Hi subbie,
If god/s created the universe
then we should see either the hand of god actively manipulating things
or we should see laws\forces put in place so that manipulation is not necessary.
Nope, nothing logical there, simply assumptions.
Okay, I'll see if I can make it a little plainer:
If god/s created the universe
then we should either be able to (A) detect them or (B) not detect them ...
- If we ARE able to detect them
then we would see\detect the hand of god/s actively manipulating things (ie acting\being supernatural)
- If we are NOT able to detect them
then we would NOT see\detect the hand of god/s actively manipulating\doing things: everything would appear to operate by "natural laws\forces".
Can you tell me which "natural laws\forces" would exist that would
NOT be "put in place" and would
NOT be under the control of god/s that created the universe?
I note that in
Message 35 you replied:
Can you tell me what "natural laws\forces" would be in a created universe?
Probably not, certainly not if you can't tell me anything about the nature of the supposed creator, or the purpose of creating the universe.
As I stated in
Message 36
As I see it, the created universe would be complete, with all the laws\forces that would govern how everything behaves, they would be what we see as "natural laws\forces" in the world\universe around us, because that is how the universe was made. A well made universe would not need any tinkering.
Whatever "laws\forces" exist within the created universe would be ones used ("put in place") by god/s for the created universe. In a created universe, what "laws\forces" you detect would be there as a result of the creation, and they explain
how god/s made\make it work, without "see(ing)\detect(ing) the hand of god/s actively manipulating\doing things" ... they
appear to be "natural laws\forces" because the hand of god/s is, by premise (B),
NOT detected.
You chided me earlier in this thread because you thought I was assuming things about gods, and here you are actually making assumptions about a god.
...
It assumes that god/s put the laws in place.
Yes, the argument assumes that god/s created the universe, that
IS the stipulated premise, and then follows that to the logical conclusion.
Are you saying that whatever is created just happens to operate by some previously existing external "natural laws\forces" that somehow exist now within the created universe and that the god/s would be\are absolutely powerless to control, change or modify them to make their creation function?
Can you tell me what "natural laws\forces" would be in a created universe?
Probably not, certainly not if you can't tell me anything about the nature of the supposed creator, or the purpose of creating the universe.
Can you list one?
You might recall that earlier in this thread established a general definition of "evidence."
quote:
Fact X is evidence is support of hypothesis Y if the existence of X makes Y more probable than it would be without. The converse, obviously, would be that fact X is evidence against hypothesis Y if the existence of X makes Y less probable than it would be without. Evidence does not need to conclusively establish or invalidate a hypothesis by itself to be evidence in support of or against a hypothesis.
It seems clear to me that if one looks for some object or entity where one would expect it to be and fails to find it, that makes it more likely that the object or entity does not exist. As you point out, it's possible that further search could reveal the existence of the entity. That, of course, is precisely why I reserve the right to change my position if new evidence comes to light.
If you disagree that not finding something where it's expected to be makes it more likely that it doesn't exist, you need to explain why.
Again, we tried that with the Coelacanths, looking for evidence where we thought it would be, and found no evidence of their existence for a 65 million year period, and then they were only found when people looked in a different place.
You assume that:
- that you know where to look,
- that you know how to detect god/s,
- that you have actually investigated a substantial majority of possible places, and
- that no evidence has ever been found by anyone at any time.
I note that in
Message 22 you replied:
• If the only means of communication between humans (or any intelligent organism, we don't have to be the "chosen" species) is via religious experiences, where the experience occurs within the mind, then can you suggest some means to test whether this is actually happening or being imagined?
Can we test for imagination versus actual religious experiences?
Nothing comes immediately to mind.
RAZD in reply from msg 23 writes:
I have been unable to develop a reasonable test either, for this or for a number of similar situations:
- in many religions there are beliefs involving god/s appearing as humans or animals for any number of reasons,
- many eastern religions believe in enlightenment, which involves a level of understanding universal truths,
- many religions claim that prayers are means to communicate with god/s, and
- there are religions (like the Australian Aborigninal's) that believe in dreamtime experiences.
That's four additional ways that various religions have claimed to have a source of knowledge about supernatural beings\entities\etc. -- without actually seeing\experiencing them directly.
It seems to me that if you can't tell whether those experiences are real or imaginary, then you cannot assume that all investigations have come up completely and unequivocally empty-handed. I would agree that they have not been "proven" or validated, but that this does not mean they are invalid or that they should be ignored.
It seems to me that you are assuming that you know a lot more than the actual evidence shows, and that you have not provided any reasonable evidence to show that this
implied knowledge is based on anything but your personal assumptions.
Fact X is evidence is support of hypothesis Y if the existence of X makes Y more probable than it would be without.
...
If you disagree that not finding something where it's expected to be makes it more likely that it doesn't exist, you need to explain why.
Notice that in this particular case you do not
have any real evidence\argument that your (X) is actually an established FACT, that exists unchangeable, rather that it is an
hypothesis that is assumed by you to be true. Thus we see in this case that your conclusion is also your assumed premise: this is begging the question or circular reasoning.
In addition, you are making assumptions that you know enough to judge the probability or likelihood of (Y), based on your opinions, biases and world-view, not on evidence. Without objective empirical evidence to support this position it is logically invalid (see
Message 28 purple area, specifically in regard to 6 & likelihood).
What is more likely: that god/s do not exist or that we don't know?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : end
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
™ Version 4.2
(1)