What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[GeeMack]

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

... and it is therefore irrational to consider for more than a moment the notion that an intelligent creator is responsible for creating all that we know exists. It is irrational to give that notion any more credence than any other flight of fancy or product of one's imagination. The number of such potential works of fiction is infinite. Dwelling on the proposal that a particular one offers a better explanation than any other for our existence is silly.

It follows that this...

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

... is unsupported nonsense.

 

[vwgub]

Or why a highly improbable universe with life exists, rather than a much more probable lifeless universe consisting of just, say, hydrogren atoms. Again, theism could rationally be the preferred theory.

Just finished reading the thread. I hadn't seen is addressed that the universe has life is highly improbable.

It isn't improbable. The probability of this happening is 1

 

[punshhh]

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

No you have only told me of your 29 unanswered questions once, while ignoring the question I asked at the time.

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

This is hand waving, hey everyone punshhh is a hopeless case don't even bother reading his posts, or something like that.

Please point out what is wrong about my reasoning, it is very simple.

Just simply point out where my reasoning is wrong?

No.

Come on Pixy how long is it since you last added any content to a debate.

 

[punshhh]

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

That sentence was an attempt to stir Pixy into actually engaging in the debate in some way. He/she asserts that I am wrong or mistaken, but does not proceed to show me the error of my ways.

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.

There is no good reason to say it is irrational to consider their existence in some form, as "we cannot rule the possibility out". It is perfectly rational, however I can understand that an atheist might regard it as ridiculous, it is rational all the same.

Your last sentence is an argument from incredulity; I must be irrational to pick out this idea more than any other amongst an infinity of possible ideas. It ignores the evidence presented.

 

[Lamuella]

Please point out what is wrong about my reasoning, it is very simple.

Just simply point out where my reasoning is wrong?

OK, here's where your reasoning is wrong:

You are assuming the existence of unnecessary variables.

At the moment, there is a lot of evidence for the idea of life as we know it emerging through natural processes, and not very much evidence to oppose this view. At the same time, there is a dearth of evidence to support the view that life as we know it was created. Hence, as the concept of a creator introduces unsupported and unnecessary variables, it is probably best to set it to one side, until such time that evidence emerges that contradicts the idea of life as we know it emerging by natural causes.

 

[punshhh]

... and it is therefore irrational to consider for more than a moment the notion that an intelligent creator is responsible for creating all that we know exists. It is irrational to give that notion any more credence than any other flight of fancy or product of one's imagination. The number of such potential works of fiction is infinite. Dwelling on the proposal that a particular one offers a better explanation than any other for our existence is silly.

So it is rational for a moment?

Followed by argument from incredulity, ignoring the evidence provided.

It follows that this...

... is unsupported nonsense.

Argument from ignorance, Have you been learning about fallacious arguments. You seem to be working through them like checking off a list.

I have no difficulty in accepting that you may think it is nonsense, however the position you adopt in the light of our limited understanding of the nature of existence is a blinkered outlook.

 

[3point14]

Just finished reading the thread. I hadn't seen is addressed that the universe has life is highly improbable.

It isn't improbable. The probability of this happening is 1

Only after the event.

 

[vwgub]

Only after the event.

Well yes. But it has happened so the probability is one.

 

[Mashuna]

I have no difficulty in accepting that you may think it is nonsense, however the position you adopt in the light of our limited understanding of the nature of existence is a blinkered outlook.

Actually, I think that by your definition I would consider a blinkered outlook to be a good thing. By the way you define reasonable, it is possible to believe in literally anything. I prefer to restrict myself to things that are useful - as in having some predictive power, or testability, or repeatability. Once something's been acknowledged as theoretically possible, but with no supporting evidence, no way of checking if it's true and no practical purpose, why bother with it? It's like trying to cure a headache by randomly swallowing anything vaguely edible whilst chanting because it might work, then telling people taking paracetomol that they're all blinkered into only using stuff that's been shown to work.

I'll give first year philosophy students a three-month allowance to wander around claiming that they could be a brain in a jar, but that's it.

 

[3point14]

Well yes. But it has happened so the probability is one.

Just like the sharpshooter's bullet landing exactly there.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Punshhh is blissfully unaware that he has a knowledge deficit. His conclusions make sense to him because he thinks they are based on complete information. Until he recognizes he lacks key information about the Universe and the definition of rational, he won't understand why his arguments don't make sense to the skeptics in the discussion. And neither will he gain any further insight into the mistakes he is making. In short, He doesn't know that he doesn't know.

First he has to become aware that his conclusion is based on incomplete knowledge. Until that happens, no amount of discussion is going to be productive.

 

[vwgub]

Just like the sharpshooter's bullet landing exactly there.

I'm not really sure how the Texas sharpshooter fallacy applies to what I'm saying. I'm saying that it is not improbable for a universe with intelligence to exist because a universe with intelligence does exist.

 

[GeeMack]

So it is rational for a moment?

No, but it may be rational to consider it for a moment, your misunderstanding of my comment, intentionally dishonest or otherwise, notwithstanding.

Followed by argument from incredulity, ignoring the evidence provided.

You have provided no evidence to support this claim...

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 admitted you have no evidence to support it...

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

... and your admission seems to have been accepted by pretty much everyone in this discussion.

Argument from ignorance, Have you been learning about fallacious arguments. You seem to be working through them like checking off a list.

To point out that your claim is unsupportable, and that you have admitted it is unsupportable, is not an argument from ignorance, your well evidenced misunderstanding of the simple concept notwithstanding.

I have no difficulty in accepting that you may think it is nonsense, however the position you adopt in the light of our limited understanding of the nature of existence is a blinkered outlook.

The position that I adopt in light of our limited understanding is the only rational position to take, and that is this: Given an infinite number of fantasies, works of fiction, guesses, delusions, and any other made up pieces of nonsense that people might use to try to explain our existence, when all of those pieces of nonsense and BS are supported by the same complete lack of objective evidence, it is not rational to consider any one of those pieces of nonsense to be any more likely to be a true explanation than any other.

So, interestingly enough, I give equal weight of consideration to a virtually infinite set of equally supported conjectures, where it is you who seem to have narrowed your guess down to a single one or very limited set. So who was it again that has a blinkered outlook?

Beyond that, it's become obvious that there is a fundamental problem with your understanding of what others have been writing, with your understanding of common logical fallacies, with your understanding of the meaning of the word "evidence", and with the apparent lack of honesty in your responses. Those, coupled with what appears to be an unwillingness on your part to consider the infinite number of equally supported conjectures all having as much bearing on reality as the singular fantasy you claim to be true, supports the notion that you're not likely to make any headway in convincing any rational intelligent person that your claim is valid.

Punshhh is blissfully unaware that he has a knowledge deficit. His conclusions make sense to him because he thinks they are based on complete information. Until he recognizes he lacks key information about the Universe and the definition of rational, he won't understand why his arguments don't make sense to the skeptics in the discussion. And neither will he gain any further insight into the mistakes he is making. In short, He doesn't know that he doesn't know.

Indeed. He doesn't know what he doesn't know. He seems to know that he can't objectively support his conjecture...

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

Interestingly enough, even after admitting it is unsupportable, he continues to insist that it merits legitimate consideration.

 

[3point14]

I'm not really sure how the Texas sharpshooter fallacy applies to what I'm saying. I'm saying that it is not improbable for a universe with intelligence to exist because a universe with intelligence does exist.

I think that's exactly the sharpshooter fallacy.

 

[punshhh]

Punshhh is blissfully unaware that he has a knowledge deficit. His conclusions make sense to him because he thinks they are based on complete information. Until he recognizes he lacks key information about the Universe and the definition of rational, he won't understand why his arguments don't make sense to the skeptics in the discussion. And neither will he gain any further insight into the mistakes he is making. In short, He doesn't know that he doesn't know.

First he has to become aware that his conclusion is based on incomplete knowledge. Until that happens, no amount of discussion is going to be productive.

I am aware of the relevant knowledge you refer to alongside the fact that humanity is not in possession of the knowledge of how it came to exist.

It is quite reasonable to consider that there may be aspects of reality which are not evident, particularly in our eyes, in the known universe. The nature of which cannot be assumed in any way.

And you do know what I don't know?

Finishing off with hand waving like Pixy; Punshhh is a lost cause, there's no point.

 

[marplots]

Please point out what is wrong about my reasoning, it is very simple.

Just simply point out where my reasoning is wrong?

Your reasoning is wrong because the exact same evidence you used to show the power of creative intelligence also shows the current limit of that power.

It is wrong to extrapolate the concept of creation into creating whatever you can imagine. When humanity creates a planet, or a universe, or whatever it is you propose, then you will have a better case.

For instance, while I can show the concept of a bridge, and show examples of how humans have made bridges, I would be wrong to say that this demonstrates that a bridge to Mars is worth considering. Not because the concept is wrong, but because I've moved it beyond the context in which it lives.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am aware of the relevant knowledge you refer to alongside the fact that humanity is not in possession of the knowledge of how it came to exist.

Like I said, you don't know what you don't know. You are unaware of your knowledge gap and because of that lack of awareness, you can't see that you have a knowledge gap.

It is quite reasonable to consider that there may be aspects of reality which are not evident, particularly in our eyes, in the known universe. The nature of which cannot be assumed in any way.

The problem is the conclusion you suggest does not follow from this fact. The obvious fact not everything is known does not provide a rational basis to assert unsupportable possibilities. In addition, you seem to be unaware that your reasoning, (because people design things people must be designed), is not valid logic. It is irrational.

And you do know what I don't know?

Yes, at least in regards to this discussion. Your posts reflect the fact you don't know what 'rational' means in this context, and, you don't see why your reasoning is illogical while it clearly is. Yet you soldier on claiming your irrational conclusion is rational. It seems logical to you. You aren't recognizing the problem that seeming logical to a person is not the definition of rational.

Finishing off with hand waving like Pixy; Punshhh is a lost cause, there's no point.

I'm not hand waving at all. I'm trying to address the barrier here to the impasse. The discussion is at the round and round the mulberry bush stage. It indicates that no amount of exchange of 'knowledge' (IE explaining your position over and over) is going to change anything. The problem is not that people in this discussion don't understand your position or reasoning.

Rather, the problem is, you don't understand the difference between rational and irrational thinking, and, you don't see that your thinking is illogical.

 

[punshhh]

No, but it may be rational to consider it for a moment, your misunderstanding of my comment, intentionally dishonest or otherwise, notwithstanding.

A change of tone, So it is rational to entertain irrational notions for a moment,.... you are human after all.

You have provided no evidence to support this claim...

I have at no time claimed that such entities do exists, rather that it is rational to consider their existence as a possibility based on the observable evidence of intelligent creators operating in existence.

​

.. and you have admitted you have no evidence to support it...

.
Of course, its obvious I can not provide direct evidence, I do not require it as I am not claiming that they exist or that I have a belief in their existence.
I do not know if they exist However I do know that a naturally occurring intelligent creator will in the near future create/evolve in laboratory conditions an new intelligent creator. Which in turn will create, who knows what it will create in the future .

​

... and your admission seems to have been accepted by pretty much everyone in this discussion.

Yes it is apparent what level of evidence is required to pacify critical thinkers.

To point out that your claim is unsupportable, and that you have admitted it is unsupportable, is not an argument from ignorance, your well evidenced misunderstanding of the simple concept notwithstanding.

I am not claiming what you are alluding to here, se my paragraph above.

The position that I adopt in light of our limited understanding is the only rational position to take, and that is this: Given an infinite number of fantasies, works of fiction, guesses, delusions, and any other made up pieces of nonsense that people might use to try to explain our existence, when all of those pieces of nonsense and BS are supported by the same complete lack of objective evidence, it is not rational to consider any one of those pieces of nonsense to be any more likely to be a true explanation than any other.

I am not using an occams razor here, your infinite quantity of BS etc(apart from clouding the issue), can each be judged on their own merits.

I am doing no more than observing a process in nature and considering the possibility of its occurence elsewhere in nature(folly indeed).
A consideration in the light of our obvious limited understanding of the nature of existence.

So, interestingly enough, I give equal weight of consideration to a virtually infinite set of equally supported conjectures, where it is you who seem to have narrowed your guess down to a single one or very limited set. So who was it again that has a blinkered outlook?

Perhaps you can explain how artificial intelligence evolves and occurs naturally in nature? As this is exactly what is going to happen in a few years.
Once they exist they may well in turn create other creators and these then create others. Who knows where this will end, for it will surely happen, if not in this world in another.
In some distant future one of these creators might develop biological creators in giant petri dishes and so on ad infinitum.

Oh! of course the scientific thought process does not concern itself with such trivial conjecture.

Beyond that, it's become obvious that there is a fundamental problem with your understanding of what others have been writing, with your understanding of common logical fallacies, with your understanding of the meaning of the word "evidence", and with the apparent lack of honesty in your responses. Those, coupled with what appears to be an unwillingness on your part to consider the infinite number of equally supported conjectures all having as much bearing on reality as the singular fantasy you claim to be true, supports the notion that you're not likely to make any headway in convincing any rational intelligent person that your claim is valid.

What was my claim again?

Indeed. He doesn't know what he doesn't know. He seems to know that he can't objectively support his conjecture...

Have you addressed the question about AI yet.

​

Interestingly enough, even after admitting it is unsupportable, he continues to insist that it merits legitimate consideration.

I wouldn't say that, I am only defending the freedom of individuals to consider this without being ridiculed as irrational for it.

 

[Prometheus]

I think that's exactly the sharpshooter fallacy.

No, it's not. The fallacy arises when a possibly random cluster of events is arbitrarily grouped after the fact, and then claimed to have been caused by some factor that they share in common. The prototypical example is that of a gunman firing many shots randomly at the side of a barn, then arbitrarily drawing a bullseye around the most closely grouped bullet holes and claiming that's where he was aiming all along.

In this schema, vwgub's statement would be equivalent to the gunman firing a single shot, then vwgub happen's by, notices the bullet hole and states that someone must have fired a shot at the barn.

 

[LostTheFaith]

I don't agree. We are born atheists,atheism is the default position and if you believe in a god your cultural background and the amount of brainwashing that you are subjected to will determine which god. It's up to believers to prove the existence of their particular super being.

Bravo...I'm with you.