Assumptions assumptions assumptions. — Christoffer

Definitions are not assumptions.

f you cannot define the dimensions, things or properties themselves, you cannot conclude anything, this is fact. — Christoffer

My argument does not rely on dimensions. It uses the loosest possible definition of time (I don't assume eternalism or presentism). All it relies on is the presence of 'stuff' (matter/energy).

You make an assumption about how it happened, i.e there was a sentient creator, God, that's a pretty big assumption about pre-Big Bang, right? The reasoning you do assumes a sentient God as a property of something you cannot possibly know about at this time and you use that as a value to calculate. Why can't you see this flaw in your reasoning? — Christoffer

I argue that the Big Bang was not natural or time is finite. Both of those are strongly suggestive of a sentient God. Pretty conclusively so when fine-tuning and other evidence is also taken into account.

If the universe was designed for life, it must be said that it is a shockingly inefficient design. There are vast reaches of the universe in which life as we know it is clearly impossible: gravitational forces would be crushing, or radiation levels are too high for complex molecules to exist, or temperatures would make the formation of stable chemical bonds impossible... Fine-tuned for life? It would make more sense to ask why God designed a universe so inhospitable to life. — Robert L. Park

Its a shockingly efficient design if you ask me; the stars provide the energy, the planets provide the living surfaces. Gravity has to be strong to enable nuclear fusion and hence energy for live. And we have to have radiation else energy would not reach the places life lives. It's inevitable that not all parts of the universe would support life whatever universe design you use.

And the fact that even the atom holds together is a miracle of fine-tuning - how likely is that in an arbitrary (non-fine tuned) universe? I think 99.999% of universes would just have particles endlessly bouncing off each other (no adhesion); nothing close to the amazing complexity of matter we have in our universe (see the periodic table and the compounds... all that diversity from just elections and quarks... and that diversity in matter is required to support life).

I can not calculate the probability of a unicorn standing in my backyard, but I can calculate the probability of a horse. How is this not crystal clear? — Christoffer

You can calculate the probability of a 'unicorn standing in your back garden' as virtually zero. How has that got anything to do with the probability of 'is there a creator'? Unicorns are magical creatures and magic does not exist. Creators are not magical creatures.

"Is there a creator?" is a vague question that through logic conclude it to be a sentient God, without nothing more than math. — Christoffer

If I choose to define my creator as my God that is my prerogative.

Even with this reasoning, how can you conclude Big Bang to be unnatural if you don't know the things, properties or properties themselves of what was before Big Bang? How can you define if Big Bang was natural or unnatural when you don't have any data since science has no data on the event themselves? — Christoffer

Natural things come in a multiplicity, unnatural things are singular.

What does that prove? How can you not just turn that around and say that because the universe evolved these 20 physical constants it enabled life to evolve? There's no connection between any intention of fine-tuning and the natural evolution from these constants to life. You apply the assumption that there can only be these constants if someone intended for life, which is only an assumption and therefore a fallacy. How can you possibly connect the constants to the intention of life? False cause fallacy if I ever saw one. Also, there are 22 known constants, not 20. — Christoffer

The laws of physics do not 'evolve' - there is no selection mechanism. So these constants had to be set a precise values initially in order for life to occur.

I do not assume that 'there can only be these constants if someone intended for life' - I assigned it a 75% probability that fine-tuning implies a creator. A very conservative estimate, some people put in much higher than that.

Nice try but its impossible. — Devans99

So you keep saying, but you have yet to make an actual argument.

Being able to conceive of something does not make it possible; it has to be 'logically conceive' of something and existing forever is not logical. — Devans99

What is the difference between conceiving and logically conceiving? Why is existing forever not logical?

By the way, doesn't God exist forever according to you?

Also I can conceive of you not existing - there was a time when you were not born. — Devans99

Sure, you can, but I cannot, since I cannot leave my own perspective.

I can also argue thusly:
1) if it were impossible for things to exist without being first coming into being, everything that exists must have come into being.

2) it follows from 1) that there must have been a state prior to anything coming into being, i.e. an absence of any existence.

3) Coming into being requires changing from one state to another.

4) change requires that something either changes by itself (intrinsic) or is changed by interaction with something else (extrinsic).

5) Since 2) and 4) contradict each other, 1) must be false.

Right, so that means my original proof that an infinite regress is impossible holds:

'We can also argue against this model by arguing against an infinite regress of (say) particle collisions (arranged by time). With infinite time, the number of collisions must be greater than any number, which is a contradiction (can’t be a number AND greater than any number).' — Devans99

No, because infinity is not a number, and hence your final sentence doesn't hold.

The laws of physics do not 'evolve' - there is no selection mechanism. So these constants had to be set a precise values initially in order for life to occur. — Devans99

How do you know the constants could have been any different from what they are?

What is the difference between conceiving and logically conceiving? Why is existing forever not logical? — Echarmion

We can conceive of infinity; but we can't logically conceive of infinity (or not for very long before we hit one of the numerous contradictions of infinity).

Existing forever throws up paradoxes. How can you do something if you don't start doing it? Its paradoxical from the get go. If you can solve the clock paradox I gave above, then you can have 'existing forever'... but that paradox is unsolvable. An equivalent paradox:

- Say you meet a being who has existed forever
- You notice he is counting
- You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’
- What number is he on?

Unsolvable.

No, because infinity is not a number, and hence your final sentence doesn't hold. — Echarmion

Are you suggesting 'the number of collisions' is not a number?

How do you know the constants could have been any different from what they are? — Echarmion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

So for example, something like the atom is a fine balance between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force; if either were slightly different (or if quarks or elections had a different nature) then atoms would not form or would be too unstable.

My argument does not rely on dimensions. It uses the loosest possible definition of time (I don't assume eternalism or presentism). All it relies on is the presence of 'stuff' (matter/energy). — Devans99

Nothing which you can by any confirmation, apply to before Big Bang. You don't even know which dimensions if at all or if by more, existed before Big Bang. Period.

I argue that the Big Bang was not natural or time is finite. Both of those are strongly suggestive of a sentient God. Pretty conclusively so when fine-tuning and other evidence is also taken into account. — Devans99

Causation ≠ Correlation. You cannot apply God to that and you cannot decide if Big Bang was natural or not. Your fantasy correlations do not apply.

Fine-tuning is not evidence, you need to reply to all those who pointed out flaws before concluding anything like that. I listed names, stop just spamming the same thing over and over, you are not doing philosophy now, you are preaching nonsense. Stop ignoring things.

Its a shockingly efficient design if you ask me; the stars provide the energy, the planets provide the living surfaces. Gravity has to be strong to enable nuclear fusion and hence energy for live. And we have to have radiation else energy would not reach the places life lives. It's inevitable that not all parts of the universe would support life whatever universe design you use. — Devans99

You are not a physicist, that much is clear. Because you don't seem to understand what he is talking about and you don't seem to understand the scale of the universe. You need to study physics.

And the fact that even the atom holds together is a miracle of fine-tuning - how likely is that in an arbitrary (non-fine tuned) universe? I think 99.999% of universes would just have particles endlessly bouncing off each other (no adhesion); nothing close to the amazing complexity of matter we have in our universe (see the periodic table and the compounds... all that diversity from just elections and quarks... and that diversity in matter is required to support life). — Devans99

You do know that humans naturally seek patterns in almost anything? You are doing it right now, this is the biggest flaw with the fine-tuning argument. It relies on the psychological effect of just finding a pattern where you see it and you cannot support the fine-tuning argument with that bias. You need to actually prove it and without so, you cannot use it as evidence.

Fantasy rants about how perfect you think things are in nature do not apply as validity to the argument. It's the "finding Jesus in a sandwich"-kind of idea for philosophy, but with a lack of knowledge in physics instead of a lack of knowledge about toasters.

You can calculate the probability of a 'unicorn standing in your back garden' as virtually zero. How has that got anything to do with the probability of 'is there a creator'? Unicorns are magical creatures and magic does not exist. Creators are not magical creatures. — Devans99

Are you seriously not understanding the analogy? This is religious apologetic nonsense you are pulling. God is as real as a unicorn and your argument is as valid as calculating the probability of a unicorn. Leave your beliefs behind when you are trying to prove God, they don't apply here.

If I choose to define my creator as my God that is my prerogative. — Devans99

It doesn't matter what you believe, no one cares, you cannot apply it to your conclusion.

Natural things come in a multiplicity, unnatural things are singular. — Devans99

Based on what? Your beliefs?

The laws of physics do not 'evolve' - there is no selection mechanism. So these constants had to be set a precise values initially in order for life to occur. — Devans99

The laws of physics most likely (by scientific findings) came to be during Big Bang. You cannot conclude that these constants existed before Big Bang and you cannot conclude that they were set intentionally.

Stop making assumptions every time you write, you don't know anything about this. You have a serious cognitive bias and you see patterns and think they prove the things you believe. It's nonsense.

I do not assume that 'there can only be these constants if someone intended for life' - I assigned it a 75% probability that fine-tuning implies a creator. A very conservative estimate, some people put in much higher than that. — Devans99

You cannot calculate the probability at all as have been stated numerous times with numerous counter-arguments. You're just acting out biases and fallacies constantly and you do not actually counter any of the counter-arguments you get. You pick and choose then you say the same thing over and over.

You need to apply yourself to the dialectic, this is actually getting ridiculous.

You don't even know which dimensions if at all or if by more, existed before Big Bang. Period. — Christoffer

I've assumed that time exists in some form before the Big Bang. But if that assumption is false; time has a start anyway and my argument still holds.

Causation ≠ Correlation. You cannot apply God to that and you cannot decide if Big Bang was natural or not. Your fantasy correlations do not apply. — Christoffer

But we are doing statistics and probability here so correlation maybe causation depending on how much correlation there is and there is a lot.

God is as real as a unicorn and your argument is as valid as calculating the probability of a unicorn. — Christoffer

I'm a deist and that means I believe in science only; God has to be logically possible; not some magic invention of conventional religion. So God is not some mythical creature with the omnipotence, omnipresence etc... he is a real, viable being. So God is not in any way akin to a unicorn when it comes to calculation of probabilities.

Based on what? Your beliefs? — Christoffer

Based on logic; if it happens naturally it will happen infinite times (given infinite time).

The laws of physics most likely (by scientific findings) came to be during Big Bang. You cannot conclude that these constants existed before Big Bang and you cannot conclude that they were set intentionally. — Christoffer

But if the constants were set during the big bang, they must of been set by something intelligent and that intelligent entity would require a fine tuned environment. That must of been fine tuned by someone else and so on it regresses until we find God.

I've assumed that time exists in some form before the Big Bang. But if that assumption is false; time has a start anyway and my argument still holds. — Devans99

No, it doesn't hold because you assume a creator, God, which is pre-Big Bang. Your argument for such a creator falls flat if you start time at Big Bang since your conclusion refers to something before it.

But we are doing statistics and probability here so correlation maybe causation depending on how much correlation there is and there is a lot. — Devans99

I was talking about you slapping a sentient creator God on top of your numbers and Big bang, which has no correlation or causation at all. You cannot just end each sentence with "...and therefore God". It's as invalid as philosophical arguments come.

I'm a deist and that means I believe in science only; God has to be logically possible; not some magic invention of conventional religion. So God is not some mythical creature with the omnipotence, omnipresence etc... he is a real, viable being. So God is not in any way akin to a unicorn when it comes to calculation of probabilities. — Devans99

God does not have to be logically possible, because a sentient God is as magical as anything else you describe. It does not correlate with your argument at all. You basically just decide that God has to be logically possible, it's not, it's speculation, assumption, and fantasy, just as unicorns. You are also describing God as a "he" which means you are acting out pure belief here, you are far from someone who only believes in science. Your way of arguing and your claim to believe in science only is a big oxymoron.

Based on logic; if it happens naturally it will happen infinite times (given infinite time). — Devans99

You defined the unnatural. How can you define the unnatural when first you don't have a strong case for what and what isn't natural? Second, how can you define unnatural as only happening in singular?
You have nothing to back any of this up, it's basically gone into Deepak Chopra territory now.
It's not based on logic, you apply logic on top of a false premise and claim truth.

But if the constants were set during the big bang, they must of been set by something intelligent and that intelligent entity would require a fine tuned environment. That must of been fine tuned by someone else and so on it regresses until we find God. — Devans99

No, they don't have to be set by something intelligent. You cannot apply such assumption onto your argument.

You are just spamming the same thing over and over. Your arguments have been countered already. Go read the arguments from the list of names I provided, apply some effort to your argument because you are running in circles right now, you don't give any thought to the counter-arguments you get and you are speaking nonsense. Do some research, try and do some falsifications and read up on cognitive biases.

Your argument has been countered and is invalid, not just by me. Try again (for real instead)

Existing forever throws up paradoxes. How can you do something if you don't start doing it? — Devans99

Existing is not "doing something".

If you can solve the clock paradox I gave above, then you can have 'existing forever'... but that paradox is unsolvable. — Devans99

I did address it, you just keep ignoring parts of my posts.

An equivalent paradox:

- Say you meet a being who has existed forever
- You notice he is counting
- You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’
- What number is he on?

Unsolvable. — Devans99

Existing is not the same as existing and counting to infinity. The paradox doesn't apply.

Are you suggesting 'the number of collisions' is not a number? — Devans99

Yes, I am saying that. That it sounds odd in the English language is not an argument.

So for example, something like the atom is a fine balance between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force; if either were slightly different (or if quarks or elections had a different nature) then atoms would not form or would be too unstable. — Devans99

And again how do you know these forces could have been set at different values?

I'm not sure he will understand further. The argument is stuck for him and he doesn't falsify it with our counter-arguments. So instead spamming the same thing over and over ignoring certain parts. It's almost troll-level reasoning right now.

Existing is not the same as existing and counting to infinity. The paradox doesn't apply. — Echarmion

But existing forever and counting is impossible. Counting is possible. So existing forever is not.

Yes, I am saying that. That it sounds odd in the English language is not an argument. — Echarmion

What you are suggesting sounds impossible. How can numerical properties take on non-numerical values?

And again how do you know these forces could have been set at different values? — Echarmion

Imagine for example if the strong nuclear force were weaker, then atomic nuclei would not hold together. You'd still have a viable universe; it's just there would be no life in that universe. Or if gravity were a bit weaker, stars would not form. Again still a viable universe; but no life.

I'm not sure he will understand further. The argument is stuck for him and he doesn't falsify it with our counter-arguments. So instead spamming the same thing over and over ignoring certain parts. It's almost troll-level reasoning right now. — Christoffer

I know. I am essentially just doing an exercise in rhetoric.

But existing forever and counting is impossible. Counting is possible. So existing forever is not. — Devans99

This is not proper logic. If A and B is impossible, but B is possible, it does not follow that a is impossible. It might be that the combination is impossible.

You are also incorrectly applying your own logic, as it should say "counting to infinity" not just counting. And counting to infinity is impossible.

What you are suggesting sounds impossible. How can numerical properties take on non-numerical values? — Devans99

There is not any numerical property to begin with. With infinite time, the number of collisions is also infinite.

Imagine for example if the strong nuclear force were weaker, then atomic nuclei would not hold together. You'd still have a viable universe; it's just there would be no life in that universe. Or if gravity were a bit weaker, stars would not form. Again still a viable universe; but no life. — Devans99

How do you know you'd have a "viable universe"? Maybe all the values are connected and can only occur in this specific combination.

This is not proper logic. If A and B is impossible, but B is possible, it does not follow that a is impossible. It might be that the combination is impossible. — Echarmion

How exactly does counting make existing forever impossible?

You are also incorrectly applying your own logic, as it should say "counting to infinity" not just counting. And counting to infinity is impossible. — Echarmion

Counting to infinity is impossible because infinity does not exist. Counting is possible so my argument holds.

There is not any numerical property to begin with. With infinite time, the number of collisions is also infinite — Echarmion

There is a derived, whole integer, property of the system - the number of collisions - which must take on an infinite value; which is impossible (infinity is not an integer).

How exactly does counting make existing forever impossible? — Devans99

If you are counting to infinity it does.

Counting to infinity is impossible because infinity does not exist. Counting is possible so my argument holds. — Devans99

Counting to infinity is impossible because you can never reach infinity. And no, replacing one argument with another does not mean your argument holds.

There is a derived, whole integer, property of the system - the number of collisions - which must take on an infinite value; which is impossible (infinity is not an integer). — Devans99

If the system has an infinite time value, then the number of collisions over is not an integer value either. You need to be consistent - either your example presupposes that these values are infinite or not.

Anyone not aware of it should know that Devan has been through this before in previous threads. He refuses to learn. In this sense, until he makes some correction, he should in my humble opinion be regarded as a toxic waste of time. Too bad, because it doesn't need to be.

Yeah, I've seen it. I wonder what the level of tolerance is for this? Discussions need a lot of room so that people dare to keep doing it, but how far?

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

Is a definition of what's not welcome on the forum, not sure if it applies and I don't want to be pushing in that direction, but some overview might be needed?

Question about infinity.

Do counting to infinity simply not mean that you never stop counting?

As soon as you stop, you have a number that is less than infinite.

Or if you claim you have a number that is infinitely big, it means you do not have to count anymore as your number can not grow anymore and includes all possible numbers.

But you can not have counted to your infinite number as that would have required an infinite time.

Thus infinity can exist, but it is not something we can count to.

To our instincts, there is indeed a higher power. In survival terms, we default to cooperation and to our genes, that means making friends and recognizing the greater power of the tribe.

That itch or penchant in us has been used against us by the religious fraudsters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IqYHiejTVM

Regards
DL

Could this be an idea created by people to give them a sense of purpose or is there really a higher power that we have just yet to fully discover? — Franklin

Every species on Earth is largely blind to what's going on over it's head. Millions of species over a billion years, each and every one blind to what's going on over it's head.

Thus, while any particular definition of a God is surely questionable, the idea that something is going on over our heads seems pretty credible.

Not so much over our heads as in our heads.

Look up Freud and Jung's Father Complex and you will see that they have found where we keep our instincts and moral outline as a part of our selfish gene.

Regards
DL

Not so much over our heads as in our heads. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Ok, this is one answer to the question. And like all other answers that have been offered, it's little more than wild speculation.

Anyone claiming to know what is happening over our heads is arguing with the evidence provided by every other species ever to walk the face of the Earth.

Do counting to infinity simply not mean that you never stop counting? — xyz-zyx

That would be counting indefinitely. Counting to infinity implies that you actually arrive at infinity.

wild speculation — Jake

Not wild at all when you know where to look.

Have a look at the Vatican's creation painting and see what background God id sitting in. A replica of our right hemisphere of our brains. The same applied to the Egyptian eye.

Regards
DL

Ok, so you don't understand that every other species ever discovered has been largely blind to what's going on over it's head, outside of it's niche?

Anyone claiming to know what is happening over our heads is arguing with the evidence provided by every other species ever to walk the face of the Earth — Jake

This is interesting to a naturalist like me.

Nature leads us to a truth about who we think out God should be.

The ideal example or God for an ant, is an ant.
The ideal example or God for a lion, is a lion.
The ideal example or God for a human, is a human.

Regards
DL

Take a look at this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy6kaDaeDT8

the problem with "no-seeum" argument is an incredibly long line of
times they were wrong.

Until we find such a thing as a virus there is no reason to believe one exists -
Until we find such a thing as an atom there is no reason to believe one exists -
Until we find such a thing as a quark there is no reason to believe one exists
— Rank Amateur

Except no one believed any of them until they were conceived as viable hypotheses and when observed and tested, confirmed as true. You also Texas Sharpshot-picked things that were proven, while there's an even longer list of things that we today laugh at that people believed.

You cannot hypothesis God since no argument for any kind of God leads to a notion of specifically God as the end of that hypothesis. All of those had a clear hypothesis, but everything about God arguments is wild assumptions and individual concepts.

Burden of proof applies always. An argument that uses the "if you cannot disprove it, it's real" is a flawed argument and it's why Russel had such an impact on science to force it to stick to truths and not fantasies or pseudoscience.

Your post reads like a conspiracy theory rant, specifically because it's the argument they use. The conclusion of what you say; would mean we can just give up any kind of attempt at discussing the world and universe since everyone can neatly stick to their own world-view and beliefs. I see no room for such nonsense in philosophy. — Christoffer

Surprisingly almost none of this is true. Each of those things that did not exist, until they existed began as a thought, an idea, a concept. And without doubt all of those ideas where scoffed, and dismissed. The real start of the scientific method is the idea of something new that becomes the hypothesis.

Why can't one believe God is? Is there some fact I should know that says there is no God, and my belief is outside fact? Is there some overwhelming reasoning that says God is not a reasonable concept? And my belief is in conflict with reason? Why do you feel such a need to challenge ideas of others not in conflict with fact or reason? It smacks of fundamentalism.

There was no rant in my post at all. It was pure reason. It is just pointing out the reality that there are literally millions of obvious contradictions to all no seeum arguments. Yet remains as almost a dogmatic atheist argument. The only scientific claim any no seeum argument can make, is whatever it is is not seen. There is no scientific claim that a no seeum makes about the existence or non- existence of anything.

Russel's teapot is tactic, not argument. Russel desperately wanted a definitive argument that ended with, Therefore there is no God, he couldn't find one. He also wanted to deny the claim of others and make a positive claim that God is not. And he came up with the oldest and least valid argument of all time, and the basis of all ignorance, something doesn't exist until you prove it to me. Despite the thousands upon thousands of things that did not exist until they existed.

Surprisingly almost none of this is true. Each of those things that did not exist, until they existed began as a thought, an idea, a concept. And without doubt all of those ideas where scoffed, and dismissed. The real start of the scientific method is the idea of something new that becomes the hypothesis. — Rank Amateur

A virus, atom and quark didn't exist until we named them? Really? So people didn't get sick with viruses before they were discovered and named? The atoms and quarks didn't exist before they were discovered, yet chemical reactions throughout history during warfare technology and similar worked, even though they didn't know it was atoms and quarks responsible for those reactions?

You are applying a causation ≠ correlation on the idea that consequences act like things not proven yet and therefore God. Then compare it to specific things that had very observable and specific existences before discovered and named. You don't see how backward this is and a jump to conclusions?

Why can't one believe God is? Is there some fact I should know that says there is no God, and my belief is outside fact? Is there some overwhelming reasoning that says God is not a reasonable concept? And my belief is in conflict with reason? Why do you feel such a need to challenge ideas of others not in conflict with fact or reason? It smacks of fundamentalism. — Rank Amateur

There's nothing to conclude consequences in the universe and world is related at all to any concept of a God. The whole idea is a big fat causation ≠ correlation fallacy and bias towards the belief in God. People didn't believe in viruses or didn't know about them. They got sick, there were many guesses, many of them, supernatural beliefs about why people got sick. But no one thought "there are these things called viruses and just because no one believes in them doesn't mean they don't exist" and later they proved they exist. They didn't know about them at all. Your argument even gets a bit meta, since people back then thought it was God that punished them through sickness.

Which leads to a great analogy to why your argument is so very flawed:

They believed it was a lack of faith or other nonsense ideas and then when they later proved it to be viruses, it proved the religious beliefs wrong. You used an example of when faith blinded people to the reasons why people got sick, later to be proven by science discovering something they hadn't seen before, which overturned and erased all religious explanations for why we get sick with viruses. So it's kind of what you are doing with God right now; seeing causality or whatever you choose as a sign of God and therefore he can be proved, when it's more likely the whole thing is exactly like the virus analogy, that we simply don't have enough data right now to explain everything and when we do, people will abandon a religious explanation since the evidence is indisputable.

The rational idea is that we are the sick with viruses right now, not knowing about viruses and it makes people, like you, to argue wild speculations of faith only because we don't have enough data to prove or observe something yet. This is why I am so strict about scientific methods and why I wrote my argument about irrational belief being unethical because it not only holds back epistemic progress, it can be harmful to people when putting a veil over the eyes looking for answers. Just like how people acted on the belief that sickness was caused by those people's lack of faith.

Russel's teapot is tactic, not argument. Russel desperately wanted a definitive argument that ended with, Therefore there is no God, he couldn't find one. — Rank Amateur

Russel's teapot analogy lead up to the use of falsification in science, one of the most powerful tools we have to reach actual scientific truth in theories. It's been such a foundational concept in scientific methods since then that our world would probably have been a lot different if we didn't have it. So, no, it's not a tactic, it's a tool to reach actual truth or actual rational reasoning. It was also an actual argument, it's called an argument from analogy and it was powerful since it spawned the concept of falsification.

Just like with the viruses, there has to be something observed that we cannot explain, then we need data to identify no link or causality with known properties or things we know about in order to search for data in support of a hypothesis related to the observed specifically. A hypothesis that we then can push through verification and falsification in order to call it a scientific theory and fact.

What you are doing is having no observed actual data in support of a hypothesis with properties that have no real relation to the conclusion and therefore is pure speculation and not even a hypothesis. It's pure faith, a belief. A hypothesis needs some observation or support for it and a causation ≠ correlation fallacy cannot exist within a valid hypothesis. And a hypothesis cannot be used as truth either, which is the biggest problem with any argument for God. They all jump to conclusion and then tries to create a truth around it by proving after the fact. Post hoc.

It just feels desperate, like desperation to prove that the belief is true or valid because of the existentialism of the 20th century which put a lot of hard questions on the rationality of belief. And I'm with existentialism on this, just as they questioned the driving force of believing irrational eugenics beliefs during Nazi Germany I see a clear connection between the dangers of clinging onto beliefs that don't have true support. It's the most fundamental reason we have bad things happening between people in the world. To justify belief without support is unethical and I see no reason to justify it with broken arguments.

A virus, atom and quark didn't exist until we named them? — Christoffer

NO, NO, NO - my whole point is they always existed. But they were not known to exist until they were.
which is my whole argument against no seeum arguments -

you are missing the point ot the entire argument - read again please -

you are missing the point ot the entire argument - read again please - — Rank Amateur

And you should read my whole post before directly answering.

The math is right, the premise is wrong.

Roll a dice. What are your chances or rolling a 6? 1 in 6. Right?

Roll it again. What are your chances of rolling a 6? 1 in 6. Right?

Roll it again. What are your chances? 1 in 6. Right?

Regards
DL

i did - but no need to address the rest, when you have misinterpreted the entire point I was making by 180 degrees. Lets get on the same page there first -