You've shown that it is possible to shorten or lengthen sentences by picking less or more applicable or "conceptually dense" words. Example: "the wall is black" vs "the wall absorbs a significant fraction of the visible light spectrum."

God in some form is indeed a simpler and more straightforward concept than evolution, especially when you consider the whole of evolutionary theory beyond Darwin. It's a very deep and complex subject.

Ockham's razor is not "the simplest idea is true." It's "In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is probably the correct one." Ockham's razor is probably related to thermodynamics since more complex explanations imply more complex structures. Extremely complex structures and thus explanations do exist, but they're less likely.

In the case of Tesla there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that they're currently the target of a massive negative PR campaign. I am not necessarily defending them if they have in fact treated employees badly, and both things could be true as I said elsewhere.

> God in some form is indeed a simpler and more straightforward concept than evolution, especially when you consider the whole of evolutionary theory beyond Darwin. It's a very deep and complex subject.

Not really, because you don't actually have to describe evolution. It is a natural outcome of the most fundamental laws of physics.

You only need the fundamental laws of physics, everything else is a derivation from it.

Putting god into it means you need the same laws of physics, plus god, who also breaks the laws of physics. It doesn't simplify anything.

Or maybe we should stop using the razor, because it us way too often wrong. I the absence of evidence, you don't know and eithe admit that or guess probabilities.

"Razors" of this sort are only rules of thumb that tend to be right often enough to be useful. They are not laws of nature.

But here it was used as an argument - I am right because it is simpler explanation. Doing that is a fallacy and doing that after you personally phrased both theories so that the right one is simple is manipulation combined with fallacy.

The "Now use Occam's Razor." demand is wrong use of Occam's Razor. It is dishonest rhetoric that uses Occam's Razor as math theorem rather then rule of thumb.

Using longer sentences and adding arbitrary words does not make an explanation more complex.

I was simply pointing out that simplest explanation may not always be the most accurate.

> Using longer sentences and adding arbitrary words does not make an explanation more complex.

Exactly.

A creator-god does not explain the complexity of life, it just adds an additional layer, so the combined system is more complicated than the original. That's precisely what Occam's Razor rejects.

I'll rephrase again:

"A"

vs.

"A AND there's a being, which is conscious, all-knowing and all-powerful, sitting somewhere, or actually nowhere, that uses its power to set things in motion or not, depending on its mood, and how it likes some people, but by no means follows a steady logic, and also isn't detectable by any means whatsoever and there is absolutely no evidence of its existence, but it exists and has impact on the universe, even if such impact can never be measured or even detected"

Now use Occam's Razor?

> Using longer sentences and adding arbitrary words does not make an explanation more complex.

You mean like what you did?

"There is God" doesn't explain anything. You're relying on the reader to already know what God is, and how God affects things.

You're in luck, Occam's Razor doesn't say anything about what's always accurate. It's more like advice, telling you to prefer the explanation that requires making the fewest assumptions.

Occam's Razor is about the need of additional assumptions to explain observed behaviour. Existance of a god is a pretty heavy assumption, ergo that explanation is not the simple one.