Anecdotal Evidence

[Mister Agenda]

But it's not a necessary entity. Shave it off. Occam's razor isn't just about picking the simplest explanation, it's about picking the simplest explanation consistent with observation. It is sometimes stated as: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. God is a big assumption. A more complex hypothesis can be preferable to a simpler one under the razor if the additional entities in the complex hypothesis are necessary.

You are saying exactly what I said about 2 posts ago, and which you gave kudos to.

But I've given a particularly specific definition of God: a philosophical creative principle, i.e. something which preceded the Universe (logically, not necessarily temporally), but is itself not of the universe.  All things would come from it, but it itself wouldn't be a thing.  All mind would come from it, but it itself wouldn't be (or have) a mind.

The problem with the God idea really only comes into play when people start making narratives of it talking to their ancestors, and using this as the basis for blowing up buildings or cutting off heads.  As a philosophical idea, it really isn't more complex than anything else.  Nor does any other explanation offer answers where a vague God-as-principle idea fails to.

You can define God in a potentially infinite number of ways and still ascribe it as the 'simplest' explanation for anything. You can define it as a philosophical creative principle or a cosmic rutabaga and it makes no difference as far as explanatory power goes.

I didn't realize that kudo-ing a post obliged me to 100% agreement. I'll fix it.

---

You are saying exactly what I said about 2 posts ago, and which you gave kudos to.

I checked, and the last post of yours that I gave a kudo to was #362. I can't find one where you said exactly what I said and I kudoed it. Could you give the post number of the post you're talking about, please?