What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[Larechar]

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.

Oh really? So you're talking in two different contexts, then? See below.

Touch your keyboard, there's your physical evidence.

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

This I can take as humans.

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.

This clearly represents inhuman Creators.

Perhaps if you didn't ping-pong back and forth and instead addressed a specific topic at a time your argument would be clear; at the same time that would inconvenience your ability to disregard a statement you disappreciate as antithesis to what you, "intended."

 

[punshhh]

Oh really? So you're talking in two different contexts, then? See below.



This I can take as humans.



This clearly represents inhuman Creators.

Perhaps if you didn't ping-pong back and forth and instead addressed a specific topic at a time your argument would be clear; at the same time that would inconvenience your ability to disregard a statement you disappreciate as antithesis to what you, "intended."

Yes I appreciate this point, from now on when referring to the inhuman creators I will use "god" and when I refer to other creators I will use their common name for example "human creators, or artificial intelligence creators".

I see little difference between the creative act of a human, a god, or an ant. The apparent difference is due to a difference in the scale of the act.

 

[Mashuna]

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.

There are a couple of other options I've seen discussed, both applying to the highlighted section above. One is that there is a reason that the values couldn't have gone a hundred trillion different ways, but we don't yet know that reason. The other is that the 'Goldilocks zone' is actually much wider than previously thought, in that there are a number of possible permutations of physical constants which could allow life.

 

[Pup]

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).

That assumes you can recognize what a bullseye is and that someone was shooting at it (that life was the goal of the universe).

Suppose you see a bullethole in a lone tree in the middle of a field. Is that a target or not? One person might guess that it was, and therefore hypothesize that someone made an incredibly lucky or skilled shot, but someone else might hypothesize it was just a single random shot, and if it had hit the rock instead of the tree, we'd consider the rock was the target, and if it hadn't hit anything, we wouldn't even notice. It doesn't require more than one shot to be a probable random outcome, it just requires a human mind trying to identify a target.

 

[Pup]

I see little difference between the creative act of a human, a god, or an ant. The apparent difference is due to a difference in the scale of the act.

Earlier, we were talking about the difference between creating things from nothing, and reassembling existing matter or energy into something else.

Neither the human nor the ant creates from nothing; it only reassembles.

Is this god now a creator god, or is it still just a reassembler, who in turn was assembled by its own god?

Because otherwise, the difference between a creator and an assembler is huge, and I don't think we have any evidence of any creators.

 

[Malerin]

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.

There are a couple of other options I've seen discussed, both applying to the highlighted section above. One is that there is a reason that the values couldn't have gone a hundred trillion different ways, but we don't yet know that reason.

This is just speculation. According to the prevailing cosmological models, the values of the constants could have varied. They can't be derived, they have to be observed.

Also, even if the values are fixed or set, that just begs another question: since we can theorize what the universe would have been like if the values had been different, and reasonably conclude life wouldn't have had a chance in these kinds of universes, why would the physical constants have values that are set or fixed for a life permitting universe? It just moves the problem up another level and introduces an anthropomorphic principle: life-less universes are impossible. Very strange!

The other is that the 'Goldilocks zone' is actually much wider than previously thought, in that there are a number of possible permutations of physical constants which could allow life.

Again, possible, but still speculation. As Rees argues, small changes to just six of the constants makes it hard to see how life could have had a chance.
http://www.firstscience.com/home/ar...e-for-the-universe-just-six-numbers_1230.html
Max Tegmark also talks about this in depth:
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html
(anthropic evidence)

 

[GeeMack]

I see little difference between the creative act of a human, a god, or an ant. The apparent difference is due to a difference in the scale of the act.

You're overlooking the obvious. Humans and ants are known to exist. There is no objective evidence to suggest gods exist. If something doesn't exist, it can't create. And when considering the issue rationally, that is very large difference.

 

[laca]

You're overlooking the obvious. Humans and ants are known to exist. There is no objective evidence to suggest gods exist. If something doesn't exist, it can't create. And when considering the issue rationally, that is very large difference.

One other thing he fails to understand is that he's equivocating the act of creating a house with the act of creating the Universe (creation ex nihilo).

By the way, fellow JREFers, don't expect much from punshhh, he's a dishonest liar, with an extreme case of Dunning-Krueger on top. Sorry for the late warning.

 

[dafydd]

One other thing he fails to understand is that he's equivocating the act of creating a house with the act of creating the Universe (creation ex nihilo).

By the way, fellow JREFers, don't expect much from punshhh, he's a dishonest liar, with an extreme case of Dunning-Krueger on top. Sorry for the late warning.

That's a bit harsh. He just craves unknown unknowns and mysteries and has no clue about physics and cosmology. I'm not surprised that he equates building a house or a keyboard with creating a universe. All these theological threads fall at the first hurdle,i.e., no evidence of the existence of any god or gods. Ants have nothing to do with it.

 

[laca]

That's a bit harsh.

Maybe, but I didn't call him that until after he refused after several requests to just retract the claim he was clearly not able to substantiate. He just denied he made the claim and never looked back.

He just craves unknown unknowns and mysteries and has no clue about physics and cosmology. I'm not surprised that he equates building a house or a keyboard with creating a universe.

I agree, and I'm not surprised either. It's just that the discussion won't go anywhere with him, he'll just move on without admitting any error or misrepresentation.

 

[dafydd]

Maybe, but I didn't call him that until after he refused after several requests to just retract the claim he was clearly not able to substantiate. He just denied he made the claim and never looked back.



I agree, and I'm not surprised either. It's just that the discussion won't go anywhere with him, he'll just move on without admitting any error or misrepresentation.

It must be wonderful to be infallible. Maybe you pick that up on a vacation behind the event horizon of the formless.

 

[laca]

It must be wonderful to be infallible. Maybe you pick that up on a vacation behind the event horizon of the formless.

What?

 

[PixyMisa]

Something punshhh invented in an earlier thread.

 

[laca]

Yeah, I was there at the coining of the "term", I'm just not sure my sarcasm detector is in good working condition.

 

[PixyMisa]

I took the sarcasm as being directed at he of the multiferous aitches.

 

[laca]

Probably, that "you" threw me off.

 

[dafydd]

It must be wonderful to be infallible. Maybe you pick that up on a vacation behind the event horizon of the formless.

I was using the universal you.

 

[Nonpareil]

This is just speculation. According to the prevailing cosmological models, the values of the constants could have varied.

Can you give a source for this? It isn't really important. I'm just curious. Whether or not the prevailing models say that the universal constants could have varied - even if they could have varied across trillions of trillions of possible values - it still doesn't really matter. It's still just the Texas sharpshooter fallacy to say that this points to a fine-tuned universe.

Also, even if the values are fixed or set, that just begs another question: since we can theorize what the universe would have been like if the values had been different, and reasonably conclude life wouldn't have had a chance in these kinds of universes, why would the physical constants have values that are set or fixed for a life permitting universe? It just moves the problem up another level and introduces an anthropomorphic principle: life-less universes are impossible. Very strange!

If the values are set so that life-less universes are impossible, I would be very surprised. In fact, even in this universe, it isn't impossible for life to have arisen. It's just very, very unlikely.

Pedantry aside, this argument isn't any more compelling than the last. It's just another version of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Whether life is likely to be possible or not in any given universe is ultimately irrelevant. The anthropic principle is ultimately just an exercise in bare assertion. There is no supporting evidence or compelling reason to believe it.

 

[punshhh]

Earlier, we were talking about the difference between creating things from nothing, and reassembling existing matter or energy into something else.

Neither the human nor the ant creates from nothing; it only reassembles.

Is this god now a creator god, or is it still just a reassembler, who in turn was assembled by its own god?

Because otherwise, the difference between a creator and an assembler is huge, and I don't think we have any evidence of any creators.

Yes I am suggesting this god is an assembler, I see no way we can consider such a thing as a God(with capital G) as the reality is likely beyond our understanding, including if it exists or not.

I am of the opinion that there maybe a god identical to a God from our limited perspective.

 

[3point14]

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!

No. That's not what I said at all. Read it again.