Can theists be rational?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Agreed, multiple possible universes. The problem is that Joe is confusing a possible universe with the actual existing universe and saying that if a god exists in one of the possible universes, then it exists. If you're assuming that all possible universes actually exist, then you're changing the meaning from "exists" to "exists in our universe."

You still don't understand.

Premise 1 says that the probability of God existing is 1 in a million.

That is the same as saying there exists one God for every 1 million possible universes. It assumes that God exists.

But I don't know how to explain that to Joe, I suspect mainly because he believes so much that he's right that he's not reading what I'm writing.

You're full of it, Bri.

I just showed above several occasions where you CLEARLY have not been reading my posts. You keep accusing me of the same.

It's also abundantly CLEAR that you don't know what a probability means, and that you don't understand the concept of circular reasoning.

 

[RandFan]

Besides, I'm not even convinced that a deeper analysis hurts whatever "not lost cause" you have in mind.

Hey, have at it. It doesn't hurt anything. I'm only voicing an opinion. Thank god we still get to have those or you, my uncle Bob and I wouldn't get to bitch and moan. Like I said, it's our god given right to waste our time on whatever we see fit. If you want to tilt at windmills then be my guest. Though if this discussion keeps up I'm going to run out of metaphors.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

At least you seem to have finally accepted that the 1 million refers to universes and isn't something I added to the discussion. You've stated that several times now. You were completely wrong every time you did so.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You need at the very least multiple possible universes or probabilities become meaningless.

Yes.

Just like with a die it needs to have multiple possible throws.

Not quite.

The 6 does not come from the number of throws, but from the number of total possible successful outcomes (that is the 6 faces of the die).

I thought maybe Bri was thinking of it this way--since we use probabilities predictively based on the number of trials (throws or re-running everything from the Big Bang, or whatever). The 1:6 probability tells us we can expect to get one success in 6 tosses of the die, but that's not where it comes from.

Here's the reason why:

You say the probability of getting a 3 is 1:6, and you throw the die 6 times but don't get a three, is the probability now 0:6? Of course not.

In fact, statistics predicts that you'll get streaks of no 3 coming up 6 times in a row if you toss the die often enough.

The 1:6 probability means that there is one possible successful outcome (the 3) and 6 total possible outcomes. You know this before any tosses by counting the number of possible successful outcomes and the total number of possible outcomes.

ETA: Whether you agree or disagree with my premise (there is a 1:6 probability of getting a 3) is beside the point, and not the question I'm asking. I'm asking whether you understand that stating that probability assumes the existence of a 3 on the die.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is fun now--like explaining probability to a small child. . .

Now start again.

We live on a "face". We don't know if there are other possible faces, or if there are how many. We also don't know if our face has a 3 or not.

If you say, there is a one in a million chance that our face has a three on it, this assumes that 3 exists on a ratio of one face per million faces.

Again, you've assumed the existence of a 3.

 

[yy2bggggs]

But how? How do you exclude Satan or Mohammed or the Buddha or Gandalf? What characteristic does God have that these guys don't have? Is it Perfect Compassion? Omniscience? Omnipotence?

It's the property of being worthy of worship, whatever that means, and however an entity gets to have it.

I don't think it's anything more fundamental than a role. In fact, I'm not entirely sure whether or not being supernatural per se is necessary--just the role (and I mean that as phrased--not entirely sure).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Hey Bri--I just noticed you tacked this onto your post without mentioning that it was an addition.

Joe: I bet that die is going to land on a "3".
Bri: You're on.
(Joe rolls the die and it lands on a "4").
Joe: See, I told you it would land on a "3".
Bri: No, it's a "4".
Joe: No, in another possible universe it landed on a "3".
Bri: Those other universes aren't real though. They only represent possibilities.
Joe: No, they're all real.
Bri: In that case, the question was whether we actually live in a universe in which the die landed on a "3".
Joe: You don't understand probability.

Get off it. It's clearly you that doesn't understand this.

Try this one: imagine an 8 sided die with the following numbers on it: 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6. The probability of rolling a three is 3:8. The 3 means that there exist 3 threes on the die. The 8 means that there are 8 total possible outcomes.

Now tell me what the 1 and the million refer to in cj's post? Doesn't the one assume the existence of God?

 

[RandFan]

It's the property of being worthy of worship, whatever that means, and however an entity gets to have it.

Then you would have to include them all. BTW, Matt Dillahunty makes a great argument for Satan being god given the premise that the bible is god's word.

Satan can't be god because god is good.
What is good?
That which god says is good.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not quite.

The 6 does not come from the number of throws, but from the number of total possible successful outcomes (that is the 6 faces of the die).

No, you need the throws to determine if the die is fair or not. An unfair die might have a 6 on a face but it might also never be possible to be rolled.

You say the probability of getting a 3 is 1:6, and you throw the die 6 times but don't get a three, is the probability now 0:6? Of course not.

This is because probabilities do not address existence. Just because A is more likely than B does not mean that A exists and B does not.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's the property of being worthy of worship, whatever that means, and however an entity gets to have it.

I don't think it's anything more fundamental than a role. In fact, I'm not entirely sure whether or not being supernatural per se is necessary--just the role (and I mean that as phrased--not entirely sure).

I'm not so sure what you mean by separating the idea of "role" from definition. My point about definition is that if the word is not defined, it's pointless talking about it being rational to believe it exists. We have no idea what it is we're talking about.

So, if we use the characteristic of being worshipped (or worthy of being worshipped), the problem is that it would exclude the deist notion of an impersonal God (and a great many others--some Gods are appeased and feared but not actually worshipped--yet that is what those people mean when they use the term "god"). So rather than including too many (well it does that too, as Randfan pointed out), it excludes things that people would say should be in the class.

Now I don't mind excluding some people's notion of God, but it's obvious then that we're not dealing with a single class when we use the word "God" unlike, for example, the word "dog". We could list a series of characteristics that would form a class that could include everything we think is a dog and exclude everything that we think is not a dog.

Again, I think this definition of God (the list of characteristics) should reflect the characteristics that most people attribute to God. People really profess to believe all that perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. stuff until it comes time to discussing whether God is rationally possible. Then it becomes the very vague God retreating into the gaps.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Try this one: imagine an 8 sided die with the following numbers on it: 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6. The probability of rolling a three is 3:8. The 3 means that there exist 3 threes on the die. The 8 means that there are 8 total possible outcomes.

You are still assuming a fair die

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, you need the throws to determine if the die is fair or not. An unfair die might have a 6 on a face but it might also never be possible to be rolled.

So the casinos have a testing room where the roll every new die 6 times, and if it doesn't give them one of each number, they toss it out?

The 6 does not come from any certain number of rolls. As I said, you could roll it 6 times and not get a target number, yet the probability is still 1:6. The probability is based on 1 possible successful outcome for every 6 possible outcomes.

This is because probabilities do not address existence. Just because A is more likely than B does not mean that A exists and B does not.

If you assign a probability to something, you are making an assumption about its existence.

If I claim the probability of getting a 3 on a die is 1:6, I'm assuming there exists one 3 for every 6 total numbers on it. If I don't know (or assume) whether there is a 3 on the die, I cannot say there is a 1:6 probability of getting the 3. The one and six correspond to the existence of these things. They can be used to make predictions about tosses, but that's not where the values come from.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You are still assuming a fair die

Yes I am, but it's irrelevant to the point that I'm making that points to the flaw in the argument cj posted.

If you claim a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a three, you are assuming the existence of the 3. Whether the die is fair or not, if you claim any non-zero chance of getting a number, you are assuming that number MUST be on the die.

ETA: I'm not quibbling over the values stated in Premise 1. It would still be a circular argument if it said the probability of God's existence is 3 in 8 or 4 in 50001 or anything. Whether the die is fair would only change the values. If you give ANY numerical probability for getting a 3 (even zero) you are making an assumption about the existence of the 3.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Then you would have to include them all.

BTW, Matt Dillahunty makes a great argument for Satan being god given the premise that the bible is god's word.

True enough that I don't take major issue with it. I don't discount Satan's role as a god, by the way, merely his role as a god within the majority view of the Christian mythos--where he, though supernatural, simply doesn't fulfill the role.

I like that line of reasoning--it shows intimate awareness of the Euthyphro dilemma.

 

[RandFan]

This is because probabilities do not address existence. Just because A is more likely than B does not mean that A exists and B does not.

If there is no possibility of A then the probability of A, regardless of B, is nonsensical.

 

[RandFan]

Or, to express it another way, what is the probability of A = not A? Or, what is the probability of square circles?

 

[ponderingturtle]

So the casinos have a testing room where the roll every new die 6 times, and if it doesn't give them one of each number, they toss it out?

No, they measure the weighting of the die very precisely and casino dice have very high manufacturing standards compared to say board game dice.

The casinos do take this very seriously.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If you want to avoid dice because they can be loaded, let's go back to cards (which can also be cheated--but we're assuming they're fair).

We have a packet of 6 cards, Ace, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. You pick one at random (I'm assuming this means random). The probability of picking the 3 is one in 6.
ETA: The one and 6 comes from the one 3 and six total cards--possible outcomes. The 6 does not come a number of picks.

Now you've got 6 cards whose values you don't know. If you claim the odds of randomly picking a 3 are 1:6, then you are assuming the existence of a 3 in the stack.

Now we've got an unknown quantity of cards (at least one), and we don't know if there are any 3s whatsoever. If you say there is a 1:1,000,000 chance of randomly picking a 3 you are assuming the existence of one three in the stack for every million total cards in the stack.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, they measure the weighting of the die very precisely and casino dice have very high manufacturing standards compared to say board game dice.

The casinos do take this very seriously.

Exactly, and they don't get the 6 in the 1:6 probability by rolling it 6 times.

At any rate, it's irrelevant to the point. All a loaded die would do is change the numbers (and make them hideously complicated to calculate which is why we assume a fair die), it wouldn't change the assumptions about existence.

This really isn't the issue. See the card example I just posted.

ETA: I believe I also used the coin toss example earlier. If I say there's a 1:2 probability of getting "tails", I am assuming "tails" exists and it's not a two headed coin. It would be circular reasoning for me to start with the premise that there is a 1:2 chance of getting tails, and concluding that "tails" exists.

 

[Rufus]

In terms of if any theist can be rational, I don't think it's wise to deal in absolutes. One act alone does not make them completely irrational.
However we can look at that one act of belief in God, and ask if that is rational.
On the atheist / scientific side of things, we can say that we have evidence to suggest that the existence of God is unlikely but we cannot disprove his existence (can't prove a negative and we've yet to discover many things out there).
This leaves a margin of doubt big enough to consider the existence of God or "something" (just so happens that "God" is very popular).
Everyone, to some degree, has a want to be loved in a way that never leaves and many also have a need to have morals. Morals, may not (or don't in my opinion) come from God but since law and general society only seems to provide lawfulness, and not morals that are clearly outlined... many people find this in religion.
Also a factor is in how they grew up, their environment now. For instance, a lot of schools here in the UK, although government run (used to when I was there anyway... only 7 years ago), sung hymns, visited churches and did mostly Christian festivals. This goes a fair way to creating that feeling that this is "right", in the same way subliminal messaging works.
This coupled with things like confirmation biased and the broken clock theory in a persons (religious) experiences, lead them further down that path.
That feeling of "rightness" and their experiences, plus that gap... but them in a position where it's easy to edge their bets and believe in God.

Which then brings me on to ignorance. Not in a nasty way, I've done it myself. But if you just get fed "good news" a lot about someone, it makes it harder to believe when someone tells you the bad and you may even see the bad for yourself... but try to rationalise why they would do such bad things, because you know so much good about them.
It's human nature to do so, most people don't like to be wrong. Especially in such a big issue like religion.

So I suggest, whilst the actual evidence for the existence of God and the nature of God may suggest they aren't rational by having an opposing view. If you look at the path which lead them to their belief, it's probably not actually irrational for them to believe. That doesn't however make it the truth.