On Belief in God X

[genkaus]

Yep, so that's a pretty spot on analogy for what's happening today. But I still don't see how the krakeners would show the kraken to a skeptic. *whistle* "KRAAAKEN, c'mere boy!"

He may not be able to - I understand and accept that. What the krakener must now understand and accept is that given the improbability of such a being, validity of sunstroke explanation, existence of many other alternate explanations and the claims of the whalers, his continued inability to do so is not only sufficient reason for me to disbelieve his claim but also sufficient reason for him to doubt his experience.

So, in conclusion to the OP, the improbability of the royal flush is given as a starting point for better evaluation, not a clinching argument for settling the discussion. It is the justification for healthy skepticism - not evidence for disbelief. On its own, it wouldn't qualify as sufficient reason for the one holding the flush to question his experience - but it is reason enough for him to take another look - to look for evidence both for and against it. And if he happens to find that the bulk of evidence and other logical arguments indicate that he is not holding the royal flush, then that - along with the initial improbability - form reason sufficient for him to doubt the experience of royal flush.