Dear Ms. Medium,

Interesting backstory. I am fairly intelligent and have not just fallen off the turnip truck, most days.

All the theologians before the enlightment (and some after - Hans Kuehn's majjestic books, for instance) try to prove the existence of God. It is a deep need of theologians to prove that their own existence is vital to society.

Having said that, I have never used Occam's razor to win an argument. In fact, there is really no such thing as winning an argument - win/lose situations do not work out. They have to be transformed into win/win situations.

I find "Occam's Razor (? Gilette or Bic) to be a useful mental model. It is only one of the many models I use to understand the universe; it is not a shillelagh to bust the heads of those who disagree with me (and they are legion). I am a (now retired) surgical pathologist whose basic task was to identify cancer when present with a microscope and beautiful stained multicolored histopathology slides. Although medicine is replete with zebras making hoofbeat, the OR concept was a useful first guide. And I have found it to be so throughout my intellectual life. As a mental model. it is fine. As proof of the Good Lord's existence, it is meaningless. Our current OR related to origins is the Big Bang - which was neither big (a quantum event, whatever that means) cnd was soundless (no air to transmit sound waves).

Happy Saturday and peace

peter