s Delusion | 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 | |
| Salvation | Romans 10:9-10 |
Read through the Bible in a year
| Reading plan | July 23 | |
| Linear | Song of Solomon 1-3 | |
| Chronological | Isaiah 31-34 |
Salvation
- Call upon the name of Jesus Christ,
- believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,
- confess your sin.
“Mattyโs Paradigm Assumptions
God cannot lie.”
this is based on presuppositions:
There is a god
The god I believe in is the only one
My god is needed for something.
I’d love to see you show that spacetime and gravity aren’t associated, something you claim you know isn’t true.
โGod cannot lie and the Bible is trueโ is a principle which is deduced from axioms.
Severing the link between spacetime and gravity is simply a matter of the sequence of events in Genesis chapter 1. A body of water called โthe deepโ existed before gravity was created, therefore gravity is not a property of the existence of spacetime. Spacetime existed before gravity was created.
no, it is not. Axioms are “a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.” we have no evidence for your god so it is not established as true. We also have this god needing to lie to people per your bible, so again, it doesn’t work.
Sicne there is no evidence for the supposed events in Genesis, we also have nothing to show that spacetime and gravity aren’t connected. Depends on which creation story you read in Genesis if there was water before or after the creation of earth, so again the bible shows that you, and it, are incoherent. Thanks to Einstein, gravity and spacetime are parts of each other.
The existence of the universe is the evidence of God.
You could say that about any coincidence, especially if you ignore the lack of a causal link in your ideology.
And what is your causal link, exactly?
What does that question mean?
The universe exists because God created it.
What is your alternative hypotheses?
The universe exists
Thatโs an effect. Not the cause.
Why does there have to be a cause?
Also, if there is one, how do you know that your God did it?
Yep. Saw that coming.
You just crashed and burned.
You just broke the first law of thermodynamics.
How smug of you. That question does not answer my questions. Try again without the diversion tactic
No tactics.
Atheist โdenial of causeโ is enough for you to be disqualified.
Any other place where you break the rules you get kicked out.
Go back to Twitter if you want to play that game.
What game?
Disqualified from what?
You just renounced the intellectual high ground on which science and atheism is supposedly built.
You have once again proven that atheism is not intellectually viable.
Come back when you can identify a causal agent other than God.
I have not ‘renounced’ or ‘denied’ anything.
I asked a few questions which you have not been able to answer yet.
A question cannot be a denial.
You could still answer if you wanted.
You failed.
Whining canโt change that.
Every theist says this and has no evidence for it.
The universe is the evidence.
Thatโs the point.
It can’t be until you have established a causal link. Until then, the idea renains a non-sequitur
Atheism is not intellectually viable.
Science has failed you.
The Bible has a cause for the universe and a source of Hydrogen for nucleosynthesis.
Science has neither.
You want to claim that the universe is evidence for your version of your god. Not for other gods, just your own. And you have no evidence for this or that a god is needed at all. You have a baseless claim just like every other theist. Not impressed.
The evidence is that the Bible can account for all empirical observations and physical evidence with accurate physics which includes the origin and nature of gravity.
If God is real and the Bible is His word thatโs exactly what we would expect.
None of that is in my copy. The word Hydrogen doesn’t appear once. The genesis story doesn’t resemble anything seen in real life either. Your claims don’t match either the Bible or the real world.
Care to be specific…?
What is Hydrogen?
A proton and an electron.
Proton is Greek for โfirst or beginning.โ
Check James 3:17 in the Greek for an example of its use.
Youโre running on an empty tank of bluff.
Why do you always respond with sarcasm and other forms of insult? Why do you distort plain questions with empirious sneering or straw man responses?
Because your pitiful whining is pathetic, and Iโm trying to be nice.
No whining here, all I’ve done is ask questions and you respond with malice.
You respond with zero scientific substance to a simple question:
What caused the universe?
There is a cause and effect.
The cause: you donโt want the Bible to be true.
The effect: you accept an rationalization of human existence which is critically flawed.
No, the bible doesn’t explain or account for all empiracle observations and physical evidence. we have. You are just lying, Matt. The bible makes claims that light exists before objects that produce light. it claims that stars are little spots on a dome. It claims that stars can fall onto the earth and are only tiny things compared to real stars. It claims that the earth is on pillars and has corners. It claims that hailstones are in magic warehouses. The poor thing can’t even get its creation stories to match up. Your god was too stupid to know that animals wouldn’t make a good mate for Adam.
it claims that there was a magical flood higher than Everest. No flood deposit has ever been found for that and surprise Christians can’t point to a time it happened, just like for the Exodus, etc.
Genesis 1:2 refers to a body of water called the deep.
Genesis 1:3 is when God said โlet there be light.โ
Using deductive reasoning we can conclude that the deep was the source of Hydrogen for nucleosynthesis.
Mt. Everest didnโt exist at the time of Noahโs flood. The tectonic breakup of Pangaea was 200 years after the flood. Thatโs when the Himalayas were upthrust.
How long do you suggest it took for Mt Everest to form?
A few days. Itโs the event mentioned in Genesis 10:25.
Genesis 10:25 “nd to Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan”
Really?
Yep, thatโs the tectonic breakup of Pangaea. 200 years after Noahโs flood so the animals and people groups had time to spread out across the earth. Thatโs why we only find Marsupials and Monotremes in Australia (for example).
Have I got the right quotation? Obviously there is no mention of tectonics there, so where is it?
The earth was divided = tectonic breakup of Pangaea.
Or the earth was divided into haves and have-nots, left and right handed, sea and land, or anything.
Youโre using induction to make it what you want.
On the other hand, if we use deduction then follow this logic:
IF animals and humans spread out after Noahโs flood,
BEFORE the supercontinent Pangaea broke up,
AND this was during human history,
THEN it should be in the Bible.
Guess what? It is.
Except it isn’t. The timescale us wrong. There is too much good evidence in the geological record.
Pure fluff.
That simply means that you donโt understand evidence.
You’re confusing two things:
1) the stratigraphic column,
2) the geological timescale.
The stratigraphic column is evidence.
The geological timescale is your explanation for the evidence.
I can take exactly the same evidence (the stratigraphic column) and show that it is the evidence of Noah’s flood.
Yep, a body of water just hanging out in nothingness. so we have water which needs oxygen to exist, which can’t exist until we have some means to make hydrogen and then oxygen out of that. Sure, Matt. As usual, you demonstrate your utter ignorance.
And funny how you have no idea when Noah’s flood was so you can’t say that Mt. Everest wasn’t there. It’s hilarious that you try to gussie up your failure with real science words. Pangaea broke up around 200 million years. So, Matt, Noah was around 199.999,800 years ago? The Himalayas started growing 50 million years ago and are still at it.
You are so incompetent.
There are no millions of years.
sure dear. Then there is no nucleosynthesis and no radioactive elements. Keep going, I do want to see just how addled you are.
Nuclear decay began after the fall of man in Genesis 3.
Since the earth had formed around a gravitational singularity the majority of the heavy atomic weight elements were concentrated in the core.
Nuclear decay was initially rapid so the core of the earth melted – thatโs why hell is at the center of the earth.
This is also the reason why measurements of decay rates in the present are not an accurate indicator of decay rates in the past.
As a result, timescales based on radiometric dating are bogus and the earth is about 6,000 years old.