@neolex 19:31

Your brief thoughts come across as simplistic to me.

“It is abrogating belief in favor of logic and scientific method. Negative, cannot be proven. Atheists simply believe that there is no evidence in support of God, just like there is no evidence in support of unicorns.”

It is noteworthy how in some current atheistic books we read calls to have religion categorized as child abuse. Such suggestions go beyond logic and the scientific method and into ideology. A rigorous scientific skepticism could not, without some value system superimposed, lead to such suggestions.

“God is not required for the description of the world, and is a very complex solution for available problems with existing scientific description, thus eliminated by Occam’s razor.”

Occam’s razor proves nothing. It is a guidepost for those thinking about problems, not a hard and fast rule. In a typical detective story, the stolid (and dull) policeman uses Occam’s razor to solve a crime inadequately, and the clever detective allows for a more complex solution, thus being freed to see subtle evidence supporting it.

Darwin once hypothesized that giraffe offspring were born with longer necks because their parents continually strained upward for food. A simple explanation, to be sure, but when more facts became available more complexity had to be added to the theory. A person speculating in Darwin’s time, however, should could have been bound to the stretching hypothesis with Occam’s razor, falsely.

Historical analysis of 1 Corinthians 15 (a known, historically dated writer pens a letter inviting skeptics to track down 500 witnesses to a resurrected person’s appearance) would lead one, through any sane use of Occam’s razor, to conclude that the person had actually risen from the dead. It is, in fact, additional ideology about what is possible in a closed system that leads people to reject the claims there. Occam’s razor would “prove” the resurrection if it were actually a proof. It is not.