Scientific Proof Of God

[Hermit]

I don't think we're disagreeing about much really.

True. The only sticking point concerns the issue of whether the non-existence of a supernatural creator of the universe can be proven. Neither you nor JimC have been able to bring yourselves to unequivocally agree with my categorical "no".

...we can justifiably conclude that the un-evidenced claimed-for thing does not exist on the basis of the absence of rational evidence for the existence of that thing...

Great. You have just asserted that black swans don't exist for as long as we have no evidence for their existence.

[JimC]

I don't think we're disagreeing about much really.

True. The only sticking point concerns the issue of whether the non-existence of a supernatural creator of the universe can be proven. Neither you nor JimC have been able to bring yourselves to unequivocally agree with my categorical "no".

No, I do agree, it's just that such a process in the arid region of abstract logic is an unimportant codicil to the prime feature of the position of most on this forum, which is that all our actions and thoughts assume no supernatural entity...

[Brian Peacock]

I don't think we're disagreeing about much really.

True. The only sticking point concerns the issue of whether the non-existence of a supernatural creator of the universe can be proven. Neither you nor JimC have been able to bring yourselves to unequivocally agree with my categorical "no".

...we can justifiably conclude that the un-evidenced claimed-for thing does not exist on the basis of the absence of rational evidence for the existence of that thing...

Great. You have just asserted that black swans don't exist for as long as we have no evidence for their existence.

Again, you're confusing actual-factuality with logical possibility. Remember we're talking about claims here: the material claim that an as-yet un-evidenced thing exists. I think one must also avoid confusing an assessment or judgement about how a claim fails evidentially for a equivalent counter-claim to the contrary that requires evidential support. What can be said about black swans and JHWH can be said about pink swans and dragons, Odin, quantum strings, and conservative compassion - these things effectively do not exist while we have no evidence that they do. At best they're a kind of proposition - a perhaps-maybe story; a hypothesis, if you will.

What does the black swan hypothesis explain or illuminate? It has to be more than the mere logical possibility that this fabled creature could be real, surely? If you genuinely think that this possibility is an important thing to allow though, well... will you now admit the logical possibility that pink swans, dragons, Odin, quantum string, and conservative compassion are real also?

[NineBerry]

Why talk about black swans? Swans aren't unusual. And it's known that animals can exist in different colours. Now what if someone claims a transparent swan exists...

[pErvinalia]

I'm sure this has been mentioned, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. We just operate on the assumption that un-evidenced things don't exist. Life would be considerably more difficult if we gave consideration to all the things that could logically exist.

[NineBerry]

No. Transparent swans cannot exist.

[pErvinalia]

In your understanding of the world. Your understanding < the universe.

[pErvinalia]

If we are talking about carbon-based genetic swans on Earth, then perhaps you are correct. To determine that you'd present evidence showing how a transparent swan can't exist. At which point we are no longer talking about an un-evidenced case.

[pErvinalia]

But then, the operator of our simulation could just code one into existence. You'd need to prove we don't live in a simulation.

[superuniverse]

No. Transparent swans cannot exist.

If you need to know one thing and one thing only it is this:

NOTHING'S IMPOSSIBLE

[NineBerry]

If nothing is impossible, is it possible for God to create a penis that is too big to fuck God's arse?

[pErvinalia]

A unique reformulation of that old logical inconsistency.

[Seabass]

NOTHING'S IMPOSSIBLE

[JimC]

In a world of silicon-based life, transparent swans could actually exist!

(well, at least partly transparent...)

[Hermit]

I don't think we're disagreeing about much really.

True. The only sticking point concerns the issue of whether the non-existence of a supernatural creator of the universe can be proven. Neither you nor JimC have been able to bring yourselves to unequivocally agree with my categorical "no".

...we can justifiably conclude that the un-evidenced claimed-for thing does not exist on the basis of the absence of rational evidence for the existence of that thing...

Great. You have just asserted that black swans don't exist for as long as we have no evidence for their existence.

Again, you're confusing actual-factuality with logical possibility. Remember we're talking about claims here: the material claim that an as-yet un-evidenced thing exists. I think one must also avoid confusing an assessment or judgement about how a claim fails evidentially for a equivalent counter-claim to the contrary that requires evidential support. What can be said about black swans and JHWH can be said about pink swans and dragons, Odin, quantum strings, and conservative compassion - these things effectively do not exist while we have no evidence that they do. At best they're a kind of proposition - a perhaps-maybe story; a hypothesis, if you will.

What does the black swan hypothesis explain or illuminate? It has to be more than the mere logical possibility that this fabled creature could be real, surely? If you genuinely think that this possibility is an important thing to allow though, well... will you now admit the logical possibility that pink swans, dragons, Odin, quantum string, and conservative compassion are real also?

No, Brian, I am not confusing actual-factuality with logical possibility. You are. Lack of evidence does not logically lead to proof of non-existence. This is why black swans have existed despite the fact that we had no evidence of their existence. The same applies to pink swans (or Harry Potters for that matter). None of them can be proven to not exist on logical grounds. All we can say about them is that we have zero evidence for their existence. I have given you the black swans precisely because they demonstrate that lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence.