So far I've found no reason to invoke any supernaturals to explain what we have. I'm thinking that the Universe is more of evidence of itself, rather than evidence of something else entirely.
So in essense you are saying the universe exists because it exists?
So a simple answer like God provides is at least just as valid as anything else.Almost, though I didn't mean that the Universe is evidence of why/how/where it became in the first place. I'm saying that we know that it exists, because it exists ("d'uh", I know, I know). As to "why" it exists... The "whys" always go on forever, even with the God hypothesis: no matter what the answer to the first "why" question, you can always ask another one.
How can one unknown be more unknown than another unknown? :idunno:
:chuckle:Ok, fair enough. But I'd say that some hypothesis that rely on the unknown are less likely than others. For example, I think it is less likely that the Universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster than that it was created by something else.
How do you know?
OK. That makes sense."Unknown" here can't mean something that can never be known. I'd call that "unknowable" or something. So, "unknown" can also be understood as being an answer to some problem. It is only "unknown" as long as we haven't solved the problem. Therefore, for some "unknowns" to be harder to turn into "knows" means that some problems are more difficult to solve than others.
For example, a in mathematical problem "x + 3 = 8", the x has an unknown value until we calculate it. It is easy to come up with a more difficult problem, having an "unknown" that is harder to turn into "known" than in the previous problem.