Of Trees And Gods

An example of direct evidence is where a person can demonstrate evidence that a claim is true. Direct evidence that it's possible that A can cause B is to demonstrate A causing B. This proves that A causing B is certainly possible.

Indirect evidence, would be if you could only show or demonstrate what is alleged to have been caused, but can't show the alleged cause of it. For instance, Bobby is accused of riding his bike in the dirt after being told not to. We don't see his bike round, but there is bike tracks in the dirt and dirt on Bobby. This is considered circumstantial evidence, or indirect evidence.

We use direct and indirect evidence in our legal court systems all the time.

But, consider the very odd situation where we have no access to direct evidence, where what is alleged to have happened is said to be totally unique, one of kind, and therefore there is no precedent possible, even in theory, and what is claimed is some alleged existence itself.

In this very unique and odd situation, and perhaps counter-intuitively, this is a situation where it's impossible for indirect evidence to have any meaning at all!!


Consider: It's claimed that there is a totally unique one-existing 'god', with no precedent and no direct evidence, that is said to have created the tree in my front yard.

The tree is said to be circumstantial evidence of this 'god's existence.

If in fact this 'god' exists, then it is conceivable that this 'god' created the tree in my front yard. However, if this 'god' does not exist, then it did not create the apparent and demonstrable tree in my front yard.

If we KNEW for certain that this 'god' exists, then we would KNOW for certain that the tree could be circumstantial evidence. BUT, if we know this 'god' exists, then circumstantial evidence of existence is a moot point and therefore meaningless.

If this 'god' does not exist, then the idea that this tree is circumstantial evidence of this 'god's alleged existence is meaningless.

Either way, the tree being circumstantial evidence is meaningless.

But, let's consider the scenario somewhere between knowing this 'god' exists or doesn't exist.

Then, we are left with a situation where the probability that this tree is circumstantial evidence of the existence of this alleged 'god' cannot exceed the probability that this 'god' exists to begin with.

Why?

Because something must exist before it can create evidence of its own existence. And since the probability that this tree was created by this alleged 'god' cannot exceed the probability that this 'god' exists to begin with, then the tree's existence provides *NO* evidentiary weight or value. The purpose of evidence is to bolster or increase the probability that a claim is either true or false. The tree, in this scenario, does neither. Ergo, the tree is meaningless as evidence no matter how probable or improbable this alleged 'god' may be.

Now, if we extrapolate what is true for the tree to the whole universe itself, we can see a very odd thing indeed. We see that any suggestion that anything in the universe provides evidence of some unique, one-'god' with no precedent and no direct evidence must be false and meaningless.

That is a very strange conclusion indeed, that regardless of the "complexity" of the universe and regardless of how amazing the universe is...nothing in it can provide ANY circumstantial evidence of any such 'god' AT ALL, not even in theory. So, people can talk about the unlikelihood of the universe or "irreducibly complex" systems in the universe 'till the cows come home, but it'll never mean anything at all until someone can show direct evidence that some such universe-creating 'god' is, not only possible, but demonstrably exists.