>>13215256We can observe water in different states and know it can be cold.
On the other hand we cannot observe the beginning of the universe, so we cannot prove its origins.
There's a clear difference between proving a known and claiming to know an unknown without evidence to support it. The difference lies in our existing knowledge base and physical capabilities.
There is a limit, and when applying the same reasoning to unknown elements, proving the negative becomes impossible.
>>13215270Occoms razor only directly applies to natural occurrences. Applying it to something in our sphere of influence can easily result in error.
For example:
There's a stake driven into the ground in a field, why is it there?
Using deductive reasoning you may say "it's a claim" or "it's a trail marker", but you'd be forgetting some people do things for no logical reason at all, and if you asked the person who drove the stake in initially they may reply with an answer that does not satisfy your simplistic and overly reductive assertions.
Point being: do not presume people follow an overly simplistic or rational way of thinking, and do not assume there is any logical reason they chose to do what they did.
