What can one add to the challenge of Occam's Razor to theism that God is uselessly redundant contrary to Alister McGrath as an explanation or otherwise?

Answer 1

Occam's concept is foundational since it is the impetus for any science-based heuristic to function. As such, it doesn't have much to say about the basic assumptions of theism. Theology can be a thicket of broad philosophical ideas mixed with authoritative and sometimes unassailable [from the point of view of adherents] tenets based on ancient writings. Occam is based on a fluid and in fact never ending progression of postulating and re-evaluating theories offered to explain one systematic, natural observation or another. Just as Relativity runs into some challenges at the point of singularity, Occam would run into trouble with any imposed terminus to the scientific process. There is always the possibility of some other explanation.

Thinking of the deity as the 'simplest' explanation is the theist's positive spin on the obvious truth that the existence of deity can never be disproven. This is not entirely different from the quest to 'disprove' WMD's in Iraq. The only 'proof' that would be convincing is the 'proof' of the existence of deity, and if Occam and the scientific method were applied to such a proof, we would have to conclude that 'there is always the possibility of some other explanation.'

There is the added problem that if such proof or extremely strong evidence in support of deity came to light, then by the definitions of some faith-based people, the nature of faith itself would crumble, and the proof of deity would be the undoing of religion.

Answer 2

On the contrary, Occam's razor favors the simplest explanation, which, compellingly is none other than God himself. Evolution, on the other hand must constantly be corrected to allow for contradictions that crop up in every field. See also:

Is there evidence for Creation?

Can you show that God exists?

Seeing God's wisdom