In this article I will explain the concept of Ockham's razor, followed by an example. Then I will look at the three theistic arguments of Anslem and Aquinas and explain two of the arguments; to see if it works with Razor's argument or not. And finally I will reflect on Palmer's statement. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Ockham's Razor can be used as an effective tool to approve or disapprove of the existence of God. According to Razor's principle, the simplest explanation is the best. Or in other words, the more complex hypotheses, the more unclear the explanation would be. The three arguments discussed in Chapter 5 are based solely on logical explanations and conclude with “God exists” in one way or another. Since Razor's principle is to avoid complex assumptions that are avoided in all these arguments, Ockham's Razor can be effectively applied to analyze these three proofs of the existence of God. Ockham's Razor is a philosophical principle that states that “what can be done with less is done in vain with more”. He was opposed by William of Ockham in the 14th century. To put it in similar words, it says that fewer things should be used for a phenomenon. according to him we should use the simplest of available methods with minimal assumptions because assumptions lead to complex questions which are contrary to the Razor principle. Similarly, if we have two elaborations for a particular process we should opt for the simpler one. We can extrapolate a situation up to a certain limit because if the entities were multiplied more than necessary, they would adjust Ockham's razor. He basically meant that simpler is better. “Do not multiply entities beyond what is necessary”. I believe Kepler's theory is a successful application of Ockham's Razor. Kepler's theory is the modification of Copernicus' theory. Copernicus' theory proposed that the planets revolved around the sun in a circular motion. After further experimentation and analysis, it was evident that the planetary motion is elliptical in nature. Now we have come across other similar but more complicated theories. For example, the hypothesis is that planetary bodies rotate around the sun in an elliptical orbit and this movement is due to the force between the planets and the sun. this force decreases with the square of the distance. The second hypothesis also presents the same idea but says that the planetary movement is in elliptical shape, the movement is due to the force between the planets and the sun, the force decreases with the square of the distance and the generator of this force is someone invisible. Now both hypotheses provide the same information but the second one requires further investigation of the complex invisible force. Ockham's Razor would reject the second because the force is already explained by the relative motions of the planets and the sun. There is no need for further brain agitation over the irrelevant idea of ​​the invisible force. In summary, Kepler's Theory is simpler without assumptions and shows the victory of Razor's principle. Let's take a look at the three theistic arguments, the ontological argument, proposed by Anselm “that nothing greater can be thought/conceived”. The next argument is the cosmological argument of Thomas Aquinas, who proposed “that the universe evolved from an origin and all evidence can lead back to that origin, the existence of a unique being” . And the third argument is called teleological, again by Thomas Aquinas, which proposes “the presence of an intelligent designer and creator of the cosmos”. I would take the cosmological argument and the teleological argument to see if the razor works against them. Both of these arguments affirm the.