What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[punshhh]

Baloney!

The evidence is overwhelming that gods are fictional beings. Fictional stories are not evidence of anything except human ingenuity. End of inquiry.

From the human perspective, maybe. I did point out that I am not referring to any kind of God typically defined by a theist.
The creator God I am referring to may exist independently of what humanity can say of it. It may have existed before humans came along to deny its existence(the arrogance of the human psyche!).

And yet you can't see that this is indeed what Pixy and 3point14 said you said: 'We don't know' = 'Goddidit'?

I am not claiming Goddidit, I am saying, we from our humble perspective cannot deny an intelligent creator, just by saying it.

 

[punshhh]

You are in denial about your own position. Please provide a rational explanation for how "we don't know" results in or leads to "god did it"?

Do you remember our first discussion, where I referred to a greater evolution?

My reasoning is that there is an inevitable evolution of complexity and variation of forms in the fabric of existence over virtually eternal periods of time, resulting in the complexity evident at the big bang event.

Inevitably over unimaginable amounts of time and the development of this complexity there would develop forms which would be able to create things, such as Gods and humans.

We have evidence of intelligent entities which can create things, ie humans.

Why not larger intelligent entities creating universes?

 

[punshhh]

No. There's no evidence for God because there's no evidence for God. The theists are attempting to retrofit an undefined entity to the evidence. That's not even a hypothesis.


Nope. Agnosticism isn't a position on the existence of God. Atheism is the null hypothesis.

The Gospel according to Pixy.

 

[biomorph]

Do you remember our first discussion, where I referred to a greater evolution?

No, I don't, was it relevant?

My reasoning is that there is an inevitable evolution of complexity and variation of forms in the fabric of existence over virtually eternal periods of time, resulting in the complexity evident at the big bang event.

I'm not sure that compared to that which followed afterwards that the big bang was so complex. I think the complexity we see in the observable universe emerged from the less complex big bang event, from what i've read.

Inevitably over unimaginable amounts of time and the development of this complexity there would develop forms which would be able to create things, such as Gods and humans.

"Creating" things after the time/space continuum emerged is one thing, as in humans (who actually create nothing, just rework the existing post big bang/spacetime to make stuff).

Creation of spacetime itself is a whole different ballgame, as theres no time to create anything within, let alone the space to create it.

We have evidence of intelligent entities which can create things, ie humans.

Why not larger intelligent entities creating universes?

Intelligence is an evolved trait, over time.

Because humans exist already in a spacetime structure that allows us to rework it ( within time and space ), any creator of any universes would also have that restriction of time (and probably some form of space), otherwise the "creator" surely would find it impossible to get to the position of before and after the creation of anything as that needs time (space too of course!).

Without spacetime pre-existing any creator is without the means to create anything, or have "intelligence" evolve from less intelligent beginings over time...

You seem to be laboring under the impression that the big bang entails the emergence of space into or within time. that does not, from any evidence I've seen or read appear to be the case. Time appears along with space, and space needs time to be space.

Either way, no spacetime is no time to do any creating, and certainly no space as well to create anything in that has a before creation and after creation scenario..

These restrictions are also, so far, pretty absolute, unless you can create without time (?) to do so, and out of "non-space(?) to create your creation within.

If there is spacetime (you can see the essentialness of it now) before the big bang then any creator or its decisions surely would reside within that spacetime. However the big bang's operations don't appear to be within a spacetime "fabric", but emerge from the big bang itself.

That is how I see it so far. I think!

 

[PixyMisa]

My reasoning is that there is an inevitable evolution of complexity and variation of forms in the fabric of existence over virtually eternal periods of time, resulting in the complexity evident at the big bang event.

That's not reasoning, that's conceptual potato salad.

Inevitably over unimaginable amounts of time and the development of this complexity there would develop forms which would be able to create things, such as Gods and humans.

Conceptual potato salad that's been sitting on the kitchen counter for three days.

We have evidence of intelligent entities which can create things, ie humans.

Yes, we have evidence of that.

Why not larger intelligent entities creating universes?

Because there is no evidence of that.

 

[biomorph]

From the human perspective, maybe. I did point out that I am not referring to any kind of God typically defined by a theist.

Can I ask what sort of god you are referring to then.

i can't see any diference between the god you are not easily defining and a theists god.

The creator God I am referring to may exist independently of what humanity can say of it. It may have existed before humans came along to deny its existence(the arrogance of the human psyche!).

Many theists say, to man that thier gods exisited before humans, how is your definition different?

Arrogance does not make one wrong or right , only evidence can do that.

Many have been arrogant and right.

I am not claiming Goddidit, I am saying, we from our humble perspective cannot deny an intelligent creator, just by saying it.

Yes we can deny it, actually even from the so called humble perspective you seem to think all humans need to subscribe to, if there is no chicken in the basket, there is still no chicken.

The persuader would be the evidence of a chicken in the basket, regardless of whatever is said. Evidence of any god would do most likely, to some effect.

However so far there is still no evidence, it seems (also no chicken in the empty basket..lol)

Denial is fine.
If you can claim you can jump over a house unaided, then you perhaps at some point one might have to actually show you can.
Semantics over whether anyone is allowed to call you on it is irrellevant.

 

[biomorph]

That's not reasoning, that's conceptual potato salad.


Conceptual potato salad that's been sitting on the kitchen counter for three days.

<derail> so thats one potato salad and a no chicken in a basket on the side, ready in about 10 mins ok?</derail>

 

[3point14]

From the human perspective, maybe. I did point out that I am not referring to any kind of God typically defined by a theist.
The creator God I am referring to may exist independently of what humanity can say of it. It may have existed before humans came along to deny its existence(the arrogance of the human psyche!).




I am not claiming Goddidit, I am saying, we from our humble perspective cannot deny an intelligent creator, just by saying it.

But we also, from out humble perspective cannot deny an intelligent dustbin lid.

 

[drzeus99]

Actually, the default state seems to be "belief." Not necessarily belief in any one organized religion's dogma, but belief in unseen forces and entities. It is natural in humans and the reason why every culture has had religious beliefs and practices. Superstition, luck, urban legend, old wive's tales, "common sense" these are the foibles that are natural to humans, it is only through education, dedicated practice and rigorous self-discipline that we learn to escape these and develop rational considerations, but they await at every turn and attempt to bias every thought and plan because they are the default human nature.

.


I'd disagree with your assesment that a belief in unseen forces and entities is the "default state" that is an inherent part of human nature.

You're confusing the nature of humans to wonder about the unknown (and search for answers) with an inherent belief in the supernatural.

For millenia, supernatural explanations seemed like the only possible answers to many of life's great mysteries, especially about nature and the origin of man.

Before the advancement of knowledge through science and the scientific method, supernatural explanations for the unknown was widely accepted as being a reasonable explanation for these questions.

The scientifically and technologically advanced world in which we live in today have given humans answers to almost all of these same questions that were given supernatural explanations throughout the history of mankind.


While there is an inherent default state as a part of human thinking, it's NOT of "the supernatural". The supernatural was an "explanation" given as a response to the REAL inherent nature of humans, which is: A WONDER OF THE UNKNOWN AND TO SEARCH FOR ANSWERS
Just because the supernatural was used as an explanation for the unknown, and done so in all cultures for almost the entire period of human existence,
it needs to be pointed out that the QUESTIONING OF THE UNKNOWN and " NOT " THE LONG ACCEPTED ANSWER OF "The supernatural" is
what is the DEFAULT NATURE OF HUMANS.
.

 

[punshhh]

But we also, from out humble perspective cannot deny an intelligent dustbin lid.

Intelligent dustbin lids which create things are an example of intelligent creators.
I expect humanity to create such things in the next few hundred years with developments in AI.

 

[SomeGuy]

Intelligent dustbin lids which create things are an example of intelligent creators.
I expect humanity to create such things in the next few hundred years with developments in AI.

I can see your method, you keep diverting attention away from the question of wether or not we should consider agnosticism towards anything that can't be proven to exist.

It was even more clear before when I asked about the null hypothesis considering smurfs.

Your reply was: "If smurfs had the quality of being able to create physical universes, I would take them quite seriously."

Here you are making a special case of anything that's capable of creating a universe. It's showing that you're (either deliberately or while being unaware) being dishonest on the topic.

If you would stick to formal logic, like you're trying to make "strong atheists" do, you would have a problem there.

If proposition X is unlikely to be true and the null hypothesis should be to reject proposition X.

Than proposition Y, which is "proposition X AND requirement Z", is even less likely to be true.

So if the existence of smurfs (proposition X) is unlikely and we should accept the null hypothesis that smurfs are made up beings, than the existence of smurfs (proposition X) with the ability to create universes (requirement Z) is even more unlikely and should be rejected even quicker.

If you're applying formal logic there's no reason to reject X AND Z if you're willing to reject X..... there's only a reason to prefer X AND Z over just X if you're emotionally committed to seeing requirement Z fulfilled.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

"I can't believe that!" said Alice.

"Can't you?" the (Red) queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again, draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said. "One can't believe impossible things."

"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Doesn't make any of them true though.

 

[punshhh]

No, I don't, was it relevant?

This was addressed to Skeptic Ginger, it was essentially what I have referred to here.

I'm not sure that compared to that which followed afterwards that the big bang was so complex. I think the complexity we see in the observable universe emerged from the less complex big bang event, from what i've read.

Your comments are interesting, your line of thought is familiar to me.

I am proposing that the laws of nature were pre-existent to our timeline

"Creating" things after the time/space continuum emerged is one thing, as in humans (who actually create nothing, just rework the existing post big bang/spacetime to make stuff).

In this larger timeline the laws of nature/physics which are fundamental to our known existence might not be universal. but rather a unique combination of a spectrum of possibilities. A reworking of previous spacetimes, rather like the way humans rework atoms into forms which could only have arisen from the activity of an intelligent creator, an example being the internet.

Creation of spacetime itself is a whole different ballgame, as theres no time to create anything within, let alone the space to create it

.

The particular philosophy I am proposing here requires the consideration of timelines other than our known Big Bang Event(BBE), perhaps even an infinite spacetime. In which our BBE might be a small common event.

Intelligence is an evolved trait, over time.

I see no reason why the evolution of intelligent entities like ourselves might not evolve over millions or billions of years beyond our current capability.

Because humans exist already in a spacetime structure that allows us to rework it ( within time and space ), any creator of any universes would also have that restriction of time (and probably some form of space), otherwise the "creator" surely would find it impossible to get to the position of before and after the creation of anything as that needs time (space too of course!).

Such possibilities might seem unsurmountable from our perspective of such things.
I see no reason why spacetime is immune to manipulation, rather like the arrangements of atoms or perhaps their creation should in principle be controllable.

Without spacetime pre-existing any creator is without the means to create anything, or have "intelligence" evolve from less intelligent beginings over time...

You seem to be laboring under the impression that the big bang entails the emergence of space into or within time. that does not, from any evidence I've seen or read appear to be the case. Time appears along with space, and space needs time to be space.

Either way, no spacetime is no time to do any creating, and certainly no space as well to create anything in that has a before creation and after creation scenario..

These restrictions are also, so far, pretty absolute, unless you can create without time (?) to do so, and out of "non-space(?) to create your creation within.

I am considering the creation of the BBE itself.
I am aware of the interdependence of space and time. Existence along with the act of creation without time, is an impossibility.

If there is spacetime (you can see the essentialness of it now) before the big bang then any creator or its decisions surely would reside within that spacetime. However the big bang's operations don't appear to be within a spacetime "fabric", but emerge from the big bang itself.

Yes this is what I am proposing, if a BBE is a creation from another spacetime, there would be a causal link between the two. Whilst there might not be any temporal or spatial link.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

I haven't defined this creature, its improbability can not been addressed without a description of its attributes. I am refering to the possibility that they might be present.

If we don't know what is present beyond our current understanding, it is foolish to deny assume the presence of anything beyond our current understanding.

fify

What do you think the default position on the existence of Smurfs is?

You've opened my eyes. I've seen the little blue light. My default position is for the existence of Smurfs. After all, there's plenty of evidence they exist. There are figurines you can place on your mantel; I owned several as a child. There are images (posters) you can decorate your home with. There is literature that tells stories of what they do. There was an entire TV show devoted to them. And I know them by their innumerable names (Brainy, Jokey, etc.). They even have a virgin, though it is uncertain whether she is a mother (and some heretics question whether she's a virgin!).

That's ample evidence for me. After all, people wouldn't go to such lengths for a being that doesn't exist, would they?

 

[Dinwar]

I'd disagree with your assesment that a belief in unseen forces and entities is the "default state" that is an inherent part of human nature.

I think we need to differentiate between what's default in human nature (ie, what we'll believe by virtue of being human, whether we have evidence or not) and what's default in an intelligent discussion (ie, what we can assume to be true prior to entering into the conversation).

The default in human behavior is that an intelligent entity is causing whatever is under consideration. it's the basis of animism, of religion, of yelling at our computers, and is easily explained via evolution.

The default in an intelligent conversation is a bit tricky. In the case of "Does X exist?" the default is always "No", unless evidence can be presented otherwise. A null hypothesis is a very useful tool here, in that it allows us to ask the question "Is there anything to explain?" If the null hypothesis is not disproven, there's nothing to explain and the default (X doesn't exist) holds. It isn't until the null hypothesis is disproven that it even makes sense to ask "What is X?" Until the null hypothesis is disproven we cannot know that X exists, and are left with a conversation that amounts to "Who would win, Superman or Batman?" Fun for a schoolyard or in proper context, but not generally regarded as intelligent discourse.

The default in intelligent discussions about the question of the existence of gods is that gods do not exist. Until someone can present evidence that they do, it's irrational to think that they do, just as it would be irrational to think that anything else exists without evidence.

In this larger timeline the laws of nature/physics which are fundamental to our known existence might not be universal. but rather a unique combination of a spectrum of possibilities. A reworking of previous spacetimes, rather like the way humans rework atoms into forms which could only have arisen from the activity of an intelligent creator, an example being the internet.

this is what I'm talking about. It's irrational to assume, without any real evidence, that things changed in the past. Once evidence is present then yeah, we can debate what laws of nature existed back when ours didn't--but to assume, in the absence of evidence, that they did? It's an abandonment of all observations. To posit a creator based on a baseless assumption is like building a house of cards on a strong breeze.

 

[punshhh]

I think we need to differentiate between what's default in human nature (ie, what we'll believe by virtue of being human, whether we have evidence or not) and what's default in an intelligent discussion (ie, what we can assume to be true prior to entering into the conversation).

The default in human behavior is that an intelligent entity is causing whatever is under consideration. it's the basis of animism, of religion, of yelling at our computers, and is easily explained via evolution.

The default in an intelligent conversation is a bit tricky. In the case of "Does X exist?" the default is always "No", unless evidence can be presented otherwise. A null hypothesis is a very useful tool here, in that it allows us to ask the question "Is there anything to explain?" If the null hypothesis is not disproven, there's nothing to explain and the default (X doesn't exist) holds. It isn't until the null hypothesis is disproven that it even makes sense to ask "What is X?" Until the null hypothesis is disproven we cannot know that X exists, and are left with a conversation that amounts to "Who would win, Superman or Batman?" Fun for a schoolyard or in proper context, but not generally regarded as intelligent discourse.

The default in intelligent discussions about the question of the existence of gods is that gods do not exist. Until someone can present evidence that they do, it's irrational to think that they do, just as it would be irrational to think that anything else exists without evidence.

this is what I'm talking about. It's irrational to assume, without any real evidence, that things changed in the past. Once evidence is present then yeah, we can debate what laws of nature existed back when ours didn't--but to assume, in the absence of evidence, that they did? It's an abandonment of all observations. To posit a creator based on a baseless assumption is like building a house of cards on a strong breeze.

Yes I agree with your use of null hypothesis here, I have no issue with this approach to the existence of Gods.

Ones approach is a personal choice.

I was posting to point out that there are rational folk who arrive at the existence of creator Gods through reasoned consideration. As a response to a post suggesting that to do so is irrational.

When I say creator Gods, what I am referring to is the distinction between these two positions;

Existence as we know it came about, or always was, due to;

1, An intelligent manipulation,
or
2, physical processes.

I tend towards 1, others towards 2. I see no way of denying one in favour of the other through reason, from our limited perspective.

 

[DC]

Do you remember our first discussion, where I referred to a greater evolution?

My reasoning is that there is an inevitable evolution of complexity and variation of forms in the fabric of existence over virtually eternal periods of time, resulting in the complexity evident at the big bang event.

Inevitably over unimaginable amounts of time and the development of this complexity there would develop forms which would be able to create things, such as Gods and humans.

We have evidence of intelligent entities which can create things, ie humans.

Why not larger intelligent entities creating universes?

because absolutely nothing points in that direction so there is no rational reason to believe something like that exist.

 

[DC]

Yes I agree with your use of null hypothesis here, I have no issue with this approach to the existence of Gods.

Ones approach is a personal choice.

I was posting to point out that there are rational folk who arrive at the existence of creator Gods through reasoned consideration. As a response to a post suggesting that to do so is irrational.

When I say creator Gods, what I am referring to is the distinction between these two positions;

Existence as we know it came about, or always was, due to;

1, An intelligent manipulation,
or
2, physical processes.

I tend towards 1, others towards 2. I see no way of denying one in favour of the other through reason, from our limited perspective.

gods are spelled with a small g.

 

[Pixel42]

When I say creator Gods, what I am referring to is the distinction between these two positions;

Existence as we know it came about, or always was, due to;

1, An intelligent manipulation,
or
2, physical processes.

I tend towards 1, others towards 2. I see no way of denying one in favour of the other through reason, from our limited perspective.

But if you choose (1) you're then faced with this question:

The existence of the intelligent manipulator came about, or always was, due to;

1, An intelligent manipulation,
or
2, physical processes.

and so on ad infinitum, or until you arbitrarily decide to choose (2) instead.

Are you happy with the idea of an infinite series of creator gods? If not it makes sense to avoid it altogether by choosing (2) immediately rather than arbitrarily deciding to terminate that series at the 2nd, 7th or 284746456th step.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes I agree with your use of null hypothesis here, I have no issue with this approach to the existence of Gods.

Ones approach is a personal choice.

Yes. However, one approach is valid and the other is not.

I was posting to point out that there are rational folk who arrive at the existence of creator Gods through reasoned consideration.

Well, sure, if they start with false information.

When I say creator Gods, what I am referring to is the distinction between these two positions;

Existence as we know it came about, or always was, due to;

1, An intelligent manipulation,
or
2, physical processes.

Intelligent manipulation is a physical process.

I tend towards 1, others towards 2. I see no way of denying one in favour of the other through reason, from our limited perspective.

And yet you posit entities for which you have no evidence.