[Merged]All religions are idiocy

[cj.23]

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Your second premise implies linearity of time. If god exists and is omnipotent then one would have to assume that time manipulation would be within its powers. So it could create the universe in a perpetual loop, with no beginning,

This would invalidate your second premise.

Nice! It would invalidate the first premise as well. However your argument contains a paradox "So it could create the universe in a perpetual loop, with no beginning". The act of creation rather dictates a beginning, and hence a first cause, and you have invoked a God. Good thinking though, and in fact the argument as Neltana mentioned in no way postits any personal deity, just a First Cause. Call it a god if you want, but it's not very spiritually or intellectually satisfying. It's rational though...

Now I don't find the proof satisfying as an argument, as I said before, but it is entirely logical and rational. That by no means makes it correct - if either of th premises is flawed which is possible, then it fails, like any argument - but it is rational and logical, and I don't think it's idiotic to accept it (and I don't think you think all theists are idiots, as I recall, but hey! that was the original premise of the thread ).

Premise 1: All theists are idiots
Premise 2: CJ.23 is a theist
Conclusion 1: Therefore, CJ.23 must be an idiot.

The logic is flawless, the argument completely rational, but obviously I would disagree with the premises. For the Kalam Cosmological argument to fail we need to examine if

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
are actually sound.

Empirical evidence suggests both premises are true: but are they? Dunno. I'm not out to prove God(s) today, I'll settle for a good discussion of why DD believes I'm an idiot.

cj x

 

[neltana]

Right, my goal here is to falsify the premise that all religious beliefs are idiotic and therefore all people with religious beliefs are idiots.

Logically, this can be done by providing a counter example. It seems to me that it shows a theistic belief that has a rational basis. So, at a minimum, the premise of the thread would have to be revised to be "all religious beliefs are idiotic and therefore all people with religious beliefs are idiots, with the exception of at least some theists."

If we could all agree on that, I would feel we were making progress (oh, and I'm not a theist, so this isn't really self-serving).

 

[thaiboxerken]

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

OK, let's ignore the God bit for now. Where is this logic broken? And how is this not a rational argument? The conclusion follows from the premise. It is completely rational and logical, and i fail to see how you can possibly deny this?

cj x

Although it's a sound argument it assumes premise that haven't been established as fact.

Now, let's assume the premise are correct, then it's a rational argument.

Also, this argument only attempts to show that the universe must have a cause and says nothing about any gods.

The conclusion is that there is a force outside of our universe that "set everything in motion" in our universe. That is the God of First Cause, by definition.

No, the conclusion is that there is a cause. It says nothing about where that cause came from or what it is.

Oh, but you're calling it the "God of first cause" which is laughable. I guess I can make an argument and then give a definition of a god responsible.

Everything has a cause.
Pancakes are part of everything.
Pancakes have a cause.

Is this a good argument for the existence of the "God of causing pancakes?"

 

[neltana]

Oh, but you're calling it the "God of first cause" which is laughable. I guess I can make an argument and then give a definition of a god responsible.

Apparently, you are offended by the term "god." While I am not authorized to rename what many theists call this, I would encourage you to just use the term "first cause" and omit the term "god."

The proof, therefore, establishes that the universe has a first cause. It establishes nothing about what that first cause is. But, if a person holds this as a religious belief, I would hope you would acknowledge, they have a "non-idiotic" religious belief.

 

[neltana]

Forgot to respond to your question

Everything has a cause.
Pancakes are part of everything.
Pancakes have a cause.
Is this a good argument for the existence of the "God of causing pancakes?"

It would be an argument that the God of First Cause ultimately gave rise to the pancakes. But, as I said in my last post, let's omit the word "god" since it seems to bother you.

So, now we have "There was a first cause for the universe. This first cause ultimately gave rise to pancakes; both the yummy plain kind and the gross ones with blueberries."

 

[cj.23]

Although it's a sound argument it assumes premise that haven't been established as fact.

Now, let's assume the premise are correct, then it's a rational argument.

Also, this argument only attempts to show that the universe must have a cause and says nothing about any gods.

Yes. We agree completely. The argument is both rational and logical: the premises may be flawed. Rationality is a property of an argument, as is logic - if the premises are flawed, you will get garbage though.

No, the conclusion is that there is a cause. It says nothing about where that cause came from or what it is.

Agreed. It is a causa causans, a first cause, that which ends the pattern of infinite regress. This was one of the classic theological constructions of God, in say Thomas Aquinas. You can call it God because that is what theologians did, but you might as well call it "value X". It does not look much like a God to you or me - it looks like a First Cause.

Oh, but you're calling it the "God of first cause" which is laughable. I guess I can make an argument and then give a definition of a god responsible.

Everything has a cause.
Pancakes are part of everything.
Pancakes have a cause.

Is this a good argument for the existence of the "God of causing pancakes?"

Yes. Well it's a rational argument for the deity of pancakes. It may or may not be correct.

String Theory in some forms is completely rational. It's not empirically demonstrable.
The Theory of Evolution is completely rational. It's not empirically directly demonstrable.
The Big Bang is completely rational. It's not empirically directly demonstrable.
Religious theologies may be completely rational. They are not It's not empirically directly demonstrable.

In each case one takes a set of premises to account for empirical observations then formulates a deductive hypothesis. Good ones, like Evolution and the Big Bang can be falsified, and are predictive, with later empirical observations/experiments confirming the rational case. The real question is can theism do this? String Theory currently can't, and I suspect theism can't either, but that does not necessarily invalidate the hypothesis.

You see my thinking?

cj x

 

[DARK LORD XENU]

What if after deciding for the benefits of rationality, the authorities put something in the water to rid the populace of religious thought? The following morning everybody is cured; but that would be chaos.
To avoid this fate, the authorities would first have to reorganise society to accommodate the new way of thinking.
Both are impossible, so the argument is moot.

What if you were the only rationalist. If you held consistently to this idea, you would probably find life quite intolerable. In my view, that would make you an idiot. Religious thinking is then the most practical point of view, which for the individual not currently feeling the downside of it, it probably is.

Well it may take this to have DD realise that he was an idiot for suggesting it because then him and the other "intellectual gods" will not have any one to look down their noses upon.
Either that or as soon as he comes across a believer who has gone nuts with the thought of having nothing to lose.

 

[Moochie]

It boggles my mind that anyone could believe in any religion anywhere.

Could a believer please explain why and what he/she believes in?

I don't agree with the title to this thread. While many if not most religions might display woo elements in their mythology, that does not render them idiotic, IMO.

I've known many people who've received succor from a religion they've been involved with in my time on the planet (I'm 58), and have seen this involvement have a positive influence.

As these individuals have grown and learned, many have left their religions and some have stayed. But all have gained something from their involvement, so no, your claim doesn't ring true in my experience.


M.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Apparently, you are offended by the term "god." While I am not authorized to rename what many theists call this, I would encourage you to just use the term "first cause" and omit the term "god."

What?! So the definition of "god" in this case is just "first cause?" Well, that is absolutely retarded. You may as well call the first bowel movement of the day "god" if that's the case. Why not use words already established instead of calling it "god?" This "first cause god" simply seems to have zero value to explaining anything.

The proof, therefore, establishes that the universe has a first cause. It establishes nothing about what that first cause is. But, if a person holds this as a religious belief, I would hope you would acknowledge, they have a "non-idiotic" religious belief.

No, it's a rather idiotic religious belief because the premise is flawed AND it's calling a cause "god" instead of simply letting the word "cause" to be used.

So, now we have "There was a first cause for the universe. This first cause ultimately gave rise to pancakes; both the yummy plain kind and the gross ones with blueberries."

Yes, but that statement has zero value. It's an idiotic statement and argument.

Rationality is a property of an argument, as is logic - if the premises are flawed, you will get garbage though.

It's logical, but if it's built on flawed premise, it is not rational or reasonable.

It does not look much like a God to you or me - it looks like a First Cause.

That's because that's all it's doing, trying to establish that there must've been a first cause. Of course, they call that "god" and then try to use this as "evidence" that their biblical god exists. It's entirely irrational and illogical to do so as well as dishonest.

String Theory in some forms is completely rational. It's not empirically demonstrable.

It's mathematically demonstrable, is it not? It's based on empirical observations and evidence, right?

The Theory of Evolution is completely rational. It's not empirically directly demonstrable.

Yes, it is.

The Big Bang is completely rational. It's not empirically directly demonstrable.

There is empirical evidence to support the Big Bang.

Religious theologies may be completely rational. They are not It's not empirically directly demonstrable.

There is no empirical, mathematical or scientific evidence to support such ideas.

 

[Akhenaten]

It boggles my mind that anyone could believe in any religion anywhere.

Could a believer please explain why and what he/she believes in?

I am an Atenist (the only one, I think).

Due to my Pharaohness, I have certain appearances to keep up.

I believe in the Sun.

It's not a god, it's a star.

Do I pass?


ETA: The belief that Akhenaten worshipped a god is an error due to the poor quality stone cutters we had in Akhetaten who mistakenly rendered the phrase "My dog's name is Neta" into "The Aten is my god." It's just a typoglyph.

 

[PBTree]

Well, I guess I'll have to ask the gallery here...should I really stop trying to explain my position? There has been several calls earlier in the thread for participation from folks who did not agree with the assertion made in the OP.

Is discussion of this topic unwelcome in this thread?

The examples I provided are examples of Jesus teachings...which are, I think you will except, religious beliefs. I accept and have never ever maintained that these beliefs are exclusive to religion. But I do maintain that they are important teachings that should be propagated.

Matt was saying that you shouldn't hold others to a higher standard than you do yourself. It seemed apropos to this thread somehow.

Just got back and catching up. No slight intended neltana. It just always staggers me when religious texts are quoted and is assumed that without them, we wouldn't have the point they are trying to make.

Most of the good stuff in the bible(s) are just plain old common sense. eg. don't steal, don't fool with next door's missus, don't lie, don't kill etc etc.
Even we atheists try to follow common sense rules like that.

 

[PBTree]

Empirical evidence suggests both premises are true: but are they? Dunno. I'm not out to prove God(s) today, I'll settle for a good discussion of why DD believes I'm an idiot.

cj x

Is this not the reason for DD's thread? How do you go about proving this god on any day.

DD can slap me if I am wrong but I think part of what he is saying, is that when atheists can't work out what the answer is, they just go into 'wait mode' knowing that sooner or later (hopefully), the answer will be worked out scientifically. If it doesn't come, then it just goes into the un-answerable bucket. Another mystery to amaze us.

Theists on the other hand just go "it was god, there is nothing else it can be". Based upon nothing but a set of faith based beliefs.
They can argue logic and axioms all they like but it all revolves around faith based beliefs, nothing else and when religious faith is used to argue a point, 2+2 does not always have to equal 4.

Now that's no reason to call anyone an idiot but it does sound very Bizarro World.

 

[cj.23]

Hiya!

Let's start with definitions

In my atheist days I was a pragmatic empiricist: I think most atheists are. Now I'm a rationalist, which I suspect many theists are actually. I know what you mean though, rationalist is often used as a synonym for sceptic - and I'm certainly a process sceptic. I'm using it in it's sense in Philosophy here.

An Empiricist derives knowledge from their senses, to quote wiki "empiricism is a theory of knowledge emphasizing the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas." I associate it with much experimental and natural science. One tests things for yourself, and relies upon the evidence of ones senses, or repeatable observation and experiment. The problem is that one then has to infer the meaning of the data, and obviously the process of interpreting the data is not strictly reliable but very much a human process, no matter how good the data or perfect the experiments.

A Rationalist follows a method "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive" The Theory of Evolution is a triumph of deductive logic - it is rationally, not empirically, demonstrably true. You can look at empirical evidence, the fossil record, but the deductive process of working out what it signifies is a rationalist endeavour. The evidence which makes up the theory can be observed, but the theories truth lies outside of demonstration by anything other than logic and evidence: deductive reasoning. So a rationalist starts from certain a priori principles or evidences, and argues deductively from those onwards - which is how whole systems of theology have arisen, but also maths, much modern physics, geology, etc, etc. It's ok, so long as logic works on your subject (iffy when dealing with say human behaviour) and your initial premises are sound.

It's logical, but if it's built on flawed premise, it is not rational or reasonable.

Nope. Rationality is a property of the method used to derive a conclusion, the argument, that is the process used to arrive at the conclusion, not of the conclusion itself.

This argument is rational
1. Premise: All jimjoms are flibflabs
2. Premise: All flibflabs are poodlicoks
3. Conclusion: All jimjoms are poodlicoks.

Nowt irrational or illogical there. The conclusion remains nonsense, but it remains rational. I agree it might not be reasonable. I agree we might have problems finding empirical support for it. It is not however irrational.

It does not look much like a God to you or me - it looks like a First Cause.

That's because that's all it's doing, trying to establish that there must've been a first cause. Of course, they call that "god" and then try to use this as "evidence" that their biblical god exists. It's entirely irrational and illogical to do so as well as dishonest.

Oh it's not dishonest exactly The God thing only arises because it's a traditional Proof of God (proof in the sense Neltana gave) - something must have started the whole shebang. It does not show us that the thing was teleologically minded, ie. it designed, was intelligent, or bore any resemblance whatsoever to the Biblical God, or any other God (well maybe some forms of extreme deism.) I have at no point claimed it shows a Biblical God, as i'm sure you appreciate. It does however demonstrate one of the supposed characteristics of the Biblical God, or God of the Greek Philosophers - a first cause, an unmoved mover, or if like me you are a bit of a Zodiac Mindwarp fan, a Prime Mover. (Can I link Youtube rock videos? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtnCcWOS7y8 - Probably not work safe, but a Theology class classic!)

String Theory in some forms is completely rational. It's not empirically demonstrable.

It's mathematically demonstrable, is it not? It's based on empirical observations and evidence, right?

Mathematics is by it's nature a rationalist enterprise, but not an empirical one. You'd be hard pressed to show me the square root of -1, or even a zero. String theory is deduced from empirical evidence, but can not be falsified or empirically tested a this time. I don't think it's irrational to believe in it - it clearly isn't - but positivists like Lee Smolin would point out that as an unfalsifiable hypothesis it is dubious as to whether we can call it a scientific hypothesis at this time. It is definitely not currently supported by any predictable empirical observations - hence me using it to demonstrate some of the issues.

The Theory of Evolution is completely rational. It's not empirically directly demonstrable.

Yes it is.

Not so. You can not observe the development of a species in to another species. We both agree it happened (I'm assuming you are not a Creationist -as you may have gathered I'm not) but we have no direct way of observing it, or experimenting on Natural Selection. So we deduce from the evidence in the fossil record and genetics etc, etc, its truth - a rationalist enterprise. It however should allow for predictions to be made, and hence stands.

The Big Bang is completely rational. It's not empirically directly demonstrable.

There is empirical evidence to support the Big Bang.

There is indeed - Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation, which finally put paid to Hoyle's Steady State hypothesis. Yet we can't create or observe the Big Bang, only the evidence. The Theory is a rational development based upon the evidence, but not empirically proven, but deductively created and its logic confirmed by predictions which were subsequently observed to be true.

Religious theologies may be completely rational. They are not It's not empirically directly demonstrable.

There is no empirical, mathematical or scientific evidence to support such ideas.

Really? Firstly, how would we know? As I wrote elsewhere ""I think many of the problems which lie in the way of an understanding of the case are just down to language. I will define my terms. Firstly, I believe we live in an objective universe that we all experience (denying solipsism), that there are ultimate truths (deny theories of absolute relativity of reality) that can be rationally understood. These a priori requisites are shared both by Theism and by Science, and all systems of knowledge; without them it's just "magic", and nothing is ascertainable. Secondly, I define Natural as the universe and everything therein, and Supernatural as that existing "outside" or "above" the Universe - the literal meaning of the term.

My first contention is that any Supernatural action within the Universe is by definition therefore Natural, and will manifest in terms of Natural Law. That manifestation may be highly unusual, or extremely rare, but it would not be as in Hume's famous definition of a miracle a violation of Natural Law, as by definition anything that occurs in Nature is Natural.

Therefore, I contend that supernatural causation would be effectively invisible to our naturalistic Science, which by definition is bounded by the natural. While logic and reason (and perhaps mathematics) might be used to explore what lies "beyond" the Universe, experimental and procedural science can not. As a "supernatural event" becomes natural by definition as soon as it occurs in the universe, Science will indeed find no "miracles" - which is not to say that supernatural interventions do not occur. One could only hope to establish if this was the case by logic or reason. Professor Dawkins has suggested that the law of Nature in a Universe created by a deity should look quite different from those in one without - but that we will have to address later.

Let me give a playful example. Let us assume that the Norse Trickster God Loki built the universe. His handiwork is the Laws of Nature, and any examination thereof will reveal nothing but Natural forces acting in accordance with Natural Law. Any arbitrary exception he introduced, such as the Duckbill platypus (I know it's quite explicable really, but you get my point!)would be quite Natural, and entirely explicable by Science. Then imagine a Scientist who looks at the world and says "There is no Loki". Yet equally rational is the Loki-ist theologians, who looks at the same Science and says "we can not see Loki, but we can learn the nature of Loki from his handiwork!" The Loki-ist might remark after JBS Haldane that Loki appears to have "an inordinate fondness for beetles!"

The clear problem therefore is not if there is evidence for Theism - there may be much - but in how one would find and understand that evidence. I would argue that reason and logic (rationalism) should work as well on understanding the Gods as any other thing: the locally prevailing conditions just differ, just as Quantum Mechanics seems counter-intuitive to us whose experience is limited to Classical Physics in a day to day sense, and the local earthly form thereof. The pragmatic empiricist however might struggle in vain to see any evidence at all - which in no way precludes it's existence"

Dunno if that helps at all. And i still don't think I'm an idiot.

cj x

 

[neltana]

Just got back and catching up. No slight intended neltana. It just always staggers me when religious texts are quoted and is assumed that without them, we wouldn't have the point they are trying to make.

Most of the good stuff in the bible(s) are just plain old common sense. eg. don't steal, don't fool with next door's missus, don't lie, don't kill etc etc.
Even we atheists try to follow common sense rules like that.

Glad my gaff didn't offend you.

I don't maintain that these teachings are only available from religious teachings...especially not the bible. I don't follow any of the "religions of the book." But I do maintain that the values expressed in these teachings are culturally transmitted (as is most common sense). Take the good Samaritan...I've seen lots of studies that test whether people stop and help a stranger in need. The results are not encouraging.

Atheists teach these values to their children just fine. But they do teach them (IMO).

Essentially, I am saying that religious teachings are a valuable tool to accomplish an important goal. I think we should at least appreciate that.

 

[cj.23]

Is this not the reason for DD's thread? How do you go about proving this god on any day.

I'll have a go sometime at constructing a logical case for theism. I won't claim it is correct, but I'll make a rational case. Not tonight, book to revise drafts of for tomorrow. However i believe the matter at hand in the thread is "Are theists idiots?" as DD's assertion was we were - he subsequently implied we rejected science, which I find baffling.

DD can slap me if I am wrong but I think part of what he is saying, is that when atheists can't work out what the answer is, they just go into 'wait mode' knowing that sooner or later (hopefully), the answer will be worked out scientifically. If it doesn't come, then it just goes into the un-answerable bucket. Another mystery to amaze us.

I think he actually intended to claim theists are stupid - your point is rather more interesting. I don't think theists deny there are many things we don't know "Insufficient data" as I often say. I enjoy speculating, but am clear when I am I think!

Theists on the other hand just go "it was god, there is nothing else it can be". Based upon nothing but a set of faith based beliefs.

Somebutnotall Theists. I've spent the last year on Richard Dawkin's forum, and am a process sceptic. I've met many theists there who certainly would not subscribe to this line of thinking. Some theists answer questions on this in this thread, though I think you'd have to register, it's worth it anyway -
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=29976

They can argue logic and axioms all they like but it all revolves around faith based beliefs, nothing else and when religious faith is used to argue a point, 2+2 does not always have to equal 4.

Now that's no reason to call anyone an idiot but it does sound very Bizarro World.

Well I'll see if I can make a logical case for God(s). Actually I'll do it now, as I have one I wrote here somewhere... someone on dawkins forum challenged me to rationally write a proof of theism in a single post, so I did --

"OK, I shall argue the existence of God from the World of Warcraft.

1. WoW (or any MMORPG) is a simulated world with it's own programmed physics in which players take part in an immersive mutual reality. If you are not familiar with it the best documentary is South Park's episode Make Love, not Warcraft which is on cable most nights this week I think.

2. My proposal, based on Nick Bostrom's famous paper http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html - the Simulation Hypothesis - is that given predicted exponential growth in computing (assuming we break the supposed Silicon limit) future virtual universes may be indistinguishable from the real thing. See the work of noted theologians Rob Grant & Doug Naylor in their opus Melior Quam Vita, part of their Rutilus Dwarf series of philosophical investigations for an example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Than_Life

3. Given that our universe is said to appear to be highly "designed", as in the infamous problem of Fine Tuning, and the collapse of our normal understandings at Quantum levels, I suggest that strings may simply be the level of programming code, and that it is extremely likely that we are living in a simulated universe generated by a civilization that has surpassed our own level of advancement. As virtual universes are easier to construct than real universes, we might infer the odds of us existing in a virtual universe are far higher than those of us existing in a real universe.

4. As the response to Fine Tuning usually suggested (including by Professor Dawkins) is multiverse, let us run with this and allow an infinite (or vast as required by Fine Tuning) number of universes. The odds of those universes having produced an advanced civilisation which manufactures virtual universes therefore approaches certainty, and as these numbers increase vastly so does the number of virtual universes increase (probably exponentially) as does the likelihood we live in a virtual universe. This argument was amusingly developed by cosmologist Paul Davies. SO Fine Tuning or NO Fine Tuning, the argument holds.

5. The programmer of such a universe is outside time/space, super-natural, can change physical laws at whim, created and can destroy the simulation, and can of course "incarnate" by entering the simulation. Furthermore they can provide virtual afterlife, or switch players from previous simulations, giving reincarnation type effects. In effect with regard to their creation (including us) they are a God. This idea fits perfectly with the model of reality proposed by certain atheistic forms of early Buddhism, or more recently by William James in Human Immortality. If you must you can mention The Matrix, a film I have never actually seen, because my friends try to lynch me whenever it comes on.

6. Therefore the existence of God(s) is at near certainty! If Christianity's claim that we are made in the image of God is to be considered, then these deities might be rather worrying though.

Feel free to critique my logic -- somehow I doubt anyone is going to convert!

As you may have gathered, I'm not entirely serious, though actually it is rationally coherent and entirely as far as I can work out logical.

I welcome any serious critique, because though I have not, you can seriously argue this! Is it not a rational proof of the existence of Gods?

"

Is this silly? Yes. Is it going to please any Christian? Nope. Is it rational and logical? Yes! Am I an idiot? Make your own mind up.

cj x

 

[thaiboxerken]

The universe does not appear to be designed.

 

[neltana]

Now that's no reason to call anyone an idiot but it does sound very Bizarro World.

Look, I totally respect where you are coming from.

But, really, there is virtually no difference between some theistic belief systems and agnosticism. There are quite a few Unitarian Universalists who are atheists...and yet they use religious ideas and symbolism to communicate ethical ideas.

Humanity is a diverse thingie...what works for some doesn't work for others. I would rather criticize the harmful aspects of certain religious beliefs rather than work needlessly to eliminate all of them.

I'm happy when religions work in support of my humanist agenda and I'm unhappy when they work against it. I also have bizarre religious beliefs that make no difference to myself or anybody else.

 

[cj.23]

The universe does not appear to be designed.

That was my thought as well, but talking to cosmologists actually convinced me otherwise. The best lay description of the issue is The Goldilocks Enigma, a superb book. The subtitle is misleading, regardless of the existence of life or not a stable universe is highly improbable.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Goldilocks-...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204506930&sr=8-1

To return to my own writings

"I have in the past defended the traditional "proofs" against the critique offered in The God Delusion -yet I would be the first to admit that I do not find them compelling in any way. I will move on from these, and instead look at the latest version of a teleological argument, an argument from design, which argues that from Nature we see evidence of a rational intelligence behind the Universe. This is the Fine Tuning argument, initially as far as I know proposed by atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle, and recently the focus of much discussion.

Can Fine Tuning provide us with a rational basis for belief in a Creator? Yes. Again, I don't think it is in any way conclusive - but that does not render it irrational. It is an entirely rational basis for theistic belief. While I guess most readers of this forum are well aware of the argument, I will summarise it here... In essence the argument is that most potential universes could last very long, or form stars, let alone life. For a stable habitable universe to occur is grotesquely unlikely -- so unlikely that in any analysis it is almost certain to have not occurred by chance. This would appear to be overwhelming statistical proof for a designer.

So does it work? Yes, it is rationally coherent. I always recommend Sir Martin Rees article http://www.firstscience.com/home/articl ... _1230.html which explains six vital numbers which appear in the Fine Tuning argument.

So we have to have a God, right? No. I can think of three objections.

1. As I have argued on the forum, once anything occurs the probability is 1. If it had not been that all these numbers were just right, there would have been no one to calculate the odds.

This is a variant of the the Anthropomorphic argument, and seems sensible to me, but the problem is the existence of an observer is not actually related to the odds - so the odds remain logically ridiculous. In the last ten years this argument has been dismissed, but I still like to ponder on it - without the right conditions we could not be here - but that is irrelevant to the chance of the right conditions arising.

2. God did it. Or Gods. Or giant supernatural monkeys, or as Hoyle seemed to suggest Robots, or --- yeah. This is a pretty good argument for the existence of a Creator, and Theism - it just tell us nothing about the attributes fo the deity/deities, beyond that we can deduce from the Universe. The Loki-ist and his beetles are vindicated however, and it's entirely rational, and one of the two best explanations.

3. All of these numbers - and there are 15 (26?) physical constants in all which current theory does not currently explain why they have to hold the value they do, allowing for a range of options, and hence the incredibly vast odds against our Universe existing. One obvious explanation would be that actually they are constrained - and can have no other value; every cosmologist I ask looks at me as if I am mad when I ask this, but while i am profoundly ignorant, I don't see why such a theory may not emerge in the future. For the moment it's not supported by any evidence.

4. Multiple universe, or Multiverse theory. I think it hard to write Multiverse without thing of Moorcock's Eternal Champion series, but this is not that - it's the theory that holds ours is not the only universe, but one of billions, all "natural" but somehow suspended in a "supernatural" bubble of whatever. Most such universes cease to exist immediately, and an extremely low number could form stars and give rise to life - we just happen to be in the ones that does; one could vary the theory and have an endless succession of universes arising in sequence - but here we are outside of space/time, so I'm not sure if that makes any sense. We would have to invoke a higher order of space/time I guess. Anyway multiverse theory is logically sensible, rational and coherent perhaps, but is clearly non-evidential, and fails all scientific criteria of proof. However just like the Loki-ist looking for the hand of Loki in Creation, our physicists may look and find evidence of the Multiverse in our Universe, if that makes sense. I'm not rejecting it - but it's certainly no stronger than the Creator hypothesis at this time.

So, I'm assured by those who know, we really have two choices - theism or a Multiverse. Either is rational, and both are entirely possible, but both rely upon supernatural premises.

Now all the talk of the absolute beginning bothers me - if theism was only constructed on claims about such things, I would not think much of the case - I'd accept it was rational - but hardly useful."


The Universe is inherently ridiculously unlikely to have come about by chance, and whereas for diversity of life on Earth we can invoke natural selection, it does not work with the Universal constants. I'm not saying "Goddidit" - far from it, there are many many more options. Here is a fine article from Skeptic magazine http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/skeptic13-2_Kuhn.pdf
on what the 'Godfather of Scepticism' Martin Gardner calls the 'super-ultimate question.'

And I still don't think I'm an idiot.

cj x

 

[thaiboxerken]

Is it your goal to bore people with your long rhetorical BS? If so, good job.

 

[cj.23]

Is it your goal to bore people with your long rhetorical BS? If so, good job.

Bit ad hom! Attack the argument, not the poster. (See Rule 12)

Nope, it's my intention to explain relatively simple things in an entertaining manner. If I intended to bore you i would not include jokes about Red Dwarf, links to rock videos or very interesting article supporting my point from sources such as Skeptic magazine.

DD made an assertion "theists are idiots". He provided no empirical or rational case, merely an assertion. That may be his personal opinion, or experience, but I do not feel it is borne out by the facts. I don't believe my posts are BS, or in the slightest rhetorical - you can easily enough critique them, and i have tried to respond reasonably enough to every objection.

You may notice i have not asked you to believe any faith based statement at alll, and have attempted to reply each time directly to your line of argument. If you think I'm spamming, fine, report me to the mods.

I fully accept some theists are idiots - and so are some agnostics, and some atheists. It's all fairly irrelevant, being logically independent of the existence of God(s).

cj x