Occam's Razor and Bob

Phil got me thinking about my agnosticism the other day. Occam's Razor & Bob's Corollary are commonly invoked in atheist arguments; I've provided short spiels on both below. I've started looking for arguments against both; if you know of any feel free to post them.


Occam's Razor is a logical principle that holds that one should should not make more assumptions than is needed. In other words, the best explanations are the simplest ones. E.g. if we were modeling a few datapoints on a graph, it would make sense to find the simplest curve that encompasses them all, rather than some convoluted curve that fits the data just as well.

Occam's Razor is often invoked by the atheist argument that we can explain everything without introducing metaphysical concepts such as God; bringing God into the picture adds unnecessary complexity.


Bob's Corollary

The more powerful the entity, the less likely it is to exist.
-Bob

Explanations that attribute 'everything' to the existance of a God are suspect because they are untestable. E.g. If I had a scientific test for the existance of God like a litmus slip that turned red to indicate that God did not exist and the slip showed red, this result could be explained away by arguing "God changed the rules so now red means God exists".

Strong theories make testable predictions that have proven true time after time. A theory that invokes an all-powerful God that can change the laws of universe at any moment escapes falsibility. So, in other words Bob's Corollary says that theories that rely on omnipotent beings are weakened by the fact they potentially can never be refuted.

Red Ink

The White House has just released the budget for 2007. If approved by Congress, this budget would increase defense spending by 6.9%, cut money from healthcare, education, and the environment all while adding another $354 billion to the U.S. debt. (NPR analysis).

At the end of FY2000, the U.S. debt - the accumulation of the deficit spending of all previous 42 U.S. Presidents - was $5,674,178,209,886.86. Today it is $8,195,544,127,376.07. Bush took office with a budget surplus and a forecast of a cumulative 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. In just 6 years, the party of tax cuts and balanced budgets, under the steady leadership of President number 43 has added 45% to the Ú.S. national debt.

(from a MetaFilter post by threeblindmice)

My take on the debt is that it is bad because it is financed mostly by foreign nations like China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc... As these are our potential rivals/enemies, they may find reason in the future to stop financing our debt and could wreck our economy by selling off their US bond holdings.

The debt is possibly good if our borrowed money is invested wisely. Since much of our budget is dedicated to waging war, the future economic success or failure of America in part seems to hinge on whether or wars in Iraq & Afgahnistan pay off (by giving us control of the energy resources in the Middle East I presume).