What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[punshhh]

Why yes, yes you are.

The definition of the intelligent creator I am considering, is drawn solely from the evidence I have (see my previous post to Pixy), nothing more.

An entity with the properties of intelligence and the ability to manipulate the fabric of existence.

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.

Consider the evidence provided, my consideration is a simple conjecture on the evidence before me. There is no figment of imagination involved. I do not pretend to know the nature of this creator, or what or how it creates things.
Only thats its presence in some form is supported by the evidence.

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.

There are scientists who take a similar view to myself. Science will shortly preside over the creation of an intelligent creator by humanity. The development of artificial intelligence. It will be interesting to see what these newly evolved creators will create.

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.

This paragraph above is an example of an argument from incredulity, you are claiming that I am assuming my conclusions, simply because I have not or are unable to consider an infinite number of other equally valid possibilties.

 

[3point14]

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

Can you tell me that there aren't any teapots orbiting the sun somewhere between earth and Mars?

 

[PixyMisa]

Let me give you pieces of evidence,

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

Not evidence.

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

Wrong.

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.

Then your speculation is both baseless and pointless.

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.

No, I'm saying WRONG QUESTION.

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.

You really aren't listening, are you?

 

[PixyMisa]

I am considering something which may appear supernatural from the limited human perspective.

So from your own perspective, it's supernatural.

 

[Lamuella]

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

so not a creator then, gotcha.

question: where did your non-creating-creator come from?

also, where did the universe come from?

 

[punshhh]

Not evidence.


Wrong.


Then your speculation is both baseless and pointless.


No, I'm saying WRONG QUESTION.


You really aren't listening, are you?

The gospel according to Pixy.

So point out your wisdom in your replies to me in this thread?

Or does it boil down to a succession of nos and wrongs?

 

[punshhh]

so not a creator then, gotcha.

I have not once claimed an ex-nihilo creator, I have claimed a creator with the potential to create known existence(known to humanity).

question: where did your non-creating-creator come from?

It evolved through natural processes from the fabric of existence.

also, where did the universe come from?

I cannot answer this other than to say we don't know and we don't know what we don't know.

 

[Lamuella]

It evolved through natural processes from the fabric of existence.

so your idea is that a creature evolved through natural processes... and then created us?

why couldn't we have evolved through natural processes? Why is this creator necessary?

 

[PixyMisa]

The gospel according to Pixy.

So point out your wisdom in your replies to me in this thread?

See all my posts.

Or does it boil down to a succession of nos and wrongs?

With you, yes. Everything you say is wrong. What do you expect?

 

[PixyMisa]

I have not once claimed an ex-nihilo creator, I have claimed a creator with the potential to create known existence(known to humanity).

Pointless.

It evolved through natural processes from the fabric of existence.

Meaningless and pointless.

I cannot answer this other than to say we don't know and we don't know what we don't know.

So your speculation has no basis, makes no sense, and explains nothing?

 

[Mashuna]

So your speculation has no basis, makes no sense, and explains nothing?

That's pretty much what I got from it.

 

[GeeMack]

I have not once claimed an ex-nihilo creator, I have claimed a creator with the potential to create known existence(known to humanity).

And you have been wholly unable to support that claim with any objective evidence. Arguments from ignorance and incredulity, unsupported assertions, appeals to your limited imagination, and thought experiments are not evidence.

 

[punshhh]

so your idea is that a creature evolved through natural processes... and then created us?

Yes as we are likely to create artificial intelligence in the near future, another intelligent creator.

why couldn't we have evolved through natural processes? Why is this creator necessary?

Yes we might have evolved through natural processes, ie with no involvement from intelligent creators.
My point is that it is not irrational to consider that such creators may have played a role in our origin.

Hence it is not irrational to consider the existence of gods(with a small g).
This sums up my entire point in this thread.

 

[DC]

Yes as we are likely to create artificial intelligence in the near future, another intelligent creator.



Yes we might have evolved through natural processes, ie with no involvement from intelligent creators.
My point is that it is not irrational to consider that such creators may have played a role in our origin.

Hence it is not irrational to consider the existence of gods(with a small g).
This sums up my entire point in this thread.

would be interesting story, if there was not a ******** of evidence showing us to be evolved and not created.

 

[punshhh]

And you have been wholly unable to support that claim with any objective evidence. Arguments from ignorance and incredulity, unsupported assertions, appeals to your limited imagination, and thought experiments are not evidence.

You are correct in that I cannot provide direct evidence of a creator with involvement in our origins.

I have provided evidence of the principle of intelligent creators evolving through natural processes in nature and themselves creating other intelligent creators, through a natural process.

On that basis I conclude that it is not irrational to consider the existence elsewhere of naturally evolved creators of varying creative abilities of which we are not currently aware.

Indeed the artificial intelligence we are soon to create may well out perform us in their creative abilities. Who knows what they might create?

 

[punshhh]

would be interesting story, if there was not a ******** of evidence showing us to be evolved and not created.

Why would not the process of evolution have been created. In the larger scheme of things perhaps our known universe is a laboratory experiment in the principles of evolution.

 

[3point14]

At this point, I'm praying for the handkerchief.

 

[Lamuella]

My point is that it is not irrational to consider that such creators may have played a role in our origin.

certainly not irrational to consider it as being possible, but quite irrational to assume it without evidence. Is there any evidence of such a creator? Or to put it another way, is there any aspect of our own development that cannot be explained by natural processes alone?

 

[punshhh]

Pointless.


Meaningless and pointless.


So your speculation has no basis, makes no sense, and explains nothing?

How am I supposed to interpret a list of responses like this;

no
no
wrong
no
wrong question
meaningless
no
no
etc
etc.

You come across as a tired poster, maybe you should take a break from this debating lark. Your lack of contribution in debates might reflect badly on the credibility of the critical thinking community.

 

[PixyMisa]

How am I supposed to interpret a list of responses like this;

no
no
wrong
no
wrong question
meaningless
no
no
etc
etc.

Those are not complex statements (except for "wrong question", which is somewhat subtle, but we have been over that a dozen times).

If you can't understand "no" or "wrong", then youre situation is even more hopeless than it would appear at first glance.

You come across as a tired poster, maybe you should take a break from this debating lark. Your lack of contribution in debates might reflect badly on the credibility of the critical thinking community.

No.