What We Believe But Cannot Prove

3point14 said:
Malerin said:
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!
Click to expand...

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

Well, let's tease it apart.

In response to
Originally Posted by punshhh:
Can you tell me that there are not any other intelligent creators out there?
Click to expand...

You said
Originally Posted by 3point14:
Can you tell me that there aren't any teapots orbiting the sun somewhere between earth and Mars?
Click to expand...

By all means, explain why you invoked Russel's teapot.
 
punshhh said:
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.
Click to expand...

HILITE: Thank you, I didn't notice that. :rolleyes:

REST: I'm a Theist, of sorts, so I believe there's a God, more or less, (with a capital, "G,") [sorry, couldn't help myself :D], but I know there's no evidence for either opinion.
 
Malerin said:
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)
Click to expand...

Except that this is a false dichotomy; Consider H3: No other values are could ever be possible at all; and H4: we're wrong that only the values we observe could support life.

Malerin said:
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.
Click to expand...

This begs the question, and we have no evidence at all in support of this conditional.

Malerin said:
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).
Click to expand...

This analogy is inapt, because we know that other possibilities exist for the bullethole. (it's also possible that: 3) the shot was taken at point blank range; 4) the marksman really was a 'Texas sharpshooter'; 5) the hole wasn't produced by a bullet at all; etc. However as regards the universe and its physical constants, we have no reason to believe that there's any other possibility at all, and even if alternates are possible, we have no way to test for them. This line of reasoning can never be anything other than a flight of fancy.

Malerin said:
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.
Click to expand...

The real problem in your reasoning is the tacit assumption that there even is a problem at all. Consider Douglas Adams' puddle analogy.

Malerin said:
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).
Click to expand...

So? Just because it can doesn't mean the idea is coherent or correct.

Malerin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Same problem as your earlier marksman analogy, but I'll also point out that this argument is actually a false analogy composed of two false dichotomies, because the analogues are reversed. For the Rosetta stone example, you label the extremely unlikely (in fact, known to be false) hypothesis H1, and the known truth H2, while for the Big Bang case, H1 is both knowable and parsimonious, but H2 is unfalsifiable, unknowable and incoherent.

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

Yep. But the important point here is that all real theories are developed by testing falsifiable hypotheses. ;)
 
GeeMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes it is a big difference.

My conjecture is based on the concept of intelligent creators as a part of the natural process.

If this is the case, I see no reason why speculation cannot scale up or down the possible manifestations of this property.

It is of course only speculation.
 
punshhh said:
Yes it is a big difference.

My conjecture is based on the concept of intelligent creators as a part of the natural process.

If this is the case, I see no reason why speculation cannot scale up or down the possible manifestations of this property.

It is of course only speculation.
Click to expand...

You're darn tootin'. I see no reason why there cannot be an infinite number of Santa Clauses. Of course,this is only speculation.
 
punshhh said:
Defining God has become problematic due to the activity of religion.

The original definition, or meaning, is fairly easy to tease out of the confusion.

God is the word used to refer to the collection or set of;

1, The unknown basis of existence(as we know and experience it).

2, The impact of natural forces on this existence from day to day.

The second set is where the problems arise, as primitive folk began to regard nature as an all powerful being toying with us. Killing our crops with drought and wiping us out with violent storms, massive waves(floods) and volcanos etc.
Religion is the cult developed around this issue. Which became perverted as a means of political control of the population.

Point 1, remains.
Click to expand...

Why do you think there's an unknown basis of existence?



ETA: Just because you close your eyes doesn't mean it's dark.
 
punshhh said:
If you aren't prepaired to explain it yourself, there is no obligation for you to continue posting.

I read this reference the last time you linked to it, it did not explain what energy is, only what it does.

Let me recap for you where the discussion on this issue had got to the last time I asked what energy is.

Energy = forces/influences acting between atoms/subatomic particles.

Atoms/subatomic particles = energy.

Energy is that which acts on itself.

Existence is forces acting on themselves, resulting in the appearance of something rather than nothing.

So if the energy stopped acting on itself, what would exist? nothing?
Click to expand...

You are imbuing the word energy with some sort of mystical meaning it doesn't have.

Wordplay is all you have.
 
punshhh said:
Look at your keypad, there is your evidence. Or can you explain how it came into existence without being created by an intelligent creator?




Where is your evidence for unicorn-pixies?



I merely considered in a rational way that other creators evolved naturally which created something a bit more exciting than a keyboard. What is irrational about that.
Click to expand...

From keyboards to gods in one easy step.
 
punshhh said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd interpret them as:

no
no
wrong
no
wrong question
meaningless
no
no
etc
etc.
 
tsig said:
I'd interpret them as:

no
no
wrong
no
wrong question
meaningless
no
no
etc
etc.
Click to expand...

If punshhh can't understand simple words and phrases like the above then he has come to the wrong website. The responses depend on the questions,which punshhh did not furnish us with. For example,meaningless is a perfectly valid response to the phrase "event horizon of the formless."
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your incessant jabber would make anyone tired if they'd exhausted multiple baselines for skepticism and you ignore all of them to continue spurting the same nonsense without regard for evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom