Some say that we should reject polytheism because Occam's Razor says that "we ought not to multiply entities beyond necessity" (or, something like that).  But, if we are going to reject polytheism via Occam's Razor, why shouldn't the same argument apply to theism or deism?  After all, if naturalism offers plausible explanations for everything (including, "Why there is something rather than nothing?"  Answer:  The Cosmos is beginningless and endless), why, per Occam's Razor, appeal to anything beyond naturalism which would be to "multiply entities beyond necessity?"

don't mean to derail your thread, but I have never contemplated Occam's Razor in regards to Mormonism before.


Wow, just fucking wow . . . . .


[vorlon wanders off in an existential fog]

(February 4, 2017 at 5:19 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Some say that we should reject polytheism because Occam's Razor says that "we ought not to multiply entities beyond necessity" (or, something like that).  But, if we are going to reject polytheism via Occam's Razor, why shouldn't the same argument apply to theism or deism?  After all, if naturalism offers plausible explanations for everything (including, "Why there is something rather than nothing?"  Answer:  The Cosmos is beginningless and endless), why, per Occam's Razor, appeal to anything beyond naturalism which would be to "multiply entities beyond necessity?"

If I'm going to accept a prefabricated list of things I should and should not believe, I might as well go on back to church.

I'm being a bit of a Devil's advocate here; I am not using Occam's Razor as an argument, rather, I am saying that some Christians are using it to argue against polytheism, but if it applies to polytheism, why does it not also apply to theism, in general, and Christian theism, in particular?

I think polytheism is a far closer model of reality than monotheism. The extreme divergence of the descriptions of deities, coupled with the geographical tendencies, points far more towards several competing guys than one continually misunderstood one.

Polytheism at least has distinct personalities and functions compartmentalized into individual gods. If one tries to stuff all those traits and quirks into a monotheistic deity, the entities that are being unnecessarily multiplied are the monogod's behaviours -- and then a multiplicity of apologists is required to try to explain those often contradictory behaviours.

No, from an Occam's Razor POV, polytheism is actually a much cleaner system.

(February 5, 2017 at 4:37 am)Astreja Wrote: Polytheism at least has distinct personalities and functions compartmentalized into individual gods.  If one tries to stuff all those traits and quirks into a monotheistic deity, the entities that are being unnecessarily multiplied are the monogod's behaviours -- and then a multiplicity of apologists is required to try to explain those often contradictory behaviours.

No, from an Occam's Razor POV, polytheism is actually a much cleaner system.

I would agree.  Kind of reminds me of the old Star Trek episode where the "gods" are gambling using 'quatloos':

It doesn't apply to their beliefs because 'special snowflake'…

The god of reason tells me that a monogod would be unnecessarily conflicted with himself. But the god of insanity tells me that with all the crazy things that happen in this would, that may be the case.

(February 5, 2017 at 4:15 am)robvalue Wrote: I think polytheism is a far closer model of reality than monotheism. The extreme divergence of the descriptions of deities, coupled with the geographical tendencies, points far more towards several competing guys than one continually misunderstood one.

The term 'principality' mean anything to you?