What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[Daald]

So, can you also take into consideration that there are some "creator gods" that love destruction and completely annihilated themselves against your creator gods and in their absence we evolved without their guidance?

 

[punshhh]

• 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...

​

And of course...

​

... that claim is admittedly wholly unevidenced.




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...

​

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.




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

Where the existence of your wacky things would require a violation of the laws of nature, I would consider them for a very brief moment.

 

[punshhh]

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

I cannot provide direct evidence of creator gods as there is no way of determining which potential piece of evidence is evidence or not.

This is why I have not claimed that creator gods exist.

My claim is that it is not irrational to consider that they might exist. If these gods do not exist it might be irrational, but we cannot determine if they exist or not.

Or can you tell me otherwise.

 

[punshhh]

Argument from ignorance. Well done.

nonsense, I am not claiming that creator gods exist because we cannot prove that they do not exist.
I am saying that due to the ignorance of humanity of the existence or not of intelligent creators, one can consider that they might exist without being irrational. Because you would in fact be right to do so if they do actually exist, which of course we don't know.

Or can you tell me otherwise?

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

If you mean proofs then there aren't any. There is evidence of intelligent creators arising in nature through natural processes. I can prove that this evidence exists in physical form.

 

[punshhh]

So, can you also take into consideration that there are some "creator gods" that love destruction and completely annihilated themselves against your creator gods and in their absence we evolved without their guidance?

Why not, who knows what gods get up to!

I am not considering any characteristics that such gods might exhibit, other than their ability to create our known existence in some way. This is the only way I am defining them.

 

[punshhh]

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.

I think we are pretty much in agreement on this issue. I don't regard the issue of an endless succession of creators creating creators as problematic.

As I see the issue of an endless succession of states or turtles inescapable whatever explanation is considered for existence*



*Well apart from the idea of Brahman, but I'm not going to get into that here.

 

[Daald]

Why not, who knows what gods get up to!

I am not considering any characteristics that such gods might exhibit, other than their ability to create our known existence in some way. This is the only way I am defining them.

The problem then becomes that your definition is too broad and *anything* including things that are contradictory should be given equal consideration. The problem with that is that it is not feasible to do so. It will waste time and not add anything to things that we have to figure out anyway. The better approach is to take the stance that they don't exist to us in a meaningful way and consider them only when evidence for them shows up.

Also it might be better if you label your gods to "intelligent assemblers" to avoid the baggage that comes with the term creator and god. I think even the term aliens might be a better description.

 

[Prometheus]

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?

No, that's still not the sharpshooter fallacy. If all those universal constants were in fact set randomly by some creator deity who also did the same in a bunch of other universes (that wound up unable to support life), and this being then pointed to our universe and said, "I built that one purposefully; the rest were just playing around," then we would have a sharpshooter fallacy--but God would be the one committing it, not vwgub.

vwgub's point is really just that we have no way of knowing whether any other universe with different constants is even possible, let alone actually existent. Lacking this knowlege, our universe cannot be coherently described
as 'improbable' because it does, in fact, exist--and it's the only one we know of, so it's likelihood is 100%.

 

[Nonpareil]

There is evidence of intelligent creators arising in nature through natural processes. I can prove that this evidence exists in physical form.

Do so.

 

[Malerin]

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

Yes, because it already happened. However, that's not my point. The presence of life is a specific piece of evidence. With that evidence, and our knowledge of the precise values needed for a universe to support life, we can look at two competing hypotheses:
H1: the values of the physical constants were arrived at by chance
H2: the values of the physical constants were "fine-tuned" by a being whose existence is not contingent on physical laws (transcends space and time)

If the values could have gone a hundred trillion different ways, and all of them but one are non-life permitting universes, then H2 becomes the preferred theory, so long as the initial probability of the existence of the being in H2 isn't astronomically low.

It's like observing a bullethole in a bullseye 2,000 yards from a firing line and reasoning that the person who made the shot was an expert marksmen. While the probability of the bullseye shot is 1 (because it already happened), hypotheses can still be confirmed/disconfirmed by the shot itself (e.g., it's very unlikely a novice took the shot and just got lucky).

Of course there are other hypotheses. The most popular one is multiverse theory, which solves the fine-tuning problem by postulating an infinite amount of universes. Given enough universes, some will be life-permitting, and we happen to find ourselves in one. Max Tegmark talks about this at great length.

 

[Malerin]

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?

Yes.

 

[Larechar]

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.

Please, point to it. I've been looking for a very long time.

I believe there is a Universal Creator, but I know that skepticism is the most logical and rational approach to the subject, namely a form of weak atheism.

I choose to go the other way, regardless of, "why," but there's no proof.

How can you say there's an observable fact of a creator? That's absolute, ridiculous, unfathomable, nonsensical ludicrous.

 

[Malerin]

No, that's still not the sharpshooter fallacy. If all those universal constants were in fact set randomly by some creator deity who also did the same in a bunch of other universes (that wound up unable to support life), and this being then pointed to our universe and said, "I built that one purposefully; the rest were just playing around," then we would have a sharpshooter fallacy--but God would be the one committing it, not vwgub.

vwgub's point is really just that we have no way of knowing whether any other universe with different constants is even possible, let alone actually existent. Lacking this knowlege, our universe cannot be coherently described
as 'improbable' because it does, in fact, exist--and it's the only one we know of, so it's likelihood is 100%.

Our universe can counterfactually be described as improbable (and has been done so in two very good books: Just Six Numbers and The Goldilocks Enigma).

Consider the Rosetta Stone. Two hypotheses can be formed concerning it:
H1: The Rosetta Stone is a product of erosion
H2: The Rosetta Stone was created by a person(s)

Although the probaility of the creation of the RS is 1 (because it already happened), neither Pr(H1) nor Pr(H2) are 1 or 0.

Similarly, consider the Big Bang.
H1: The Big Bang was a purely natural event
H2: The Big Bang was influenced by supernatural forces

Even though the probablity of the Big Bang is 1, neither Pr(H1) nor Pr(H2) are 0 or 1.

Theories are developed all the time concerning events that have already happened. How else could police work, or psychology, or astronomy, etc. take place?

 

[Larechar]

There is evidence of intelligent creators arising in nature through natural processes. I can prove that this evidence exists in physical form.

Do so.

I second that. Again, I believe most of what you're saying because I choose the Theist approach, but you can't prove anything of the sort.

Furthermore,

I am not claiming that creator gods exist because we cannot prove that they do not exist.

and

...if they do actually exist, which of course we don't know.

and

If you mean proofs then there aren't any.

contradict

I can prove that this evidence exists in physical form.

which are all your words, in context, within the same post.

 

[Malerin]

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.

Please, point to it. I've been looking for a very long time.

I believe there is a Universal Creator, but I know that skepticism is the most logical and rational approach to the subject, namely a form of weak atheism.

I choose to go the other way, regardless of, "why," but there's no proof.

How can you say there's an observable fact of a creator? That's absolute, ridiculous, unfathomable, nonsensical ludicrous.

You are an intelligent creator, are you not? Did you emerge via natural physical processes? Are you operating in a natural environment?

I think Punshhh is talking about people...

 

[Larechar]

I think Punshhh is talking about people...

Oh, well serves me right for only reading the last page

But, if s/he's not, then the post still stands.

 

[Malerin]

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?

Sounds like you're equating the existence of other intelligent life in the universe with the existence of a teapot orbitting the sun.

Is your claim then that it's highly probable that we're the only intelligent life in the universe? Talk about a humancentric view of the universe!

 

[punshhh]

You are an intelligent creator, are you not? Did you emerge via natural physical processes? Are you operating in a natural environment?

I think Punshhh is talking about people...

Thankyou Malerin I am talking about people.

Folk see "intelligent creator" and assume God.

While the whole time an intelligent creator is staring them in the face, each time they look in the mirror.

 

[punshhh]

Do so.

Touch your keyboard, there's your physical evidence.

Or can you tell how else it could have come into existence?

 

[Kumar]

Prove, one definition of prove is;

"Prove: to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one's claim."

I feel that it should be:-

Prove:- to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument + by logic + by field experiance : to prove one's claim.

Ok???