What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[punshhh]

Nope.


Your quote-thinking-unquote is not rational.


Wrong question.


Irrelevant.


Non-sequitur.

You have already agreed with me that intelligent creators have evolved naturally.
There is also evidence of creators becoming more sophisticated as evolution progresses.

Do you regard humanity as the pinnacle of intelligent evolution,
even if we are in an endless existence?

(Think about that rationally)

 

[punshhh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question

I am not suggesting a creator creating existence itself, only modifying aspects of the fabric of existence.

 

[Daald]

I have already explained I am not arguing intelligent design, I am opposed to it as any kind of proof of the existence of God.

I see you making arguments from design though and that is what that link addressed. Intelligent design is only mentioned because their movement usually makes that argument.

*edit* I had quoted the wrong post.

 

[punshhh]

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.

I am drawing attention to actual existence, that which actually exists, as distinct from what we perceive to exist.

In reality we only know of the existence of what we can observe, touch and measure through experiment. We have no way of knowing if this is the whole picture or what aspects of existence we are blind to.

As such we cannot assume that we can know what actual existence is or how it operates.
It would be irrational to assume that we are in possession of all the facts about existence. That would be putting the human mind on a pedestal.

 

[punshhh]

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?

Perhaps we are brains on pedestals

Yes I am aware of this issue, it applies equally to both sides of the discussion.
I haven't come across a scientific explanation which doesn't boil down to turtles all the way down when its examined.

 

[punshhh]

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.

The creator I am talking about would be operating in the same way with the fabric of existence.

I cannot argue for a creator creating the fabric of existence itself in this way.

I think there may have been a misunderstanding in this thread over the definition of creator.
I am not using the word to refer to the creation of existence or something out of nothing.
I am not referring to a beginning or creation event atall.
I am assuming along with the atheist that existence is taken for granted.

I am suggesting that beings evolved naturally in existence and created alternative forms of existence out of the fabric of existence. In the same way that humans made plastic keyboards out of oil.

We cannot assume that anything we know of was not rearranged in this way.

 

[Daald]

So are you basically arguing for an intelligent alien that seeded life or maybe the solar system?

 

[GeeMack]

The creator I am talking about would be operating in the same way with the fabric of existence.

I cannot argue for a creator creating the fabric of existence itself in this way.

I think there may have been a misunderstanding in this thread over the definition of creator.
I am not using the word to refer to the creation of existence or something out of nothing.
I am not referring to a beginning or creation event atall.
I am assuming along with the atheist that existence is taken for granted.

I am suggesting that beings evolved naturally in existence and created alternative forms of existence out of the fabric of existence. In the same way that humans made plastic keyboards out of oil.

We cannot assume that anything we know of was not rearranged in this way.

The process of science has been applied to perhaps millions of questions, and has a solid track record of being an effective way to come up with reasonable answers. Make observations of data. Compare the data to other data. Hypothesize explanations for cause, effect, existence, etc. of the data. Make predictions about the hypotheses. Test the hypotheses to see if they match the predictions. And if the testing indicates a flaw in the explanation, modify the hypotheses. If the testing shows the hypotheses are sound, test them again anyway. Try real hard to show they're wrong. When it seems they have been vigorously, objectively, and quantitatively tested to the best of our ability and still match the predictions, provisionally accept the results. That method or a minor variant has been utilized in every case where scientific advances have been made. In every case.

But in all those successful applications of the scientific method, never once has the answer been that some supernatural entity was involved. Never once has our scientific consideration resulted in magical powers being the best explanation. Never once have any invisible beings showed up in the experiments. Sometimes we've tirelessly explored questions and had to admit that we don't know. But when those questions are re-visited, often a reasonable, plausible, testable materialistic answer comes to the surface. And never has it been gods or intelligent creators (usually a dishonest and rather cowardly way of saying gods). There is no evidence that such a being/creature exists. There are arguments from incredulity: I don't know how/why such-n-such therefore gods. There are arguments from laziness: I'm not going to do the research that might explain such-n-such therefore gods. There are all kinds of lame efforts to shoehorn gods into the spaces in our accumulated knowledge, but every single time we acquire new knowledge, those gods get squeezed out of those gaps. And never once since the beginning of time has the explanation actually been gods.

So it is simply not rational to give credence to claims that magic or gods are the explanation for anything we don't yet fully understand. It's not even rational to suggest that magic might be as good an explanation as any until we know better. If we stop our pursuit of knowledge by accepting magic, we stop... period. And in all the history of humanity, that method has never brought us an answer to a question about the Universe we live in.

 

[Pixel42]

We cannot assume that anything we know of was not rearranged in this way.

Of course we can. And Occam says we should.

We would need a reason to assume otherwise. You have yet to provide one.

 

[punshhh]

The process of science has been applied to perhaps millions of questions, and has a solid track record of being an effective way to come up with reasonable answers. Make observations of data. Compare the data to other data. Hypothesize explanations for cause, effect, existence, etc. of the data. Make predictions about the hypotheses. Test the hypotheses to see if they match the predictions. And if the testing indicates a flaw in the explanation, modify the hypotheses. If the testing shows the hypotheses are sound, test them again anyway. Try real hard to show they're wrong. When it seems they have been vigorously, objectively, and quantitatively tested to the best of our ability and still match the predictions, provisionally accept the results. That method or a minor variant has been utilized in every case where scientific advances have been made. In every case.

But in all those successful applications of the scientific method, never once has the answer been that some supernatural entity was involved. Never once has our scientific consideration resulted in magical powers being the best explanation. Never once have any invisible beings showed up in the experiments. Sometimes we've tirelessly explored questions and had to admit that we don't know. But when those questions are re-visited, often a reasonable, plausible, testable materialistic answer comes to the surface. And never has it been gods or intelligent creators (usually a dishonest and rather cowardly way of saying gods). There is no evidence that such a being/creature exists. There are arguments from incredulity: I don't know how/why such-n-such therefore gods. There are arguments from laziness: I'm not going to do the research that might explain such-n-such therefore gods. There are all kinds of lame efforts to shoehorn gods into the spaces in our accumulated knowledge, but every single time we acquire new knowledge, those gods get squeezed out of those gaps. And never once since the beginning of time has the explanation actually been gods.

So it is simply not rational to give credence to claims that magic or gods are the explanation for anything we don't yet fully understand. It's not even rational to suggest that magic might be as good an explanation as any until we know better. If we stop our pursuit of knowledge by accepting magic, we stop... period. And in all the history of humanity, that method has never brought us an answer to a question about the Universe we live in.

I accept in a rational way that we cannot assume to be in possession of all the facts of what existence is, how it works and what aspects of it we are blind to. We can reasonably assume these things in regard of known existence, which is all we are aware of.

It is irrational to assume that we are in possession of all the facts.

I am not considering anything supernatural here, only a natural process of creators evolving naturally in existence.

I have provided evidence, ie keyboards(created by humanity).

Can you tell me that there are not any other intelligent creators out there?

 

[GeeMack]

I accept in a rational way that we cannot assume to be in possession of all the facts of what existence is, how it works and what aspects of it we are blind to. We can reasonably assume these things in regard of known existence, which is all we are aware of.

It is irrational to assume that we are in possession of all the facts.

It is irrational to make up "facts" or to consider as reasonable any conceivable figment of our imaginations to fill in for facts we don't possess.

I am not considering anything supernatural here, only a natural process of creators evolving naturally in existence.

I have provided evidence, ie keyboards(created by humanity).

Can you tell me that there are not any other intelligent creators out there?

I can tell you that your argument from incredulity and ignorance does not constitute objective evidence that some other intelligent creator exists.

 

[Mashuna]

The creator I am talking about would be operating in the same way with the fabric of existence.

I cannot argue for a creator creating the fabric of existence itself in this way.

I think there may have been a misunderstanding in this thread over the definition of creator.
I am not using the word to refer to the creation of existence or something out of nothing.
I am not referring to a beginning or creation event atall.
I am assuming along with the atheist that existence is taken for granted.

I am suggesting that beings evolved naturally in existence and created alternative forms of existence out of the fabric of existence. In the same way that humans made plastic keyboards out of oil.

We cannot assume that anything we know of was not rearranged in this way.

So you're positing an unknown being that, as you don't see it as creating existence or something out of nothing, doesn't add anything to the argument in any way. Thanks for finally defining your argument clearly and confirming that it's a pointless waste of time.

 

[punshhh]

It is irrational to make up "facts" or to consider as reasonable any conceivable figment of our imaginations to fill in for facts we don't possess.

My argument rests on two facts and only two facts;
1, we are not in possession of all the facts about what existence is and how it operates.
2, Intelligent creators evolve naturally in this existence.

I am not making up a definition of this intelligent creator. My only assumption is that the nature of this creator and its activity is analogous to the nature and activity of the intelligent creator which we have and which we can study.

If 1 and 2 are assumed to be correct the only rational conclusion is that from our limited understanding of the nature of existence, we cannot determine wether there is or is not the involvement of intelligent creators of a range of creative abilities involved in the creation of our known universe.

I can tell you that your argument from incredulity and ignorance does not constitute objective evidence that some other intelligent creator exists.

This is not an argument from incredulity, I am merely pointing out our well known limited understanding of existence.

This is not an argument from ignorance, it does not rely on a lack of evidence proving that these creators do not exist.

It is based on hard evidence present in our known universe, nothing else.

 

[GeeMack]

My argument rests on two facts and only two facts;
1, we are not in possession of all the facts about what existence is and how it operates.
2, Intelligent creators evolve naturally in this existence.

I am not making up a definition of this intelligent creator.

Why yes, yes you are.

My only assumption is that the nature of this creator and its activity is analogous to the nature and activity of the intelligent creator which we have and which we can study.

If 1 and 2 are assumed to be correct the only rational conclusion is that from our limited understanding of the nature of existence, we cannot determine wether there is or is not the involvement of intelligent creators of a range of creative abilities involved in the creation of our known universe.

Although we may not be able to determine that, it would be irrational to give any more consideration to the notion that there was involvement of intelligent creators than to any other equally non-evidenced conjecture. In other words, pretty much anything anyone could possibly imagine. Again, it would be irrational to give consideration to every conceivable figment of anyone's imagination simply because someone dreamed it up, if for no other reason than there are virtually infinite ways to make up nonsense stories to explain the existence of what we know exists.

There is a process we call science which has been extremely successful at explaining a whole lot of what humans have wondered about through man's history. The process of fantasizing explanations, making up stuff that feels kinda tingly but has no objective support, desperately inventing illogical explanations that defy the known laws of physics just to avoid saying, "I don't know?" Not so successful.

This is not an argument from incredulity, I am merely pointing out our well known limited understanding of existence.

This is not an argument from ignorance, it does not rely on a lack of evidence proving that these creators do not exist.

It is based on hard evidence present in our known universe, nothing else.

The argument from incredulity and ignorance comes in your postulating an intelligent creator simply because you can't imagine any of the other millions of equally unevidenced conjectures to explain existence, and you're ignoring the fact that there is no objective evidence to support your conjecture.

 

[PixyMisa]

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

You have no evidence whatsoever.

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?

You're simply dodging the problem and explaining nothing at all.

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.

You would, of course, be wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

You have already agreed with me that intelligent creators have evolved naturally.

Irrelevant.

There is also evidence of creators becoming more sophisticated as evolution progresses.

Irrelevant.

Do you regard humanity as the pinnacle of intelligent evolution,
even if we are in an endless existence?

Meaningless.

(Think about that rationally)

Sound advice.

 

[PixyMisa]

I accept in a rational way that we cannot assume to be in possession of all the facts of what existence is, how it works and what aspects of it we are blind to. We can reasonably assume these things in regard of known existence, which is all we are aware of.

It is irrational to assume that we are in possession of all the facts.

I am not considering anything supernatural here

Yes you are.

 

[punshhh]

You have no evidence whatsoever.

Let me give you pieces of evidence,

1, the voyager space probe and
2, the expectation of the imminent creation of artificial intelligence.

In order for my speculation to be a rational thought process, all I require is evidence of intelligent creators evolving naturally in existence.

1, is a peculiar object in space which could not possibly exist without the intelligent manipulation of the fabric of existence by an entity.
Thus it was created by an intelligent creator.

2, Is the creation/evolution of an intelligent creator which will be well documented and scientifically explained.

Both 1 and 2 will have come into existence through natural processes, known to science. Neither could possibly exist without the involvement of intelligent creators.

This is proof of the evolution of intelligent creators able to manipulate the fabric of existence occurring as a natural process in existence.

This fact alongside the fact that we are limited in our understanding of existence to what we can perceive and test with tools, leaves open the rational consideration that there may well be intelligent creators we are not aware of in existence.

You're simply dodging the problem and explaining nothing at all.

I have been specific from the beginning that I am not considering a creator which can create the fabric of existence itself. Rather a creator which manipulates the already existing fabric of existence.

You would, of course, be wrong.

So are you saying that actual existence, whatever it is that actually exists,
is the same as
Known existence, that which humanity can perceive and understand.

If so you are putting the human mind on a pedestal and declaring that humanity knows the secrets of existence and that anything else which may possibly exist is ridiculous.

 

[punshhh]

Yes you are.

I am considering something which may appear supernatural from the limited human perspective. But is in fact a natural process of which we are not aware at this time.

Or is humanity in full possession of the secrets/workings of existence?

 

[Pixel42]

If so you are putting the human mind on a pedestal and declaring that humanity knows the secrets of existence and that anything else which may possibly exist is ridiculous.

Nobody is saying anything remotely resembling this. Why do you persist in wilfully misrepresenting what everyone else is saying?

All we're saying is that there is no good reason to postulate the existence of your intelligent creators meddling with the universe (and by good reason I mean evidence which cannot be explained without postulating that existence). So although we cannot rule the possibility out there is no good reason to rule it in, or consider it any more likely than any other theoretically possible notion anyone else could dream up for which there is no evidence.