Can theists be rational?

[yy2bggggs]

Sure it is. (H/E) is a conditional proposition.*

H|E isn't anything at all. P(H|E) is, but not H|E. Now H, E, H AND E, etc, are all propositions. But H|E isn't anything. The "|E" is really a modifier of the P--it's just notation.

In cases where H is logically necessary, (H=all green emeralds are green), it doesn’t matter what E is. (Pr(H/E)=1)).

Correct. But the converse isn't true.

It depends on H. ...

Correct.

E is evidence, not a proposition.

The source you cited disagrees with you and agrees with me:

Notation Let 'the degree of belief in proposition x' be denoted by B(x). The negation of x (NOT-x) is written [LATEX]$$ \overline{x} $$[/LATEX]. The degree of belief in a conditional proposition, 'x, assuming proposition y to be true', is represented by B(x|y)

But to your credit, yes, E is in fact evidence. More precisely, though, it's a specific outcome--it's not just that I got results from a foonomia test, it's that the results came back positive.

Edit:

It is circular because it is the fallacy of circular definition

It's an equation. It's not a fallacy. This isn't a fallacy:

x = 1-x

...it's just not true unless x is 1/2. And this isn't a fallacy either:

x = f*g x

...even if it's false, true in certain cases, or always true. Terms get to be on both sides of equations in math. Furthermore, Bayes Theorem isn't a definition of P(H|E)--rather, it's a consequence of Bayesian probability that Bayes Theorem is true (that's what it means for it to be a theorem).

It's not a false dichotomy -- it's just a dichotomy. P(E|~H) is the probability that the universe is fine-tuned if there is no god. P(E|H) is the probability that the universe is fine-tuned if there is a god.

What other possibility is there besides a god or not a god?

Well, there's that fine-tuned part. And whether it's buried into one of those premises you say you don't accept or not, it doesn't much matter. Unless there's a good specific reason to believe the universe has to be fine tuned in the first place, presenting those two as the only possibilities is very well described by false dichotomy.

Regardless, P(E|H') is really bound, per the standard arguments, to a "by chance" scenario. What if universes could be tuned without gods, non-randomly?

Not to mention that, quite frankly, the existence of gods and the accidental fine tuning and even spontaneous coming about of the universe aren't mutually exclusive in the first place. In fact, even with a causal chain, universes should be able to cause gods to come into being just as good as gods creating universes.

 

[RandFan]

Probably because it's a point where articulate is wrong and Bri is correct. Evidence? This very thread contains hundreds of posts where we are doing exactly that.

I actually got what articulate meant. We can speculate about anything. We could even speculate about square circles (impossible by definition). But is there any reasonable basis to suppose that it is true? ET intelligent life? Yes. Why, we know that it has happened once. We know that the elements that make up our world and our biology are common in the universe. We know that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies containing on average a hundred billion stars each.

What do we know about god? Aside from the fact that it is largely undefined we know nothing. Zip. Nada. There is no foundation to begin formulating plausibility. We don't even know what it is.

Here try this. I have in mind a thing. Does it exist? Please to come up with some formulation similar to Drakes equation to begin to figure out the plausibility of that "thing" that I am imagining.

When you figure out why that is a big waste of time then you will understand why god and ET intelligent life don't equate.

 

[Bri]

But is there any reasonable basis to suppose that it is true? ET intelligent life? Yes. Why, we know that it has happened once. We know that the elements that make up our world and our biology are common in the universe. We know that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies containing on average a hundred billion stars each.

Yet we don't know what conditions and events led to the emergence of intelligent life here, which means that we don't know how specific those conditions might have been, which means that we don't know if they happened elsewhere, which means that there isn't enough evidence to place the probability that they happened elsewhere greater than 0.5.

So, again, if you're going to come up with a probability based on one part inconclusive evidence plus one part pure conjecture, you could very well do the same and conclude that the existence of a fine-tuner is probable.

What do we know about god? Aside from the fact that it is largely undefined we know nothing. Zip. Nada. There is no foundation to begin formulating plausibility. We don't even know what it is.

In the case of the particular argument we've been discussing, it is defined as a being that increases the probability of a fine-tuned universe compared to chance. So why is it irrational to believe that such a being exists but rational to believe that aliens exist?

-Bri

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

In the case of the particular argument we've been discussing, it is defined as a being that increases the probability of a fine-tuned universe compared to chance. So why is it irrational to believe that such a being exists but rational to believe that aliens exist?

-Bri

It's not rational to believe aliens exist until we have seen evidence of alien life.

It is rational to use what we know so far about life and how it emerges to estimate the likelihood of alien life existing.

 

[fls]

Farther away than aliens? How so?

Under what conditions could we expect to see teapots orbiting any planet?

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about the scenario I presented earlier where I observed that people taking aspirin didn't have strokes, while some that didn't, did have strokes. You agreed that those observations weren't 'evidence', but rather were 'tools'.

Let's pretend for a moment that there were no evidence that aspirin helps prevent strokes. In that case, if you believed that aspirin helps prevent strokes but have no evidence, then of course that is a faith-based belief.

Okay. So the bulk of the practice of medicine is faith-based belief.

It sounds like you're assuming multiple universes here (please correct me if I'm wrong).

I'm not, it's just a figure of speech when talking about probability.

The argument for fine-tuning doesn't assume multiple universes, and the amount of fine-tuning is reflected in the probability of P(E|~H). If the universe is very fine-tuned (if a small range of values of the constants can support life), the probability of the fine-tuning occurring by chance diminishes. If the universe isn't fine-tuned (if a large range of values of the constants can support life), the probability of fine-tuning occurring by chance is increased.

Right. Fine-tuning isn't about finding a value for p(E/~H), but about the size of that value.

P(E|H) is actually independent of P(E|~H). They are two different probabilities. I'm not sure what you mean by changes "effectively cancel out." It is not the case that if one is high the other must be proportionally smaller. For example, you might think that even though the universe is fine-tuned a natural explanation is probable, in which case you might set P(E|H) close to (or even lower than) P(E|~H).

-Bri

That you think the universe is fine-tuned leads you to cast about for a cause - something that makes fine-tuning more likely (although I suspect that it's really a matter of believers casting about for something to attribute to God). Once you propose that it is a fine-tuner that makes it more likely, by some amount - say a hundred or a thousand or a million times more likely - p(E/~H) can be any value, from low to high, and p(E/H) is similarly low to high, just a thousand times more so. Once you have decided on a relationship between the two, that relationship remains unchanged as you vary p(E/~H), because p(E/H) varies in concert with it. The only way to alter the p(H/E) under those circumstances, is to alter the relationship between p(E/~H) and p(E/H). But why would you do so, given that you had no information about that relationship in the first place, other than what you assumed about fine-tuners making fine-tuning more likely?

Linda

 

[Bri]

It's not rational to believe aliens exist until we have seen evidence of alien life.

I would guess from Sagan's statements that he "would be astonished" to find out otherwise, that he was of the opinion that aliens exist. I don't personally find his belief to be irrational.

It is rational to use what we know so far about life and how it emerges to estimate the likelihood of alien life existing.

I agree. The same can be said of a fine-tuner though.

-Bri

 

[Beth]

We can speculate about anything. We could even speculate about square circles (impossible by definition). But is there any reasonable basis to suppose that it is true? ET intelligent life? Yes. Why, we know that it has happened once. We know that the elements that make up our world and our biology are common in the universe. We know that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies containing on average a hundred billion stars each.

What do we know about god? Aside from the fact that it is largely undefined we know nothing. Zip. Nada. There is no foundation to begin formulating plausibility. We don't even know what it is.

Actually, Bri has given a definition for the god we have been discussing. We can look at ourselves, at what we create and expect to be capable of creating in the near future. I don't see why that is any less grounds for speculation of a creator than the fact that intelligent life exists on earth is grounds for speculation that intelligent life might exist elsewhere. In both cases we are looking at what we know exists and extrapolating. One does not seem inherently more rational to me than the other.

Here try this. I have in mind a thing. Does it exist? Please to come up with some formulation similar to Drakes equation to begin to figure out the plausibility of that "thing" that I am imagining.

When you figure out why that is a big waste of time then you will understand why god and ET intelligent life don't equate.

This example does not make your position seem more rational.

 

[DcTurner]

Theists look both ways when they cross the street, just like the rest of us, the hypocrites.

 

[Bri]

Under what conditions could we expect to see teapots orbiting any planet?

Under what conditions could we expect aliens to exist? The problem is that we don't know the conditions, other than to say that it's not impossible.

I'm talking about the scenario I presented earlier where I observed that people taking aspirin didn't have strokes, while some that didn't, did have strokes. You agreed that those observations weren't 'evidence', but rather were 'tools'.

It's anecdotal evidence. If you held the belief without any evidence, it would certainly be a faith-based belief.

Okay. So the bulk of the practice of medicine is faith-based belief.

No, the bulk of the practice of medicine is based on evidence where I live. Where do you live?

Right. Fine-tuning isn't about finding a value for p(E/~H), but about the size of that value.

What's the difference between "a value for n" and "the size of the value for n?"

That you think the universe is fine-tuned leads you to cast about for a cause - something that makes fine-tuning more likely (although I suspect that it's really a matter of believers casting about for something to attribute to God). Once you propose that it is a fine-tuner that makes it more likely, by some amount - say a hundred or a thousand or a million times more likely - p(E/~H) can be any value, from low to high, and p(E/H) is similarly low to high, just a thousand times more so. Once you have decided on a relationship between the two, that relationship remains unchanged as you vary p(E/~H), because p(E/H) varies in concert with it. The only way to alter the p(H/E) under those circumstances, is to alter the relationship between p(E/~H) and p(E/H). But why would you do so, given that you had no information about that relationship in the first place, other than what you assumed about fine-tuners making fine-tuning more likely?

If the relationship between the two doesn't change, it's entirely because you're assuming that fine-tuners make fine-tuning more likely (rather than less likely). If you don't make that assumption, then the two values could be anything you want, even the opposite. Even if you continue with that assumption, the difference between the two values might be more or less depending on how much more likely you think one is than the other.

So what's your point?

-Bri

 

[yy2bggggs]

fls:

It's not really the relationship between P(E|H) and P(E|H') that drives the equation. In fact, if the problem were merely the relationship between P(E|H) and P(E|H'), all I would have to do is add more conditions to H to drive P(E|H) up until it exceeds P(E|H') (I should be reprimanded for my lack of imagination if I can't wind up with a P(E|H)=1 by doing so).

For example, H was a fine tuner. But now he's a fine tuner, who has a disposition for fine tuning universes, and immediately fine tunes every universe that comes into being by whatever means.

What drives P(H|E) in the equation, rather, is P(H)P(E|H) and P(H')P(E|H'). And, funny enough, P(E|H) is always accompanied by a P(H), and P(E|H') is always accompanied by a P(H'). And coincidentally, P(H)P(E|H) is another name for P(H AND E), and P(H')P(E|H') another name for P(H' AND E).

 

[fls]

fls:

It's not really the relationship between P(E|H) and P(E|H') that drives the equation. In fact, if the problem were merely the relationship between P(E|H) and P(E|H'), all I would have to do is add more conditions to H to drive P(E|H) up until it exceeds P(E|H') (I should be reprimanded for my lack of imagination if I can't wind up with a P(E|H)=1 by doing so).

For example, H was a fine tuner. But now he's a fine tuner, who has a disposition for fine tuning universes, and immediately fine tunes every universe that comes into being by whatever means.

What drives P(H|E) in the equation, rather, is P(H)P(E|H) and P(H')P(E|H'). And, funny enough, P(E|H) is always accompanied by a P(H), and P(E|H') is always accompanied by a P(H'). And coincidentally, P(H)P(E|H) is another name for P(H AND E), and P(H')P(E|H') another name for P(H' AND E).

I entirely agree. I was undecided about whether or not to bring that up when Bri started referring to p(E/~H) and elected to avoid complicating the issue unless/until it became relevant.

Linda

 

[RandFan]

Actually, Bri has given a definition for the god we have been discussing. We can look at ourselves, at what we create and expect to be capable of creating in the near future.

I think I missed Bri's definition. Did it include creating 100,000,000 x 300,000,000 stars?

In both cases we are looking at what we know exists and extrapolating. One does not seem inherently more rational to me than the other.

One is a known thing. The other simply taken out of one's nether regions.

This example does not make your position seem more rational.

Perhaps to you but the problem is the same.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Ok, let's say for sake of argument that a fine-tuner exists. Those that believe in its existence will be able to provide answers to the following questions:

What is it?

Is it concious?

Does it still interact with our universe? If so, how do we know?

Can we interact with it? If so, how do we know?

 

[Bri]

The question is whether belief that such a being exists is irrational. I'm not sure that a belief in extra terrestrial intelligent life requires that the believer know what the aliens eat for breakfast.

-Bri

 

[Beth]

I think I missed Bri's definition. Did it include creating 100,000,000 x 300,000,000 stars?

Post 903 above.

One is a known thing. The other simply taken out of one's nether regions.

You said

We know that the elements that make up our world and our biology are common in the universe. We know that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies containing on average a hundred billion stars each.

We know this much, I agree. Regarding the other question, there are also some known things. We also know that human beings have created things, including entities that appear to be intelligent, entities that appear to have emotions, and environments that allow evolution to proceed. Why are these known things not applicable to the question of the possible existance of a creator god in the same way that the known things you have mentioned are applicable to the possible existance of intelligent aliens?

 

[RandFan]

Yet we don't know what conditions and events led to the emergence of intelligent life here, which means that we don't know how specific those conditions might have been, which means that we don't know if they happened elsewhere, which means that there isn't enough evidence to place the probability that they happened elsewhere greater than 0.5.

So, again, if you're going to come up with a probability based on one part inconclusive evidence plus one part pure conjecture, you could very well do the same and conclude that the existence of a fine-tuner is probable.

Completly misses the point.

In the case of the particular argument we've been discussing, it is defined as a being that increases the probability of a fine-tuned universe compared to chance. So why is it irrational to believe that such a being exists but rational to believe that aliens exist?

Which is to say, "then a miracle occurs".

This says absolutely nothing about what a fine-tuner is or would entail. It's just saying "god did it". It is argument from ignorance. To equate this to something we know exists is nonsensical.

-Bri[/quote]

 

[RandFan]

We know this much, I agree. Regarding the other question, there are also some known things. We also know that human beings have created things, including entities that appear to be intelligent, entities that appear to have emotions, and environments that allow evolution to proceed. Why are these known things not applicable to the question of the possible existence of a creator god in the same way that the known things you have mentioned are applicable to the possible existence of intelligent aliens?

It is fallacious to use the Anthropic principle to argue in favor of an intelligent designer. It is untestable and unnecessary. We could also reason that god moves the sun across the sky but that is also untestable and unnecessary to study and understand the forces and events that result in the perception that the sun moves accross our sky.

Humans are pattern seeking creatures and we assume that since people make things then ordered states must be created by an intelligence. Yet snowflakes are ordered without any intelligence.

In the past, assuming an anthropomorphic (not to be confused with "Anthropic") view of the world, people believed that there were tiny people that moved the sap up the tree and built the tree. Later, like the snowflake, we learned that there didn't need to be a conscience entity to order and build the tree. Natural forces were all that were needed and anthropomorphic explanations violated parsimony.

You are trying to equate that which cannot be equated. One is argument from knowledge. The other is an argument from ignorance.

 

[Bri]

Which is to say, "then a miracle occurs".

The argument doesn't say anything about miracles. It assumes that the probability of fine-tuning is higher if a fine-tuner exists than by chance. You may certainly disagree with that premise if you like.

This says absolutely nothing about what a fine-tuner is or would entail. It's just saying "god did it". It is argument from ignorance. To equate this to something we know exists is nonsensical.

It's not necessary to list any further properties of a fine-tuner (other than that it fine-tunes) to posit its existence. That a fine-tuner was equated to something that we know exists is apparently your own straw man since nobody suggested such a thing. What was suggested is that there is evidence of fine-tuning.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

It assumes that the probability of fine-tuning is higher if a fine-tuner exists than by chance. You may certainly disagree with that premise if you like.

It's not about disagreeing with the premise. It's that "fine-tuner" doesn't tell us anything.

It's not necessary to list any further properties of a fine-tuner (other than that it fine-tunes) to posit its existence.

One could as easily say, "sun mover" to explain the movement of the sun. It says nothing. It contains no information. To state "that the sun moves is evidence of a 'sun mover'" is spurious as is a fine-tuner for the self same reasons.

 

[RandFan]

We could as easily add, snowflake maker and tree builder.

Humans dig irrigation channels to water their crops. Therefore there must be a river creator to dig rivers.

Pièrre Simon Laplace conceived the idea that the solar system was formed from a spinning cloud of gas. After reading his theory Napoleon inquired of Laplace "Where does God fit into your system?" Said Laplace: ‘Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis’.