4 ms·

> 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 f

> 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.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      > Nope. See Russell's Teapot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot That is exactly my point: All empirically observed facts are perfectly consistent with the existence of Russel's teapot. That does not get you anywhere with actually establishing any rational belief in its existence. Same as for universe-creating unicorn-pixies and for the creator you proposed. Consistency with observed reality does not get you anywhere. > 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. Now, it's not irrational as a conjecture. Any wild hypothesis you can make up is essentially rational as a conjecture. But that's mostly useless to even talk about, as you can, as explained above, trivially generate new hypotheses. What is irrational, though, is your supposition that the consistency of your conjecture with empirical observation would be even a minor reason to consider it anything more than a completely unsupported hypothesis. > 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. Yes, I am strictly talking about making claims about reality. > In any case, we all make bets in life based on our mental models. True, and the closer those models align with reality, the less risky those bets, would you agree? > My personal mental model includes (A) the existence of some kind of Creator who kicked off some kind of Great Project Does that "creator" have any properties besides having kicked off the universe? > I don't insist at all that anyone else adopt that mental model; I simply note that I find it useful. Does that mean that you care about having a model that is as useful as reasonably possible? If so, how do you try to ensure that you will discover flaws in your model?
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
  The First-Cause argument is invalid. In that argument everything except the creator has a cause. It posits an uncaused effect (creator->universe), instead of just an uncaused effect (universe). Universe + creator introduces an unnecessary complication (the creator) vs simply having an uncaused universe. It doesn't get rid of the causality violation. There's no way to have a beginning without violating causality. You either posit an infinite universe (eg eternal inflation models of the Big Bang) or you accept an uncaused effect. Trading one uncaused effect for another doesn't get you anywhere.

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.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > Nope. See Russell's Teapot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot That is exactly my point: All empirically observed facts are perfectly consistent with the existence of Russel's teapot. That does not get you anywhere with actually establishing any rational belief in its existence. Same as for universe-creating unicorn-pixies and for the creator you proposed. Consistency with observed reality does not get you anywhere. > 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. Now, it's not irrational as a conjecture. Any wild hypothesis you can make up is essentially rational as a conjecture. But that's mostly useless to even talk about, as you can, as explained above, trivially generate new hypotheses. What is irrational, though, is your supposition that the consistency of your conjecture with empirical observation would be even a minor reason to consider it anything more than a completely unsupported hypothesis. > 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. Yes, I am strictly talking about making claims about reality. > In any case, we all make bets in life based on our mental models. True, and the closer those models align with reality, the less risky those bets, would you agree? > My personal mental model includes (A) the existence of some kind of Creator who kicked off some kind of Great Project Does that "creator" have any properties besides having kicked off the universe? > I don't insist at all that anyone else adopt that mental model; I simply note that I find it useful. Does that mean that you care about having a model that is as useful as reasonably possible? If so, how do you try to ensure that you will discover flaws in your model?
SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
The First-Cause argument is invalid. In that argument everything except the creator has a cause. It posits an uncaused effect (creator->universe), instead of just an uncaused effect (universe). Universe + creator introduces an unnecessary complication (the creator) vs simply having an uncaused universe. It doesn't get rid of the causality violation. There's no way to have a beginning without violating causality. You either posit an infinite universe (eg eternal inflation models of the Big Bang) or you accept an uncaused effect. Trading one uncaused effect for another doesn't get you anywhere.