What We Believe But Cannot Prove

3point14 said:
You do know that that has been done to death, don't you?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
Click to expand...

No I'm not going down the intelligent design route. I have all the evidence I need already.

The keyboard.


a, Also I am not claiming in any sense intelligent creators creating existence.

b, I am claiming intelligent creators creating the existence that we are aware of.

Do you see the distinction?

I see no reason to assume that existence in (a) is the same as existence in (b). In fact I would regard it irrational to come to this conclusion.
 
punshhh said:
You miss understand my point here, let me put it again.

I posit the existence of an "intelligent creator".

My evidence is;

Intelligent creators have evolved naturally in existence.

My proof is;

Keyboards exist, which can only come into existence by being created by an intelligent creator, namely humanity.

Conclusion;

Intelligent creators evolve naturally in existence.
Click to expand...

could you define what you mean here by "creator"? Are you talking about beings that can create ex nihilo, or just beings that can assemble existing matter in novel ways?
 
punshhh said:
What is this energy? Pixie dust?
Click to expand...

I think you already mentioned it is the stuff which makes up matter. Matter is the stuff which makes up my leg.

I don't understand why energy has to be made up of something else. I would be willing to hear what the physicists have to say about it though.

I'd also be willing to share the wealth and let your "intelligent creator" be made up of energy as well, if you like.
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
I see no reason to assume that existence in (a) is the same as existence in (b). In fact I would regard it irrational to come to this conclusion.
Click to expand...
The fact remains that there is no need to invoke intelligent creators to explain existence (b), and therefore no reason to assume the different level of existence (a).

Speculation about the nature of existence which explains nothing which cannot be explained without it, has no evidence to support it, and requires an additional level of existence which it leaves unexplained is not usually taken very seriously. Such speculation can be fun, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as rational.
 
Lamuella said:
could you define what you mean here by "creator"? Are you talking about beings that can create ex nihilo, or just beings that can assemble existing matter in novel ways?
Click to expand...

Just beings that can assemble the fabric of existence in novel ways, while being part of the fabric themselves.
 
punshhh said:
Just beings that can assemble the fabric of existence in novel ways, while being part of the fabric themselves.
Click to expand...

you appear to be quite fond of the word "fabric". Could you explain what you mean by it,while providing examples of evolved creators that "assemble fabric"?
 
Pixel42 said:
The fact remains that there is no need to invoke intelligent creators to explain existence (b), and therefore no reason to assume the different level of existence (a).
Click to expand...
Does "no reason to assume" = irrational

Speculation about the nature of existence which explains nothing which cannot be explained without it, has no evidence to support it, and requires an additional level of existence which it leaves unexplained is not usually taken very seriously. Such speculation can be fun, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as rational.
Click to expand...

So it is rational to wear blinkers regarding considerations of existence which do not conform with the current scientific understanding of existence.

So it is not rational to consider that there might be an additional level of existence, of which we are not yet aware.

Such a level of existence as that in/on which energy acts? or does it act in a void?
 
punshhh said:
No I'm not going down the intelligent design route. I have all the evidence I need already.

The keyboard.


a, Also I am not claiming in any sense intelligent creators creating existence.

b, I am claiming intelligent creators creating the existence that we are aware of.

Do you see the distinction?

I see no reason to assume that existence in (a) is the same as existence in (b). In fact I would regard it irrational to come to this conclusion.
Click to expand...


So in order to explain the existence of existance, youve postulated a whole new different existance outside that of which we are aware?

Mr Occum would not approve.
 
Lamuella said:
you appear to be quite fond of the word "fabric". Could you explain what you mean by it,while providing examples of evolved creators that "assemble fabric"?
Click to expand...

By fabric I am referring to what exists, I see no reason to assume that we know what exists, only we know what we can detect as existing.

I go back to energy, in/on/out of what does it act?

I have provided my evidence, a keyboard.

Can you explain how a keyboard could exist without being created by an intelligent creator(humanity)?
 
punshhh said:
By fabric I am referring to what exists, I see no reason to assume that we know what exists, only we know what we can detect as existing.
Click to expand...

so in other words, you're not talking about a creator, you're talking about an assembler. The only thing that humans create is information.
 
punshhh said:
So it is rational to wear blinkers regarding considerations of existence which do not conform with the current scientific understanding of existence.
Click to expand...
It is not rational to assert the existence of inexplicable and unnecessary entities for which there is no evidence. Speculate about such entities all you want, but don't pretend it's rational to assert their existence.
 
Lamuella said:
so in other words, you're not talking about a creator, you're talking about an assembler. The only thing that humans create is information.
Click to expand...

Look at the plastic casing of the keyboard, is that information? can that exist without being created by an intelligent entity?


A creator takes some of the fabric of existence and moulds it into an unnatural form(f1)*. There is no way that these forms (f1) can exist without being created by this(or a similar) creator.

*by unnatural form I mean a form which will not exist in nature, unless it is created by and intelligent creator. For example a painting by Picasso or a spacecraft.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
It is not rational to assert the existence of inexplicable and unnecessary entities for which there is no evidence. Speculate about such entities all you want, but don't pretend it's rational to assert their existence.
Click to expand...

I have evidence of intelligent creators and in the next hundred years or so, these intelligent creators will create intelligent creators namely AI.

I am not claiming a proof of their existence, only that it is a rational scenario.
 
punshhh said:
I am not claiming a proof of their existence, only that it is a rational scenario.
Click to expand...

This is why people keep bringing up turtles, though. You're familiar with the "turtles all the way down," joke, right?

Yes, it might be rational to extrapolate that our known universe was designed/assembled by another creature, the way we design/assemble things.

But who designed/assembled that creature?
 
punshhh said:
Look at the plastic casing of the keyboard, is that information?
Click to expand...

It's matter put together in a novel way. The only thing that distinguishes it from other forms of matter is the information used in putting it together. All the component parts existed beforehand. Nothing was created.
 
punshhh said:
Look at the plastic casing of the keyboard, is that information? can that exist without being created by an intelligent entity?


A creator takes some of the fabric of existence and moulds it into an unnatural form(f1)*. There is no way that these forms (f1) can exist without being created by this(or a similar) creator.

*by unnatural form I mean a form which will not exist in nature, unless it is created by and intelligent creator. For example a painting by Picasso or a spacecraft.
Click to expand...

Or a rock.

At a molecular level some of them are so complex the credulous might think they were designed.
 
how are we defining things that exist in nature, and how are we contrasing it to things with an intelligent creator? Where's the line? Does a beaver dam exist in nature?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom