Normal

His existence bears no consequence to my own, so Occam’s Razor to him.

Hawkingfan

Well which is it? proof ~ proof? Occam's Razor? or both? What if someone who believed in Santa Claus claimed that indeed his existence beared consequence to your own? Then what?

keyser_soze

The sound you hear in the background is my irony meter exploding at the statement of "skeptic" and proof~disproof and disproof~proof being equally valid... Perhaps you can tell the other people, looking back on your original thought, why everyone's irony meter is redlined? Think about it for a sec, and it'll come to you.

btw, I'm going to start a thread on the witch trials, I just read the most interesting chapter on it, and I wanted to share. Stay tuned later tonight, and let's all thank Carl Sagan for such an immensely enjoyable read!

Normal

I couldn't be convinced of that, because of lack of proof and that I had no idea about Santa Claus until someone told me. Occam's Razor was naturally in effect BEFORE I knew, and then comes into effect again when someone brings the idea up without proof.

Can I still wear my Occam's Razor t-shirt?

Normal

Ok, I see what you mean:

Lack of proof ~ irrelevent
Lack of disproof ~ irrelevent

Occam's Razor would cut both out anyway.

My bad. Momentary lapse of judgement

Hawkingfan

So why do you criticize atheists for doing the same thing?

keyser_soze

He missed it...anyone want to enlighten him?

To save time, here it is.


Because you cannot prove something which is unprovable(I cannot prove santa doesn't exist, because I would have to be everyplace in the world at once)...doesn't automatically prove that it exists(so logically, santa doesn't exist just because I cannot disprove his existance.). This is opposed to the use of rational inquiry, which would say "There is no evidence to prove that santa exists...so he doesn't exist IN ALL PROBABILITY."

Very different things, which apparently you do not grasp, but I suspect almost everyone here immediately grasped. Even the majority of theists I'll wager.

Hawkingfan

What? I don't think so. We are not saying they are equally irrelevant. At least I'm not. Lack of disproof is irrelevent however, because there is no need to disprove something that cannot be proven in the first place. But lack of proof is relevant.

If I told you "I can fly when I flap my arms", is that a reasonable statement to believe as true? Is it EQUALLY reasonable to believe the statement "I cannot fly when I flap my arms"?

If I lack proof for the first statement, is it EQUALLY as reasonable to believe it is true than as it is to believe it is false? Is the fact that you cannot disprove statement number 1 EQUALLY relevant as the fact that it cannot be proven in the first place? Does Occam's Razor EQUALLY cut away both statements, or does it place one statement (the second) HIGHER UP on the reasonability scale?

keyser_soze

In case you missed the point of Sagan's writing, and our point in general is that the use of "lack of disproof" as evidence for the existance of anything...let alone an invisible skydaddy...is just a touch irrational. That is the point, maybe you picked it up this time?

theophilus

And that, of course, would be true for you as well.
Or are you somehow free from the "restrictive confines" of your materialstic assumptions?
If so, what is the nature of the intellectual ether in which you function?