[Michael]

Francis wrote

Two goldfish are in a tank. We suspend disbelief for a moment and imagine they are capable of a conversation. This conversation begins when one of the goldfish bumps his nose on the glass pane in the tank.

"Hey, who put that there"? says B.

Why is this fish assuming it is a "who" responsible for the glass pane? It may well be a "who" - and in this case it is, but assuming a result before having solid reason is bad thought process.

A says "Don't be ridiculous. No one put that there. It is a foolish superstition to think otherwise"

Why is this fish disregarding this claim without reason? This is bad thought process.

The conversation - if you were to represent it accurately - would be more like this:


"I have been wondering about this solid, transparent wall I keep bumping into. It seems to me that such a wall would likely not have come about on its own" says B.

A considers this. "Okay. An interesting theory. What reasoning do you have for this?"

"None yet," replies B, "it is a theory of mine that I am working on. But I feel there is more going on here"

"Well, let me know when you have something more solid than feelings, and we'll talk"

B counters " But whatever my nose ran into is practically invisible.

"Practically invisible" is not invisible. Also, glass panes are not "practically invisible". Especially to those inside the water, due to the refractive properties of air and water, it would be fairly easy for them to tell where the pane is, and to feel it, as you said, when they bump into it.
Additionally, being glass it will have imperfections on it - scratches etc, plus potentially algae (even if properly cleaned every day the potential for small amounts of algae buildup is significant) to mark itself.
Add to that the physical existence of the pane - as you said, the fish can bump into it.

So we've got a visible, physical presence that the fish can and do interact with daily.
Can you start to see how your argument is full of it, yet?

Everything else that can bump your nose isn't invisible. Water is invisible.

No it isn't. Even clear water is visible. It is transparent, but that is not the same thing.

You must have a bad time at the beach if water is invisible to you. Baths and showers would be a nightmare.
"Ah, dang, I'm sure I just filled this bathtub up with water, but it's too invisible for me to see!"

Air bubbles are too.

Nope. Air bubbles are very much visible in water.

You don't bump your nose when you run into those"

What does bumping your nose have to do with visibility? Feeling something and seeing something are two different things entirely.
Your fish have already made multiple errors in conflating the two.



"Having ample opportunity to study this physical....let's call it a "wall". Having ample opportunity to study this wall, I have made some observations. It would seems clear that the world outside of our tank operates differently to the world inside the tank. Outside, things don't float around or give any appearance of being in water. It seems likely, then, that the wall seperates our environment from the environment on the other side." Says B.

A considers this as he looks at the wall, and the outside world.

"A fine theory. You have been able to demonstrate all of these points with the evidence available, so I am happy to accept - at least on a temporary basis, until further evidence is attained - that your theory has merits."

A is ready. "Then what are you claiming it is that put that there? Maybe it's the magical floating jellyfish." A has a few laughs at B's expense.

These fish have lived in a bowl their entire lives. A bowl in which, presumably, there are no such things as jellyfish.
So where did they get the concept of a jellyfish from? Why are you presuming that knowledge of jellyfish is innate knowledge? Why are you presuming that knowledge of anything outside of the world they experience is innate?



"Perhaps it was the magical floating jellyfish" jokes A.

"What the hell is a 'jellyfish'?"

"I don't know, I just made it up then."

But B remains thoughtful. "What about that dark, moving thing on the other side of the invisible wall thing"? B asks "How is it that every time we see it move near us, suddenly sandwiches start floating down around us"?

So these fish are able to physically see that there is an entity on the other side of the glass that interacts with their environment in a measurable way, by introducing an element - in this case food - into their environment on a regular basis.

Oh, yeah. This sounds exactly like the situation we find ourselves in, and not at all completely different scenarios.


"What about that moving thing on the other side of the glass? It clearly knows we are here, as it often comes over to bring us food. And its size, coupled with the way it interacts with the environment outside of ours would suggest that it is capable of having put this 'wall' here"

"All fine points, but it is merely speculation at this point. However, you may be onto something, and this warrants further investigation, but we should not just accept that as the answer until we know more".

"Don't be ridiculous." says A "What evidence to you have for a magical being.

The being that is visible and interacts with their environment in a measurable way on a regular basis, totally being equivalent to a "god" in our situation, right?

Floating sandwiches maybe? Pretty funny. B's Floating Sandwich Magical god. How ridiculous"!

Yeah. This whole thing is pretty ridiculous.

"My evidence"? B asks " My evidence is the invisible wall

Not invisible.

, which I think must have been put there by something greater than I am.

Which in your scenario, he still has no reason to think this, so he is throwing out other possibilities for one he favours without reason.

My evidence is the food that floats down without us having to forage for it. My evidence is the perfect temperature of this place. And what about the fact that nothing is trying to eat us"?

What reason does he have to think that can't occur naturally? In this situation, he doesn't. It is fallacious reasoning on the fish's part again.
It doesn't matter that he's right this time - in fact, it's more dangerous that he's right this time, because it's going to re-enforce the idea that believing something because of feelings rather than investigation is a viable way to go, and the next time, when he comes up with something completely wrong he's likely to believe it because feeling it worked out for him last time.

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, but for those other 23 hours and 58 minutes, it can't tell time for shit.

This is why faulty reasoning is so bad. It is why coming to a correct conclusion for the wrong reasons is so dangerous. It's why things like proper investigation and the scientific method are so important.

This is just another of many reasons why your argument is so bad, and we've just made fun of it up to this point.

A responds "You call that evidence ? That is just the way nature is. There are explanations for everything you mention that don't involve your god of floating sandwiches".

And there are, and without having properly investigated, B is throwing out options without proper reasoning or investigation, which is a piss-poor way of figuring out the truth, and one that is going to eventually lead him to having incorrect beliefs about the world around him.

But the truth of the matter is, that in each instance, B was right.

No, B was wrong about a lot of things. Glass, water, and air bubbles being invisible for one. He also had incredibly faulty logic, and stupidly lucked onto the correct answer. So the next time B wants to figure something out, he's just going to take a wild stab in the dark and assume he's right without investigation, and the more he does this, the increasingly likely it is he's going to end up with scarily incorrect worldviews and beliefs.

B sensed or perceived that something special was afoot, and attributed vast intelligence and powers to something outside of his tank environment.

Something outside his tank environment that was visible and regularly interacted in a measurable way with his tank environment.
Not in any way similar as the situation we are in, and is a false equivalency.

And these fish, of course, like all fish, cannot even conceive of the vastness and power of the human intelligence that caused their world to exist.

And yet, in your story they are able to tell that the humans did indeed do so, without the supposed ability to do so. It's a huge contradiction there, that statement.

How then can human beings even imagine the Creator of the universe, when the gulf between them is far greater than the gulf between the goldfish and its human keeper?

Far, far greater. So great, in fact, that this story is in no way representative of the situation you are trying to suggest we are in.

fish are able to see humans interacting with them, therefore god exists.

No tanks.