Can theists be rational?

[Bri]

The vast majority of theists believe that God knows the future (except when you want to engage in a discussion like this one). Most of them eve believe that God has revealed some of the future to human prophets.

So. . .when they back off of that and say that "omnipotence" does not mean that God knows the future, I say they're just playing around with words that have no meaning.

Knowing the future is an entire topic unto itself, but it's not the same thing as being able to do or create something that is logically impossible. There are good arguments on both sides of the question of whether it's logically impossible to know the future.

Some theists believe that knowing the future is logically impossible and believe that God can know the future anyway. Again, we cannot discuss such a being.

Others believe that knowing the future is logically impossible but that God doesn't know the future. In other words, just as some believe that omnipotent means that God can do anything that is possible to do, omniscient means that God can know anything that is possible to know.

Still others hold that knowing the future isn't logically impossible.

That sounds an awful lot like saying there is no rational justification for the belief in such a being.

It's just saying that our brains are limited to thinking in terms of logic and so we cannot understand a being that is able to operate outside of logic.

Yes. I noticed that you completely ignored the many times I've spelled out why the argument is circular. And your rebuttal invariably is to assert that it is not circular. So, "Is so!" seems to match your arguing skills.

I can lead you to the article on Bayesian analysis, but I cannot make you read.

So...how about the probability of winning a poker hand that you've folded?

Sure, it's close to but greater than zero I'd say. I can think of several scenarios where it would be highly unlikely but possible, including everyone at the table being abducted by aliens and having your minds rearranged so that you all believe that you won the hand.

Is it an ad hom argument somehow? Or are you going to accuse me of not reading your posts again?

Is what an ad hom argument?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Which says nothing of god.

According to the argument cj posted, it most certainly does say something about a god. The problem is that the probability assigned to other variables are speculation, so the conclusion is speculation.

Same goes for arguments about the existence of ET intelligent life, such as those based on Drake's equation.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

According to the argument cj posted, it most certainly does say something about a god.

If the Moon were made of green cheese it would be edible. The argument might speak of cheese but the moon doesn't.

Same goes for arguments about the existence of ET intelligent life, such as those based on Drake's equation.

{sigh}

• We don't know if god has ever existed.
• We don't know of anything about what a god would entail (what is it?).

On the other hand.

• We know that inteligent life exists.
• We know (at a minimum) what that life needs to exist.
• We have a pretty good idea of how it came to be.
• We know that the more stars and planets there are the more likely there is inteligent life.
• There are 100,000,000,000 (stars in our galaxy) x 300,000,000,000+ (galxies in the universe) stars.

No matter how man times you try and equate the two it won't work and it is dishonest to state that they are both the same. And stating that they are different but the same is no more honest.

 

[Bri]

If the Moon were made of green cheese it would be edible. The argument might speak of cheese but the moon doesn't.

I don't understand what that has to do with the discussion.

The argument for a probability of the existence of a god cj posted requires values for multiple variables including the probabilities that a universe would support life with and without a god, the latter being an indication of how fine-tuned the universe is. The value given is generally based on empirical evidence.

No matter how man times you try and equate the two it won't work and it is dishonest to state that they are both the same. And stating that they are different but the same is no more honest.

I have never said that they are the same. What I said was that they are not different in any way that I can think of that would support the notion that one is necessarily rational and the other irrational, or even the notion that one is necessarily more rational than the other.

-Bri

 

[gentlehorse]

• We don't know if god has ever existed.
• We don't know of anything about what a god would entail (what is it?).

On the other hand.

• We know that inteligent life exists.
• We know (at a minimum) what that life needs to exist.
• We have a pretty good idea of how it came to be.
• We know that the more stars and planets there are the more likely there is inteligent life.
• There are 100,000,000,000 (stars in our galaxy) x 300,000,000,000+ (galxies in the universe) stars.

No matter how man times you try and equate the two it won't work and it is dishonest to state that they are both the same. And stating that they are different but the same is no more honest.

I have never said that they are the same. What I said was that they are not different in any way that I can think of that would support the notion that one is necessarily rational and the other irrational, or even the notion that one is necessarily more rational than the other.

-Bri

We can produce evidence for the existence of one of them, in principle.

 

[RandFan]

I don't understand what that has to do with the discussion.

That one can create a valid argument in support of the existence of god doesn't mean that the premises have any validity as to the existence of god. The green cheese moon hypothetical is valid. It's not true.

The argument for a probability of the existence of a god cj posted requires values for multiple variables including the probabilities that a universe would support life with and without a god, the latter being an indication of how fine-tuned the universe is. The value given is generally based on empirical evidence.

There is no basis to believe that there is a god. Unlike intelligent life we don't even know what a god is. We don't know what it entails. We don't know what it requires. It's pure speculation without any basis for belief.

I have never said that they are the same. What I said was that they are not different in any way that I can think of that would support the notion that one is necessarily rational and the other irrational, or even the notion that one is necessarily more rational than the other.

One has a basis for belief the other doesn't.

• We know, in very large part, what intelligent life necessitates.
• We know, in very large part, that the requirements for life are to a great degree abundant in the universe (yes there is a lot that is unknown).
• We know absolutely nothing about what a god is or entails or requires. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

The two can't be equated other than to say both are not impossible. That tells us next to nothing.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Godidit reasoning is mainly problematic because it ignores mechanism. "Omnipotence" is not a mechanism.

The fine-tuning argument is Godidit reasoning. On the surface, it supposes the existence of a "fine-tuner", who "fine-tunes" the universe.

Below the surface, this implies:

• There is a means of adjusting parameters in a universe
• Said parameters were adjusted

Without there being a means of adjusting parameters in the universe, there cannot be any tuning. When parameters are identified that are presumed critical to life, in order to throw them into the mix, the following things have to happen:

• It has to be supposed that there's some way to adjust the particular parameter
• A theory of the effects of the parameter on the existence of life must be explored and considered

Both of these are asking quite a bit. What's more, in full, when considering multiple parameters, there will be a large, multidimensional mathematical space of possible universes. To really get the likelihood that universes can create life, only one area is typically considered--areas close to ours. The reason is that we know our area in this multi-dimensional space has life in it. But there's no reason to suspect this is the only pocket, and this is a vastly complicated problem.

...but what if there are multiple pockets? An infinite number of them? Your theory of living things and effects of parameters on the universe should be, to properly judge a fine-tuning argument, pretty damned comprehensive.

A universe per se is itself a complicated thing, so even exploring a single theory is subject to a number of issues.

Drake equation, on the other hand, is similar--but is in fact the same problem on a smaller scale. I personally think it has a lot of issues myself (not that I believe intelligent life is unlikely, or likely, elsewhere, but I don't think the equation is particularly useful to ascertain this issue), but I cannot conceive of a legitimate argument that would not give it orders of magnitudes more veracity than a fine-tuning argument.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Some theists believe that knowing the future is logically impossible and believe that God can know the future anyway. Again, we cannot discuss such a being.

Sure we can. We can point out that omniscience (knowing the future) is logically inconsistent with omnipotence, for one. Again, we can point out that this definition of God (one that most theists profess to believe in), is logically impossible. Believing in it is not rational.

Others believe that knowing the future is logically impossible but that God doesn't know the future. In other words, just as some believe that omnipotent means that God can do anything that is possible to do, omniscient means that God can know anything that is possible to know.

And of course this approach renders the characteristics omniscience and omnipotence meaningless. God knows everything that it's possible for God to know? What does that mean? Or is it that God knows everything that it's possible for humans to know? In that case, God is no more omniscient than humans.

Still others hold that knowing the future isn't logically impossible.

And most subscribe to God being able to tell the future except when it comes to discussions like this one.

It's just saying that our brains are limited to thinking in terms of logic and so we cannot understand a being that is able to operate outside of logic.

Yes, I can see you find logic so restricting.

At any rate, I think you agree with me on whether or not it is rational to have a belief like this.

Sure, it's close to but greater than zero I'd say. I can think of several scenarios where it would be highly unlikely but possible, including everyone at the table being abducted by aliens and having your minds rearranged so that you all believe that you won the hand.

And see, here is where you're simply wrong. The probability of winning a poker hand that you have folded is zero.

Even if your alien scenario happens, believing that you won the hand is not the same thing as winning the hand. (Just like postulating a probability for the existence of God is not the same as the existence of God.)

 

[Bri]

That one can create a valid argument in support of the existence of god doesn't mean that the premises have any validity as to the existence of god.

The same can be said of any argument, including one based on Drake's equation. If the premises are invalid, then so is the conclusion. In both cases, there is at least one premise that is based on little to no evidence and at least one premise that is based on evidence. The conclusion for each is speculative due to the premises that are speculative.

I'm just not clear on the difference you're attempting to draw here that allows you to state 1) that one proposition is more rational than the other, or 2) that one proposition is rational and the other irrational.

There is no basis to believe that there is a god. Unlike intelligent life we don't even know what a god is. We don't know what it entails. We don't know what it requires. It's pure speculation without any basis for belief

In the case of the argument posted, a god is a being that, if it exists, improves the probability that a universe can support life. That's all that's necessary for the argument.

One has a basis for belief the other doesn't.

Define "basis" in this context.

The two can't be equated other than to say both are not impossible. That tells us next to nothing.

I agree. Unfortunately, we know next to nothing about the probability of the existence of either, so that's about all you can say.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Sure we can. We can point out that omniscience (knowing the future) is logically inconsistent with omnipotence, for one. Again, we can point out that this definition of God (one that most theists profess to believe in), is logically impossible. Believing in it is not rational.

If you could prove that a particular definition of God is logically impossible, you might have a point. But unfortunately that's not nearly as easy as you seem to think. To my knowledge, nobody has disproven an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god, and not from lack of trying.

And of course this approach renders the characteristics omniscience and omnipotence meaningless. God knows everything that it's possible for God to know? What does that mean? Or is it that God knows everything that it's possible for humans to know? In that case, God is no more omniscient than humans.

Really? You know a human who knows everything that is possible for humans to know? Who?

And most subscribe to God being able to tell the future except when it comes to discussions like this one.

OK, but it's not logically impossible for God to be able to know the future, despite your belief that it is.

At any rate, I think you agree with me on whether or not it is rational to have a belief like this.

No, I wouldn't say it's necessarily irrational to have a belief that a being exists that can defy logic. I can say that it's pointless to discuss such a being though, since any discussion we have must occur within a framework of logic in order for it to make any sense at all to us.

And see, here is where you're simply wrong. The probability of winning a poker hand that you have folded is zero.

Even if your alien scenario happens, believing that you won the hand is not the same thing as winning the hand.

After you fold, you regret your decision. Luckily, before the next person plays you are sent back in time. How fortuitous! You decide not to fold, and you win the hand.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

The same can be said of any argument, including one based on Drake's equation. If the premises are invalid, then so is the conclusion. In both cases, there is at least one premise that is based on little to no evidence and at least one premise that is based on evidence. The conclusion for each is speculative due to the premises that are speculative.

Froget Drakes equation. There is some basis to belive that there could be ET inteligent life (see above).

God?

Nothing.

 

[Bri]

Froget Drakes equation. There is some basis to belive that there could be ET inteligent life (see above).

Could be? Of course there could be ET intelligent life (it's possible). Unfortunately, you cannot use the evidence that you listed to conclude anything other than that the probability is above 0 that ET intelligent life exists without knowing the missing pieces to the puzzle.

God?

Nothing.

A fine-tuned universe is similar evidence for the existence of a god. The missing pieces to the puzzle make any conclusion other than a probability greater than 0 mere speculation.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Could be? Of course there could be ET intelligent life (it's possible). Unfortunately, you cannot use the evidence that you listed to conclude anything other than that the probability is above 0 that ET intelligent life exists without knowing the missing pieces to the puzzle.

No. Just because I can't quantify it doesn't mean that it is simply not impossible. There is considerable and reasonable basis.

God? Nothing.

A fine-tuned universe is similar evidence for the existence of a god.

No. What god? We don't know if a god has ever existed. We don't know what a god even entails. We don't know what would be requisite for god. It simply doesn't compare.

• We know that inteligent life has existed (see us).
• We know that the components for inteligent life exist throughout the universe.
• We know that there are at 100,000,000,000 x 300,000,000,000 stars.

God? Nothing.

 

[articulett]

Bri, your perception of a finely tuned universe cannot be evidence for an invisible immeasurable entity that you have somehow come to learn of or know.

Any story and all invisible immeasurable entities can be used to explain an appearance of design in a story telling species. But that doesn't mean that it's at all possible for any invisible immeasurable non physical entity to affect this physical worlds--to think, want, plan, manipulate physics, and yet remain completely undetectable. It's even more incredible to think that you could "know" something about this entity but no scientist, test, or measuring device could--especially given our known human history of fooling ourselves in this exact way. It would be even more bizarre if this invisible entity just happened to match the invisible entity you were indoctrinated to believe in-- with the same sort of immaterial "consciousness". Don't you see how arrogant and impossible and how much that sounds like special pleading? Because I know you would if it was used to argue for a different invisible entity that you wouldn't label "god".

If this god doesn't play by physical laws, how did you come to know of him? How could anyone? How do you distinguish it from a myth? Why do you think so many humans have believed such crazy things, but you are immune?

Your god makes less sense than what it's supposed to explain. The universe seems finely tuned to bring forth yourself...so you invent an invisible undetectable god to explain this-- a god that you, personally, have somehow come to learn of.

It just doesn't make sense no matter how you slice it. It doesn't make sense for the woo you don't believe, and it doesn't make sense for the supernatural explanation that you think is "possible".

It reminds me of my son looking at a photo of his parents when he was two. He asked where he was in the picture, and when I told him that it was "before you were born", he just couldn't compute. Finally he pointed just out of the frame and said, "no, I walked and walked and walked away." He made up an explanation because he could not understand that the world didn't spring into existence with his own consciousness-- because his world did.

To me, all gods sound like just that kind of explanation.

 

[Bri]

No. Just because I can't quantify it doesn't mean that it is simply not impossible.

It just means that anything beyond "possible" is opinion. Therefore, I don't think you can come up with a reasonable definition of "irrational" that would make one more rational than the other, much less make one irrational and the other rational.

That's all I'm saying.

No. What god? We don't know if a god has ever existed.

Do we know that aliens have ever existed?

We don't know what a god even entails. We don't know what would be requisite for god. It simply doesn't compare.

It make no difference to the argument. In this case, as was pointed out by another poster, god is just defined as fine-tuner of the universe.

-Bri

 

[fls]

I didn't say that I agreed with the premise of the argument.

So you are saying that in the absence of independent confirmation that fognorps exist, it's okay for you to reject the premise and therefore reject the conclusion?

I understand what you're saying and I understand that it looks that way, but it's a valid Bayesian analysis and it's not saying "if A then B, B, therefore A." It's assigning a probability to B based on A and without A, assigning a probability for A without regard to B, then saying that if B is true, a certain probability for A can be concluded.

So now you're saying "if A or C then B". It still doesn't allow you to conclude, "B therefore A or C" and then choose which of the two it is based on relative probabilities.

I'm just saying that your scenario isn't equivalent to the argument cj posted. Here's your scenario:

I'm looking for a disease to name after myself, so I declare that Linda's Syndrome is a condition which leads to a sodium measurement of 118. Out of hundreds of sodium measurements, only a handful will have a measurement of 118. Considering that Linda's Syndrome does not actually exist, does someone with a sodium measurement of 118 make it possible that my idea is true?​

First of all, it is possible that there is a condition that changes people's sodium levels to 118 (the probability is greater than 0).

Yes, but it's not possible that Linda's Syndrome does because I made it up.

But rereading it now, I don't think the problem is that it's equivalent to assuming multiple universes. It seems like you may be misinterpreting what is meant by "rare." Having a small number of 118's out of hundreds is exactly what you would expect to see, so that scenario isn't rare at all. Having 99 out of 100 showing a 118 sodium level would be rare.

In other words, if you were to assign actual probabilities from your description, the chances of a handful of people out of hundreds having sodium levels of 118 with the existence of L.S. and without the existence of L.S. would be relatively close (in fact, with L.S. it seems like you might have more people with sodium levels of 118). Therefore, the conclusion would be that the probability of the existence of L.S. would be very low (way less than 50%).

Quibbling over the absolute probability level doesn't change the nature of the argument. I will illustrate this with your 'new' argument.

This one better mirrors the argument in question:

There is a 1 in a million chance that a sodium-changing virus Linda's syndrome exists that would cause a population of 10,000 people to all have the same sodium level.

Assume that if a sodium-changing virus Linda's Syndrome exists, there is a 99% probability that all of the population would have the same sodium level. Assume that if a sodium-changing virus Linda's Syndrome doesn't exist, there is a .0[bajillion zeros here]1% probability that all of the population would have the same sodium level.

There are 10,000 residents of the Island of Fishead. You have them all tested for sodium. All of them have sodium levels of 118.

We can conclude a high probability that a sodium-changing virus Linda's Syndrome exists.

So even though we know that I made it up, and Linda's Syndrome does not exist, you say that we can conclude that it does exist. Does that make sense to you?

Incorrect. If the universe isn't [I presume you meant 'is'] fine-tuned (according to the argument) then there is a much higher likelihood that a god exists than if the universe isn't fine-tuned.

What fraction of universes are fine-tuned? The presence of fine-tuned universes in the absence of gods has been estimated, but what is the observed fraction of fine-tuned universes? Which value is more likely - 10% or 90%? How will you get someone to agree with you if they don't already in the same way that you agreed with me that when it comes to the fraction of planets in a solar system that can support life, it is more likely to be 10% than 99%?

One isn't necessarily more plausible than the other according to RandFan's definition of "plausible." You can certainly say that you believe one to be more plausible than the other or are of the opinion that one is more plausible than the other. But I don't think you'd get the same answer as to which is more plausible from everyone you ask.

-Bri

Can't you just ask for the relative amount of independent evidence in support of the idea?

Linda

 

[Bri]

So you are saying that in the absence of independent confirmation that fognorps exist, it's okay for you to reject the premise and therefore reject the conclusion?

Absolutely. Fognorps, aliens, and gods.

So now you're saying "if A or C then B". It still doesn't allow you to conclude, "B therefore A or C" and then choose which of the two it is based on relative probabilities.

You'll have to read about Bayesian analysis. The argument isn't of the form you think it is.

Yes, but it's not possible that Linda's Syndrome does because I made it up.

...

So even though we know that I made it up, and Linda's Syndrome does not exist, you say that we can conclude that it does exist. Does that make sense to you?

It's possible that it exists. Changing the name of the virus doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. So sure, it might not be called Linda's Syndrome (if it even has a name), but it is possible that such a thing as was described in the argument exists. By the same token, the word for "god" and "alien" might be different if you live in a non-English-speaking country, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

And yes, depending on the values placed on the probabilities in the premise, you can arrive at a probability that it exists.

What fraction of universes are fine-tuned? The presence of fine-tuned universes in the absence of gods has been estimated, but what is the observed fraction of fine-tuned universes? Which value is more likely - 10% or 90%? How will you get someone to agree with you if they don't already in the same way that you agreed with me that when it comes to the fraction of planets in a solar system that can support life, it is more likely to be 10% than 99%?

You can see the article I posted earlier about fine-turned universes, but here is the general idea:

The premise of the fine-tuned universe assertion is that a small change in several of the approximately 26 dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the universe radically different: if, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e. if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably prevent the universe from developing life as it is currently observed on the earth.​

Can't you just ask for the relative amount of independent evidence in support of the idea?

The problem is that the evidence doesn't really support the idea without the missing pieces of the puzzle. The evidence RandFan posted is evidence supporting certain premises. But there is no evidence supporting other premises that are necessary for a valid conclusion. So the conclusion is speculation. Can it really be said that evidence that doesn't lead to a valid conclusion is evidence of the conclusion?

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Therefore, I don't think you can come up with a reasonable definition of "irrational" that would make one more rational than the other, much less make one irrational and the other rational.

You are entitled to an opinion. Even an irrational one.

 

[Bri]

You are entitled to an opinion. Even an irrational one.

By which definition?

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

By which definition?

Thinking that an entity that we know nothing about, have no evidence has ever existed, don't know what it entails or requires, is equal in probability to ET inteligence when we know that inteligent life has existed, know what it entails, know what elements and molecules are required and know that there are are so many stars with possible planets is irrational.