The foregoing are two simple examples of rational, experience-based, cause-and-effect thinking, something scientists and others do all the time. I know you're with me so far, even if you're dragging your feet a bit, sensing where this is going, so I shall continue. If you see a planet full of life, such as the Earth, you can -- quite reasonably, based on our knowledge from chemistry and biology -- suggest that it developed over a long time from a pre-biotic soup. (Or you could, as some here do, assume that space aliens or supernatural creatures are responsible.) Occam's Razor is a useful tool in such cases.
Not in this one.
Your foregoing examples, the dead man and the crater, are based on circumstances which have a history of previous observation. Such is not the case with pre-biotic soup, space aliens, or supernatural creatures.
We've never seen life arise from lifelessness, not in even the one example where we've seen a planet with life.
Invoking Occam in this instance is no more compelling than "abra cadabra," a genuflection, or "take me to your leader."
the dead man and the crater, are based on circumstances which have a history of previous observation. Such is not the case with pre-biotic soup, space aliens, or supernatural creatures. We've never seen life arise from lifelessness, not in even the one example where we've seen a planet with life. Invoking Occam in this instance is no more compelling than "abra cadabra," a genuflection, or "take me to your leader."
William of Occam would disagree, I'm sure. Look, you have two possible explanations -- one is natural, the other requires us to posit the existence of an unobserved supernatural cause. I can tell from your comment that you're very big on things that are observed, and you are skeptical of things not observed, so the supernatural agent starts from behind in your view, does he not? Anyway, returning to Occam, his advice to us is to choose the simpler hypothesis, and that seems to point to the natural explanation. Or so it seems to me.