3 ms·

Making the positive statement that the 'Universe is uncreated', is just as intellectually justified as saying 'The Universe is created'. Not very justified, if

Making the positive statement that the 'Universe is uncreated', is just as intellectually justified as saying 'The Universe is created'. Not very justified, if you ask me, but just as much in both sides. One can only get subjective if saying that their hypothesis is more justified, although unverified.

derleth 15y ago
> Making the positive statement that the 'Universe is uncreated', is just as intellectually justified as saying 'The Universe is created'. No, because the statement "The Universe is created" demands that the person stating it demonstrate the existence of the creator in a way that rules out the likelihood of that creator not existing.
- cristianpascu 15y ago
  And the statement 'The Univers is uncreated' demands a proof that there is no creator. And it's generally accepted fact that you can not prove the inexistence of something.
  - slurgfest 15y ago
    Of course you can prove the non-existence of something. For example, when the existence of a thing entails certain other things being true, and they are shown not to be true, then it is also shown that the thing of that description does not exist. For another example, you can show that a certain description is self-contradictory and cannot have any referent. Though it may sound trite, you aren't going to get anywhere on this argument until you figure out what you mean by 'universe' and 'created'.
    - cristianpascu 15y ago
      Very good point. But I'm afraid I don't have the time to go now into all the subtleties of the theological and philosophical definitions of created/uncreated, ontological dependence, being, person and so on. There's a rich literature on this. As point, you have to make supplementary assumption as to what the existence of a being entails. And that follows from the definition for that thing. But when it comes to the created/uncreated distinction, I can not 'a priori' make any other assumption than the fact that God has the power to create things different from Himself. That's it. Some find it, for instance, contradictory that a loving God allows suffering in the world. It's not my intention to go into that argument now because there's a lot to say, and has been said by many, about love, suffering, evil, freedom etc. At each point, and with each added concept, chances are that people will find contradiction just because they don't agree on the same definition. Hence it's difficult sometimes to rule out the existence of an object on the basis of an apparent contradiction.
      - slurgfest 15y ago
        There's a rich literature in physical cosmology too... and I suspect that a difference between the operational definition used there and the traditional Christian definition is causing a lot of crosstalk. I'm puzzled about why you think you can make certain assumptions about God but not anything else. It seems to me that you are in just as much of a fix to make assertions about God as you are to make assertions about time, or Dunkin Donuts Inc. I appreciate that you conceded the possibility of showing that one thing or another doesn't exist - my concern was really for that general principle and not any specific application (e.g., to the unceasing arguments about God)
  - derleth 15y ago
    > 'The Univers is uncreated' demands a proof that there is no creator No. That's the null hypothesis, so it merely requires a lack of disproof.
    - reinhardt 15y ago
      Absence of proof != proof of absence
      - slurgfest 15y ago
        You don't prove the null hypothesis. But you might not have enough evidence to rule it out. I don't honestly know how to apply this kind of t-test logic to the question of whether gods exist, but I think we have fairly adequate evidence that dodo birds do not exist any more, and we haven't even tried that hard. If you try very very hard and in good ways to find something which by all rights should be there, and don't find it, it's just basic honesty to say you 'failed to reject the null hypothesis' than to make plausible excuses about how it really must exist despite the dearth of evidence. If you have an idea about how to really find it, then it's up to you to make a better methodology and then use it to find the thing. And you can keep coming up with better and better methodologies around all the excuses for as long as you want to. Everyone can. But the more sustained and general the failure to see expected evidence, the less likely the basis of the expectation. So rational people will give up on Eldorado and Shangri-la after many attempts fail to find any evidence for them. Shangri-la might be hiding behind a cloud, sure, but that doesn't mean that every claim is equally credible. A million excuses for lack of evidence are more likely a product of human frailties than of the claim actually being true after all that failure to support it.

derleth 15y ago

> Making the positive statement that the 'Universe is uncreated', is just as intellectually justified as saying 'The Universe is created'. No, because the statement "The Universe is created" demands that the person stating it demonstrate the existence of the creator in a way that rules out the likelihood of that creator not existing.

cristianpascu 15y ago
And the statement 'The Univers is uncreated' demands a proof that there is no creator. And it's generally accepted fact that you can not prove the inexistence of something.
- slurgfest 15y ago
  Of course you can prove the non-existence of something. For example, when the existence of a thing entails certain other things being true, and they are shown not to be true, then it is also shown that the thing of that description does not exist. For another example, you can show that a certain description is self-contradictory and cannot have any referent. Though it may sound trite, you aren't going to get anywhere on this argument until you figure out what you mean by 'universe' and 'created'.
  - cristianpascu 15y ago
    Very good point. But I'm afraid I don't have the time to go now into all the subtleties of the theological and philosophical definitions of created/uncreated, ontological dependence, being, person and so on. There's a rich literature on this. As point, you have to make supplementary assumption as to what the existence of a being entails. And that follows from the definition for that thing. But when it comes to the created/uncreated distinction, I can not 'a priori' make any other assumption than the fact that God has the power to create things different from Himself. That's it. Some find it, for instance, contradictory that a loving God allows suffering in the world. It's not my intention to go into that argument now because there's a lot to say, and has been said by many, about love, suffering, evil, freedom etc. At each point, and with each added concept, chances are that people will find contradiction just because they don't agree on the same definition. Hence it's difficult sometimes to rule out the existence of an object on the basis of an apparent contradiction.
    - slurgfest 15y ago
      There's a rich literature in physical cosmology too... and I suspect that a difference between the operational definition used there and the traditional Christian definition is causing a lot of crosstalk. I'm puzzled about why you think you can make certain assumptions about God but not anything else. It seems to me that you are in just as much of a fix to make assertions about God as you are to make assertions about time, or Dunkin Donuts Inc. I appreciate that you conceded the possibility of showing that one thing or another doesn't exist - my concern was really for that general principle and not any specific application (e.g., to the unceasing arguments about God)
- derleth 15y ago
  > 'The Univers is uncreated' demands a proof that there is no creator No. That's the null hypothesis, so it merely requires a lack of disproof.
  - reinhardt 15y ago
    Absence of proof != proof of absence
    - slurgfest 15y ago
      You don't prove the null hypothesis. But you might not have enough evidence to rule it out. I don't honestly know how to apply this kind of t-test logic to the question of whether gods exist, but I think we have fairly adequate evidence that dodo birds do not exist any more, and we haven't even tried that hard. If you try very very hard and in good ways to find something which by all rights should be there, and don't find it, it's just basic honesty to say you 'failed to reject the null hypothesis' than to make plausible excuses about how it really must exist despite the dearth of evidence. If you have an idea about how to really find it, then it's up to you to make a better methodology and then use it to find the thing. And you can keep coming up with better and better methodologies around all the excuses for as long as you want to. Everyone can. But the more sustained and general the failure to see expected evidence, the less likely the basis of the expectation. So rational people will give up on Eldorado and Shangri-la after many attempts fail to find any evidence for them. Shangri-la might be hiding behind a cloud, sure, but that doesn't mean that every claim is equally credible. A million excuses for lack of evidence are more likely a product of human frailties than of the claim actually being true after all that failure to support it.