4 ms·

> In fact, this kind of thing could be taken as further evidence that God is a fiction. OTOH, it's been joked that there must be a God, because how else could

> In fact, this kind of thing could be taken as further evidence that God is a fiction. OTOH, it's been joked that there must be a God, because how else could the Church have survived nearly 2,000 years of all this [stuff]? I know, I know, the joke doesn't withstand critical scrutiny, but still .... Riffing on that subject at the risk of going off-topic: The existence of some kind of Creator finds at least some support in the continuing evolution of the universe from the so-called Big Bang into local areas of greater and greater complexity. (This is a variation on the Weak Anthropic Principle [0].) This continuing cosmic evolution seems consistent with the [EDIT:] conjecture that our universe is part of some kind of Great Project, in which it could be said that we're project workers — as Lutheran theologian Philip Hefner put it, we're created co-creators. Personally I find this conjecture to be exciting and awe-inspiring — but only to the extent that it can be kept evidence-based [2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Hefner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Hefner [2] Self-cite: http://www.questioningchristian.com/2007/02/another_way_to_.html http://www.questioningchristian.com/2007/02/another_way_to_.... — see also the comments to that piece.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> That seems consistent with the notion that our universe is (at least part of) some kind of Great Project Being consistent with something is not an argument for that thing. There is an infinite supply of mutually inconsistent hypotheses you can trivially generate for anything that's yet unknown that are consistent with what is known. Universe-creating unicorn-pixies that like drinking coffee are consistent with the big bang as well (a big bang happens when they drinkg coffee!). That doesn't tell you anything.
- dctoedt 9y ago
  OK, I'll replace "notion" with "conjecture." But the extant evidence doesn't support coffee-drinking pixies, whereas until someone can convincingly explain how an effect doesn't need a cause, the First-Cause argument [3] for the existence of some kind of Creator [4] remains plausible. (Those who say the universe just is, are making the same kind of conjecture, no?) [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover#First_cause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover#First_cause [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > But the extant evidence doesn't support coffee-drinking pixies Please point out at least one empirically established fact that contradicts universe-creating unicorn pixies that drink coffee. > whereas until someone can convincingly explain how an effect doesn't need a cause No, nothing is justified by "util we know the answer", that is what is called the god of the gaps. If you don't know whether every effect needs a cause, you don't know, and that's it, you don't get to just make up anything in addition to that. > the First-Cause argument [3] for the existence of some kind of Creator [4] remains plausible If you mean "plausible" in the sense of "consistent": See above. True, but doesn't get you anywhere. If you mean "plausible" as in "is an argument in support of": No. An argument that does in no way demonstrate the existence of a creator cannot be used to support the hypothesis of the existence of a creator. If everything that has a beginning has a cause, and the universe has a beginning, then the universe has a cause. That's it. You don't get to just make up that that cause is some sort of "creator". > (Those who say the universe just is, are making the same kind of conjecture, no?) Most likely, they don't say that the universe "just is" in the first place. More likely you are misrepresenting the position that someone doesn't know what initiated (for lack of a better term) the big bang. And that is the only honest position to hold if you don't know.
    - dctoedt 9y ago
      > Please point out at least one empirically established fact that contradicts universe-creating unicorn pixies that drink coffee. Nope. See Russell's Teapot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot > No, nothing is justified by "util we know the answer", that is what is called the god of the gaps. Unlike many who make the God-of-the-gaps argument, I don't assert that you should believe my conjecture; I simply point out that the conjecture is not an irrational one and that it has at least some evidentiary support. > If you don't know whether every effect needs a cause, you don't know, and that's it, you don't get to just make up anything in addition to that. I agree, but only for some values of "just make up anything in addition to that." Much progress has resulted from our making conjectures, i.e., "making something up," and then successively refining those conjectures as they're tested against extant- or experimental evidence. In any case, we all make bets in life based on our mental models. My personal mental model includes (A) the existence of some kind of Creator who kicked off some kind of Great Project, in which we're participants, and (B) that we best participate in that project by (1) facing the facts, and (2) seeking the best for our neighbors as we do for ourselves [5]. I don't insist at all that anyone else adopt that mental model; I simply note that I find it both appealing and useful. [5] This is a rewording of the Summary of the Law in Luke 10:25-28, which itself is a quotation from the Hebrew Bible, Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18.
jhanschoo 9y ago
The problem with this conjecture is that even as the Churches try to keep orthodoxy, the varieties of Abrahamic faiths keep schism-ing into different faiths exponentially due to incompatible doctrines, which is on par with what we would expect with opinion not based on evidence; compare that against natural philosophy.
- dctoedt 9y ago
  I don't think it's a problem with the Creator conjecture itself, but with the theological encrustations, lacking anything resembling real-world evidentiary support, that people keep attaching to that conjecture. Example: Compare the elaborate theology, christology, and soteriology of the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed, on the one hand, against the pretty-simple statements attributed in the Synoptic Gospels to Y'shua of Nazareth, a.k.a. Jesus. (I discount heavily the statements attributed to him in the Fourth Gospel [0].) [0] See "Synoptic Christians vs. John Christians: A Critique," at http://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/05/synoptic_christ.html http://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/05/synoptic_christ.... (self-cite).

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

> That seems consistent with the notion that our universe is (at least part of) some kind of Great Project Being consistent with something is not an argument for that thing. There is an infinite supply of mutually inconsistent hypotheses you can trivially generate for anything that's yet unknown that are consistent with what is known. Universe-creating unicorn-pixies that like drinking coffee are consistent with the big bang as well (a big bang happens when they drinkg coffee!). That doesn't tell you anything.

dctoedt 9y ago
OK, I'll replace "notion" with "conjecture." But the extant evidence doesn't support coffee-drinking pixies, whereas until someone can convincingly explain how an effect doesn't need a cause, the First-Cause argument [3] for the existence of some kind of Creator [4] remains plausible. (Those who say the universe just is, are making the same kind of conjecture, no?) [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover#First_cause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover#First_cause [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > But the extant evidence doesn't support coffee-drinking pixies Please point out at least one empirically established fact that contradicts universe-creating unicorn pixies that drink coffee. > whereas until someone can convincingly explain how an effect doesn't need a cause No, nothing is justified by "util we know the answer", that is what is called the god of the gaps. If you don't know whether every effect needs a cause, you don't know, and that's it, you don't get to just make up anything in addition to that. > the First-Cause argument [3] for the existence of some kind of Creator [4] remains plausible If you mean "plausible" in the sense of "consistent": See above. True, but doesn't get you anywhere. If you mean "plausible" as in "is an argument in support of": No. An argument that does in no way demonstrate the existence of a creator cannot be used to support the hypothesis of the existence of a creator. If everything that has a beginning has a cause, and the universe has a beginning, then the universe has a cause. That's it. You don't get to just make up that that cause is some sort of "creator". > (Those who say the universe just is, are making the same kind of conjecture, no?) Most likely, they don't say that the universe "just is" in the first place. More likely you are misrepresenting the position that someone doesn't know what initiated (for lack of a better term) the big bang. And that is the only honest position to hold if you don't know.
  - dctoedt 9y ago
    > Please point out at least one empirically established fact that contradicts universe-creating unicorn pixies that drink coffee. Nope. See Russell's Teapot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot > No, nothing is justified by "util we know the answer", that is what is called the god of the gaps. Unlike many who make the God-of-the-gaps argument, I don't assert that you should believe my conjecture; I simply point out that the conjecture is not an irrational one and that it has at least some evidentiary support. > If you don't know whether every effect needs a cause, you don't know, and that's it, you don't get to just make up anything in addition to that. I agree, but only for some values of "just make up anything in addition to that." Much progress has resulted from our making conjectures, i.e., "making something up," and then successively refining those conjectures as they're tested against extant- or experimental evidence. In any case, we all make bets in life based on our mental models. My personal mental model includes (A) the existence of some kind of Creator who kicked off some kind of Great Project, in which we're participants, and (B) that we best participate in that project by (1) facing the facts, and (2) seeking the best for our neighbors as we do for ourselves [5]. I don't insist at all that anyone else adopt that mental model; I simply note that I find it both appealing and useful. [5] This is a rewording of the Summary of the Law in Luke 10:25-28, which itself is a quotation from the Hebrew Bible, Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18.

jhanschoo 9y ago

The problem with this conjecture is that even as the Churches try to keep orthodoxy, the varieties of Abrahamic faiths keep schism-ing into different faiths exponentially due to incompatible doctrines, which is on par with what we would expect with opinion not based on evidence; compare that against natural philosophy.

dctoedt 9y ago
I don't think it's a problem with the Creator conjecture itself, but with the theological encrustations, lacking anything resembling real-world evidentiary support, that people keep attaching to that conjecture. Example: Compare the elaborate theology, christology, and soteriology of the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed, on the one hand, against the pretty-simple statements attributed in the Synoptic Gospels to Y'shua of Nazareth, a.k.a. Jesus. (I discount heavily the statements attributed to him in the Fourth Gospel [0].) [0] See "Synoptic Christians vs. John Christians: A Critique," at http://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/05/synoptic_christ.html http://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/05/synoptic_christ.... (self-cite).