Discussing the Pseudoscientific Views of Those Atheists

 The average IQ of many atheists may not exceed 100.

 The principle of Occam's Razor is a principle praised by many, yet in fact, it has significant misleading properties.

 This principle is known as "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" (Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily). Sometimes, to display its authority, people also use its original Latin form: Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate. (Avoid the heavy and choose the light), Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate. (Avoid complexity and pursue simplicity), Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora. (Use simplicity to control complexity), Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. (Avoid the void and choose the real)

 In the context of modern science, when referring to the narrow sense of the Razor principle, it is generally stated as: "When two hypotheses have exactly the same explanatory and predictive power, we use the simpler hypothesis as the basis for discussion."

 However, in reality, those who use or mention the principle of Occam's Razor are actually in the following situation: "When both hypotheses are explainable, choose the one I prefer."

 For example, in the dispute between theism and atheism, first, theists cannot temporarily prove the existence of God, and atheists cannot prove the non-existence of God. Thus, atheists will propose the principle of Occam's Razor: since the world can be explained without the need for God, it shows that God is fundamentally unnecessary.

 This argument is usually regarded by atheists as a heavy weapon, but in fact, this argument is problematic because the answer is simple: if we follow the principle of Occam's Razor, explaining everything with God is sufficient, whereas other physical, chemical, and mathematical theories involve a large amount of complex theory. Obviously, theism is simpler.

 Usually, in this situation, atheists will propose another viewpoint: "Science is falsifiable," while theism is not falsifiable, so it is unscientific and therefore wrong.

 In fact, this accusation has logical problems.

 From a scientific perspective, theists can argue that God exists but there is currently no evidence convincing to the whole world; however, it can be proven sooner or later, so it is not unfalsifiable. Consider another scenario: a pharmaceutical company invests funds dedicated to researching how to completely cure AIDS, yet there is no evidence currently showing that AIDS is curable. You cannot accuse this pharmaceutical company of being unscientific because if no one researches it, there will never be progress. However, if a viewpoint leads to a state where progress is forever impossible, then that viewpoint is unscientific.

 From a non-scientific perspective, God exists within faith, which does not require scientific intervention. For example, if a person believes he loves his mother, but his mother has passed away, does he need to prove it?

 At the same time, from the strict meaning of probability theory, science is not necessarily falsifiable.

 The error lies not in the principles themselves, but in those who abuse them. Many people lack scientific literacy; they merely want to find an argument that can be used as a weapon, preferably one with vague concepts that can be interpreted however they wish. By manipulating the concepts themselves, they gain the upper hand in debates and defeat their opponents.

 However, this is all a waste of time. For atheists, if a theist were to truly bring God before them, the atheist would at most exclaim, "Wow, there really are aliens."

 The reverse is also true: after atheists prove that there is no God at all, theists will simply believe that it is because current technological conditions are not mature enough, so there is simply no way to discover the existence of God.

 Simply put, because neither side has touched the essence of the problem, neither can persuade the other.