This is the third of twelve assertions by the secularist followed by the Christian's response. In this one, Siegfried takes a common but ill-advised approach to Occam's razor; in his view any claim for God's existence is problematic because...

A logical issue, if we consider the god route, is that it violates Occam's razor - that we should consider the simplest explanation. Our universe is quite complex, and if it was created by some sort of sentient being, he would need to be at least as complex as what he causes or creates. There can be nothing in the effect that cannot be identified in the cause or else we are truly getting something from nothing. He would therefore need an explanation, and it would not be simple.

Indeed, an explanation of this being would be impossible for us except to say that the explanation is needed. Perhaps there was a super-duper god that created him, but then that god that created the god that created our universe would also be complex and therefore need an explanation. And we find ourselves in an infinite regress. Which is why we should heed Occam's razor. Without it, we don't end up with an answer; we end up with a draw.

Siegfried then appeals to Occam's razor himself, claiming that the explanation of a sentient being violates Occam's razor; that being needs to be complex because the universe is complex and would therefore need an explanation. Which wouldn't be simple. But this is a misapplication of Occam's razor. Occam's razor doesn't require us to explain the cause, only identify it.

Abraham Lincoln died because he was shot by John Wilkes Booth. That's the cause of his death and the simple answer. I don't need to know anything about Booth's politics, his racial attitudes, or his physiology or his evolutionary history, to identify him as the adequate cause of Lincoln's death.

This approach by the secularist is a shell game. Again, identifying the cause is markedly different than explaining the cause itself. And the latter is not required when using Occam's razor.

But this error is understandable. Siegfried, along with just about everyone else in secular culture, is a Philosophical Materialist or a Metaphysical Naturalist. The underlying assumptions of these interchangeable positions is that matter is all there is, was or ever will be. They think in terms of physical stuff, parts, complexity; they gravitate towards explaining or understanding things in these terms.

But... we just answered this question in the previous post. Space, time and matter began at the beginning of our universe. So the creator of matter is non-material. God is Spirit and Mind with no interacting "parts" so we in no way need the explanation for complexity that Siegfried claims is needed. The materialist loses on this one. Why there is something instead of nothing remains a significant obstacle for atheism.