Ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere?

[contractor79]

Occams Razor would suggest that evolution is a better theory of why we are here than Creationism in it's simple sense.

why is there something, rather than nothing?

[contractor79]

So what's that light then?

I don't know, something from God obviously then he allocated the sun as the light from day 4

[sasguru]

why is there something, rather than nothing?

I think a more interesting question is where the light on day 1 comes from...

[sasguru]

I don't know,

Nuff said

[ThomasSoerensen]

I think a more interesting question is where the light on day 1 comes from...

I am waiting for that one as well.

I could make a juvenile suggestion about setting a certain dog's rear gasses on fire for light on day 1 but I guess that would be rude.

[contractor79]

I think a more interesting question is where the light on day 1 comes from...

God
now don't dodge my question- why is there somethign rather than nothing?

[jimjamuk]

ok so it took him a week to sort us out (which compared to the council road works at the end of my road is pretty good going) - what about the billions of stars and galaxies around now. At that rate he's still working on them as we speak and hasnt got time for rest days

[sasguru]

God
now don't dodge my question- why is there somethign rather than nothing?

I don't understand your question - do elaborate.

[IR35 Avoider]

Occams razor is an interesting point. It's a way of choosing between alternatives. But it doesn't mean that the simplest is in fact true. Newtons theory of gravitation is much simpler than Einsteins. ( I've also thought that "God made it so" is a very simple theory, even though it's a bad one!)

Occam's razor is only used for choosing between otherwise equivalent theories, i.e. that explain the facts equally well. Science has its own criteria for judging one theory better than its predecessor, and these will cause Einstein to supersede Newton without help from Occam.

Explanations involving God are not simpler than ones that don't. The ones that don't involve a view of the universe that contains one fewer objects/forces/entities, so under Occam they are simpler. (One could invent an explanation of the universe that involved two Gods; if the only options were that and conventional religion, and assuming there was no hard evidence to make either preferable to the other, the monotheists would get the nod from Occam.)

[contractor79]

I don't understand your question - do elaborate.

quit dodging, even a child could understand that question