In this article, I will explain the concept of Ockham's razor, followed by an example. Next, I will review the three theistic arguments of Anslem and Aquinas, and explain two of them; to see whether or not it works with Razor's argument. And finally, I will reflect on Palmer's statement: say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Ockham's razor can be used as an effective tool to approve or disapprove of the existence of God. According to the Razor Principle, the simplest explanation is the best. In other words, the more complex hypotheses there are, the fuzzier the explanation. All three arguments discussed in Chapter 5 are purely based on logical explanations and conclude that “God exists” in one way or another. As the principles of Razor are to avoid the complex assumptions that are avoided in all of these arguments, Ockham's Razor can be effectively applied to analyze these three proofs for the existence of God. Ockham's Razor is a philosophical principle that "what can be done with less is done in vain with more." William of Ockham opposed this in the 14th century. To put it in similar terms, he says that fewer things should be used, which is a phenomenon. According to him, we should use the simplest method available with a minimum of assumptions, because assumptions lead to complex questions that are contrary to Razor's principle. Likewise, 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 multiplied more than necessary, they would regulate Ockham's razor. He basically meant that simpler is better. “Do not multiply entities beyond necessity.” I believe Kepler's theory is a successful application of Ockham's razor. Kepler's theory is a modification of Copernicus' theory. Copernicus's theory proposed that the planets revolve around the sun in a circular motion. After further experimentation and analysis, it became clear that planetary motion is elliptical in nature. We have now come across some other similar, but more complicated theories. For example, the hypothesis is that planetary bodies revolve around the sun in an elliptical orbit and that this movement is due to the force between the planets and the sun. this force decreases as the square of the distance. The second hypothesis also presents the same idea but it says that the planetary motion is in elliptical form, the motion is due to the force between the planets and the sun, the force decreases as the square of the distance and the generator of this force is someone invisible. Now both hypotheses give the same information but the second requires further investigation into the invisible complex force. Ockham's razor would reject the second because the force is already explained by the relative movements of the planets and the sun. There is no need to rack the brain further for the irrelevant idea of ​​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, by Anselm, proposed "that nothing greater can be thought/conceived." The next argument is the cosmological argument of Thomas Aquinas, he proposes "that the universe evolved from an origin and that each proof can lead back to this origin, the existence of a unique being". And the third argument is called teleological, also by Thomas Aquinas, it has.