My Beliefs- GDR

Hey GDR,I have been following along with this thread for a while now and I would like to verify that I have your viewpoint correctly. It appears to me that you are simply trying to say that Tom is possible (and in your opinion more likely). That there is not any objective evidence of his existence, but rather only subjective evidence that must be interpreted to come to any conclusion about the existence of Tom. Is this the correct viewpoint that you are taking?If it is not, then I have no follow-up questions. However, if I do have an accurate portrayal of your beliefs, I would like to follow up with a couple of questions.1. First off, I do not think I have seen anyone in this thread arguing with you one the fact that Tom is possible. Rather, what they seem to be arguing is that while possible, your idea of Tom is not plausible, based upon the entirety of evidence that has been gathered to this point. My question about this idea then is, Why do you give credence to this one unevidenced (hard evidence) personage and avoid giving credence to the thousands of other propositions that have been asserted without evidence (telepathy, alien visitation, etc...)?2. You seem to be relying on very subjective evidence that lies at the fringes of discovery at this time. You continually use morality (The Golden Rule) as an example of "soft" evidence that can be interpreted into your specific viewpoint, through semantics. However, this strikes me as nothing more than a Tom of the Gaps argument that could suffer from further research into the workings of the human brain. Also, "Hard" evidence, to use your terms, already does exist throughout the animal kingdom in way of rudimentary morality systems evolving within social animals. Is the human morality more developed? I would hazard a guess that says yes, but this can stem from the fact that our social structures are so much larger than most animal social structures requiring more social contracts were needed to ensure positive growth within the tribe(s). So, my question out of this part, is two fold. First, does the fact that evolving as a social animal leads to cooperative behavior seem to follow the evidence that we currently see in humanity and the animal kingdom? (Worded another way, are animals with larger social groups more likely to have systems of caring for one another and display altruism?) Also, Why should the "soft" evidence relying upon subjective reasoning be given more credence than the "hard" evidence seen within nature of social structures complete with social contracts of behavior? Shouldn't Occum's Razor suggest that we go with the idea that suggests the exact same premise, but without the introduction of an unevidenced being fully responsible for it?3. The Big Bang...In this you seem to want to put science and religion on equal footing by claiming that it is Turtles all the way down. However, this does not hold up to scrutiny.In your scenario, it does require Turtles all the way down because of the main subjective argument you are using to propose the idea of Tom. You state that we could not have morality or consciousness without a greater being to create or grant it to us. This being must then have morality and consciousness to know what is was granting to us. Therefore, because you state that for us to have these traits there must be something bigger than us, this being (who also must have these traits) would also require something bigger than him/her/it. And this pattern would follow, not because we can't conceive of an uncaused first being, but because of the subjective evidence you have set forth as being a requirement of a bigger being.Science does not make this same error. Science is currently working (If I am correct, please let me know if not) at one Planck second after the Big Bang and before, trying to understand what occurred at this time. However, the important fact to remember is the willingness at this time to state, in the science community, that we do not know what occurred. There are hypotheses that are formulated and tested, but no answer has been forthcoming in this region of space-time. Until an answer is found, science will continue to investigate and determine more about the nature of this time. Then, a testable hypothesis can be formulated and tested. Should this prove to be effective, then science will simply take one more step forward toward greater understanding. Science does not postulate that this existence is too complex to exist without influence from something else, that a creator cannot exist, nor that something cannot come from nothing. It will leave options open until evidence (hard evidence) comes forth to lead it toward the next hurdle it must jump.The reason yours is called Turtles all the way down and the methodical practice of science is not is based on the evidence used. According to your evidence, you specifically state that consciousness and morality show a higher power because it could not come about naturally. Yet, then you have to simply hand wave the next question of how could a creator exist with all of those same traits without also having a creator? This is where you completely go into the unevidenced and state that there is an uncaused first cause. The evidence that science is based upon must be repeatable, testable, or in your words, hard evidence. Facts such as the basic morality of animals, the CMB, the processes of stellar evolution (light to heavy elements) fall into this category and show how these different ideas could have come about. For science there are a multitude of ways that things could go after we discover what occurred during the first Planck second of this Universe, from something to something/nothing to something/something different to something we know. However, science will more than likely not run into the exact same question about the next stage of knowledge it attempts to figure out.Could you agree that Turtles all the way down does not apply in this scenario and how it is different from your concept of: Humankind has morals, therefore they must have been created. If something created something else with morals, this entity must therefore have morals and must have been created....? The evidence forces you into the Turtles all the Way down dealing with similar entities all requiring similar things. Science's evidence leads it to new discoveries and possibilities that were not thought of before.