Can theists be rational?

[Bri]

No, and I never claimed I did. Why do you ask?

Because you said:

And, has been pointed out to you again and again, it's not necessary to "posit the existence of aliens".​

Unless you know something nobody else knows, then of course it's necessary to posit the existence of aliens.

No, and I never claimed I did. Why do you ask that? I don't think you're reading my posts again.

Because you said:

Everything that is a factor in the Drake Equation are things that are known to exist with 100% certainty.​

Please explain what you meant by that.

Yes, I agree. The Drake Equation is not evidence one way or the other for the existence of ET intelligence. (I have gone over all this before.) Even Drake would agree that one's conclusion about the likelihood of ET intelligences should be based on the evidence. As Sagan noted (in the quote I provided), we simply don't have that evidence. Anyone who asserts a probability for the existence of ET intelligence is just pulling a number out of the air. It's meaningless, and it assume knowledge we simply don't possess.

Agreed. Except that Sagan seems to have been of the opinion that ET intelligence exists (based on his comment that he would be astonished if it didn't). I assume you don't think his belief was irrational, so what do you suppose he based that belief on?

WHAT? When I asked how you get premise number two without assuming the conclusion (the existence of God), you answered that this was based on the finer-tuner argument. I most certainly did NOT raise the subject of finer-tuner.

Nowhere does the argument assume in the premise nor conclude that a fine-tuner exists (that would be a probability of 1.0 -- nowhere in the argument is a probability of 1.0 assigned to the existence of a fine-tuner).

IF they do, they're misusing Drake's Equation. As I said, even Drake would agree that the question can only be answered by the evidence, and to date, we have no evidence of ET intelligent life.

I tend to agree. Still, some have used arguments based on Drake's equation to justify spending millions of dollars to try to communicate with them.

-Bri

 

[Malerin]

The chances of getting any hand that you predetermine to get is the same.

In poker you then pick which cards to keep, that changes all the odds.

You've never played 5-card stud?

Plus you said nothing before about cards, you were talking numbers, where there are no pairs, four of a kind etc.

I was talking about odds and significant results. That could deal with coin-tosses, cards, lotteries, etc. If I flip a coin and get HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, would you think it's a fair coin?
But that result has the same probability as
HHHTHTHTTHHHTTTTHHTHTTHHTTHHTTHH.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

From yy:

Do not confuse degree of belief with degree of truth. Bayesian probability has nothing to do with the latter.

Keeping this point in mind, here's the argument again as cj posted it (though I notice the words "premise" have been removed--or did I just dream up that 1. and 2. were labeled "Premise 1" and "Premise 2"?):

Let us assume the existence of a deity is one in a million.
Let us assume the chance of that deity creating the universe as is is also one in a million.

OK, so
1.Prior probability: Pr [God exists]: = 0.000001
Prior probability: Pr [No God]: = 0.999999

2.Prob [universe inhabitable if God exists] = 0.000001
Prob [universe inhabitable if no designer] = 0.00 (one billion, billion, billion zeros) 1]

THEN: Prob [God exists given that Universe is inhabitable]

Prob [universe is inhabitable if God exists] x Prob [God exists]
= -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
{ Prob [universe is inhabitable if God exists] x Prob [God exists] }
{+ Prob [universe is inhabitable if no God exists] x Prob [No God] }

0.000001 x 0.000001
= -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
{ 0.000001 x 0.000001 }
{ + (0.999999) x (0.00 (one billion, billion, billion zeros) 1) }

this gives us a figure so close to 100% as to seem to establish beyond doubt the reality of God (but see below!)

The highlighted part, and the overall assertion that this is a rational argument for the existence of God, makes the great leap from a probability (that is an expression of a degree of belief) to an expression about the truth value of the proposition "God exists".

(This observation is notwithstanding the "seems" in there. If it actually "seems" so, then it's misleading.)

If it's just a probability that is an expression of degree of belief, then it's just circular, since we started with a couple of probabilities that are expressions of degree of belief.

If it's a statement about the existence of God, then it's using your degree of belief to assert a degree of truth.

It would be as reasonable to say, "I strongly believe P; therefore P."

 

[Paulhoff]

If I flip a coin and get HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, would you think it's a fair coin?
But that result has the same probability as
HHHTHTHTTHHHTTTTHHTHTTHHTTHHTTHH.

The chance of getting both are the same.

Paul

 

[Malerin]

The highlighted part, and the overall assertion that this is a rational argument for the existence of God, makes the great leap from a probability (that is an expression of a degree of belief) to an expression about the truth value of the proposition "God exists".

No, the argument shows that Pr(H)(God exists) goes from <<.5 to >>.5. "God exists" is a proposition that is either true or false. The Pr in front of it reprensents how likely we think it's true (corresponds with reality). CJ could have worded it better, but all the argument shows is that the subjective probability that "God exists" is true goes up after the evidence of the physical constants is considered. It doens't say that God DOES exist, it just concludes that it's very likely the claim "God exists" is true.

 

[Malerin]

The chance of getting both are the same.

Paul

So you would have no opinion about the fairness of a coin that lands HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Everything that is a factor in the Drake Equation are things that are known to exist with 100% certainty.​

Please explain what you meant by that.

I have repeatedly explained that. All those factors (existence of stars, existence of planets, existence of life, existence of intelligent life, existence of intelligent life capable of sending radio signals, etc.) are things known to exist at least once (us).

Can you point to one that is not known?

Agreed. Except that Sagan seems to have been of the opinion that ET intelligence exists (based on his comment that he would be astonished if it didn't).

NO! Please re-read Sagan's words. He most clearly is reserving judgement on the existence of ET intelligence because we don't have the evidence. The stuff about being surprised if things sort of like what happened here on Earth only happened here on Earth means that he too would argue against Makaya's assertion that we are unique in the universe. There is also no evidence for that.

I assume you don't think his belief was irrational, so what do you suppose he based that belief on?

You're reading in a belief that is not there.

Still, some have used arguments based on Drake's equation to justify spending millions of dollars to try to communicate with them.

Really? I'm not aware of that. The only attempts to communicate with them I'm aware of was the stuff included on the Voyager probes that went out into interstellar space after we were through using them for the mission of looking at the planets. That stuff didn't cost much at all.

Or are you referring to SETI? That's actually a program to listen (there are no broadcasts going out from Arecibo, for example). That is, we're looking for evidence. The only way we'll ever get from our current state of ignorance as to whether ET intelligences exist to a state of knowledge is to have actual evidence.

Using SETI as an analogy to the "goddidit" hypothesis, imagine if instead of saying we don't know and we need to find evidence, we actually just accepted with certitude that ET aliens (perhaps Thetans or Tralfamadorians) existed. Claiming knowledge that we don't really have, we would shut down SETI, because we think we'd already know the answer to the question of ET intelligence. Why would we need evidence if we already know it exists?

You're right, then, we might--based on knowledge we don't really have--do something utterly stupid like waste time "communicating" with them (by psychics perhaps? or through prayer?) or ignore the problem of climate change facing us on Earth because we think the Thetans will come along and fix it for us with their superior technology.

 

[Paulhoff]

So you would have no opinion about the fairness of a coin that lands HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH?

Nope, none at all. You seem to not to understand what chance means by asking me that.

HHHTHTHTTHHHTTTTHHTHTTHHTTHHTTHH is a predetermined order, no defferent then HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, both have the same chance of coming out.

Paul

 

[Malerin]

Nope, none at all. You seem to not to understand what chance means by asking me that.

HHHTHTHTTHHHTTTTHHTHTTHHTTHHTTHH is a predetermined order, no defferent then HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, both have the same chance of coming out.

Paul

There's this place called Vegas. Stay far away from it.

 

[Paulhoff]

There's this place called Vegas. Stay far away from it.

Getting any predetermined order of coins is the same.

HTTH

HHHH

TTTT

THTH etc.

They all have the same chance if coming out.

Are you also going to say that

111

123

999

don't same that same chance as

857.

Paul

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It doens't say that God DOES exist, it just concludes that it's very likely the claim "God exists" is true.

If that's all it says, then it's circular. It says there is a probability of God's existence if you assume a probability of God's existence (and you assume something about the likelihood of a universe with life in it with respect to God's existence).

And by "probability" we're talking strictly about degree of belief.

However, cj said this:

Here's a rational argument for God

And this:

this gives us a figure so close to 100% as to seem to establish beyond doubt the reality of God

It's clear he's trying to hold this out as an argument for the existence of God, when it really only addresses the degree of belief --which itself derives only from assumed degrees of belief.

So again, if the argument is only about getting from one probability (as an expression of a degree of belief and not an objective probability) to another such probability, then it's merely circular.

If it's meant as a conclusion on the truth value of the proposition "God exists", then it's bogus and misleading.

 

[Malerin]

Getting any predetermined order of coins is the same.

HTTH

HHHH

TTTT

THTH etc.

They all have the same chance if coming out.

Are you also going to say that

111

123

999

don't same that same chance as

857.

Paul

Well, I'm bored, so this is a good time to unleash the power of Bayes:

H= This coin is two-headed
E= 10 heads in a row
Pr(H) = .01 (I don't come across two headed coins much).
Pr(E/H) = 1 (a two headed coin entails 10 heads in a row)
Pr(E/~H) = .0009 (the base odds of a non-two headed coin landing heads 10 in a row).

Pr(H/E) = Pr(E/H) x Pr(H) / (Pr(E/H) x Pr(H) + (Pr(E/~H) x Pr(~H)

.01 / .01 + .000891

.01 / .010891

Pr(H/E) = 91%. So, Pr(H) goes from 1% to 91%. This is because 10 heads in a row is much more likely given a two-headed coin than a fair coin.

Make it 20 heads in a row and Pr(H/E) will just about be 1.

 

[Malerin]

If that's all it says, then it's circular. It says there is a probability of God's existence if you assume a probability of God's existence (and you assume something about the likelihood of a universe with life in it with respect to God's existence).

And by "probability" we're talking strictly about degree of belief.

However, cj said this:


And this:



It's clear he's trying to hold this out as an argument for the existence of God, when it really only addresses the degree of belief --which itself derives only from assumed degrees of belief.

So again, if the argument is only about getting from one probability (as an expression of a degree of belief and not an objective probability) to another such probability, then it's merely circular.

If it's meant as a conclusion on the truth value of the proposition "God exists", then it's bogus and misleading.

CJ could have said it better, but the argument is not circular, as has been pointed out dozens of times. It is a perfectly valid form of Bayes Theorem. It is essentially no different than the coin example I just posted. Do you think THAT's circular?

 

[Paulhoff]

Well, I'm bored, so this is a good time to unleash the power of Bayes:

H= This coin is two-headed
E= 10 heads in a row
Pr(H) = .01 (I don't come across two headed coins much).
Pr(E/H) = 1 (a two headed coin entails 10 heads in a row)
Pr(E/~H) = .0009 (the base odds of a non-two headed coin landing heads 10 in a row).

Pr(H/E) = Pr(E/H) x Pr(H) / (Pr(E/H) x Pr(H) + (Pr(E/~H) x Pr(~H)

.01 / .01 + .000891

.01 / .010891

Pr(H/E) = 91%. So, Pr(H) goes from 1% to 91%. This is because 10 heads in a row is much more likely given a two-headed coin than a fair coin.

Make it 20 heads in a row and Pr(H/E) will just about be 1.

To bad you haven't learned how to read better.

What part of "predetermined order" don't you understand.

Paul

 

[RandFan]

Drawing 1-100 is a significant result because it is more likely that someone rigged the game than it is that the result came about by chance.

No it's not. Again, you are commiting a fallacy.

In the same way, the physical constants coming together in just the right way to permit life is more indicative of something "rigging the universe" than having the result just come about by chance.

No. You've not established that.

Already answered that. If the odds are long enough, one instance is all you need.

Picking any 10 balls of 1,000,000 are long odds. Any number you can think of are equally unlikely.

I will grant you that it seems very unlikely. But the probability is 1. It has happend. Unlikely? It happened.

 

[Beth]

No.

If you find bacteria in a pond of water and there is another pond of water with similar variables then infering that there is bacteria in that pond isn't an anthropomorphic argument.

You're right, but that isn't analogous to your argument. The argument for extra terrestrial alien life that's been discussed is more akin to bacteria in a pond of water infering that there are many other ponds out there and that some of those ponds might also hold bacteria. And that is why I think it is an anthropomorphic argument.

The assumption is overly simplistic and misleading. "May"? Yes but that does not give you licence to then state snowflakes are built by tiny people.

I haven't stated anything like that.

We are at this moment studying the universe looking for ET inteligent life. Are you saying that it is impossible to find it?

That would be confirming the hypothesis, not falsifying it. To falsify it, you would have to conduct an exhaustive search and not only fail to find any extra-terrestrial life but also show that if any had existed, you would have found it. I don't think that will be happening in either of our lifetimes.

No. One is based on what we know (that inteligent life exists). The other is based on ignorance. BTW: Creator beings on Earth are a far cry from magical creatures that transend the laws of physics.

Will have to disagree on this part. I don't think it's any more of an argument from ignorance than is the argument for ET intelligent life. For example, we are outside of and transcend the "laws" that govern our virtual creatures.

 

[articulett]

Yeah, but nobody even agrees on what god is much less how one would recognize such a critters existence should one (or many) exist. It has no measurable physical testable qualities and is indistinguishable from a delusion.

We know that people make up such things... we don't have any reason to believe that anyone COULD actually know about such a nebulous immeasurable indefinable thing.

It's all semantics. There is NOTHING to anyone's god that makes it any more likely than Invisible pink unicorns or imperceptible sprites whispering advice in your ear or demons that tempt humans into doing nefarious things.

 

[RandFan]

You're right, but that isn't analogous to your argument. The argument for extra terrestrial alien life that's been discussed is more akin to bacteria in a pond of water infering that there are many other ponds out there and that some of those ponds might also hold bacteria. And that is why I think it is an anthropomorphic argument.
I haven't stated anything like that.

First off, anthropomorphic is when we give human attributes to non-human things. Like trees. Arguing that a tree is constructed by tiny people is anthropomorphic. The Anthropic Principle is different. Perhaps my argument is akin to the Anthropic principle but that is debatable.

I don't think it's any more of an argument from ignorance than is the argument for ET intelligent life.

No. For a very simple reason. I don't conclude that there must be or might be ET intelligent life because of ignorance. Or in other words I can't imagine how ET intelligent life couldn't exist therefore it might or must exist. You DO make that mistake.

ID is very different. You are saying you can't imagine how a fine tuned universe could happen without a designer. This is the same mistake made by those who assumed that trees were manufactured by little people or that there was a sun mover or those who believed that aether was how light propagated through space. They lacked the knowledge to make an informed decision.

So, they still don't equate. And FTR: They never will. I've no doubt that will stop you though.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Really, the ET intelligence vs. God is not an analogous thing at all.

To make it so, you would have to have a known deity in one place and discuss whether or not another deity exists in other places.

The Drake Equation is about intelligence in the universe. We know for a fact that it exists because we're here. We can speculate about whether it exists elsewhere, but without evidence we don't know it exists anywhere else except here. But we do know it exists.

As for God, we don't know of ANY certain example of the existence of a deity. In fact the existence anywhere of a deity is the question. The question of ET intelligence is merely the question of whether something we know exists in one place also exists in another place. The question of ET intelligence is NOT the question of the existence of intelligence anywhere. We do know the answer to the question of the existence of intelligence.

 

[RandFan]

I don't think it's any more of an argument from ignorance than is the argument for ET intelligent life. For example, we are outside of and transcend the "laws" that govern our virtual creatures.

BTW: This is one of the most bizarre arguments I've ever seen. Because "virtual" creatures are ignorant of us therefore god.

What?

Are you serious?

I suspect you are trying to make an argument along the lines of, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

In other words, we would appear to be gods to stone aged peoples. Therefore, god might simply be a technologically advanced being who created the universe.

100,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy alone and 300,000,000,000 galaxies. Our galaxy alone contains an incomprehensibly large number of atoms and molecules and distances that are also incomprehensible.

Positing a being that could create something as large and vast and complex as the universe doesn't begin to equate to other intelligent life in the universe. It's like saying superman could stop a plane from crashing into the ground. You know what? No he couldn't. It's impossible. People think that just because they can imagine something that it is plausible.

The part you fail to address or understand is that there are no problems of physics that MUST be resolved to posit ET intelligent life. Do you know how we know that? That's right, you and I prove it. We are here. We exist so there are no limits of the laws of physics that are presented. God? There are many, many theoretical problems. And FTR: there are many that are, at our present understanding, impossibilities. And there are likely many we can't even think of.

It's easy to say, "god did it". Like it is easy to write a comic book where Superman can stop a plane in mid air. But you have no idea what a can of worms such a statement presents and I'm assuming you don't even care and would never bother to find out how unlikely it would be for there to exist an entity that could construct 300,000,000,000 galaxies.

They don't equate. They never will. But you will keep trying. And I will keep demonstrating how ridiculous the idea is.