Can theists be rational?

[JoeTheJuggler]

No. What I said is that an argument using Bayes analysis, like any other argument, depends on accepting the premises. That goes for any argument, including those for Fognorps, aliens, or gods.

It's obvious now that you're appealing to Bayesian frameworks the same way New Agers drop the word "quantum".

Read this please: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4339571#post4339571

The argument cj posted requires the probability of fine-tuned universes in the absence of a fine-tuner as a premise. That premise is based on actual empirical evidence.

No it doesn't. There is absolutely no empirical evidence about the existence or non-existence of a fine tuner.

Bri, don't you find "Fine Tuner" to be a very insincere concept? They're talking about God the Creator, aren't they? You know, the Trinity, Yahweh, or whatever. Do you think any of these apologists go home (or to church) and pray to the Fine Tuner? Think they look for salvation from a personal relationship with the Fine Tuner?

Do you think these fine-tuned universe arguments are what led people to their faith?

Sorry, but ever since Dover, I have little patience for deception from people like this. They no longer get the benefit of the doubt.

At least I applaud Kathy for just saying she believes in what she believes and not trying to disguise it as a logical argument or dressing it up in scientific-sounding terminology.

Similarly, some of the premises in an argument based on Drake's equation are based on actual empirical evidence. The problem is that in both cases, other premises are entirely speculation, which makes the conclusion speculation.

The difference is that Drake's Equation is useful speculation (since the conclusion is not contained in the speculative premises making it a circular argument).

No so long ago, we had no idea if extra solar planets were very very scarce or relatively common. We now know they're relatively common, so that bit of the equation drives the probability of ET life up --compared to the situation we'd have if it turned out we couldn't find extra solar planets of a given mass and geometry (with regard to their position compared to our vantage point and their primary) as we developed techniques for detecting them.

It is useless to speculate that God probably exists, then conclude that God probably exists. Useless and meaningless.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just in case you don't follow the link to the yy2bggggs' fine post on the other thread, I'll quote it here.

It's pretty much what I've been saying all along. The probability you're talking about is still a regular probability.

The debate over whether the probabilities are subjective or objective is irrelevant. Subjective probabilities in a Bayesian framework are useless without convergence, and there's no way in hell you're going to get convergence with a single inference based on probabilities you're coming up with from a single data point.

Regardless, even in the subjective case, what a Bayesian probability actually represents isn't the same as fuzzy logics--Bayesian probability theory uses the same rules of probability we use elsewhere for a reason. They are meant to work the same way. A particular unit, whatever it may be, represents equal likelihoods; that is, if A and B are mutually exclusive, P(A OR B)=P(A)+P(B), period (another way of saying the difference from 0.0 to 0.2 represents the same probability difference as the difference from 0.6 to 0.8).

And this means that we're essentially talking about the real probabilities of something. We're just working with a probability universe that is slightly distinct, is all.

For lack of better terms, given a proposition X, the Bayesian probability P(X) represents the proportion, weighted in terms of respective likelihoods, of "possibly actual" worlds in which X is true, to all "possibly actual" worlds. This could be considered in light of the fact that the "actual" world we live in is randomly selected from this set of possibly actual worlds, according to standard frequency probability theory.

The part I highlighted, in terms of tossing a fair die, means that the probability of success is the ratio of the number of successful outcomes to the number of equally likely total possible outcomes. In other words, the probability of rolling a 3 is 1:6. And these numbers have actual, real meanings--not simply a reflection of how strongly you believe something.

 

[fls]

Only if you accept that the other premises of the argument are valid.

ETA: I think the confusion may have to do with Bayesian analysis, which involves taking a prior probability of something being true, applying additional data to it, and calculating a resulting probability of the something being true. The prior probability and the data are the premises of the argument (in this case, the data is the probability of a fine-tuned universe). The fact that one of the premises involves a probability of the existence of a god and the conclusion also involves a probability of the existence of a god doesn't make it a circular argument. The premise is the probability of a god without regard to the data (the prior probability). The conclusion is the probability of a god with regard to the data being applied (the posterior probability).

You just seemed to be arguing that anyone who doesn't already think there may be a god should be persuaded that maybe there is on the basis of this argument.

Which was it? Did you make it up, or did you pull it out of your ass? Never mind, I don't want to know.

Seriously, making it up doesn't mean that a sodium-altering virus is impossible does it? It's not impossible that you thought up something that happens to actually exist.

Many things are not impossible. Are you suggesting that the very act of making stuff up somehow adds to its possible realness?

The conclusion is that if you take into account the additional data, the existence of a god is more likely. The conclusion is based on the premises, not the other way around.

-Bri

Umm...Bayes' Theorem is a tautology. No additional data is involved.

Linda

 

[EventHorizon]

What I think is God is the giver of life so he has the right to decide when and how we die, can anyone fight or truly win the arguement with God? NO! the correct answer is NO! We will all surely die because of the fall of man. The good news is not everyone goes to hell, only those who deny the Lords free gift of salvation. My suggestion to everyone is to not play the fool, Satan did that and guess what happened? Remember hell was orginally created for Satan and the other demons, they are the ones behind all this torment, not God. The choice is one place or the other we either believe and serve God, or we listen to the lies of the evil one and perish. No time for games, this is life or death!

Given the choice between blindly worshiping a creature who would kill innocent people without batting an eyelash or spending an eternity in hell, I think I'll take hell. At the very least I would expect the food to be better; there's nothing like cooking over an open fire.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Many things are not impossible. Are you suggesting that the very act of making stuff up somehow adds to its possible realness?

...snip...

When you consider the arguments they are putting forward they are nothing more than re-wordings of that old chestnut, the ontological argument for god.

 

[Belz...]

This one:

This really indicates how dishonest you are, Bri.​

That's not an ad hominem, Bri. That's an insult.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Depends if we throw omnipotence in. Can god create an event that even he can't know ? That doesn't make sense, does it ? But if he can't, he's not omnipotent. And if he can, then he's not omniscient.

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.

In other words theists believe in whatever the hell they want.

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.

Assuming one actually exists.

 

[Belz...]

The same can be said of any argument, including one based on Drake's equation.

Well, it's a good thing that no one here is doing that, then.

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

I think you need to read that again. The sum of all humans is NOT omniscient.

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.

Ergo, you didn't fold.

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.

Actually, I just did.

 

[Bri]

You just seemed to be arguing that anyone who doesn't already think there may be a god should be persuaded that maybe there is on the basis of this argument.

Huh? I did no such thing! Please re-read what I wrote. I think I've been abundantly clear that I don't accept the premises of the argument and that in order to accept the conclusion you must accept the premises.

Many things are not impossible. Are you suggesting that the very act of making stuff up somehow adds to its possible realness?

Of course not. Where are you getting that? You said that it was impossible because you made it up and I was pointing out that just because you made it up, it's not impossible.

Umm...Bayes' Theorem is a tautology. No additional data is involved.

Really, I suggest you read up on Bayes Theorem.

-Bri

 

[Dancing David]

Rolling a number other than 1-6 on a six-sided die does not have a 0% probaility (even assuming the die is numbered 1-6). It is possible for the numbers to change on the die as soon you toss it (e.g., through sudden migration of atoms, God's intervention, a capricious alien, etc.).

The only propositions given 0% probailities are logical contradictions (or possibly false math statements).

Okay, this is a show stopper for sure.

 

[Dancing David]

It is a bit ironic (given the title of the thread) that the theists posting here are the ones who understand conditional probability and epistemic belief values while some of the atheists haven't a clue.

That figures from some one who either doesn't read their sources or thinks 1,000,000,000=1/1031.

Math is not a forte nor is discussion.

 

[fls]

Huh? I did no such thing! Please re-read what I wrote. I think I've been abundantly clear that I don't accept the premises of the argument and that in order to accept the conclusion you must accept the premises.

Ah, then the difference between the probability that gods exist and the probability that intelligent aliens exist is simply that the former is faith driven and the latter is evidence driven. I suggest that one can make the distinction between rational and irrational on that basis. Not that it is irrational to form beliefs based on faith, but that it is irrational to treat beliefs formed on faith as evidence. That is, it is irrational to assume that faith can be used to assign some sort of probability to the question of God's existence.

Of course not. Where are you getting that? You said that it was impossible because you made it up and I was pointing out that just because you made it up, it's not impossible.

You seem to be conflating two different things. Whether or not there is a condition that can lead to a particular sodium level has nothing to do with something I made up, even if they coincidentally share some characteristic in common. If an object orbiting Jupiter is discovered that is composed of clay and glass, it doesn't mean that the "teacup orbiting Jupiter" idea was right.

Really, I suggest you read up on Bayes Theorem.

-Bri

Bayes Theorem is simply a rearrangement of whatever information you put into it. You have a prior probability, a likelihood ratio, and a posterior probability. The likelihood ratio is a factor that is calculated from whatever information you have available. In the case of the likelihood of life in the presence of gods and in the absence of gods, one simply guesses as to what those values would be. But that's the only information that you have. After that, all you can say is, "if I input this prior probability, the likelihood ratio changes it to this posterior probability". In order to have additional information, you need additional information about what the prior probability is, or what the posterior probability is, independent of the information used to calculate the likelihood ratio.

Linda

 

[Bri]

It's obvious now that you're appealing to Bayesian frameworks the same way New Agers drop the word "quantum".

No.

No it doesn't. There is absolutely no empirical evidence about the existence or non-existence of a fine tuner.

I agree, because I reject the premises of the argument.

Bri, don't you find "Fine Tuner" to be a very insincere concept? They're talking about God the Creator, aren't they? You know, the Trinity, Yahweh, or whatever. Do you think any of these apologists go home (or to church) and pray to the Fine Tuner? Think they look for salvation from a personal relationship with the Fine Tuner?

Do you think these fine-tuned universe arguments are what led people to their faith?

Sorry, but ever since Dover, I have little patience for deception from people like this. They no longer get the benefit of the doubt.

At least I applaud Kathy for just saying she believes in what she believes and not trying to disguise it as a logical argument or dressing it up in scientific-sounding terminology.

I think that most believers are not theologians, and therefore accept their belief on faith. But there have been plenty of theologians and philosophers over the years who have thought about these things very carefully. Do I find them insincere? I wouldn't know if they're insincere or not.

The difference is that Drake's Equation is useful speculation (since the conclusion is not contained in the speculative premises making it a circular argument).

I don't know how useful it is, but speculation is speculation. Anyway, I think we've already beaten this particular horse to death. Bayesian analysis is not circular argument. Read the article.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Ah, then the difference between the probability that gods exist and the probability that intelligent aliens exist is simply that the former is faith driven and the latter is evidence driven.

If faith is defined as belief without evidence, they are both faith-based or evidence-based, depending on whether you feel that having partial evidence counts as evidence. There is no way to conclude that the probability of either is greater than 0.5 (probable).

I suggest that one can make the distinction between rational and irrational on that basis. Not that it is irrational to form beliefs based on faith, but that it is irrational to treat beliefs formed on faith as evidence. That is, it is irrational to assume that faith can be used to assign some sort of probability to the question of God's existence.

Call it conjecture, speculation, or faith -- the result is the same. There are several variables of Drake's equation that are entirely based on conjecture as there are variables of the argument cj posted that are entirely based on conjecture.

You seem to be conflating two different things. Whether or not there is a condition that can lead to a particular sodium level has nothing to do with something I made up, even if they coincidentally share some characteristic in common.

The "L.S." you described was defined. If you want to add a condition to the definition that would make it impossible, that would simply change the premises of the argument to zero, making the conclusion zero.

If an object orbiting Jupiter is discovered that is composed of clay and glass, it doesn't mean that the "teacup orbiting Jupiter" idea was right.

True enough, not all objects composed of clay and glass are teacups. But are you saying that it's impossible that an actual teacup is orbiting Jupiter just because someone thought it up assuming it wasn't true?

Bayes Theorem is simply a rearrangement of whatever information you put into it. You have a prior probability, a likelihood ratio, and a posterior probability. The likelihood ratio is a factor that is calculated from whatever information you have available. In the case of the likelihood of life in the presence of gods and in the absence of gods, one simply guesses as to what those values would be. But that's the only information that you have.

No, we have evidence about how fine-tuned the universe is, which would allow us to speculate as to the likelihood of something like that occurring in the absence of gods. But you're right about the other premises.

After that, all you can say is, "if I input this prior probability, the likelihood ratio changes it to this posterior probability". In order to have additional information, you need additional information about what the prior probability is, or what the posterior probability is, independent of the information used to calculate the likelihood ratio.

Yup, some of the premises are pure conjecture. Just like with Drake's equation.

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

Gee, Bri. Do you have me on ignore ? Otherwise would you mind answering me, sometimes ?

 

[fls]

If faith is defined as belief without evidence, they are both faith-based or evidence-based, depending on whether you feel that having partial evidence counts as evidence. There is no way to conclude that the probability of either is greater than 0.5 (probable).

The distinction between faith-based or evidence-based is not about whether or not the probability exceeds a certain threshold, it is about the source of that probability. The source of the probability for gods is faith. The source of the probability for intelligent aliens is through the scientific process with systematic observation, testing of hypotheses, etc.

Call it conjecture, speculation, or faith -- the result is the same. There are several variables of Drake's equation that are entirely based on conjecture as there are variables of the argument cj posted that are entirely based on conjecture.

I am distinguishing between conjecture based on faith vs. conjecture based on a scientific, evidence-based approach.

The "L.S." you described was defined. If you want to add a condition to the definition that would make it impossible, that would simply change the premises of the argument to zero, making the conclusion zero.

There's no need to add that condition. It can be left as I described it, since clearly my idea is not constrained by the presence or absence of the condition in reality.

True enough, not all objects composed of clay and glass are teacups. But are you saying that it's impossible that an actual teacup is orbiting Jupiter just because someone thought it up assuming it wasn't true?

No, I'm saying that the idea didn't come from the actual teacup orbiting Jupiter. Whether or not someone had the idea has no impact on whether or not a teacup is there and vice versa. If either thing is unchanged regardless of the condition of the other, they are unrelated.

No, we have evidence about how fine-tuned the universe is, which would allow us to speculate as to the likelihood of something like that occurring in the absence of gods.

That information would be used to calculate the likelihood ratio so it doesn't represent additional information.

Yup, some of the premises are pure conjecture. Just like with Drake's equation.

-Bri

Right. I'm not making a distinction on the basis of whether or not something is conjecture, but rather what that conjecture is based on. And when I mention evidence, I'm not referring to stuff like "I feel warm and fuzzy when I think about Jesus, so that is evidence that he is really divine", but rather to information that makes an idea more or less likely to be true - that is, if the information was different, it would weaken or destroy a particular idea.

Linda

 

[Bri]

The distinction between faith-based or evidence-based is not about whether or not the probability exceeds a certain threshold, it is about the source of that probability. The source of the probability for gods is faith. The source of the probability for intelligent aliens is through the scientific process with systematic observation, testing of hypotheses, etc.

How do you figure? There is no scientific evidence for some of the variables necessary to figure a probability for intelligent aliens. Same goes for the probability of the existence of a god. On the other hand, there is some scientific evidence for other variables. Same goes for the probability of the existence of a god.

Also, wouldn't it have to meet a certain threshold of probability for it to be rational? In other words, is it rational to believe in something for which there is only a 0.0000001 probability (highly improbable)? Or does it have to at least be probable (probability greater than 0.5) for it to be rational?

I am distinguishing between conjecture based on faith vs. conjecture based on a scientific, evidence-based approach.

Can you define the word conjecture for me here? Maybe we're not using the term the same. I'm using it to mean a guess. When I say that some of the premises of an argument based on Drake's equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture, I mean that there is little or no evidence to support them.

The problem is, there's no such thing as "conjecture based on evidence." If there was evidence, it wouldn't be conjecture.

There's no need to add that condition. It can be left as I described it, since clearly my idea is not constrained by the presence or absence of the condition in reality.

I'm not sure what your point is. If you give the premises values greater than 0, you're assuming that it is possible. If you give them values of 0, you're assuming it's impossible. You asked if in fact it is possible that such a thing that you described exists, and I said yes, of course it's possible.

No, I'm saying that the idea didn't come from the actual teacup orbiting Jupiter. Whether or not someone had the idea has no impact on whether or not a teacup is there and vice versa. If either thing is unchanged regardless of the condition of the other, they are unrelated.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the question you asked me. But if I were to think up something (pull it out of my ass, as you put it) that doesn't mean that there is a 0 probability of it being true.

That information would be used to calculate the likelihood ratio so it doesn't represent additional information.

It isn't used to calculate the prior probability of the existence of a god. It is considered "new evidence" that is used to calculate the resulting probability of the existence of a god. Did you read the article on Bayesian analysis?

Right. I'm not making a distinction on the basis of whether or not something is conjecture, but rather what that conjecture is based on.

What do you think the terms of Drake's equation that are largely or entirely based on conjecture are based on?

And when I mention evidence, I'm not referring to stuff like "I feel warm and fuzzy when I think about Jesus, so that is evidence that he is really divine", but rather to information that makes an idea more or less likely to be true - that is, if the information was different, it would weaken or destroy a particular idea.

Yes, information that makes an idea more or less likely to be true - that is, if the information was different, it would weaken or destroy a particular idea. Information like the evidence of a fine-tuned universe.

-Bri

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Yes, information that makes an idea more or less likely to be true - that is, if the information was different, it would weaken or destroy a particular idea. Information like the evidence of a fine-tuned universe.

-Bri

That's back-to-front reasoning. How many trials has there been to establish a universe using different parameters and how long did it take to run through all of them before space-time existed?

 

[Bri]

Note that the first sentence you quoted is just repeated from Linda's comment, so if you're commenting on that, it should be directed to Linda.

If you're commenting on the second sentence...correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is evidence that changing some of the parameters even small amounts will likely result in the inability of the universe to support life.

According to Wikipedia:

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.​

If the evidence that the universe is fine-tuned was different, it would certainly weaken the strength of the argument that a fine-tuner exists.

-Bri

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

If the evidence that the universe is fine-tuned was different, it would certainly weaken the strength of the argument that a fine-tuner exists.

-Bri

So if a physical theory which incorporates a multiverse is shown likely to be correct you'll become an atheist?