God of the Gaps

[Deuce]

I'll break my questions down...to make it a bit less confusing for you:

How does one determine the "plausibility" of any theory about the REALITY of existence?

By assessing evidence supporting that hypothesis, just like any other notion we've ever worked with.

When no evidence is present to support the existence of dragons, "dragons don't exist" is more plausible than "dragons exist." Otherwise we have to live in a strange philosophical world where equal credence must be given to Thor, Yahweh, Anubis, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Gandalf, and Deuce creating the universe. (yes, it was me)

 

[Frank Apisa]

By assessing evidence supporting that hypothesis, just like any other notion we've ever worked with.

When no evidence is present to support the existence of dragons, "dragons don't exist" is more plausible than "dragons exist."

Okay...but when dealing with the question, "What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence"...to suggest that because no evidence is presented to support the existence of unseen and unknown forces...means there are no unseen and unknown forces...is an absurdity.

And if you want to deal with that notion on a more physical plane...

...lets use the possibility of life of some sort on any planet circling the nearest 50 stars to Sol.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to support the existence of life on any of those planets...but to suppose that means it is more plausible that there is none than that there is...makes no sense...lgically or scientifically.

The notion of plausibility in these instances...is gratuitous, self-serving guessing on the part of the people claiming plausibility.

 

[joG]

By assessing evidence supporting that hypothesis, just like any other notion we've ever worked with.

When no evidence is present to support the existence of dragons, "dragons don't exist" is more plausible than "dragons exist." Otherwise we have to live in a strange philosophical world where equal credence must be given to Thor, Yahweh, Anubis, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Gandalf, and Deuce creating the universe. (yes, it was me)

On the other hand, it might be that lacking any viable explanation but that of creation. .... I guess you don't like Occam's Razor?

 

[Deuce]

Okay...but when dealing with the question, "What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence"...to suggest that because no evidence is presented to support the existence of unseen and unknown forces...means there are no unseen and unknown forces...is an absurdity.

You've conflated "plausible" with certain. That's your mistake. I didn't say "there's no evidence, therefore there is no creator." I said the more plausible scenario is that there isn't one.

And if you want to deal with that notion on a more physical plane...

...lets use the possibility of life of some sort on any planet circling the nearest 50 stars to Sol.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to support the existence of life on any of those planets...but to suppose that means it is more plausible that there is none than that there is...makes no sense...lgically or scientifically.

The notion of plausibility in these instances...is gratuitous, self-serving guessing on the part of the people claiming plausibility.

There is evidence to support the circumstances in which life arises: our own. We know for a fact the odds of life on a planet are greater than zero, because we exist. However, asking for specifically the nearest 50 planets? We don't know enough to calculate the odds on that. But we do know the odds are greater than zero.

 

[Deuce]

On the other hand, it might be that lacking any viable explanation but that of creation. .... I guess you don't like Occam's Razor?

"A wizard did it" isn't an explanation.

And isn't "the universe just works this way" simple?

 

[Frank Apisa]

You've conflated "plausible" with certain.

In no way am I doing so.

Pretending a guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existence is "more plausible" than another guess...is an absurdity...a self-serving, gratuitous absurdity.

That's your mistake.

If you think I am mistaken here, the "mistake" is all yours.

 

[Frank Apisa]

There is evidence to support the circumstances in which life arises: our own. We know for a fact the odds of life on a planet are greater than zero, because we exist. However, asking for specifically the nearest 50 planets? We don't know enough to calculate the odds on that. But we do know the odds are greater than zero.

Take another look at the odds for those particular planets.

 

[Deuce]

In no way am I doing so.

Pretending a guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existence is "more plausible" than another guess...is an absurdity...a self-serving, gratuitous absurdity.

Yes you are. You said it right there in your post. You made an argument:

..to suggest that because no evidence is presented to support the existence of unseen and unknown forces...means there are no unseen and unknown forces...is an absurdity.

It doesn't mean that, and I never suggested it did mean that. I'd even point out we know there areforces out there we don't understand. "Dark matter" and "dark energy" are terms for observations we don't understand.

Plausible. There's no evidence, therefore it is more plausible there isn't a creator. But there very well might still be a creator anyway.

And i edited in the life on planets bit too late:

There is evidence to support the circumstances in which life arises: our own. We know for a fact the odds of life on a planet are greater than zero, because we exist. However, asking for specifically the nearest 50 planets? We don't know enough to calculate the odds on that. But we do know the odds are greater than zero.

 

[joG]

"A wizard did it" isn't an explanation.

And isn't "the universe just works this way" simple?

Naw. Doesn't do it either.

 

[Deuce]

Take another look at the odds for those particular planets.

We don't know enough to calculate that. But it's definitely more than zero.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Yes you are. You said it right there in your post. You made an argument:

I AM NOT MISTAKING PLAUSIBILITY FOR CERTAINTY.

It doesn't mean that, and I never suggested it did mean that. I'd even point out we know there areforces out there we don't understand. "Dark matter" and "dark energy" are terms for observations we don't understand.

Plausible. There's no evidence, therefore it is more plausible there isn't a creator. But there very well might still be a creator anyway.

And i edited in the life on planets bit too late:

Deuce...if there were someone here asserting it is more plausible that there is a "creator"...and then giving a self-serving, gratuitous explanation for why it is more plausible...you would quickly see that there is no "there" there.

There is no "there" there in your argument.

We do not know what the true nature of the REALITY of existence is...and suggesting that "x" must be included or must be excluded...OR that it is more likely or plausible that "x" must be included or must be excluded...makes no sense logically or scientifically.

Think it over. You'll see that it doesn't.

 

[Frank Apisa]

We don't know enough to calculate that. But it's definitely more than zero.

For you to suggest it is "more plausible" that there is life there (or that there is no life there)...is torturing logic and science.

You should be able to see that.

 

[Deuce]

For you to suggest it is "more plausible" that there is life there (or that there is no life there)...is torturing logic and science.

You should be able to see that.

I didn't suggest it was more plausible that there is life there.

You should be able to see that.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I didn't suggest it was more plausible that there is life there.

You should be able to see that.

Are you suggesting it is "more plausible" that there are no gods...than that there are?

If you are...you are merely sharing a blind guess on the issue.

It is not possible to arrive at "there are no gods" OR "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are" OR "it is more plausible that there are no gods than that there are"...

...using reason, logic, or science.

Of course, if you are not suggesting that...we have no argument.

 

[Deuce]

Are you suggesting it is "more plausible" that there are no gods...than that there are?

If you are...you are merely sharing a blind guess on the issue.

It is not possible to arrive at "there are no gods" OR "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are" OR "it is more plausible that there are no gods than that there are"...

...using reason, logic, or science.

Of course, if you are not suggesting that...we have no argument.

I don't know how many more ways I explain that "more plausible" doesn't mean I have "arrived at" anything.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I don't know how many more ways I explain that "more plausible" doesn't mean I have "arrived at" anything.

Are you saying, asserting, suggesting, hinting at, declaring, or proclaiming that there are no gods...or that it is more likely, more probably, or more plausible that there are no gods than that there are?

Because if you are, you are merely sharing a blind guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...about what is or is not a part of that REALITY...or what is or is not more likely, probable, or plausible about that REALITY.

If you are, I thank you for sharing that blind guess with me.

 

[Deuce]

Are you saying, asserting, suggesting, hinting at, declaring, or proclaiming that there are no gods...or that it is more likely, more probably, or more plausible that there are no gods than that there are?

Because if you are, you are merely sharing a blind guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...about what is or is not a part of that REALITY...or what is or is not more likely, probable, or plausible about that REALITY.

If you are, I thank you for sharing that blind guess with me.

You just used a bunch of words and they don't all mean the same thing. It's important that you understand that.

When I say it is less plausible that there is a creator, this isn't asserting no creator exists. It's not declaring no creator exists. It's not proclaiming no creator exists.

It's also not a blind guess. All of humanity's observations to date are in play here. No tangible evidence of a creator exists, and the null hypothesis is that there is no creator. Lacking evidence to the contrary, the null hypothesis is more plausible. Not definite. Not declared. Not asserted. Merely more plausible. We don't know, and we never will know.

But to suggest that because we don't know, our guess is "blind" is the absurd part.

 

[Frank Apisa]

You just used a bunch of words and they don't all mean the same thing. It's important that you understand that.

When I say it is less plausible that there is a creator, this isn't asserting no creator exists. It's not declaring no creator exists. It's not proclaiming no creator exists.

YES...I KNOW THAT. I've told you that I know that.

That is why I have differentiated between assertions that there are no gods...and assertions that it is more likely or more plausible that there are no gods. (Or that there are gods.)

It's also not a blind guess.

IF you are saying it is more likely or more plausible that there are no gods (or that it is more likely or more plausible that there are gods)...IT IS A BLIND GUESS and nothing more.

All of humanity's observations to date are in play here. No tangible evidence of a creator exists, and the null hypothesis is that there is no creator. Lacking evidence to the contrary, the null hypothesis is more plausible. Not definite. Not declared. Not asserted. Merely more plausible. We don't know, and we never will know.

But to suggest that because we don't know, our guess is "blind" is the absurd part.

As I said...I appreciate you sharing with me your blind guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existence. I understand that people like you are unable to acknowledge that they are making a blind guess...and I do not hold it against you.

 

[joG]

"A wizard did it" isn't an explanation.

And isn't "the universe just works this way" simple?

True. But wizards are used to fend off questions one cannot answer. Using them is dishonest.
You see, there is, what we take as evidence of existence, but none of being ex nihilo. So this does imply an act of creation, though, it does not require a white, bearded man. Judging by the world, it must be more a bottle imp.

 

[cabse5]

It is a prejudiced, blind guess.

 

[RAMOSS]

True. But wizards are used to fend off questions one cannot answer. Using them is dishonest.
You see, there is, what we take as evidence of existence, but none of being ex nihilo. So this does imply an act of creation, though, it does not require a white, bearded man. Judging by the world, it must be more a bottle imp.

Why woudl that be evidence of ex nihilo? Why couldn't there have always been something?

 

[cabse5]

Why woudl that be evidence of ex nihilo? Why couldn't there have always been something?

You're right. The creation of the universe may be perpetual. It universe may be self-contained and perpetual. The universe may be created. Who knows? Science may advance to the point of being able to explain creation. In the meantime, those who say they know one way or other are philosophers and ideologues.

All an atheist shows is their disdain for religion.

 

[RAMOSS]

You're right. The creation of the universe may be perpetual. It universe may be self-contained and perpetual. The universe may be created. Who knows? Science may advance to the point of being able to explain creation. In the meantime, those who say they know one way or other are philosophers and ideologues.

All an atheist shows is their disdain for religion.

Or, the like of 'before something is beleived, there must be some objective evidence for it'. Your statement 'disdain for religion' is a straw man.

 

[cabse5]

Or, the like of 'before something is beleived, there must be some objective evidence for it'. Your statement 'disdain for religion' is a straw man.

Bringing a physicist's gun to a philosopher's fight, again. Sigh.

 

[RAMOSS]

Bringing a physicist's gun to a philosopher's fight, again. Sigh.

Yes.. using something real against something purely imaginary. Amazing.