RCAlyra2004

I find it interesting that you... JinnKai would first clearly identify the meaning of Occam's Razor and then begin to make a bunch of assumptions.

You said:

Occam's Razor is simply "that one should make no more assumptions than needed"

This indeed appears correct to me.

Later on in your argument you state: "My personal extension of this belief is that any derivation from this principle necessitates a level of "faith" -- for the less concrete your assumptions, the more that must be taken on faith."

You also go on to say, "For Atheism: Assume there is no higher being. (YES, ASSUME). Because the rest of the assumptions regard the being itself, they are no longer necessary"

OK JinnKai, lets be really clear about what an atheist is. "Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities. Atheism is not necessarily an entrenched position against a deity, but it can be. Atheism is often described as "not seeing any evidence for" any deities."

I am an atheist who sees no evidence of a God... therefore I make no assumptions about God. I do not include any "Gods" in my plans or my thoughts or assumptions, no extra legwork, no extra assumptions.

It seems to me that an agnostic starts with the assumption that there "could" be a GOD. They assume that the existence of a God is plausible without any evidence for the necessity of a god.

Lets be clear... there is no evidence that there is a God, therefore agnosticism starts out with a false assumption.

If you don't agree then try this on for size:

My friend says that she has a big green dragon in her garage. You look into the garage where she says it is but cannot see the dragon or hear the dragon or touch the dragon. Reasonable use of Occam's Razor logic says that the lack of evidence indicates that my friend is incorrect. She could also be lying or deluded.

You can be agnostic about my friend being a liar, or agnostic about her being deluded. But if you are agnostic about the big green dragons existence you have just bought into the "assumption" that it could exist in the first place.

What’s worse is that you did it without any evidence at all.

Therefore: I see no evidence of God so I don't just assume that a god is needed for the world to exist and "work". Instead I try to find out what does really exist. I find out why "Life" seems to work and I try to understand how life could have come into existence based on the Physical laws that I know are true. (Provable Physical Laws!)

Agnosticism seems kind of "weasely" to me. It's full of weasel words and seems to be based on an unwillingness to define what we really know to be true about nature and the universe.

Again: If god were to show up I'd gladly admit her existence, until then there is no proof and I am unwilling to make any extra assumptions about her.

If you define my last two statements as requiring a form of "Faith based assumption" you have truly missed the point of Occam's Razor.

Respectfully submitted

RCA LYRA

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity