Can theists be rational?

[Malerin]

Joe is right. The argument says a god can exist in a universe, and if it does, it is more likely that the universe contains life. Universe has life, therefore it's more likely to have a god.

Very silly. I just got a really good poker hand. I twitched my head to the left just before it was dealt. Two possibilities, the twitch helped or not. If the twitch helped, it's much more likely I got the good hand. I got the good hand, therefore it's much more likely that the twitch helped.

No, the argument says the possibility of a life-permitting universe is so low, there are two rational theories to explain it: A multitude of universes (or a cyclical universe), or a fine-tuner (which may or may not be God, but would be a being(s) sufficiently powerful to create a universe and tweak it's physical constants).

To further develop the core version of the fine-tuning argument, we will summarize the argument by explicitly listing its two premises and its conclusion:

Premise 1. The existence of the fine-tuning is not improbable under theism.

Premise 2. The existence of the fine-tuning is very improbable under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.

Conclusion: From premises (1) and (2) and the prime principle of confirmation, it follows that the fine-tuning data provides strong evidence to favor of the design hypothesis over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.

From a very good analysis of the argument, if anyone cares.

http://www.discovery.org/a/91

 

[Bri]

Joe is right. The argument says a god can exist in a universe, and if it does, it is more likely that the universe contains life. Universe has life, therefore it's more likely to have a god.

No, it's saying that the probability of the universe containing life if a diety exists is much higher than if a diety doesn't exist, the universe contains life, therefore it is likely that a diety exists.

As in: It's much more likely that my hair would be short today even though it was long yesterday because I had a haircut recently than because all my hair spontaneously dropped off at a consistent length. My hair is short today even though it was long yesterday. Therefore, it is likely that I had a hair cut recently.

-Bri

 

[Folly]

I see that both of you, Bri and Malerin, have ignored the other example. I have two explanations for why I was dealt a good hand. One of them makes that outcome more likely, so that explanation is more likely. Right?

 

[Bri]

I just got a really good poker hand. I twitched my head to the left just before it was dealt. Two possibilities, the twitch helped or not. If the twitch helped, it's much more likely I got the good hand. I got the good hand, therefore it's much more likely that the twitch helped.

The above argument is of the form "A implies B, B, therefore A" (where A = "the twitch helps" and B = "I get a good hand") which is not the same as "A implies B, A, therefore B" (A = "the universe supports life" and B = "god exists").

-Bri

 

[Folly]

I just got a really good poker hand. I twitched my head to the left just before it was dealt. Two possibilities, the twitch helped or not. If the twitch helped, it's much more likely I got the good hand. I got the good hand, therefore it's much more likely that the twitch helped.

The above argument is of the form "A implies B, B, therefore A" (where A = "the twitch helps" and B = "I get a good hand") which is not the same as "A implies B, A, therefore B" (A = "the universe supports life" and B = "god exists").

-Bri

What? No.

They're both P(B|A)>P(B|~A), B therefore P(A)>P(~A)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't presume to know what people worship so I can't say.

I'm not asking you to make any presumptions. Do you know of anyone who sincerely professes to worship the Tooth Fairy or the FSM?

In that case, "not god" doesn't fit the definition I proposed of "god" does it?

You're missing the point. I'm not claiming god and not god are the same concepts. Please re-read what I've written.

I think I see what you're objecting to. The premise is that the probability of a diety exists without regard to other circumstances is 0.0001%. The argument is that in light of certain circumstances (in this case the fact that the universe is inhabitable) the probability becomes high.

Nope--that's not my point either. My point is that assigning any probability to the existence of God makes an assumption about the existence of God. That assumption is either that God does not exist if the probability is zero or that God exists if the probability assigned is anything but zero.

I could write a similar argument with the premise that a 6-sided die has the probability of 1/6 that it will land on the "1" [under normal circumstances], but that the same die will land on the "1" with a higher probability if I embed a magnet into the die and roll it on a steel table.

So what?

If you make ANY premise about the probability of getting a "1" on a die, you are making assumptions about the existence of the 1 on the die.

Please re-read what I've written. You're still missing the point.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Those things that are consistent and reproducible have now been subsumed under Science - the variety of life, the movement of the heavenly bodies, the creation of stars.

But it doesn't follow that that which is apparently anomalous must be caused by God. Or rather, it doesn't follow that that which is in conflict with our currently accepted "laws" is necessarily supernatural.

So I guess what I'm saying is that if the definition of God is a force that violates ALL natural laws (not just those we know about), then it's still undefined since we don't know what ALL natural laws are.

I meant testable in the sense that it can tell us what God isn't.

How would that work? If the result of any test came out either apparently at odds with natural laws or in harmony with them, neither one would preclude (or support) the existence of God.
ETA: I think I'm misunderstanding you here. You mean a "test" to see whether a definition is a definition? If so, I don't follow. The only way I can think of to approach that question is to use the definition of "definition" as a list of characteristics necessary and sufficient to include just the members of the class you mean and to exclude those you don't. So most of these I'd "test" for defining the term "God" is to see if things that are obviously not what they mean when they use the term God are allowed in--like a singularity or gravity or Tooth Fairy or whatever. (If we can postulate that God is a force for purposes of the definition, why can't we postulate that the Tooth Fairy or FSM is similarly a force? Yet I don't know of any theist who means to allow those idea in the class of "God" when they talk about believing in God.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As other people have pointed out to you, that's not assuming existence, that's assuming the possibility of existence. Two very different things.

And CJ was low-balling his own argument. The possibility that God exists is normally given a .5 value.

You're confusing the terms "probability" and "possibility". Because something is possible doesn't mean it is valid or meaningful to assign it a numerical probability. To assign something a numerical probability assumes the thing exists (or does not exist if the probability assigned is zero).

Where does .5 come from? You're not saying anything that has two possible outcomes (either god exists or doesn't exist) has a .5 probability? If so, I'd very much like to play poker with you.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, it's saying that the probability of the universe containing life if a diety exists is much higher than if a diety doesn't exist, the universe contains life, therefore it is likely that a diety exists.

There is no logical or causal connection between the probability of a universe with life in it and the probability of the existence of god.

Pssst. . . the word you're after is "deity".

 

[RandFan]

Where does .5 come from? You're not saying anything that has two possible outcomes (either god exists or doesn't exist) has a .5 probability? If so, I'd very much like to play poker with you.

The truth is out there.

 

[Bri]

I'm not asking you to make any presumptions. Do you know of anyone who sincerely professes to worship the Tooth Fairy or the FSM?

No, but that's not the question you asked:

Do you think any people worship the Tooth Fairy or the FSM? Really?​

You're missing the point. I'm not claiming god and not god are the same concepts. Please re-read what I've written.

You asked:

What about the Tooth Fairy, the FSM or "not God"?​

I assumed you were listing three things and asking whether these fit into my definition of "god" (a supernatural being). If not, please explain what you're asking, because I'm thoroughly confused.

Nope--that's not my point either. My point is that assigning any probability to the existence of God makes an assumption about the existence of God.

Sure it does. A probability of 0% assumes that the existence of God is impossible. Assigning a probability greater than 0% but less than 100% makes the assumption that the existence of God is possible. A probability of 100% assumes that God exists.

That assumption is either that God does not exist if the probability is zero or that God exists if the probability assigned is anything but zero.

No, only if it's 100%. If I say that there is a 50% chance that a coin will land on "tails" does that mean that I'm assuming it will land on tails?

If you make ANY premise about the probability of getting a "1" on a die, you are making assumptions about the existence of the 1 on the die.

Only one of the two examples has anything to do with existence. We're comparing "a god exists" with "the die will land on 1" not "a god exists" with "1 exists" (the die example has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of the 1).

Assigning a value greater than 0% but less than 100% to the probability that a god exists does not assume that a god exists any more than assigning a value greater than 0% but less than 100% to the probability of the die landing on a 1 assumes that the die will land on 1.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

There is no logical or causal connection between the probability of a universe with life in it and the probability of the existence of god.

Premise 2 of cj.23's argument was that the probability that the universe is inhabitable if God exists is much higher than if there is no designer. Whether or not you agree with the premise is another question altogether.

Pssst. . . the word you're after is "deity".

Thanks. My fingers always want to type "ie" instead of "ei" for some reason.

-Bri

 

[fls]

But it doesn't follow that that which is apparently anomalous must be caused by God. Or rather, it doesn't follow that that which is in conflict with our currently accepted "laws" is necessarily supernatural.

Yes, but I very specifically told you that I'm not saying that.

So I guess what I'm saying is that if the definition of God is a force that violates ALL natural laws (not just those we know about), then it's still undefined since we don't know what ALL natural laws are.

I am not saying that gods violate all (or even any) natural laws, so it doesn't matter whether or not we know all the natural laws, or even any of them.

ETA: I'm suggesting that they do not follow the same constraints that natural laws do. A consequence of this is that they may violate some know natural laws, but that would be more of a side-effect.

How would that work? If the result of any test came out either apparently at odds with natural laws or in harmony with them, neither one would preclude (or support) the existence of God.

No, if something attributed to gods (for example, creation) were found to have a natural cause, then 'God as Creator of the Universe' would no longer exist. Rather it would be renamed Singularity (or whatever).

ETA: I think I'm misunderstanding you here. You mean a "test" to see whether a definition is a definition?

No. Not in the least.

Linda

 

[articulett]

You're confusing the terms "probability" and "possibility". Because something is possible doesn't mean it is valid or meaningful to assign it a numerical probability. To assign something a numerical probability assumes the thing exists (or does not exist if the probability assigned is zero).

Where does .5 come from? You're not saying anything that has two possible outcomes (either god exists or doesn't exist) has a .5 probability? If so, I'd very much like to play poker with you.

Monkeys are either flying out of my butt or they are not.

According to Malerin's reasoning, there is a 50% probability that they are!

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not quite. The power of the argument lies in the claim that life-permitting universes are extremely rare, and that a life-permitting universe is a statistically important event (maybe because we value life).

But the stupid in the argument is that any universe must be life sustaining for it to have anyone to ask the question.

So the odds that the universe we are in is life sustaining is 1. Because any non life sustaining universe is thrown out.

Your poker analogy doesn't fit because it regards all outcomes as equal. Let me ask you something: Suppose you were playing poker and the dealer deals himself five royal flushes in a row. Would you keep playing? I think you would be out of the game after the 2nd royal flush. But five royal flushes is the same probability as any five junk hands (Example: 2D,2C,3D,8H,10S is just as likely as 10S,JackS,QueenS,KingS,AceS).

All universes might be equally likely but you are looking at this history and saying look at how unlikely this exact situation is, just like looking at the specific arrangement of cards when dealing out a deck. So the analogy holds.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd say for an individual it does if they, nor anyone else, cannot rationally explain away their experience.

You make it sound like the existence of God has no objective truth value.

In fact, God either exists or does not. Your subjective experience does not constitute rational proof that God exists.

I don't care if convinces you individually, it still does not constitute rational proof for the existence of God. Your personal conviction does not change matters.

In other words, it cannot be that God exists for you but not for me. So "for an individual" really doesn't figure into any question of rational proof for the existence of God.

 

[Rodney]

All universes might be equally likely but you are looking at this history and saying look at how unlikely this exact situation is, just like looking at the specific arrangement of cards when dealing out a deck. So the analogy holds.

No, it doesn't. What you and so many others here don't seem to understand is that, if someone deals cards, there must be a specific arrangement of them; i.e., the probability that there will be AN arrangement of them is 100%. The fact that the probability of any particular arrangement is tiny has no relevance whatever to the issue at hand, which is: What was the probability of the universe coming into existence without a creator?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I am not saying that gods violate all (or even any) natural laws, so it doesn't matter whether or not we know all the natural laws, or even any of them.

I'm not assuming you meant they'd violate all natural laws.

You just rejected what I saw as apparent violations of natural laws (until we learned better).

My response was that since we don't know all natural laws, we can't know whether something is an example of god violating natural law or just the thing behaving consistently with natural laws we don't know yet. So for purposes of definition, "a force that is unlawful" is insufficient.

No, if something attributed to gods (for example, creation) were found to have a natural cause, then 'God as Creator of the Universe' would no longer exist. Rather it would be renamed Singularity (or whatever).

Yes--that's pretty much what I said above. And a "singularity" isn't what people mean when they talk about "God" so the vague deist definition of God (whatever first caused the universe) is insufficient since it doesn't exclude objects that it should.

So what is the definition of god? If it's undefined, then it's pointless discussing a rational belief in it. It's just a matter of faith or accepting a mystery or whatever.

 

[RandFan]

What was the probability of the universe coming into existence without a creator?

"1"

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, it doesn't. What you and so many others here don't seem to understand is that, if someone deals cards, there must be a specific arrangement of them; i.e., the probability that there will be AN arrangement of them is 100%. The fact that the probability of any particular arrangement is tiny has no relevance whatever to the issue at hand, which is: What was the probability of the universe coming into existence without a creator?

And the only rational answer to that question is, we don't know.

Or better yet, what do you mean by "creator"? Can it be a singularity? But then you're not talking about God.

It could be that our universe came as the result of expansion (the Big Bang) of a singularity or whatever initial condition resulted in this. And that singularity (or whatever condition) could be the end result of the contraction of a previous universe (Big Crunch), and that that cycle has repeated for ever.

To my knowledge, no one has successfully answered the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing." If you reject arguments based on special pleading (such as, "everything must have a cause except God, and nothing is infinite except God"), there's no reason to think the probability of a universe without a creator is greater than that of a universe without one. Assigning a value to these probabilities is making an assumption (that is, either you assume God exists, and give it a probability greater than zero or you assume God does not exist and you give it a probability greater than zero).

When you say the probability of something occurring is one in whatever, to what does the one correspond? (Think again about cards, dice, coin tosses, and so on.)

On a standard die, the probability of getting an even number is 3:6 or 1:2. That means three even numbers exist on the die out of a total of 6 numbers. You can use that probability without assuming that those numbers exist. If you use that probability to "prove" the existence of those numbers, you're making a circular argument. If you don't KNOW in advance (or assume) that these even numbers exist, you can't assign a probability on the occurrence of getting that number when you roll the die.