Evidence for a Creator God Who Likes Creating Things

[night912]

I just was going to say that these two don't have to rule each other out. No less and no more than that. I don't want to go any further here...

Well. Now we are debating the quality of the evidence, it seems. I agree: once the piece of evidence can support a multitude of things it is not the strongest evidence.
No, here I am making the first step back at square one. Is or isn't there evidence at all? this is what I'm talking about here.

The quality of the evidence is not what's being debated. What's being debated is, are the data/information presented evidence for what's being claimed.

Here's examples that I often used when explaining to Christians of what's not evidence:

What's not evidence for the resurrection of Jesus:

1. Evidence for the existence of Jesus. The evidence for his existence does not indicate that he was resurrected.

2. Evidence for Jesus's crucifixion. The evidence for his crucifixion does not indicate that he was resurrected.

some minutes ago, I was answering @ratiocinator . She or he explains that a falsifiable prediction counts as evidence in science.
If someone asks you "Has it rained?"... and I tell you "I think it rained. Let's examine the road: I predict it is wet!" then it is a falsifiable prediction. Once you find the road wet, it is evidence for the claim that it rained.
This is not what I said.
This is what your colleague just finished explaining. I took ratiociantors explanation of evidence.... and applied it to the wet road... and you see: it worked!
Even if as a next step you could reply that you want to examinate the trees first before believing my hypothesis....

The road being wet is evidence for the claim that the road is wet, not that it rained. There's no indication that the road is wet due to rain, water sprinklers, water being spilled, water from a fire hydrant etc.

 

[thomas t]

I'm afraid it is. All you've done is pointed at a raw fact in the world that is consistent with your favoured story about it (a creator who likes creating variety). The judicial analogy would be more like claiming that person X is dead is evidence that person Y killed them. X being dead is undoubtedly consistent with the story, but you haven't even shown that X was killed by somebody, let alone person Y. Similarly, you haven't shown that the world was deliberately created by any sort of being, let alone one that specifically likes variety.

I still hold that my comparison wasn't silly (or arbitrary)
Let's narrow Your comparison down.
If Y means just some potentially existing other person... that likes killing, it's evidence indeed.
This is at least how I see the situation.

Two claims that contradict each other. If you can use the same argument to reach contradictory conclusions, then that's a very good sign that it's a very bad argument.

why contradict each other?
Theoretically, there could be two of them:
one responsible ofr variety, the other for killing.

 

[thomas t]

Your woman on the pic is part of the variety on earth, and as suchj contributes to the evidence that I see.

Here's examples that I often used when explaining to Christians of what's not evidence:

What's not evidence for the resurrection of Jesus:

1. Evidence for the existence of Jesus. The evidence for his existence does not indicate that he was resurrected.

2. Evidence for Jesus's crucifixion. The evidence for his crucifixion does not indicate that he was resurrected.

I never claim that 1 or 2 are evidence for resurrection.

The road being wet is evidence for the claim that the road is wet, not that it rained. There's no indication that the road is wet due to rain, water sprinklers, water being spilled, water from a fire hydrant etc.

I think it's still evidence.
It might point to other sources of water, too.
However, to the best of my knowledge, in order for data to be evidence... it does not necessarily have to meet the requirement of pointing into one direction only.
If you claim otherwise, please provide a scientific source for the concept of evidence that claims so.
Meanwhile I offer you a webpage explaining evidence that does not have your requirement as mentioned above:
Empirical evidence - Wikipedia

 

[ratiocinator]

I still hold that my comparison wasn't silly (or arbitrary)
Let's narrow Your comparison down.
If Y means just some potentially existing other person... that likes killing, it's evidence indeed.
This is at least how I see the situation.

The fact that somebody is dead is not evidence that some specific person killed them. It's not even evidence that anybody killed them. It's just a fact that doesn't contradict the notion that some specific person killed them.

Honestly, if you can't see this how arbitrary and silly it is to just pick a fact about the world that doesn't contradict some story and then claim it as evidence for that story, then I really don't know what else so say to you.

The existence of gravity does not contradict the story that there are supernatural, blue pixies, all called Eric, whose sole pleasure in life is to pull at the fabric of space-time to make objects with mass seem to be attracted to each other. By your 'logic' I have just provided evidence for the pixie Erics.

 

[HonestJoe]

Let me clarify:
as I started the thread, I instinctively wrote God.
But in the course of the debate, it became apparent that things get easier when I start with the proposition of at least some higher force. So this is the point I am after for my argumentation now.

With respect, I still feel that is something of a misdirection, since your ultimate end-point remains your specific God. You just can't present an argument to support that so are trying to get there by slices.

The problem with the generic "some higher power" option is that to present it as a meaningful hypothesis to explain the observed phenomena you've highlighted, you would need to offer some specific details of the exact nature and characteristics of the proposed "higher power".

 

[thomas t]

The existence of gravity does not contradict the story that there are supernatural, blue pixies, all called Eric, whose sole pleasure in life is to pull at the fabric of space-time to make objects with mass seem to be attracted to each other. By your 'logic' I have just provided evidence for the pixie Erics.

However, the pixie hypothesis is not parsimonious meaning that additional assumptions would be on top of the observable gravity. @Dan From Smithville .
That's why the Pixie hypothesis fails.

Honestly, if you can't see this how arbitrary and silly it is to just pick a fact about the world that doesn't contradict some story and then claim it as evidence for that story, then I really don't know what else so say to you.

it's not silly. It's not arbitrary.

It's evidence I think.
If there is a person in a house that loves to eat brownies... and if you find the brownies eaten up... it is evidence that that person in fact ate the brownies. It makes sense, it's not silly.
Yeah, I know, maybe some other dude ate them.
But it's still evidence for what I've said, I think.
If you want to be sure... collect more data.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's a positive claim about the concept of evidence.

No.... that is what evidence is.

So now, back it up by a scientific source and I believe you. If you can't I will dismiss your claim as unsupported guesswork.

You make zero sense.

according to you.

No. According to the claim.

at this point of the debate, all I am propsing is that some higher power is responsible for it.

1. you're not fooling anyone with that vain attempt in semantic trickery

2. your appeal to "higher powers" still remains an appeal to undemonstrable and unfalsifiable things.

Adding additional layers of vagueness, is not going to help your argument forwards. Your claim still firmly remains planted in the realm of undemonstrable / unfalsifiable entities followed by bare assertion. That's the problem you need to tackle.

Atheists do not believe in any higher force

Because there is no evidence of such.

so I am starting with this proposing there is some higher force

Exactly. You assume your answers.

I ascribed the quality to them that they like to create.
That's different.

No, it's the exact same. In order to ascribe anything to them, the first step is to demonstrate they actually exist. The second step is the demonstrate the causal link between them and the variety. Or quality. Or whatever the heck it is you are claiming comes from them - it doesn't matter.

Are you saying I must provide evidence of the existence of a higher force in the first place before ascribing any qualities to it?

Yes.

I don't agree.

I know. This is the "faith" part of your argument. You feel like you don't have to demonstrate your faith based claims. But you do though.

If you can't even show these things are real, how on earth are you even going to begin to demonstrate the causal chain between them and the stuff you think has to be attributed to them? There's nothing there........

I simply say "some sort of higher force that likes creating"

You "simply say" indeed.
Just like I can "simply say" that extra-dimensional unicorns peed water on the road.

and provide the evidence for this claim.

You did not. Claims aren't evidence. Assumptions aren't evidence.
And "the road is wet", isn't evidence of extra-dimensional unicorn pee.

That's totally fine, I think.

I you think that. This is the problem.

my claim made in this thread isn't bare though, it's all about reasonable evidence, I think.
see post here Evidence for a Creator God Who Likes Creating Things

The moon isn't geologically active like earth is.
This isn't evidence of any kind for or against anything. If anything, it is just a statement of ignorance.

Having said that even if we would bend over backwards and pretend as if we knew nothing of geology, then still pointing out the moon is different doesn't, in any way shape of form, make up for evidence for your mysterious undemonstrable "higher powers".

You don't get to simply assert the causal link, nore do you get to simply assert the existance of these mysterious undemonstrable "higher power". You need to actually support your claims, with evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

However, the pixie hypothesis is not parsimonious meaning that additional assumptions would be on top of the observable gravity. @Dan From Smithville .
That's why the Pixie hypothesis fails.
it's not silly. It's not arbitrary.

And it's also why your "higher power" claim fails.

I say "claim", because it doesn't qualify as a hypothesis. A hypothesis makes testable predictions and is falsifiable. But since your "high powers" are completely assumed with 0 demonstrability, you can make up anything you want as an attribute for it and make it predict whatever the heck you want as well. So it really is infinitely useless.

It's evidence I think.
If there is a person in a house that loves to eat brownies... and if you find the brownies eaten up... it is evidence that that person in fact ate the brownies. It makes sense, it's not silly.

Once again, you make the exact same mistake.
The brownies disappearing is the data you are trying to explain.
Person X having eaten it is the proposed explanation.

The very data that requires the explanation, is not evidence for any specific explanation.

That makes no sense at all.
And just to cut your nonsense semantic bs story short here, even if we would call it "evidence", it would remain utterly useless as evidence, since it would literally support EVERY SINGLE explanation you can imagine - including ridiculous ones like "god dun it" or "pixies dun it" or "higher powers dun it".

It's like @ratiocinator explained so clearly.... listing facts that are merely consistent with an idea, in and of itself, does NOT necessarily lend any credibility to said idea.

 

[ratiocinator]

However, the pixie hypothesis is not parsimonious meaning that additional assumptions would be on top of the observable gravity. @Dan From Smithville .
That's why the Pixie hypothesis fails.

Exactly like your creator is an additional assumption on top of the observable 'variety'.

If there is a person in a house that loves to eat brownies... and if you find the brownies eaten up... it is evidence that that person in fact ate the brownies. It makes sense, it's not silly.

Except that totally unlike your proposal. You have not established that there is any creator being at all, let alone one that likes variety. It's much more like: there are no brownies in this house, so I conclude a magic, supernatural brownie eating creature exists.

 

[Kenny]

I did not post my previous response as a joke. I am more than happy to coach you on your critical thinking. Anytime.

Usually, you would have to have better skills than the one you are mentoring.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

However, the pixie hypothesis is not parsimonious meaning that additional assumptions would be on top of the observable gravity. @Dan From Smithville .
That's why the Pixie hypothesis fails.
it's not silly. It's not arbitrary.

It's evidence I think.
If there is a person in a house that loves to eat brownies... and if you find the brownies eaten up... it is evidence that that person in fact ate the brownies. It makes sense, it's not silly.
Yeah, I know, maybe some other dude ate them.
But it's still evidence for what I've said, I think.
If you want to be sure... collect more data.

It appears you do understand what parsimony means. You never know. I see people bandy all sorts of terms and ideas around with little or no understanding of what they have dealt.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Usually, you would have to have better skills than the one you are mentoring.

Then you are in amazing luck.

 

[sayak83]

The landscape on the moon doesn't offer much variety.
Since you only find this variety on earth means that geology in and of itself is not enough to explain the variety on earth.

Moon is significantly smaller than earth in mass and hence it did not have enough gravity to hold on to its liquids and gases. Being smaller, its core froze into solid faster. That completely explains why moon is less varied and less geologically active than earth.

 

[thomas t]

Exactly like your creator is an additional assumption on top of the observable 'variety'.

I must admit I chose a bad wording.
My point is: if you want to establish the pixie hypothesis, you would need more assumptions.
You would need to assume that the pixies not only love gravity but also to an extent that they always do... even the moment mand does experimenting about it.
The pixies would volunteer to slave for man's experiments... and also make sure that there isn't one single exception to gravitxy in place.
I count 2 extra assumptions rendering the pixie hypothesis less parsoimonious.

Except that totally unlike your proposal. You have not established that there is any creator being at all, let alone one that likes variety. It's much more like: there are no brownies in this house, so I conclude a magic, supernatural brownie eating creature exists.

So you concede it makes sense to assume that the one who likes brownies in fact ate the brownies. Someone also could have given them to the neighbor or whatever....

That's why I said it makes sense to assume Y killed X if X is dead. Just because we know Y likes killing others (that was the assumtion) and Y was there.
It could be different though, but it does make sense to think that way.
It was not silly at all.

I EDITED THE FIRST PARAGRAPH (I must admit my first version was stupid)

 

[night912]

Your woman on the pic is part of the variety on earth, and as suchj contributes to the evidence that I see.

Did God create that woman?

I never claim that 1 or 2 are evidence for resurrection.

And I never said you made those claims, hence why I said "examples."

Please read what I said before you respond to what I said.

I think it's still evidence.
It might point to other sources of water, too.
However, to the best of my knowledge, in order for data to be evidence... it does not necessarily have to meet the requirement of pointing into one direction only.
If you claim otherwise, please provide a scientific source for the concept of evidence that claims so.
Meanwhile I offer you a webpage explaining evidence that does not have your requirement as mentioned above:
Empirical evidence - Wikipedia

ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/

noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Monsieur. I didn't compare gravity to variety.
In my model, variety is the evidence for something... whereas gravity is the explained figure in your fairy example.

So you concede it makes sense to assume that the one who likes brownies in fact ate the brownies. Someone also could have given them to the neighbor or whatever....

That's why I said it makes sense to assume Y killed X if X is dead. Just because we know Y likes killing others (that was the assumtion) and Y was there.
It could be different though, but it does make sense to think that way.
It was not silly at all.

The interesting thing about all your analogies is that they include a Y that can be independently verified to exist. A police officer does not imagine an hypothetical suspect and then proceed to conclude this subject, unverified to even exist, is the culprit.

I believe in God. I think that He is the ultimate source. But that is faith. You are trying to establish it as objective fact and using poor reasoning and fallacies to get there.

 

[thomas t]

No.... that is what evidence is.

you didn't back up your notion using sources.

You make zero sense.

I think I do.
I demanded sources.
That's fine.

No. According to the claim.

... according to you, it is according to the claim.
I still hold the God proposition is parsimonious in this case.

1. you're not fooling anyone with that vain attempt in semantic trickery

2. your appeal to "higher powers" still remains an appeal to undemonstrable and unfalsifiable things.

I never fool anyone nor do I use trickery.
Variety on earth is falsifiable.
It could fade away tomorrow. Theoretically.

2. your appeal to "higher powers" still remains an appeal to undemonstrable and unfalsifiable things.

see above: variety is evidence for a higher force, I think.

In order to ascribe anything to them, the first step is to demonstrate they actually exist.

according to you.
Science does not know this requirement for evidence in general.
This is to the best of my knowledge.
You say such a requirement for evidence exists. If you claim it exists... bring some evidence to the table that it does (provide sources please).
Do not just post empty claims please.
Evidence. Substanciation. Yes please.

your nonsense semantic bs story short

except that it wasn't.
It wasn't nonsense. I wasn't a semantic bs short story either.
See reply above (one post further up).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Monsieur. I didn't compare gravity to variety.
In my model, variety is the evidence for something... whereas gravity is the explained figure in your fairy example.

So you concede it makes sense to assume that the one who likes brownies in fact ate the brownies. Someone also could have given them to the neighbor or whatever....

That's why I said it makes sense to assume Y killed X if X is dead. Just because we know Y likes killing others (that was the assumtion) and Y was there.
It could be different though, but it does make sense to think that way.
It was not silly at all.

It seems to me that in order to achieve your objective, you have several things to do that you have not done.

1. Objectively validate that God exists.
2. Objectively validate that 1 is God that is the ultimate source of everything.
3. Objectively validate that God favors variety.
4. Objectively validate that the variety in the natural world is the result of that favor found in God.

I am not sure at all how you will do this. There is no successful, historical model of precedence that even comes close to achieving your goals.

What you propose can be believed, but the natural world in itself can be explained by natural means with evidence and reason to back it. How do you even know if that isn't what God intends?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

you didn't back up your notion using sources.

I think I do.
I demanded sources.
That's fine.

... according to you, it is according to the claim.
I still hold the God proposition is parsimonious in this case.


I never fool anyone nor do I use trickery.
Variety on earth is falsifiable.
It could fade away tomorrow. Theoretically.

see above: variety is evidence for a higher force, I think.

according to you.
Science does not know this requirement for evidence in general.
This is to the best of my knowledge.
You say such a requirement for evidence exists. If you claim it exists... bring some evidence to the table that it does (provide sources please).
Do not just post empty claims please.
Evidence. Substanciation. Yes please.

except that it wasn't.
It wasn't nonsense. I wasn't a semantic bs short story either.
See reply above (one post further up).

I don't think you use trickery. I think you are naive and really, really, really want what you believe to be an objective fact.

Are you not happy in your personal belief?

 

[thomas t]

Did God create that woman?


And I never said you made those claims, hence why I said "examples."

Please read what I said before you respond to what I said.



ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/

noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

God created the possibility for man to create such a woman.

I did read your post.

indicating can mean "pointing to" according to this site Definition of INDICATE

and yes, this does not rule out that it may point to a second reason as well. This is at least how I see and understand the verb "point to",
That would weaken the evidence, though.