Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.

[leo-rcc]

[

Of course I know about Popper and the Swans. But until a black swan appears you don't support the notion that one might be there

What? Yes you do. Or I do, at least. The possibility of a black swan existing, while extremely unlikely, was non-zero. And, lo and behold, black swans do exist.

If no one has ever seen a black Swan, and no one has ever even had the concept of a black Swan, there is absolutely no justification to entertain that notion of black Swan's. It is absurd to account for something that has never been observed or measured before. You can speculate but you don't build an exception in your thesis on what might or might not exist, that makes it completely unworkable. You only adjust your theory if new data arrives, not before.

I am not considering a Dragon might be in your garage just because someone asserts that you can't exclude the possibility that there is one.

Then you're dismissing possibilities without justification.

No, you are asserting that there might be some alternative without justification. You deviate from the norm (No dragons) and I am not selling you a car that is smaller than your garage just in case you need the extra space for your dragon.

no matter how unlikely the alternatives, no matter how much evidence is gathered, there's always the possibility that it's wrong.

Sure, but it is ludicrous to assert that your theory is incorrect when there is only data supporting your theory is correct and no data supporting that your theory is incorrect.

The current hypothesis is that a creator must be more complex than its creation because all the current evidence points to that hypothesis is correct, and there is no known evidence that it is incorrect. You only alter that hypothesis until the black Swan of an less or equal complex creator is found, not before.