BLACK-OR-WHITE logic is used in math. you can't use math in the real world(and i love math btw.).
the world is not black and white, it also have the colors green, yellow, and gray.
btw. how did you know about the teapot? have you seen it? have you any conclusive proof that it does not exist? your answer is incorrect, "no" is not the answer. the correct answer is "i don't know".
you see there is "i don't know"-answers in math. yet-to-proven/disproven theorems for example.
In computer science, you can also prove, that its impossible to prove/disprove something(like the halting problem).
conclusion: B-OR-W logic sucks. and can not always be applied to the real world, or even the math/science-world.
You are bringing into the mix a different meaning of color than the one we discuss. When we spoke about the world being Black-and-White, we didn't mean a physical color, but a two state property of logic called the "Law of Excluded Middle", meaning that there is no third state between true or false.
Only maths are strictly logical. And I'm not the one who brought logic in this thread, anyway.
Occam's razzor is a logical principle. It's not an axiom of Zermel-Fraenkel theory, for instance. It doesn't have to be one of them to be widely accepted as logical principle.
If only mathematicians can have an opinion about the universe, then no wonder religion has so much success.
There is a theory that all our knowledge about the world is developed in a black-and-white logic, in an incremental, hierarchical process. This theory, developed by Ayn Rand, is called "The Objectivist Epistemology".
its only saying some thing about the likelihood for a teapot around Jupiter, you still don't have any conclusive proof.
my personal opinion about the teapot: "lol, there is no teapot"
the strictly logical conclusion about the teapot: "i don't know"
the agnostic view of the teapot: "i don't know, and it doesn't matter"
You don't have to prove any arbitrary statement is false. A person who claims it must prove it to you. The position "I don't know" in reality is as good as "No". To continue with the flying teapot example, if you are an engineer designing a satellite, you don't have to account for the teapot in your formulas.
The flying teapot and the concept of god is a fantasy, by definition, since it comes out of a mental construction. God was never observed by anyone. There is nothing wrong with fantasy, just like there is nothing wrong in a fantastic dream. However, you are supposed to use the fantasy to develop an application to the real world. Not to declare that your fantasy is part of reality just because you have imagined it. Your argument for the existence of god is: "I imagine it, therefore it exists". Or, "I and 6 billion people imagine it", therefore it exists.
And the worst thing you can do with fantasy, is to bring it into reality in a form of Law. Since fantasy does not require proof, you can think up any Law whatever, even if it contradicts another law. In particular, it could contradict the Laws defined by the objective, observable nature, the ones you can really prove -- the tendency of living beings to try to stay alive and enjoy life to the fullest potential of their biological ability, and do whatever they can to achieve it. Hence, for a tree it is to strive for sun light, for a lion it is a tendency to kill prey, and to a human it is to create. To "Live and Prosper" in the words of Spock.
The logical axiom that is the basis for bringing fantasy into reality is the concept that individual is less than a community. It probably came through observing ant colonies. Our armies model this system very closely. However, this theory does not account the fact that a human is much more intelligent than an ant, and depending on the task, two humans can achieve more independently than working together. A historical example is Edison and Tesla. If Tesla would have joined Edison, he would not have developed AC Power Transmission. This not to say that any form of cooperation is bad. The cooperation of people to create a combined product from different pieces has worked very well, but only in the context of capitalism. This system allows every person to excel in doing of his little piece, since he is motivated to innovate.
