How an Agnostic Might Come to Believe the Universe Cannot Possibly have been Created by a God

[Sunstone]

Please Note: I offer the following as a for fun thought exercise, and not as a description of my own views on the matter. Enjoy!​

Let us posit that X exists but cannot by any means -- either empirical, rational, or other means -- be demonstrated to exist. That is, the existence of X cannot be deduced, inferred, observed, nor detected.

If such is the case, can it be said that X -- even if if it exists -- is of no possible consequence?

By "consequence", I mean "having an effect on something." That is, can it be asserted that, if X cannot be deduced, inferred, observed, nor detected, then X cannot have any consequences that can be deduced, inferred, observed, or detected -- and that, if that is so, then X can be said to be of no consequence?

Put differently, if something exists, but cannot in anyway be known to exist - even in theory -- then can it be said that it has, or can have, any consequences? Would having consequences entail that it could be -- at least in theory -- known to exist?


For example, if a god exists but cannot by any means be demonstrated to exist, then can that god be of any consequence? And if it cannot be of any consequence, can it be logically described as a creator?

Please note: If there exists a god that could not be demonstrated to exist, and if that were to entail that the god could not be of any consequence, then that would seem to argue that the god could not have created the universe. Moreover, the god could not have created the universe even if the god could never be demonstrated to not exist.

By that means, the agnostic position ("We cannot know whether or not a god exists") would seem to logically entail "A god cannot have created the universe", assuming, of course, that the god was defined in the manner in which X has been defined.

What fun!

 

[sun rise]

I think you've chased and caught your philosophical tail with this thread.

What I'm thinking of is the assumption that false belief has no "consequence". Life has taught me that belief can be much more important and much more motivating than the truth or falseness of the belief.

 

[Sunstone]

What I'm thinking of is the assumption that false belief has no "consequence". Life has taught me that belief can be much more important and much more motivating than the truth or falseness of the belief.

I'm not seeing the relevance to the OP. Could you elaborate, please?

 

[Nakosis]

Please Note: I offer the following as a for fun thought exercise, and not as a description of my own views on the matter. Enjoy!​

Let us posit that X exists but cannot by any means -- either empirical, rational, or other means -- be demonstrated to exist. That is, the existence of X cannot be observed, surmised, nor detected.

If such is the case, can it be said that X -- even if if it exists -- is of no possible consequence?

By "consequence", I mean "having an effect on something." That is, can it be asserted that, if X cannot be observed, surmised, nor detected, then X cannot have any consequences that can be observed, surmised, or detected -- and that, if that is so, then X can be said to be of no consequence?


For example, if a god exists but cannot by any means be demonstrated to exist, then can that god be of any consequence? And if it cannot be of any consequence, can it be logically described as a creator?

Please note: If there exists a god that could not be demonstrated to exist, and if that were to entail that the god could not be of any consequence, then that would seem to argue that the god could not have created the universe. Moreover, the god could not have created the universe even if the god could never be demonstrated to not exist.

By that means, the agnostic position ("We cannot know whether or not a god exists") would seem to logically entail "A god cannot have created the universe."

What fun!

I might suppose a "God" created this universe and left. Maybe went off to create other universes and lost interest in this one.

Maybe this God only creates universes and does nothing else. Once the universe has been created there is no further interaction.

"God" could be a semi-mindless amoeba that goes about crapping out universes.

 

[PureX]

Please Note: I offer the following as a for fun thought exercise, and not as a description of my own views on the matter. Enjoy!​

Let us posit that X exists but cannot by any means -- either empirical, rational, or other means -- be demonstrated to exist. That is, the existence of X cannot be observed, surmised, nor detected.

There would be no reasoning from which to posit such an idea. It would be considered an irrelevant idea.

If such is the case, can it be said that X -- even if if it exists -- is of no possible consequence?

Wouldn't that observation, itself, be a 'consequence'?

By "consequence", I mean "having an effect on something." That is, can it be asserted that, if X cannot be observed, surmised, nor detected, then X cannot have any consequences that can be observed, surmised, or detected -- and that, if that is so, then X can be said to be of no consequence?

As I read your question, I can't help but consider the proposition of "dark matter" and "dark energy", neither of which we can observe or detect, and yet we have clearly posited it's existence, nevertheless. And that proposition, in and of itself, has generated consequences. And the same, of course, could be said of the "God" proposition.

For example, if a god exists but cannot by any means be demonstrated to exist, then can that god be of any consequence? And if it cannot be of any consequence, can it be logically described as a creator?

God can be demonstrated to exist as a reasoned possibility/probability by any number of methods. And bear in mind that NOTHING can be demonstrated to exist with absolute certainty. So the credibility of the proposition then falls on our individual acceptance or rejection of the methodology supporting it. And as with ALL truth propositions, their then truthfulness ends up being subjects of our own individual ignorance and bias.

Please note: If there exists a god that could not be demonstrated to exist, and if that were to entail that the god could not be of any consequence, then that would seem to argue that the god could not have created the universe. Moreover, the god could not have created the universe even if the god could never be demonstrated to not exist.

What can or cannot be demonstrated to exist, to you or I, is not the defining factor of the actual existence of anything. And for us to presume so, as you seem to be suggesting that we do, would be deliberately delusional.

 

[Sunstone]

But it already has been 'surmised'. Or we couldn't be having this discussion.

You're right. I misused the word "surmised" in the OP. I've edited the OP.

 

[Sunstone]

God can be demonstrated to exist as a reasoned possibility/probability.

That might or might not be true, but it is surely off topic and irrelevant in this thread. The OP does not propose a god that can be "demonstrated to exist as a reasoned possibility/probability". You might as well be talking about turnips in a thread on cars.

 

[David T]

I think you've chased and caught your philosophical tail with this thread.

What I'm thinking of is the assumption that false belief has no "consequence". Life has taught me that belief can be much more important and much more motivating than the truth or falseness of the belief.

I think of belief as a start not a destination..

 

[Sunstone]

I might suppose a "God" created this universe and left. Maybe went off to create other universes and lost interest in this one.

Maybe this God only creates universes and does nothing else. Once the universe has been created there is no further interaction.

"God" could be a semi-mindless amoeba that goes about crapping out universes.

Fascinating scenario. Thanks for that. I'll have to think about that one.

 

[Milton Platt]

Please Note: I offer the following as a for fun thought exercise, and not as a description of my own views on the matter. Enjoy!​

Let us posit that X exists but cannot by any means -- either empirical, rational, or other means -- be demonstrated to exist. That is, the existence of X cannot be deduced, inferred, observed, nor detected.

If such is the case, can it be said that X -- even if if it exists -- is of no possible consequence?

By "consequence", I mean "having an effect on something." That is, can it be asserted that, if X cannot be deduced, inferred, observed, nor detected, then X cannot have any consequences that can be deduced, inferred, observed, or detected -- and that, if that is so, then X can be said to be of no consequence?


For example, if a god exists but cannot by any means be demonstrated to exist, then can that god be of any consequence? And if it cannot be of any consequence, can it be logically described as a creator?

Please note: If there exists a god that could not be demonstrated to exist, and if that were to entail that the god could not be of any consequence, then that would seem to argue that the god could not have created the universe. Moreover, the god could not have created the universe even if the god could never be demonstrated to not exist.

By that means, the agnostic position ("We cannot know whether or not a god exists") would seem to logically entail "A god cannot have created the universe", assuming, of course, that the god was defined in the manner in which X has been defined.

What fun!

No, it would,entail “ we cannot KNOW if a god created the universe.

 

[joe1776]

Please Note: I offer the following as a for fun thought exercise, and not as a description of my own views on the matter. Enjoy!​

Let us posit that X exists but cannot by any means -- either empirical, rational, or other means -- be demonstrated to exist. That is, the existence of X cannot be deduced, inferred, observed, nor detected.

If such is the case, can it be said that X -- even if if it exists -- is of no possible consequence?

By "consequence", I mean "having an effect on something." That is, can it be asserted that, if X cannot be deduced, inferred, observed, nor detected, then X cannot have any consequences that can be deduced, inferred, observed, or detected -- and that, if that is so, then X can be said to be of no consequence?


For example, if a god exists but cannot by any means be demonstrated to exist, then can that god be of any consequence? And if it cannot be of any consequence, can it be logically described as a creator?

Please note: If there exists a god that could not be demonstrated to exist, and if that were to entail that the god could not be of any consequence, then that would seem to argue that the god could not have created the universe. Moreover, the god could not have created the universe even if the god could never be demonstrated to not exist.

By that means, the agnostic position ("We cannot know whether or not a god exists") would seem to logically entail "A god cannot have created the universe", assuming, of course, that the god was defined in the manner in which X has been defined.

What fun!

There's a missing premise in your argument: You need to supply a reason to make a creator obligated to supply a clue detectable by peabrain humans

 

[Woberts]

peabrain humans

I'll have you know my brain is not pea-sized, it's grape-sized!

 

[Sunstone]

There's a missing premise in your argument: You need to supply a reason to make a creator obligated to supply a clue detectable by peabrain humans

Could you explain why you think that's a necessary premise, please?

 

[Sunstone]

No, it would,entail “ we cannot KNOW if a god created the universe.

Please show your reasoning.

 

[joe1776]

I'll have you know my brain is not pea-sized, it's grape-sized!

Apologies. I want it known that I have recognized your genius.

 

[Milton Platt]

Please show your reasoning.

Oh crap....you would have to ask for,that
Whether a god can be clearly demonstrated to exist or be unknowable in that regard does not matter when asking the question “could a god have created the universe”. It only effects the relative probability of such an event.

To demonstrate that a god DID create,the universe would require one to not only be able to demonstrate the existence of said god, but also be able to describe the processes by which such god creates universes. In other words, one would need a testable hypothesis which makes predictions about universe creation in this manner.

 

[Sunstone]

Oh crap....you would have to ask for,that
Whether a god can be clearly demonstrated to exist or be unknowable in that regard does not matter when asking the question “could a god have created the universe”. It only effects the relative probability of such an event.

I see. You are of course right, but then again, I am not asking that particular question. The OP has nothing to do with that.

 

[joe1776]

Could you explain why you think that's a necessary premise, please?

If the creator isn't obligated to make its influence detectable by humans, non-existence isn't a logical deduction from the lack of detectable evidence..

 

[Milton Platt]

I see. You are of course right, but then again, I am not asking that particular question. The OP has nothing to do with that.

Okay, I will reread the OP. Maybe I’m a mental moon shot today.

 

[Sunstone]

If the creator isn't obligated to make its influence detectable by humans, non-existence isn't a logical deduction from the lack of detectable evidence..

That's an excellent point, but we are not talking here of the non-existence of a deity. We are talking about whether a deity could have created the universe in such a way that it was impossible --- even in theory -- to know it had created the universe. Put differently, we are talking about whether there is such a thing as a cause that cannot be known to be a cause.

At first blush, the answer would seem to be "yes", I think. But then the question arises, "If a cause has knowable consequences (If a cause has a knowable effect or effects) does that mean the cause itself must be in some way knowable?"

If we answer "yes", that would imply there is no such thing as a cause that cannot be known to be a cause.

If we answer "no", that would raise all sorts of interesting questions about what it means to say an unknowable cause caused something knowable. For instance, is that logically equivalent to saying nothing created something? In other words, would we have any means of distinguishing between an unknowable cause (or unknowable god) causing the universe and nothing causing the universe?