What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[GeeMack]

What was my claim again?

Your 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 your acknowledgement that you are unable to support with evidence the existence of such a creator...

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

I've snipped the remainder of your reply because it is nothing more than a dishonest denial of your already stated position. You clearly don't care to involve yourself in an honest discussion of your fantasy.

(folly indeed)

Indeed. I've suggested this thread be moved to the "Religion and Philosophy" section as it doesn't have the slightest relationshp to "Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology".

 

[punshhh]

Your claim...

​

And your acknowledgement that you are unable to support with evidence the existence of such a creator...

​

I've snipped the remainder of your reply because it is nothing more than a dishonest denial of your already stated position. You clearly don't care to involve yourself in an honest discussion of your fantasy.




Indeed. I've suggested this thread be moved to the "Religion and Philosophy" section as it doesn't have the slightest relationshp to "Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology".

If you read my first post in this thread, my claim is laid out.

Namely That I have rationally arrived at the position that there may be creator gods.

My reasoning has been simply laid out.

I appreciate that you may have been under the impression that I was arguing to prove their existence in some way, but this was never the case.

I don't see why this thread should be moved to the Religion and Philosophy section, as I am not discussing religious or philosophical ideas atall.

I have made an observation in nature and conjectured the implications of the principle involved into a rational interpretation of of the processes operating in nature.

 

[Perpetual Student]

If you read my first post in this thread, my claim is laid out.

Namely That I have rationally arrived at the position that there may be creator gods.

My reasoning has been simply laid out.

I appreciate that you may have been under the impression that I was arguing to prove their existence in some way, but this was never the case.

I don't see why this thread should be moved to the Religion and Philosophy section, as I am not discussing religious or philosophical ideas atall.

I have made an observation in nature and conjectured the implications of the principle involved into a rational interpretation of of the processes operating in nature.

Nothing you have said is rational and your comments have no scientific basis. Further, you have failed (or not tried) to understand the logic of those people who have tried to help you. I believe that the moderators should move your participation in this thread to the religion area.

 

[punshhh]

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.

Yes I appreciate this perspective and that my position may appear to imply a creationism such as intelligent design.

However I am pointing out an observable fact of intelligent creators emerging and operating in nature through natural physical processes.

This is evidence of creative acts occurring as a principle in nature.

Now my extrapolation of this into our known universe being in some way created by a naturally evolved creator, does rely on conjecture. However I assert that it is a rational extrapolation, rather than irrational fantasy.

 

[punshhh]

Nothing you have said is rational and your comments have no scientific basis. Further, you have failed (or not tried) to understand the logic of those people who have tried to help you. I believe that the moderators should move your participation in this thread to the religion area.

I have understood that humanity is likely soon to create artificial intelligence, resulting in a new intelligent entity.

This is I presume a natural process.

Is this a rational observation?

 

[Mashuna]

Yes I appreciate this perspective and that my position may appear to imply a creationism such as intelligent design.

However I am pointing out an observable fact of intelligent creators emerging and operating in nature through natural physical processes.

This is evidence of creative acts occurring as a principle in nature.

Now my extrapolation of this into our known universe being in some way created by a naturally evolved creator, does rely on conjecture. However I assert that it is a rational extrapolation, rather than irrational fantasy.

You can assert it all you like, but it's the part where your argument stops being logical and gets spun off to support your pet theories.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I have understood that humanity is likely soon to create artificial intelligence, resulting in a new intelligent entity.

This is I presume a natural process.

Is this a rational observation?

I have no idea what that means.

 

[3point14]

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.

Perhaps I'm misuderstanding.

for the universe to support life (as we know it, Jim) there are a whole set of universal constants that need to be 'just so', not one, but many. the fact that this all match up to create a universe that can contain atoms and molecules (a series of co-incidences) matches the sharpshooter fallacy?

Am I wrong? Again?

 

[punshhh]

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.

Yes I accept that(apart from "your reasoning is wrong"), I consider it a rational exercise to consider how that "power of creative intelligence" will develop in the future.
It is speculation, speculation regarding an observed phenomena in nature.

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.

I am most certainly not doing that, I am working from the assumption that this is a physical process obeying physical laws.

What is controversial I think is that I am considering the possibility of natural laws of which we are not yet aware.
Alongside creative powers of which we are not yet aware.

Resulting in the acceptance that there may be intelligent involvement in aspects of existence of which we are not yet aware.

Intelligent involvement the precursor of which is indicated in the observation of creators operating in a limited sense in nature which we are aware of.

All quite rational.

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.

I understand your reasoning, however it is clearly impossible that a bridge to Mars could be built without violating natural law in a big way.
I am not conjecturing any violation of natural law, rather that such natural laws likely extend beyond our understanding at this time, including what processes may be involved.

 

[DC]

If you read my first post in this thread, my claim is laid out.

Namely That I have rationally arrived at the position that there may be creator gods.

My reasoning has been simply laid out.

I appreciate that you may have been under the impression that I was arguing to prove their existence in some way, but this was never the case.

I don't see why this thread should be moved to the Religion and Philosophy section, as I am not discussing religious or philosophical ideas atall.

I have made an observation in nature and conjectured the implications of the principle involved into a rational interpretation of of the processes operating in nature.

not rational at all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Now my extrapolation of this into our known universe being in some way created by a naturally evolved creator, does rely on conjecture. However I assert that it is a rational extrapolation, rather than irrational fantasy.

You assert wrongly. You keep repeating this assertion, we keep telling you it is not rational and does not follow principles of logic. You keep ignoring your failure to understand the term 'rational', and, your failure to actually follow any principle of logic.

How about you define 'rational' and cite the logic principle you think you are operating on?

 

[Pup]

Namely That I have rationally arrived at the position that there may be creator gods.

It's true there may be, but it's equally true that they may also have creator gods, and those gods may have their own creator gods. It makes about as much sense to focus on one level as any other level, if we have no evidence for any of them yet.

And actually, it becomes semantics at some point, as far as where one splits the difference between a new level of creator.

Any self-replicating objects that we build will be "in this universe," so one person might quibble that a conscious AI that can replicate itself is the next level, but another might quibble that it's all being done in the same universe and is therefore still part of the creation of our creator gods.

But really, if one only leaves open the possibility that there may or may not be creator gods, but acknowledges that we currently have no evidence for them or for how they created this universe, that sounds like the weak atheist position, which is way common on this forum.

 

[Lamuella]

If you read my first post in this thread, my claim is laid out.

Namely That I have rationally arrived at the position that there may be creator gods.

That's nice. It's now your responsibility to provide evidence for this supposition.

 

[GeeMack]

That's nice. It's now your responsibility to provide evidence for this supposition.

He has already admitted failure...

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

 

[punshhh]

You assert wrongly. You keep repeating this assertion, we keep telling you it is not rational and does not follow principles of logic. You keep ignoring your failure to understand the term 'rational', and, your failure to actually follow any principle of logic.

How about you define 'rational' and cite the logic principle you think you are operating on?

I see so all those people out there who don't check out the logical validity of their thought processes are irrational.
Does this include agnostics?

I disagree that to be a "rational person" requires the exercise of the principles of logic.

I define rational to mean, a reasonable judgement in light of;

Observations in the real world of natural processes*.
and
the realisation that humanity is not in full possession of the facts of existence.

*I focus on an observation of a natural process as it is evidence of something actually existing, rather than an idea in the mind of man.

 

[punshhh]

He has already admitted failure...

I did not set out to provide any proofs.

Why should I provide objective evidence of a creator god?

 

[punshhh]

That's nice. It's now your responsibility to provide evidence for this supposition.

The only evidence required to entertain the existence of intelligent creators is that humanity has a limited understanding of the nature of existence.

If this is the case then humanity is not in a position to proclaim there is a creator god or that there isn't a creator god.

I the light of this lack of authority it is quite rational to consider their existence alongside other explanations of existence.

 

[GeeMack]

The only evidence required to entertain the existence of intelligent creators is that humanity has a limited understanding of the nature of existence.

• The only evidence required to entertain the existence of green mice on Saturn is that humanity has a limited understanding of the nature of existence.
  
  
• The only evidence required to entertain the existence of a giant invisible eyeball watching us from the top of Mount Everest is that humanity has a limited understanding of the nature of existence.
  
  
• The only evidence required to entertain the existence of gum balls inside all the bamboo plants that grew in 1742 is that humanity has a limited understanding of the nature of existence.
  
  
• The only evidence required to entertain the existence of centipedes who understand French is that humanity has a limited understanding of the nature of existence.
  
  
• The only evidence required to entertain the existence of mushrooms that give people X-ray vision is that humanity has a limited understanding of the nature of existence.

But it is not rational to give more than a moment's consideration to any of those, all of which have as much basis in reality as your claim...

[...] I have claimed a creator with the potential to create known existence(known to humanity).

And of course...

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

... that claim is admittedly wholly unevidenced.

If this is the case then humanity is not in a position to proclaim there is a creator god or that there isn't a creator god.

And if we go with the assumption that squirrel fur is made of Nylon, then squirrel fur is made of Nylon. But this is reality, so entertaining such hypothetical "ifs" is just so much whimsy, as unrelated to reality as your claim...

[...] I have claimed a creator with the potential to create known existence(known to humanity).

You see, "if <some silly thing> is assumed to be true, then <some silly thing> is assumed to be true" is a pretty useless exercise for helping to explain anything about reality.

I the light of this lack of authority it is quite rational to consider their existence alongside other explanations of existence.

No more rational that to consider any of those wacky things I listed above.

 

[Lamuella]

The only evidence required to entertain the existence of intelligent creators is that humanity has a limited understanding of the nature of existence.

I didn't ask you to entertain the idea, I asked you to provide evidence for it. Can you do so?

 

[PixyMisa]

The only evidence required to entertain the existence of intelligent creators is that humanity has a limited understanding of the nature of existence.

Argument from ignorance. Well done.

If this is the case then humanity is not in a position to proclaim there is a creator god or that there isn't a creator god.

Unless we examine the evidence. Oh wait, there isn't any.

I the light of this lack of authority it is quite rational to consider their existence alongside other explanations of existence.

No. It is the exact opposite of rational.