It doesn't matter if your point was misinterpreted since you still talk about existing things not yet proven but do not see the difference with observable properties as basis for a hypothesis that can be tested, verified, falsified and concluded - and a causation ≠ correlation fallacy jumping to conclusions.

You are trying to argue that there are observable consequences in the universe that makes for a foundation to a hypothesis of a God and use the idea that viruses existed before observed and proven. However, as I pointed out, a virus exists with direct observable consequences that can be studied. To apply a hypothesis of God to whatever you like is like having a hypothesis about sickness being caused by saying "Hello" whenever someone walks by with a cow. There's no direct and rational correlation between "God" and something you observe, which leads to jumping to conclusion and a causation ≠ correlation fallacy, which is almost always present in any argument around God.

The analogy is simply like this. People back when viruses were unknown, attached to the idea of God's punishment through sickness. Much like the consequences, causality and unknowns of the universe are attached to God in those God-arguments. But scientists who make an actual hypothesis about what they observe do not jump to conclusions, they do not invent a correlation where they see fit, which is what Russel pointed out to with his critique against such ideas in science, calling them pseudoscience. Scientists and the scientific method, in order to actually explain something observed in nature and the universe, is about looking for actual causation. The ones who discovered viruses looked at how sickness spread and found that there are correlations between interactions between people, how water supplies were handled etc. by carefully going through these actual causations, they could draw actual correlations which informed that there's something invisible to the naked eye that caused these sicknesses. That's when they started observing things people interacted with and found microbes, viruses etc. Because of this observation, this data, they concluded a scientific theory about viruses and bacteria.

But to invent false hypotheses around flawed correlation ideas is what the people before the scientists did with their ideas about God punishing people with sickness. They jumped to conclusions and saw all kinds of correlations which they used to prove after the fact that God was responsible. Like he punished only the poor because they committed more crimes than others. It all cumulated into a long list in support of a conclusion that sickness related to God, not anything else. It's because of this flawed reasoning that the argument for God by looking at certain causations or complexities in nature always ends up fallacious. It's out of both a lack of knowledge into the actual science that exists and a failure of methods to correctly analyze what can be observed.

In order to make a valid hypothesis, you need to collect data that is in actual support of something, not in support of something vague that you can slap "God" onto in order to conclude it to be God. This is why no one has ever been able to prove the existence of God through reasoning because the reasoning is inherently flawed and ignores all methods needed to actually reach a truth as a scientific theory. And even if just a probability is proposed, that probability is as vague as the probability that a cat will pop into existence from non-existence, right before my eyes. The correlation isn't there, i.e causation ≠ correlation and jumping to conclusions. Using personal belief to change the actual conclusion of an argument.

i did stop reading that after the second paragraph - and we are done.

Why do you even bother doing philosophy if that's your response to a counter-argument? I recommend that you look at your reasoning with the last thing I wrote in mind.

In order to make a valid hypothesis, you need to collect data that is in actual support of something, not in support of something vague that you can slap "God" onto in order to conclude it to be God. This is why no one has ever been able to prove the existence of God through reasoning because the reasoning is inherently flawed and ignores all methods needed to actually reach a truth as a scientific theory. And even if just a probability is proposed, that probability is as vague as the probability that a cat will pop into existence from non-existence, right before my eyes. The correlation isn't there, i.e causation ≠ correlation and jumping to conclusions. Using personal belief to change the actual conclusion of an argument. — Christoffer

So i make a point, you get the point 180 degrees wrong, I point it out to you, and you say it doesn't matter you got it wrong - and then ask me why I don't want to engage.

if you want to take a deep breath actually show that you understand my point on no seeum arguments and make some comment that actually has something to do with the point - happy to engage. Or not - suit yourself

in syllogism form.

p1. - people make no-seeum arguments
p2. - these arguments basically say " we know what we are looking for, we have looked in lots of places, and we don't see it, therefore it does not exist.
p3. - there are almost countless examples of things that people where unaware of, did not believe existed, but actually did exist.
p4. - all a no seeum argument shows is that there is something you can't see it

conclusion - all no seeum arguments fail as proof of either existence or non existence of anything.

If you want to directly answer this - happy to engage.

I have presented 4. Please present a logical argument that things can exist without coming into being. — Devans99

I don't think you're really looking for a logical argument, because a simple logical argument can always just take the form of a modus ponens:

If it's not logically impossible for things (including time, matter, energy) to have always existed (that is, without coming into being), then it's logically possible for things to have always existed.

It's not logically impossible for things to have always existed.

Therefore, it's logically possible for things to have always existed.

That's a logical argument for this. But that's not going to satisfy you, is it? It shouldn't. What you're really arguing is that it's not metaphysically or scientifically possible for things to have always existed. The problem is that that claim needs support, and not just logical support (because you could likewise just construct a simple modus ponens).

would you say a premise such as " best current scientific theory believes the universe is finite" is valid?

just wondering

would you say a premise such as " best current scientific theory believes the universe is finite" is valid? — Rank Amateur

No, because that's not the sort of thing that a scientific theory can determine, really. All science can do is make observations of what is and attempt to formulate theories that result in unique predictions (relative to other possible theories, so that we can select one over another) for other observables. "Something always existed" versus "nothing existed then suddenly something did" doesn't result in any particular observables.

As it is, the consensus view is that all we can do is speculate re what, if anything, might have caused the big bang, partially because the party line is that "physics breaks down" during the early stages of the big bang--which is just another way of saying that the conditions postulated by currently accepted theory result in suppositions that don't really make sense per the same theory.

Aside from that, any consensus scientific view wouldn't have anything to do with the notion of what's logically or metaphysically possible, unless we construct an additional argument that supports that what's actually the case scientifically is not a contingent matter, but a logically and/or metaphysically necessary matter. In other words, what turned out to be the case isn't what necessarily had to be the case. We'd need a meta argument (because science wouldn't be able to bootstrap this itself--it would have to be a logical or metaphysical argument or something else) that what's the case is necessarily the case/it couldn't have been otherwise.

So i make a point, you get the point 180 degrees wrong, I point it out to you, and you say it doesn't matter you got it wrong - and then ask me why I don't want to engage. — Rank Amateur

And you stop reading, don't understand the core conclusion of my counter-argument and use the missed point as your reason to ignore the counter-argument. That's called a fallacy fallacy.

p1. - people make no-seeum arguments
p2. - these arguments basically say " we know what we are looking for, we have looked in lots of places, and we don't see it, therefore it does not exist.
p3. - there are almost countless examples of things that people where unaware of, did not believe existed, but actually did exist.
p4. - all a no seeum argument shows is that there is something you can't see it

conclusion - all no seeum arguments fail as proof of either existence or non existence of anything.

If you want to directly answer this - happy to engage. — Rank Amateur

p2 is not really true. The criticism is not that it doesn't exist, it's that there's no reason to say that it exists if it cannot have observed correlation. This is the foundation of the Russel analogy. If you can make up whatever you want to exist and then "prove it" by saying that because no one can see it it must exist, you essentially just invent anything you want as existing, without any epistemic responsibility of any kind. You don't seem to understand the actual conclusion of Russel's analogy and instead, strawman it into a black and white "does not exist", which isn't the actual conclusion of the criticism through Russel's analogy.

p3 is a true premise but does not really support the conclusion, since things like viruses have a direct correlation that can be observed. I've countered this in the virus analogy I made, which essentially points to how religion continuously changed their view of the world and universe to fit the results of scientific theories. The only thing that your p3 points to is that there are things we don't know the reason for in the universe, but when we do they will be proven facts and in the meanwhile, people will slap "God" onto the reasons why without any real correlation between them.

What happens if I say that a teapot is responsible for those unexplained things? You cannot say that a teapot isn't responsible because throughout history there have been things that people didn't know about and therefore, before we know for sure, a teapot can be responsible for everything. This is the logic of your argument. Just replace the teapot with God.

conclusion - all no seeum arguments fail as proof of either existence or non existence of anything. — Rank Amateur

And how is what we don't know in any correlation with God and not a teapot?

ok - thanks.

I am aware of the reasoning behind the "fine tuning" argument. But math is not magic. It cannot generate information out of thin air. We have no idea how the basic constants that seem to form the basis of our physical laws came to be. Assigning probabilities to these constants is nonsense.

And you stop reading, don't understand the core conclusion of my counter-argument and use the missed point as your reason to ignore the counter-argument. That's called a fallacy fallacy. — Christoffer

that's called ignoring the rest, if my original point is ignored, misunderstood and dismissed

Tu quoque

The criticism is not that it doesn't exist, it's that there's no reason to say that it exists if it cannot have observed correlation. This is the foundation of the Russel analogy. If you can make up whatever you want to exist and then "prove it" by saying that because no one can see it it must exist, you essentially just invent anything you want as existing, without any epistemic responsibility of any kind. You don't seem to understand the actual conclusion of Russel's analogy and instead, strawman it into a black and white "does not exist", which isn't the actual conclusion of the criticism through Russel's analogy. — Christoffer

this has nothing to do with P2 - put aside Russel for now - we can get to him. lets do no-seeum arguments first. The no seeum argumnet is " we looked we didn't see anything - it does not exist"

nothing to do at all with Russels tea pot. You are continuing to ignore the argument I am making and argue the one you want. Promise I will get to Russel - one point at a time

p3 is a true premise but does not really support the conclusion, since things like viruses have a direct correlation that can be observed. I've countered this in the virus analogy I made, which essentially points to how religion continuously changed their view of the world and universe to fit the results of scientific theories. The only thing that your p3 points to is that there are things we don't know the reason for in the universe, but when we do they will be proven facts and in the meanwhile, people will slap "God" onto the reasons why without any real correlation between them. — Christoffer

the point of the virus has nothing at all to do with the point you are making above, all it is saying is, that until we are aware of such things - our unawareness of them says nothing at all about there existence, or lack there of. Your point here just begs the question.

" we looked we didn't see anything - it does not exist" — Rank Amateur

Why do you conclude it with "it does not exist" and not "there's no reason to believe it to exist"?

Can you spot the difference between those two? One is a statement that requires knowing the truth, the other is a statement requiring a burden of proof from those making the original claim. If people were to follow epistemic responsibility, they lack responsibility if they either go for "it does not exist", but also if they go for "it exist", which is what theists do with their fallacious arguments. "there's no reason to believe it to exist" take epistemic responsibility as it does not conclude anything at all until a correlation between two things has been established. Without it, you can invent any reason something does not or does exist. The core value of this is to never believe anything that doesn't have support, but the theist approach is to believe what you want to believe because of the lack of support of that it isn't.

Why do you conclude it with "it does not exist" and not "there's no reason to believe it to exist"? — Christoffer

I did not conclude any such thing - i proposed that is what the no-seeum argument concludes - that i am arguing against !!!! that is twice now that you have misunderstood a simple statement by 180 deg. Slow down -

1/infinity is a contradiction. It is both something and nothing. George Berkeley wrote a paper on this titled "The Analyst". Hard to see how we can regard a contradictory as real.

the point of the virus has nothing at all to do with the point you are making above, all it is saying is, that until we are aware of such things - our unawareness of them says nothing at all about there existence, or lack there of. Your point here just begs the question. — Rank Amateur

My point is that to say "it exist" or "it does not exist" is irrelevant since a belief in either doesn't follow epistemic responsibility. Any claim of God's existence is irresponsible to how we treat knowledge and act with the knowledge that we have. Just like blaming the poor for Gods wrath through sickness instead of actually looking into what sickness is. This is why we have modern methods to arrive at facts and not beliefs.

I did not conclude any such thing - i proposed that is what the no-seeum argument concludes - that i am arguing against !!!! that is twice now that you have misunderstood a simple statement by 180 deg. Slow down - — Rank Amateur

I'm asking if that conclusion is the actual conclusion you are arguing against or if your conclusion is changed to a definitive in order to make your arguments point? You proposed it to be the conclusion, could the conclusion just as much be "there's no reason to believe it to exist"?

I'm asking if that conclusion is the actual conclusion you are arguing against or if your conclusion is changed to a definitive in order to make your arguments point? You proposed it to be the conclusion, could the conclusion just as much be "there's no reason to believe it to exist"? — Christoffer

not sure i could be any clearer - I am saying the no-seeum argument - SAYS NOTHING AT ALL about existence or non existence.

here was my conclusion to the argument:

"conclusion - all no seeum arguments fail as proof of either existence or non existence of anything."

but this

"I'm asking if that conclusion is the actual conclusion you are arguing against or if your conclusion is changed to a definitive in order to make your arguments point? "

may well be the most convoluted sentence i have ever read.

may well be the most convoluted sentence i have ever read. — Rank Amateur

You proposed a conclusion to the argument you are criticizing. I asked if that is the actual conclusion or if the actual conclusion is "there's no reason to believe it to exist".

Without the conclusion being exactly as you proposed, your conclusion of the counter-argument ends up misunderstanding the original argument.

Why name it God is what I don't understand? Why is the big debate whether God exists as oppose to a nature we can know? Why not believe in mystical beings and debate whether the 'objectively unreal' does or does not exist? What if I am neither yes nor no to God, because I think the question is stupid - neither atheist or theist? I mean, I can believe in things which aren't experienced but these don't even round-about to God.

In any case, unless God is separated from the bible he remains a figure with little information known other than bible versus about God. When you redefine God, you're helping religion profit, why not help science progress instead? I said prior, higher forces, metaphorically 'angels' exist, because contrary to God they exist in numbers, and it take more than one force to truly take in the universe. What I'm trying to say is that God which you believe in, is like a species of many rather than one, and to us it would be considered forces that exist in a realm where creation is an element.

Who actually experiences God? (doesn't make sense).

You proposed a conclusion to the argument you are criticizing. I asked if that is the actual conclusion or if the actual conclusion is "there's no reason to believe it to exist". — Christoffer

the actual conclusion is the actual conclusion I actually typed to actually conclude that argument I was trying to write a conclusion of - and for the third time now the actual conclusion is:

"conclusion - all no seeum arguments fail as proof of either existence or non existence of anything."

your point?

"conclusion - all no seeum arguments fail as proof of either existence or non existence of anything."

your point? — Rank Amateur

I asked about p1, your conclusion of the no-seeum argument.

If the conclusion you mention in p1 is instead "there's no reason to believe it to exist", then the conclusion to your counter-argument does not hold up since the conclusion you criticize isn't about either existence or non-existence. As I described earlier what "there's no reason to believe it to exist" is really about.

What I mean is that you propose a conclusion in p1 that I don't really see is the actual conclusion of the argument you are criticizing.

I asked about p1, your conclusion of the no-seeum argument.

If the conclusion you mention in p1 is instead "there's no reason to believe it to exist", then the conclusion to your counter-argument does not hold up since the conclusion you criticize isn't about either existence or non-existence. As I described earlier what "there's no reason to believe it to exist" is really about.

What I mean is that you propose a conclusion in p1 that I don't really see is the actual conclusion of the argument you are criticizing. — Christoffer

This is p1
p1. - people make no-seeum arguments

what in the world are you talking about ??

This is p1
p1. - people make no-seeum arguments

what in the world are you talking about ?? — Rank Amateur

Sorry, meant p2

Sorry, meant p2 — Christoffer

p2. - these arguments basically say " we know what we are looking for, we have looked in lots of places, and we don't see it, therefore it does not exist. — Rank Amateur

this is my proposition on a definition of what a "no-seemum" argument is. I am making no conclusion in the proposition at all.

What I am saying is - people, maybe you, make statements like " there is no proof of God, or fill in the blank, therefore they, maybe you, because of lack of proof, chose to believe there is no God or fill in the blank. That is not a conclusion - that is a statement I am making that I propose is true. It says NOT ONE THING at all about if God does or does not exist. All is says is a definition of an argument some people make about if God does or does not exists. IT IS NOT ABOUT GOD, IT IS ABOUT THE ARGUMENT.

this is my proposition on a definition of what a "no-seemum" argument is. I am making no conclusion in the proposition at all.

What I am saying is - people, maybe you, make statements like " there is no proof of God, or fill in the blank, therefore they, maybe you, because of lack of proof, chose to believe there is no God or fill in the blank. That is not a conclusion - that is a statement I am making that I propose is true. It says NOT ONE THING at all about if God does or does not exist. All is says is a definition of an argument some people make about if God does or does not exists. IT IS NOT ABOUT GOD, IT IS ABOUT THE ARGUMENT. — Rank Amateur

This is exactly the point I've been discussing throughout. You propose a conclusion that is definitive, meaning, you see it as black and white, either the argument concludes in "therefore there is a [blank]" or it's "therefore there's not a [blank]".

But if the conclusion is "there's no reason to believe it to exist", it is neither "it exist" or "it doesn't exist", it's not even agnostic, it's a denial of any conclusion at all since you can't make one without facts, observations and correct correlations. You propose the conclusion to be a definitive answer to either existence or no existence by saying that the no-seeum argument concludes with a definitive answer. But to use the lack of evidence, burden of proof etc. as a reason not to arrive at a conclusion at all with "there's no reason to believe it to exist", is what the argument is about.

So you dismiss the argument based on your own proposition of the conclusion but won't accept there to be another conclusion that is neither "it exist" or "it doesn't exist".

But if the conclusion is "there's no reason to believe it to exist", it is neither "it exist" or "it doesn't exist", it's not even agnostic, it's a denial of any conclusion at all since you can't make one without facts, observations and correct correlations. You propose the conclusion to be a definitive answer to either existence or no existence by saying that the no-seeum argument concludes with a definitive answer. But to use the lack of evidence, burden of proof etc. as a reason not to arrive at a conclusion at all with "there's no reason to believe it to exist", is what the argument is about. — Christoffer

i understand your point now, but that is again trying to get the argument you want, not the one I am making, I promise to get back to Russell

My premise, the definition of the "no seeum" argument, is not false, because it is not worded the way you like. It is worded the way it is often argued. I stand by the definition - and the conclusion that follows.

If you want to acknowledge that no-seeum arguments, as i defined them say nothing at all about existence, we can get on to the argument you want - Russell

i understand your point now, but that is again trying to get the argument you want, not the one I am making. — Rank Amateur

But in order for your point to be an argument, even inductively, you need true premises and if there's a chance one of them isn't you need to modify it to be true in order to make the argument valid.

My premise, the definition of the "no seeum" argument, is not false, because it is not worded the way you like. It is worded the way it is often argued. I stand by the definition - and the conclusion that follows. — Rank Amateur

That would mean instead that the argument you make is about how people use that argument, not the argument itself. You are essentially criticizing that people use that argument to prove that [blank] doesn't exist and if it's the use of the argument that is the problem, I agree with you, but then your argument needs to reflect and support that conclusion, not specifically a conclusion about the no-seeum argument.

If you want to acknowledge that no-seeum arguments, as i defined them say nothing at all about existence, we can get on to the argument you want - Russell — Rank Amateur

What I meant with Russel is that his teapot analogy reflects the actual conclusion to be drawn from the argument. If some atheists or whatever use this argument as definite proof of no existence, that is just as wrong as the opposite, but that itself is the personal use of the argument, in my opinion in the wrong way.