Does intuition favor God's existence?

[Calavera]

Let's quote what Occam's razor is from Wikipedia:

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle that generally recommends, when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.

Based on that definition above, does Occam's razor favor the existence of some supernatural Creator that supernaturally brought forth this universe into existence? Or does it favor the existence of this universe as a result of springing forth from a singularity without any supernatural sentient being behind it?

In layman's words, which is more plausible (and with less assumptions)? God did it? Or something just happened for no reason at all?

Discuss.

EDIT: Thread title changed according to the current discussion.

[midlifeaspie]

No.

The assumption that existence needs a "reason" isn't needed and only adds complexity.

[Calavera]

Fair enough. So Occam's razor doesn't necessarily go with what's more intuitive.

[odeon]

Fair enough. So Occam's razor doesn't necessarily go with what's more intuitive.

Why would the assumption of a supernatural being with unlimited powers be the more intuitive alternative?

[Calavera]

Because I thought that's how the mind usually works ... attributing the seemingly order and beauty of this universe to a supernatural entity with unlimited powers. That's why humans from days past used to worship gods and goddesses and such, and that's why many people today believe in God (regardless of what god exactly).

Have you always imagined there was basically nothing and that somehow something just happened? Even when you were a little kid?

I think that if it weren't for modern scientific discoveries, we'd probably be lacking in the atheistic department and there'd have been more deists instead.

[P7PSP]

Occam's razor favors crank over coke because it lasts longer. Both, however, will rust the razor. 

[Osensitive1]

Not sure it makes sense to try to apply methods of logic and plausibility to matters of faith.

[odeon]

Because I thought that's how the mind usually works ... attributing the seemingly order and beauty of this universe to a supernatural entity with unlimited powers. That's why humans from days past used to worship gods and goddesses and such, and that's why many people today believe in God (regardless of what god exactly).

Have you always imagined there was basically nothing and that somehow something just happened? Even when you were a little kid?

I think that if it weren't for modern scientific discoveries, we'd probably be lacking in the atheistic department and there'd have been more deists instead.

Occam's razor isn't about how the mind works (although I'd also like to argue the conclusions you draw), it's really just about the simplest explanation.

I do think there is beauty in the universe, but I'd question the order.

I have never attributed anything in the universe to a higher being because I think the simplest explanation is the one where this is all there is. There is no proof whatsoever for anything else; any theory that includes a higher being needs to make at least one assumption without observations backing it up.

Things don't "just happen" but they happen without divine intervention.

[Calavera]

Occam's razor isn't about how the mind works (although I'd also like to argue the conclusions you draw), it's really just about the simplest explanation.

I know that. You asked me how it was more intuitive not how Occam's razor favors it. So I answered accordingly.

I do think there is beauty in the universe, but I'd question the order.

That's why I added the word "seemingly" there.

I have never attributed anything in the universe to a higher being because I think the simplest explanation is the one where this is all there is.

Fair enough. Although I'm a bit surprised there because humans, apart from proper scientific knowledge, seem to naturally do the opposite of what you've done.

There is no proof whatsoever for anything else; any theory that includes a higher being needs to make at least one assumption without observations backing it up.

Ok, back to Occam's razor. Can't something happening for no reason be considered an assumption since it's not something we commonly observe in our daily world?

Just playing the Devil's advocate here.

Things don't "just happen" but they happen without divine intervention.

How did the start of the Big Bang happen then if it didn't "just happen"?

[Calavera]

Not sure it makes sense to try to apply methods of logic and plausibility to matters of faith.

Because some believers do try to apply methods of logic and plausibility to matters of faith.

You're right, though. It should be just a matter of faith.

[midlifeaspie]

Because I thought that's how the mind usually works ... attributing the seemingly order and beauty of this universe to a supernatural entity with unlimited powers. That's why humans from days past used to worship gods and goddesses and such, and that's why many people today believe in God (regardless of what god exactly).

No.  That was ignorance combined with fear.

Never understood why people use the fact that an idea has been around for a really long time to try and prove its accuracy when in actuality the longer something has been believed the less truth it tends to contain.

They have believed in Jesus for 2000 years so he must be real.
They have believed in Ra for 8000 years so he must be even more real?  No, wait, that isn't it either.

I don't think god fills a need for order and balance, I think god fills a need to keep one from acknowledging that bad things happen, and everybody dies.

[midlifeaspie]

Is this just a rehash of the other thread?

[Calavera]

No.  That was ignorance combined with fear.

I also think evolution comes into play.

Never understood why people use the fact that an idea has been around for a really long time to try and prove its accuracy when in actuality the longer something has been believed the less truth it tends to contain.

Me neither, but then again, that's not what I argued.

I don't think god fills a need for order and balance, I think god fills a need to keep one from acknowledging that bad things happen, and everybody dies.

Fine, but isn't believing that some things "just happen to be just like that on its own for no reason" just as extraordinary as the explanation "God did it"?

[Calavera]

Is this just a rehash of the other thread?

No, this one's for real. If you want to know what my position on this, I think both sides must rely on extraordinary claims when it comes to the origin of the whole reality of this universe.

[midlifeaspie]

Fine, but isn't believing that some things "just happen to be just like that on its own for no reason" just as extraordinary as the explanation "God did it"?

Absolutely not.  One just is, the other requires the suspension of all logic and sense and to believe in an invisible man who lives in the clouds and has always been there and always will be and knows everything and can do everything and somehow still gives a shit about mundane details.

Anyway, I'm not sure why I am letting myself get sucked into this