Is There Evidence for a Creator of the Universe?

[Gokul43201]

What evidence do you have that other humans beside yourself are conscious?

As opposed to being unconscious? Maybe if you provide a definition, someone can provide a test?

 

[Academic]

Please cite the "evidence against" all of the above things.

Seriously dude? I think you are being deliberately obtuse. But Ill play along for one of the examples, pink unicorns are not responsible for high Tc superconductors.

The first piece of evidence is biological, many species have been categorized and studied and no unicorn has even been scientifically observed. This is suggestive because large mammals are not easy to hide, thus this is evidence that unicorns likely do not exist. Furthermore, there is evidence that if unicorns did exist they would not be pink. Most mammals are not pink, and no horses are pink. If unicorns did exist then they would presumably be related to horses and thus also not be pink. Being pink could hardly be considered an advantageous trait so even in the unlikely case that unicorns did exist the fact that they would be pink would be very unlikely. Its pretty clear that there is copious amounts of evidence that pink unicorns do not exist (its still possible, but not at all probable). Even if they do exist, we then need to consider their effect on high Tc superconductors. In a broad sense no mammal on Earth has even been shown to be responsible for basic microscopic phenomenon. In fact, you may need to adopt some sort of top down causality where the macroscopic influences the microscopic - something that is common in biology but notably absent in physics. More specifically, the answer to low Tc superconductors comes from a unique and specific interaction between the lattice and the electrons. Though this description does not entirely work for high Tc superconductors, it is suggestive that the way to describe high Tc superconductors is also using novel interactions between the lattice and electrons (and not large mammals that have not yet been found).

All this is evidence. Its not absolutely conclusive, but no evidence ever is (in science). It may seem just like 'common sense' because it is basic evidence that we all take for granted, but it remains evidence nonetheless. And all this evidence is what we consciously or subconsciously use when we dismiss a claim that pink unicorns are the cause of high Tc superconductors.

The orbiting teapot is the example I like to use. Its often claimed that we don't assume a teapot is orbiting Mars simply because it is ridiculous and there is no evidence for it. But why is it ridiculous? Because there is evidence against it. We know what tea is, we know what a teapot is and we know who makes teapots. We know what it takes to put one in orbit and we know the history of mankind's (aka, tea drinker's) space exploration. This is all evidence against a teapot orbiting mars. If we didnt have this evidence, I would have to say there is a 50/50 chance of a teapot orbiting mars.

 

[nismaratwork]

Seriously dude? I think you are being deliberately obtuse. But Ill play along for one of the examples, pink unicorns are not responsible for high Tc superconductors.

The first piece of evidence is biological, many species have been categorized and studied and no unicorn has even been scientifically observed. This is suggestive because large mammals are not easy to hide, thus this is evidence that unicorns likely do not exist. Furthermore, there is evidence that if unicorns did exist they would not be pink. Most mammals are not pink, and no horses are pink. If unicorns did exist then they would presumably be related to horses and thus also not be pink. Being pink could hardly be considered an advantageous trait so even in the unlikely case that unicorns did exist the fact that they would be pink would be very unlikely. Its pretty clear that there is copious amounts of evidence that pink unicorns do not exist (its still possible, but not at all probable). Even if they do exist, we then need to consider their effect on high Tc superconductors. In a broad sense no mammal on Earth has even been shown to be responsible for basic microscopic phenomenon. In fact, you may need to adopt some sort of top down causality where the macroscopic influences the microscopic - something that is common in biology but notably absent in physics. More specifically, the answer to low Tc superconductors comes from a unique and specific interaction between the lattice and the electrons. Though this description does not entirely work for high Tc superconductors, it is suggestive that the way to describe high Tc superconductors is also using novel interactions between the lattice and electrons (and not large mammals that have not yet been found).

All this is evidence. Its not absolutely conclusive, but no evidence ever is (in science). It may seem just like 'common sense' because it is basic evidence that we all take for granted, but it remains evidence nonetheless. And all this evidence is what we consciously or subconsciously use when we dismiss a claim that pink unicorns are the cause of high Tc superconductors.

The orbiting teapot is the example I like to use. Its often claimed that we don't assume a teapot is orbiting Mars simply because it is ridiculous and there is no evidence for it. But why is it ridiculous? Because there is evidence against it. We know what tea is, we know what a teapot is and we know who makes teapots. We know what it takes to put one in orbit and we know the history of mankind's (aka, tea drinker's) space exploration. This is all evidence against a teapot orbiting mars. If we didnt have this evidence, I would have to say there is a 50/50 chance of a teapot orbiting mars.

I find this rather compelling, except that your 50/50 odds seem contrived. I suspect that you're going to get the short end of this stick, based on forum guidelines and culture, but you make a basic and reasonable case for a priori evidence that is implicit in many beliefs.

 

[Evo]

Seriously dude? I think you are being deliberately obtuse. But Ill play along for one of the examples, pink unicorns are not responsible for high Tc superconductors.

The first piece of evidence is biological, many species have been categorized and studied and no unicorn has even been scientifically observed. This is suggestive because large mammals are not easy to hide, thus this is evidence that unicorns likely do not exist. Furthermore, there is evidence that if unicorns did exist they would not be pink. Most mammals are not pink, and no horses are pink. If unicorns did exist then they would presumably be related to horses and thus also not be pink. Being pink could hardly be considered an advantageous trait so even in the unlikely case that unicorns did exist the fact that they would be pink would be very unlikely. Its pretty clear that there is copious amounts of evidence that pink unicorns do not exist (its still possible, but not at all probable). Even if they do exist, we then need to consider their effect on high Tc superconductors. In a broad sense no mammal on Earth has even been shown to be responsible for basic microscopic phenomenon. In fact, you may need to adopt some sort of top down causality where the macroscopic influences the microscopic - something that is common in biology but notably absent in physics. More specifically, the answer to low Tc superconductors comes from a unique and specific interaction between the lattice and the electrons. Though this description does not entirely work for high Tc superconductors, it is suggestive that the way to describe high Tc superconductors is also using novel interactions between the lattice and electrons (and not large mammals that have not yet been found).

All this is evidence. Its not absolutely conclusive, but no evidence ever is (in science). It may seem just like 'common sense' because it is basic evidence that we all take for granted, but it remains evidence nonetheless. And all this evidence is what we consciously or subconsciously use when we dismiss a claim that pink unicorns are the cause of high Tc superconductors.

The orbiting teapot is the example I like to use. Its often claimed that we don't assume a teapot is orbiting Mars simply because it is ridiculous and there is no evidence for it. But why is it ridiculous? Because there is evidence against it. We know what tea is, we know what a teapot is and we know who makes teapots. We know what it takes to put one in orbit and we know the history of mankind's (aka, tea drinker's) space exploration. This is all evidence against a teapot orbiting mars. If we didnt have this evidence, I would have to say there is a 50/50 chance of a teapot orbiting mars.

Academic, you've made a serious error. gokul only referred to mythological creatures, you are the one that brought up a pink unicorn. Perhaps you would like to start over and actually address his post?

Does Margaret Atwood has much of an idea about what science is? Does she also propose that agnosticism is the only supportable scientific position on leprechauns, elves, centaurs, and invisible tortoises holding up the earth?

Why would she? There is evidence against the existence of all of those things.

 

[Academic]

Error? He brought it up in post #95. A similar analysis applies to any of the other mythological creatures he mentioned.

I find this rather compelling, except that your 50/50 odds seem contrived. I suspect that you're going to get the short end of this stick, based on forum guidelines and culture, but you make a basic and reasonable case for a priori evidence that is implicit in many beliefs.

I don't see how 50/50 is contrived. That is the default probability for any two state system without any evidence. You can only get a non 50/50 probability by having evidence (or by changing it from two possible states).

For many of the gods man has defined there is evidence that changes the default 50/50 probability. The more specifically you define god the more you open up to the evidence and the less likely such a god exists. You can however carefully define a god for which there is no evidence for or against and thus the probability is 50/50. (of course, this is not the god that most humans have believed in)

 

[Gokul43201]

Seriously dude? I think you are being deliberately obtuse. But Ill play along for one of the examples, pink unicorns are not responsible for high Tc superconductors.

The first piece of evidence is biological, many species have been categorized and studied and no unicorn has even been scientifically observed.

No creator has been scientifically observed either.

This is suggestive because large mammals are not easy to hide, thus this is evidence that unicorns likely do not exist.

This assumes the pink unicorn is a mammal. It is not. It's a magical creature outside of the binomial classification system.

Furthermore, there is evidence that if unicorns did exist they would not be pink. Most mammals are not pink, and no horses are pink.

Not only is it not a mammal, it is not a horse

If unicorns did exist then they would presumably be related to horses and thus also not be pink. Being pink could hardly be considered an advantageous trait so even in the unlikely case that unicorns did exist the fact that they would be pink would be very unlikely.

Magical creatures do not need advantageous traits.

Its pretty clear that there is copious amounts of evidence that pink unicorns do not exist (its still possible, but not at all probable).

That's an empty assertion, unless you are speaking of the "evidence" cited above, which has been shown to be irrelevant.

Even if they do exist, we then need to consider their effect on high Tc superconductors. In a broad sense no mammal on Earth has even been shown to be responsible for basic microscopic phenomenon.

Same false mammal assumption.

In fact, you may need to adopt some sort of top down causality where the macroscopic influences the microscopic - something that is common in biology but notably absent in physics.

If a god is a macroscopic being capable of influencing the microscopic world, then whatever top-down causality works there, works here.

More specifically, the answer to low Tc superconductors comes from a unique and specific interaction between the lattice and the electrons. Though this description does not entirely work for high Tc superconductors, it is suggestive that the way to describe high Tc superconductors is also using novel interactions between the lattice and electrons (and not large mammals that have not yet been found).

That is a reasonable, scientific guess. However, it does not rule out the role of magical unicorns ... in about the same way that all of the natural explanations for all other observed phenomena do not rule out the role of a magical god.

All this is evidence. Its not absolutely conclusive, but no evidence ever is (in science). It may seem just like 'common sense' because it is basic evidence that we all take for granted, but it remains evidence nonetheless. And all this evidence is what we consciously or subconsciously use when we dismiss a claim that pink unicorns are the cause of high Tc superconductors.

The "evidence" makes no concession for the magical abilities of pink unicorns, and is therefore faulty.

But you may now take this into consideration and give it another shot, if you'd like.

The orbiting teapot is the example I like to use. Its often claimed that we don't assume a teapot is orbiting Mars simply because it is ridiculous and there is no evidence for it. But why is it ridiculous? Because there is evidence against it. We know what tea is, we know what a teapot is and we know who makes teapots. We know what it takes to put one in orbit and we know the history of mankind's (aka, tea drinker's) space exploration. This is all evidence against a teapot orbiting mars. If we didnt have this evidence, I would have to say there is a 50/50 chance of a teapot orbiting mars.

Different matter if it were an orbiting supernatural teapot. One that appears in my dreams, answers some of my prayers, and is waiting to pour me tea after my death.

 

[Academic]

Now you are just redefining a unicorn to wiggle out of all the evidence. The evidence is there, take it or not.

The fact that you believe things with no evidence to support it should be raising flags in your bullsh!t detectors.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Oolon Colluphid had it right.

 

[DaveC426913]

If you are talking about a different kind of "needing", then please clarify. Does the universe need the sun? Any planets? Does it need 99% of its space? Or 99% of its matter?

One could argue that the universe doesn't need the sun for example. But then where would the rest of the planets in our "solar" system be? Maybe there would be a different planet with giant aliens that have colonised the whole milky way? We end up with a hypothetical fictional universe. I prefer to stick with the universe we are actually in.

Again, this is just meaningless word play. It goes back to this statement, which is completely unfounded:

If by "us" you mean conscious influences, then we don't know if it needed them back then. But our current universe does need them.

Without making this case, all that follows is not worth addressing. So I'm going to move on to the other, more productive avenues of thought.

[EDIT: Heh. Evo beat me to it! https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2779207&postcount=64]

 

[DaveC426913]

When talking about evidence of god, it is important to realize that conscious influences are invisible (unless from our first person perspective). This is the case for consciousness in the brain, but also for a hypothetical larger conscious entity aka god. If one is going to reject god on the basis of lack of visible evidence, and one is consistent, one would reject that other people are conscious aswell. But we don't do that.

We have 6 billion people who all act as if they have consciousness, in the same way I act like I have consciousness.

It is far more likely that I am typical than that I am unique. Same holds true for outer space. We choose to believe tha the laws of physics hold in galaxies a billion light years away because we assume typicality.

We can infer conscious behaviour in others by comparing their behaviour to our own, but this also ultimately doesn't enable us to see where conscious behaviour starts and where it ends, since our human body isn't just similar to other humans, but also to apes, ducks, plants, rocks, electrons, space, etc. Where to stop inferring consciousness?

We stop inferring it when we have no precedent, such as plants, rocks, electrons, space ...

... and supernatural, omnipotent universe-creators.

 

[Gokul43201]

Now you are just redefining a unicorn to wiggle out of all the evidence. The evidence is there, take it or not.

Am I redefining what a unicorn is by claiming it is a magical creature? If so, then please allow me to rephrase my previous statement to say that scientists do not also bother to exclude the possibility that High Tc Superconductivity is caused by pink, magical unicorns.

The fact that you believe things with no evidence to support it should be raising flags in your bullsh!t detectors.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

 

[Academic]

Im talking about having a belief with no evidence to support it. When somebody professes a belief but has no evidence to support it that is faith at best, and bullsh!t at worst.

I don't know about your belief system, you claim to believe things even though there is no evidence - that is your prerogative. Personally, I don't believe pink unicorns (magical or otherwise) cause high Tc superconductivity because of all the evidence I have observed in my life. Without my catalog of evidence I would not dismiss the idea outright, but with the evidence I do dismiss it as highly improbable.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't know about your belief system, you claim to believe things even though there is no evidence - that is your prerogative.

What things have I claimed to believe? Please quote the exact lines of my posts where I made these claims.

 

[Academic]

Excuse me if I am being presumptuous. I assumed from the context that you believe magical pink unicorns are not the cause of high Tc superconductivity. I also assumed that you believe you have no evidence that magical pink unicorns are not the cause of high Tc superconductivity.

Ill reiterate the first part of my quote, I don't know about your belief system. In any case, believe something without evidence is a foolish thing to do.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Somebody's assumptions vs somebody else's assumptions.



This isn't going to be resolved. Period.

There is no basis on which to claim 'preferred assumptions', so this thread is childish and meaningless.

 

[pftest]

We have 6 billion people who all act as if they have consciousness, in the same way I act like I have consciousness.

It is far more likely that I am typical than that I am unique. Same holds true for outer space. We choose to believe tha the laws of physics hold in galaxies a billion light years away because we assume typicality.

We stop inferring it when we have no precedent, such as plants, rocks, electrons, space ...

... and supernatural, omnipotent universe-creators.

What do you mean plants and rocks have no precedent? Humans consist of ordinary atoms. Plants do too. Like you said, the laws of physics are assumed to be universal, thus the behaviour of the particles in your body and a plant both have that as a similarity. And all these universal laws clearly don't prevent consciousness from operating within the universe.

This btw also robs the idea that a larger conscious influence aka god, must be supernatural force, of any merit.

Back to my point, which was directed at someone else: if one is going to allow material behaviour as evidence of a conscious influence (which virtually everyone does), then depending on the subjective judgement of which behaviour one accepts, such evidence can be found in small parts of the universe or literally everywhere. Either way is a matter of belief.

 

[pftest]

Again, this is just meaningless word play. It goes back to this statement, which is completely unfounded:
Without making this case, all that follows is not worth addressing. So I'm going to move on to the other, more productive avenues of thought.

[EDIT: Heh. Evo beat me to it! https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2779207&postcount=64]

I don't see any counterarguments in your post or evo's post. Feel free to present one. If not i will assume i have made my point and move on aswell.

 

[Evo]

Excuse me if I am being presumptuous. I assumed from the context that you believe magical pink unicorns are not the cause of high Tc superconductivity. I also assumed that you believe you have no evidence that magical pink unicorns are not the cause of high Tc superconductivity.

Ill reiterate the first part of my quote, I don't know about your belief system. In any case, believe something without evidence is a foolish thing to do.

You have yet to substantiate your claims, yet you continue to harp on this pink unicorn thing.

Perhaps you've forgotten you were asked repeatedly to substantiate your claims and are being intentionally obtuse/evasive?

I'm seriously not following what you are accusing gokul of saying. And my error on gokul mentioning pink unicorns first. Let's move past the pink unicorn and please respond to the questions about your claim.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2780406&postcount=97

Does Margaret Atwood has much of an idea about what science is? Does she also propose that agnosticism is the only supportable scientific position on leprechauns, elves, centaurs, and invisible tortoises holding up the earth?

Why would she? There is evidence against the existence of all of those things. There is also evidence that pink unicorns do not cause high Tc superconductors. Dont fool yourself into thinking you have a default stance of atheism on these topics - the reason you (and I) don believe in invisible tortoises holding up the Earth is the copious amount of evidence against such a hypothesis.

Bolding mine.

 

[Gokul43201]

Excuse me if I am being presumptuous. I assumed from the context that you believe magical pink unicorns are not the cause of high Tc superconductivity. I also assumed that you believe you have no evidence that magical pink unicorns are not the cause of high Tc superconductivity.

In other words, you have assumed things about me that I have not stated anywhere. Nevertheless, I do insist, until demonstrated otherwise, that there exists no evidence that pink magical unicorns (or flying spaghetti monsters, or other what-have-you supernatural beings) do not cause x, y or z unexplained phenomena. And in the same vein, there is no "evidence against" the existence or actions of any number of other magical beings. This lack of evidence does not make me agnostic towards questions of their existence. Nor, do I suspect, does it make Margaret Atwood.

Ill reiterate the first part of my quote, I don't know about your belief system.

I can help (though I don't see the relevance to this discussion). I believe that things that repeatably do what they have been claimed to do under careful scientific scrutiny are closer to what they are advertised to be than things that do not have as much support. I don't therefore, believe that magical unicorns cause superconductivity, nor do I believe that magical beings create the universe, or listen to prayers, or meet "us" after we die, as there is no scientific evidence in support of such advertising.

In any case, believe something without evidence is a foolish thing to do.

I couldn't say if it was foolish, but I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[baywax]

People call "love" "god". They call gravity the work of "god". The sky and all its contents have been called "god". The wind, fire, rain, thunder and every element has been called "god" or an "act" of "god". In fact "all" has been deemed a "god". I see no avenue to pursue the debunking of this fact or of people's sentiments. There are billions of people who do this every day. There may be some harm in the "metaphor" and there may be some good. There is certainly no less nor more harm than is found in the inventions of science (nukes, gun powder, torture and interviewing techniques). The use of the term "god" on one hand could simply be an expression of wonder at what is hard to explain. It may also be a term that has been hi-jacked and utilized in the mobilization of the masses.

 

[Academic]

You have yet to substantiate your claims, yet you continue to harp on this pink unicorn thing.

Perhaps you've forgotten you were asked repeatedly to substantiate your claims and are being intentionally obtuse/evasive?

I'm seriously not following what you are accusing gokul of saying. And my error on gokul mentioning pink unicorns first. Let's move past the pink unicorn and please respond to the questions about your claim.

I did substantiate my claim by posting copious amounts of evidence. What do you want? It seems like you want me to systematically list the evidence against any wild claim you come up with. Why do you want me to do that? This is what I see you setting up - You barrage me with wild claims that we both know arnt true. If I cannot provide what you deem to be sufficient evidence against one of those many claims, then you declare a precedent for believing something with no evidence. You then use that precedent to state that god does not exist and no evidence is necessary. Obviously that's not a game I can win, it takes a lot more time and effort to synthesize the evidence against a claim than it does to make a claim.

I don't have time to run through the laundry list of evidence against every wild claim you can come up with. But I will address the easiest one in that post, invisible tortoise are holding up the earth. If they are invisible then we can't see them, but we could detect them in the non visible spectrum. If they are invisible in all frequencies then they arnt made up of atoms and can hardly be called tortoises. Even if they are invisible in all frequencies and are still somehow tortoises, the shape of the Earth being supported in such a manner would not be round. Furthermore, the Earth would have to be held against the sun and the Earth turns meaning the turtles would have to be moving around the Earth constantly. There is much evidence against such a ridiculous claim. I am surprised that long term members of the physics forums can't put all the evidence together. Instead you what, take it on faith that tortoises don't hold up the earth?

 

[Gokul43201]

There is no basis on which to claim 'preferred assumptions', so this thread is childish and meaningless.

If this is a discussion about real life, one set of assumptions provides a system that repeatably and accurately models and predicts the behaviors of things that we interact with, and another set of assumptions produces no testable predictions or useful descriptions of how things are. There are yet other sets of assumptions that do produce testable predictions which have been falsified by careful investigation (though some of these are still very popular today). Depending on whether or not you wish to deal with the way things are in the world that we interact with, one or other set of assumptions will emerge as a preferred one, simply due to the ability of models based upon it to explain things.

 

[Gokul43201]

I did substantiate my claim by posting copious amounts of evidence.

The copious evidence that you claim to have provided was based on a faulty assumption, as has been pointed out.

What do you want? It seems like you want me to systematically list the evidence against any wild claim you come up with. Why do you want me to do that?

This is not about all wild claims. It is about the inherent inability to provide evidence against a claim based on magical beings or phenomena. This is true whether it is a magical prayer answering creator-being, or magical mischief causing sprites or magical (and therefore atomless, etc.) tortoises.

The simple question put to those that claim agnosticism towards one specific subset of supernatural beings and not others, is to explain the basis for selection (of that specific subset).

 

[Academic]

The basis, as I have mentioned many times, is evidence.

 

[Gokul43201]

Mentioned, but as yet, not substantiated.

In what way is there a difference in the evidence supporting magical being of type X from magical being of type Y ?

 

[Academic]

The way there is different evidence for being X then for being Y depends on how you define the being and what evidence we have. If you define a being very well, with lots of characteristics there is generally going to be more evidence against it. If you define a being very broadly with few characteristics then there will be less evidence against it. You can purposefully define a being with a sparse set of characteristics such that there is no evidence for or against it. That is, its easier to state evidence against a giant invisible tortoise holding up the earth, its harder to state evidence against an invisible unfathomed life holding up the earth.

(also, I don't see how adding magical or supernatural as descriptors to any of these claims is useful or helpful. I am not even sure what you mean by differentiating between an invisible giant tortoise that holds up the earth, or a magical invisible giant tortoise that holds up the earth. In my mind, those are identical claims and magical just means something we know can't happen but would be crazy if it did.)

 

[Gokul43201]

The way there is different evidence for being X then for being Y depends on how you define the being and what evidence we have. If you define a being very well, with lots of characteristics there is generally going to be more evidence against it. If you define a being very broadly with few characteristics then there will be less evidence against it. You can purposefully define a being with a sparse set of characteristics such that there is no evidence for or against it. That is, its easier to state evidence against a giant invisible tortoise holding up the earth, its harder to state evidence against an invisible unfathomed life holding up the earth.

(also, I don't see how adding magical or supernatural as descriptors to any of these claims is useful or helpful. I am not even sure what you mean by differentiating between an invisible giant tortoise that holds up the earth, or a magical invisible giant tortoise that holds up the earth. In my mind, those are identical claims and magical just means something we know can't happen but would be crazy if it did.)

As explained previously (albeit only in passing), when you make a creature magical, your arguments about atoms, reflection spectra, gravitational interactions, biological functioning, etc. go out the window. Magical beings can exist outside of these physical constraints, and by definition, their supernatural nature allows them to defy natural explanations. Adding more descriptors to the magical beings can sometimes be problematic but usually, the supernaturalness takes care of most problems.

For instance, a supernatural acorn-shaped creator, who according to some text discovered today (or according to the recounting of a divinely chosen prophet), created the Earth last Sunday and the moon yesterday, might seem to be in trouble with the scientists. But one need only resort to oft used cop-out that all scientific evidence to the contrary was merely planted by the holy acorn for the sake of its amusement. An omnipotent purple jellyfish that answers some of my prayers (only those that it deems worthy), and appears to me in my mind's eye (because I am one of the true believers), and meets the faithful after death in a beautiful, ocean-like afterplace is no easier to refute the existence of than any other less well-defined super-being. Likewise, fairies and spirits that may only appear to some, and choose not to be susceptible to scientific examination are no less fantastic than your garden variety creator-god.

 

[Academic]

So then magical beings defy well established principles of physical constraints, then those magical beings have copious amounts of evidence against them - all the evidence that goes into developing the physical constraints. Thats why calling them magic doesn't add anything to the discussion, its a trivial case.

This supports the notion that one should insist upon evidence before making a claim. If the tortoise you mention is magic, then its either the magic tortoise or the physical constraints - they are defined such that they can't each exist. If there is loads of evidence for the physical constraints then there is loads of evidence against magic. Easy, what's the problem? There is loads of evidence against the pink unicorn of superconductors, against the tortoise that holds up the earth, against all the magical beings you can list. There is loads of evidence against the celestial teapot, as well as the flying spaghetti monster.

Why should we pretend that we have an a priori knowledge that these things don't exist? Are we not held to the same standards as the faithful when they make a claim? When a person of faith makes a bold claim to us we demand evidence. When we make a claim to them, we should expect the same demand for evidence. And there is no problem with that, the evidence is copious.

 

[nismaratwork]

Am I redefining what a unicorn is by claiming it is a magical creature? If so, then please allow me to rephrase my previous statement to say that scientists do not also bother to exclude the possibility that High Tc Superconductivity is caused by pink, magical unicorns.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

What is the difference between a magical creature, and a normal creature? What is "magic"? You are invoking terms that have no single meaning, or application here. By magical, do you mean that they defy physical laws through the use of some aetheral force, which also allows them to remain hidden, and defy other natural processes? I need more than just the moniker "magic" to see a difference between the description of the expected horned-horse, and something MORE.

I think Academic is completely correct here, and there is a bit of rhetorical dancing going on with the word "magic". Break that word down to how it applies in this discussion, and then you're going to be back at "copious evidence" as Academic puts it.

 

[DaveC426913]

What do you mean plants and rocks have no precedent?

With consciousness was the operative point.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't see any counterarguments in your post or evo's post. Feel free to present one. If not i will assume i have made my point and move on aswell.

There are no counterpoints to make, because there were no points made; it was just a bunch of words. But I am as eager as you to leave it behind so, do let's.

 

[DaveC426913]

So...

Safe to say this thread has degenerated?

136 posts. That's got to be a record for a "God's existence" topic.

 

[HeLiXe]

but I still keep reading! @_@

 

[nismaratwork]

So...

Safe to say this thread has degenerated?

136 posts. That's got to be a record for a "God's existence" topic.

When we're down to the working definition of magic then yes, I'd say you have the degenerate matter which forms a dense crust over reason and discourse. For the record, I don't know, I try to avoid these kinds of debates as pointless unless someone is avoiding a needed transplant over religion, etc...

 

[Evo]

What is the difference between a magical creature, and a normal creature? What is "magic"? You are invoking terms that have no single meaning, or application here. By magical, do you mean that they defy physical laws through the use of some aetheral force, which also allows them to remain hidden, and defy other natural processes? I need more than just the moniker "magic" to see a difference between the description of the expected horned-horse, and something MORE.

That's what a god is, a supernatural "magical" creature. It defies all known laws. It's what we've been talking about during the entire thread.

I think Academic is completely correct here, and there is a bit of rhetorical dancing going on with the word "magic". Break that word down to how it applies in this discussion, and then you're going to be back at "copious evidence" as Academic puts it.

Academic knows that a "god" is a supernatural being as it is being discussed here. You think he doesn't understand this at this point? FD, I am surprised at you.