Didn’t want to keep on with the piling on, Thermal; but since you posted that detailed response, maybe just one more post from me won’t hurt:
But you’re the one who specifically spoke of the creator not leaving “breadcrumbs”, in the post that I’d quoted and responded to. Surely “breadcrumbs” refers directly to a trail of evidence --- or, in this case, its lack, and which is specifically what Carl Sagan’s dragon is about? (And which is why I posted that response of mine.) At least in that post, the one about not leaving breadcrumbs, the one I’d quoted, you’d clearly been speaking specifically of the creator’s undetectability, rather than its incomprehensibility, isn’t it?
No, I didn't bring it up. The poster I was responding to brought it up, saying a god that "left no evidence". So I ask: what evidence would you expect? Where would you expect to find it? Are you expecting a visible signature on the Crab Nebula? Where would we look and what would be the evidence that you would require? Neon signs? What?
Bringing it all down to a simple analogy: say I told you I found multiple writings and testimony about a priceless rock. Nothing more. Where would you look for it? What does it look like? Does it mean a huge diamond, or Diamond Head in Hawaii, or Venus de Milo in France, or Dwayne Johnson, or what?
So ok, maybe you try to scrape up more information and/or evidence to narrow your search. You come up with nothing with teeth. Do you conclude that there is no rock, or conclude that there is insufficient data for a meaningful conclusion? In the absence of any objective evidence, probably you would go on to live your life as if there was no such rock, and be perfectly content with that, intellectually and physically. I sure would, and do.
So what is the problem with simply saying "There is no Rock"? Because you are committing to closed mindedness. You proudly will explain away any evidence as hallucinating a rock, or coincidental rocks. But until the rock is taken out of the refrigerator and put on your convenient garage workbench, you will not acknowledge the possibility that there ever was a Rock. And how would that Rock get put in their garage?
People that remained open to the possibility kept looking for it. It may be entirely Sysephean on their part to look, but I'll cheer them on anyway, and read about their efforts with interest, even though it doesn't impact my life or outlook at all. Searching for Troy every once in a long while actually turns up with finding Troy. Maybe they find equally valuable data to better explain what the rock may have really been, in a practical sense. Bravo to the treasure hunters.
But, and to repeat what I’d said, if some thing does not impact the universe at all, and leaves zero evidence, then what it does it even mean to say that it exists? Isn’t that the exact same thing, from our perspective, as the thing not existing at all?
As I've said many, many times, yes. Lacking any substantial evidence, I live as though it doesn't exist. No reason to do otherwise. Pascal's Wager is not a good bet, methinks. Why do you ask?
Never mind, I know why you ask. You and others ask because you are assuming I take a position that I have repeatedly said that I do not endorse. When you ask me a question, I answer it directly. When I ask you a question, you ignore it and continue with the stump arguments against a position I have repeatedly said that I do not hold.
I know of no compelling evidence for a god, so I live as if there is none. I know of no compelling evidence that there is no god, so I don't endorse that position either.
"Wait!" you say. "Do you have the same standard for invisible cars and Leprechauns and Zeus, too? Agnostic about them, are you?" presumably with a smug smirk. "Oh you have a very specific critter in mind, with solid attributes?" I respond ."Well, let's crack our knuckles and get down to it then". You see the difference? "I can fly'" is an entirely different proposition than "can I fly?" You keep pushing the former on me. I am advocating the latter (the answer to which turned out to be yes, btw).
And, in any case, what about about the creator of that creator, which following your reasoning would need to exist beyond that creator’s universe? And what of the creator-of-the-creator-of-the-creator, than would, again, necessarily need exist, following your reasoning, in a universe-beyond-the-universe-of-the-creator-of-the-creator-of-our-universe? And so on, ad infinitum? That’s, like, exactly “turtles all the way down”!
Assuming that time did not exist before "creation", why would you expect something "before" a creating god? What would "before" mean? And before you accuse me of navel gazing, this weird **** pops up in contemporary science. See the Many Worlds interpretation, for instance. An interpretation of the math says it is possible, although the nonsensical answer it provides (where these universes are and they seem to require an intelligence to direct the universal splitting, etc) should indicate that something is wrong with the math approach. Like dividing by zero, you can do the math right, but if you come up with a nonsensical answer you might need to rethink the approach.
I mean, sure, we can speculate. We can speculate about all kinds of things, why not? But when it comes to arriving at an actual worldview, an actual model of reality as we best understand it, then that’s a bit different than wild speculations, isn’t it?
Agreed, and have said so many, many times.
The rest of this portion of your post I think I’ve already addressed. But as far as the highlighted:
Again, simply musing, simply speculating, that’s fine, obviously. I could speculate about us living in a simulated universe. Speaking of dragons, I could muse about maybe homo-something-or-the-other perhaps overlapping with and existing together for awhile with dinosaurs, and us facing meteors raining fire down from the sky along with those huge creatures, some of them capable of flight; which is why these legends of enormous fire-belching dragons from cultures all over the world; and it’s a pretty cool speculation, too. For that matter we could speculate about aliens having come down and fiddled around with us humans at key intervention points, like teaching us about fire, and teaching us language, and teaching us about making and using tools, and so on, and including placing into Einstein’s mind the wisps of the Relativity business, and so on; and that’s an even cooler speculation, and with enough imagination can bulk up a super cool sci fi story --- as in fact it has. If all you’re doing is simply speculating, and musing, well then that’s fine, and that can be done without a whole arsenal of evidence supporting it, sure.
But is that actually what you’re doing, simply raising random speculations and simply musing, without claiming that you’re seriously suggesting that any of this might speak to reality? If the answer is Yes, then as far as I’m concerned that’s perfectly cool, and nothing more need be said. So, is the answer a Yes, and is that all you’re doing here?
When the topic is "is there a god?" and the like, it's hardly a random musing, is it? It's kind of the topic. I would ask why the question is asked if any possible answer is pre-rejected with a hearty "lalala can't hear you".
What's wrong with what I'd said? Isn't that how the scientific consensus gets changed? Or am I wrong? I can't imagine that you think that building a body of peer reviewed work isn't important in overturning an established consensus.
