Can theists be rational?

[RandFan]

And name a single contemporary cosmologist who denies that the existence of stars is dependent upon a remarkable case of "Cosmological Fine Tuning". I'm just thinking through those I know of who have stressed the point - Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawkings, Lord Martin Rees, Paul Davies, Bernard Carr, look I can't think of any cosmologist who denies this issue exists? Can you find me one?

That settles it. Therefore god. Thank you.

 

[Bri]

Perhaps a re-reading of the OP would be in order, then.

I apologize then for mischaracterizing your position.

I mean the normal activities of scientific inquiry. I use 'evidence' to refer to a subset of the results of that activity, but 'reason' or 'rationality' uses all the results.

What are the "results" of scientific inquiry other than evidence that are used by reason or rationality? If they're results of scientific inquiry and are used to support a theory, why aren't they evidence?

When I talk about lack of evidence or lack of a reference point, I am not talking about simple ignorance of the exact value of a data point. That is why your Joe example, which represents simple ignorance of the exact value of a data point, has nothing to do with the way in which we don't know anything about the existence of God or whether the universe is something we would call 'fine-tuned'.

In the fine-tuning argument we don't know the exact value of some of the data because there is little or no evidence to support those values. In an argument for aliens, we don't know the exact value of some of the data because there is little or no evidence to support those values.

Whether the universe is fine-tuned, by the way, is supported by evidence. So is the value for the number of stars in Drake's equation.

We don't know whether the universe is something we would call 'fine-tuned' because we don't know the conditions under which universe creation occurs.

Fine-tuning in and of itself has nothing to do with universe creation or God. According to Wikipedia:

In theoretical physics, fine-tuning refers to circumstances when the parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in order to agree with observations. Theories requiring fine-tuning are regarded as problematic in the absence of a known mechanism to explain why the parameters happen to have precisely the needed values.​

In this case, the question of fine-tuning refers to whether varying the universal constants would preclude the existence of life. There is evidence to support that it would.

As for aliens, we don't know the conditions and events by which intelligent life emerged on this planet, and therefore don't know whether those conditions and events occurred elsewhere.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

The fallacy is to claim that because science has nothing to do with the natural, the claim that there is absolutely no supernatural is a scientific claim. It isn't. Science describes the natural world. As to the existence of anything beyond that, science has nothing to say.

I think that's pretty much what I said.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Westprog: Science describes the natural world. As to the existence of anything beyond that, science has nothing to say.

I think that's pretty much what I said.

We can't see it. We can't measure it. Therefore what? The natural world consists of everything that is something.

How is it that you divine conlcusions from nothing?

 

[RandFan]

Fine-tuning in and of itself has nothing to do with universe creation or God.

Then why or why bring it up? It's proof of nothing.

As for aliens, we don't know the conditions and events by which intelligent life emerged on this planet, and therefore don't know whether those conditions and events occurred elsewhere.

This is somewhat misleading. We don't know the exact conditions and events but we do have a framework for what could permit life to emerge and given that it is an empirical question there are many, many scientists who are regularly advancing the field of knowledge. BTW: The research is leading to more and more of a consensus as to what did happen. Feigning ignorance in the light of what we do know is really not appropriate and it is crossing a line of honesty. If you sincerely don't know the state of the science then I implore you to educate yourself.

Repeating "we don't know the events" ad nauseam is not fair to the scientists and researchers who are working to unlock the mysteries of Abiogenesis.

Also, another major problem with this premise is that it assumes that there could only be a limited range of criteria for life and intelligent life. The earth might be rare but that says nothing of what could give rise to life. Your premise does not reflect the understanding and knowledge of researchers in the field.

 

[Bri]

It fits within any known theory.

WHAT THEORY?

Every known scientific theory. Can you name a single scientific theory that it doesn't fit?

That's NOT a scientific theory. That's conjecture. Oh for crying in the ****ing dark. Are you going to sit there and tell me you don't even know what scientific theory is? Really? Are you one of those creationsist that spout "evolution is just a theory".

Last I heard, evolution is a theory. Although I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

You didn't ask me for a scientific theory of god. You asked for a theory. Of course there is no scientific theory of a supernatural being as science only deals with the natural universe. However, I can think of no scientific theory that states that a supernatural being is not possible.

Theory: A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

Got it now? It's not conjecture. It's not speculation. It's not simply an idea. Look, all I ask is for you to provide me these facts that form a theory for the possibility of god.

I've given you the facts that explain why ET inteligent life is theoretically possible. Please to provide the same for god OR admit that there is a difference between ET inteligent life and god?

Did you read your definition of "theory?" What observations have there been of extra terrestrial intelligence? Both are theoretically possible as neither are theoretically impossible. Can you provide a scientific theory by which a supernatural being is not possible?

You're the one claiming that a god is theoretically impossible...

This is false Bri. I'm giving you the benifit of the doubt and not calling it a lie. I'm not going to claim that you are being obtuse. But I will say that you are really going out of your way to not listen to me.

I NEVER ever claimed that god is theoreically impossible. Please, provide the quote if I did? I beg you, show me wrong?

How about here:

Now, as to the theoretical or practical possibility of god?

Or here:

Similarly, an argument for aliens based on Drake's equation would suffer from the same problems -- there is no basis for values placed on many of the variables in the premise.

But we know that the concept of intelligent life, in and of itself, is theoretically possible (see humans). We also know that it is practically possible (see humans)...

So we have a theoretical framework for ET intelligent life.

God? Still nothing...

Or here:

However, there is no evidence that a supernatural being is impossible, and therefore I would say that it is theoretically possible for a supernatural being to exist.

Nonsense. What theory? What is this theory? You can't say it's possible in theory and then not provide a theory?

Or here:

I've given you the facts that explain why ET inteligent life is theoretically possible. Please to provide the same for god OR admit that there is a difference between ET inteligent life and god?

It sure sounds like you're saying that a supernatural being is not theoretically possible to me.

Ironically, that last one was a mere 3 sentences prior to your accusation!

-Bri

 

[Bri]

{sigh}

No, no I am NOT! I've never made that claim. If I did, you could quote it. I didn't so you can't.

Of course you made that claim. Multiple times. See my previous post.

I am saying that I know of no theoretical basis for god and given that you haven't taken the time to provide one you don't know either.

I assume you mean that there is no known scientific theory of a god. I've already acknowledged that science doesn't deal with the supernatural, so I'm not sure what else you want me to say about that.

Supernatural is not consistent with reality.

Can you demonstrate how it is inconsistent with reality?

I can fly to the moon because I'm supernatural. Prove that it is impossible?

Again, I'm not claiming that it's impossible.

-Bri

 

[yy2bggggs]

Quotes by Hawking, Linde, Davies, all the others. Hand waving. Sure. Since you seem allergic to actually posting rebuttal sources,

My only response:
[LATEX]$$ P(H\mid E) = \frac{P(H)P(E\mid H)}{P(H)P(E\mid H)+\sum_{i=1}^n P(J_i)P(E\mid J_i)} $$[/LATEX]

 

[Malerin]

Fusion, I assume you here refer to stellar nucleosynthesis, is burning. See definition from dictionary.com



And name a single contemporary cosmologist who denies that the existence of stars is dependent upon a remarkable case of "Cosmological Fine Tuning". I'm just thinking through those I know of who have stressed the point - Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawkings, Lord Martin Rees, Paul Davies, Bernard Carr, look I can't think of any cosmologist who denies this issue exists? Can you find me one?

cj x

Victor Stenger is the only one I know of who questions it, but his analysis is based on changes to only four constants. He's got an interesting program for generating possible universes:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/monkey.html

My random universes always seems to have stars that last for trillions of years or less than a second.

 

[RandFan]

Every known scientific theory. Can you name a single scientific theory that it doesn't fit?

Yes but it's really not the point. There is no theory for god.

Last I heard, evolution is a theory. Although I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Yes, it IS a theory. The point is that there is no such theory for god. There is a theory for ET inteligent life. You won't admit it though. I can post it over and over and you will simply put your fingers in your ears and hum.

You didn't ask me for a scientific theory of god. You asked for a theory. Of course there is no scientific theory of a supernatural being as science only deals with the natural universe.

But I have a theory for ET intelligent life. It's one based on science.

However, I can think of no scientific theory that states that a supernatural being is not possible.

An entirely silly point.

Did you read your definition of "theory?" What observations have there been of extra terrestrial intelligence?

Look in the mirror. Look at the evidence for Abiogenesis. Those are, whether you like them or not, scientific evidence.

Both are theoretically possible as neither are theoretically impossible.

This is a silly and nonsensical statement.

Can you provide a scientific theory by which a supernatural being is not possible?

Actually, I think I can. But it is irrelevant, silly and beside the point.

How about here:

Nope.

Or here:

Nope.

Or here:

Nope.

Or here:

Nope, not there either.

It sure sounds like you're saying that a supernatural being is not theoretically possible to me.

Because you only hear what you want to hear. So, how about it? Do you have that theory yet?

See, the point isn't that I have to prove god is theoretically impossible. I only have to demonstrate that you don't have a theory for the possibility because that's the way science works. Because it does work that way I can confidently say there is no theory for god. There is none. That's a fact. If there were one you could state it.

Can you state one?

Oh, I forgot, you have that wonderful get out of jail free card. God, like faeries is magical (supernatural).

Ironically, that last one was a mere 3 sentences prior to your accusation!

And yet you continue to prove it true....

Thank you and I thank you for proving me true in your next post as you and I know that there is no theoretical framework for god.

 

[RandFan]

Of course you made that claim. Multiple times. See my previous post.

No. You only hear what you want to hear.

My Claim: There is no theoretical framework to posit a god.

Your proof that I'm right: You fail to provided one.

I've already acknowledged that science doesn't deal with the supernatural, so I'm not sure what else you want me to say about that.

A bit of honesty would be nice. You could admit that there is a theoretical framework for the existence of intelligent life outside of our universe.

• The existence of intelligent life on Earth.
• Abiogenesis.
• Minimal requirements for life. Astrobiology
• Commonality of elemental requirements of life throughout the universe.
• Evolution.
• Number of stars and galaxies in the known universe.
• The existence of extra solar planets.

God? Still nothing. All these posts and you've never given a single evidence based theory for god but you state that the theoretical possibility for ET intelligent life is the same as god.

What would I like you to say? Well, if you were honest it would be nice if you could admit there is actually a theoretical framework for ET intelligent life and god is nothing more than an idea without any evidence whatsoever. At best god is not impossible but even that is arguable. For you to admit that wouldn't require you to concede that there is ET inteligent life. I don't make that claim. I honestly don't know if there is.

Now, could you admit what is known? Too much to hope for?

 

[RandFan]

The diference between the paranormal and normal. Why is one rational and the other not?

Bigfoot and other wild men of the forest

In this excellent video Eugenie Scott explains the difference between science and paranormal (supernatural claims). This goes to the heart of the debate. I recomend it to anyone who is not yet certain if there is a difference between contemplating something that has a theoretical basis and something that is simply conjecture.

Eugenie makes the case better than I ever could.

One point that Eugenie makes and I think Bri is trying to get accross is that when we don't know we need to be honest and say "we don't know". Well, we don't know if there is ET inteligent life. That's true.

However, some claims would violate known laws of physics and some wouldn't. Some claims have a theoretical basis and some don't.

Sadly, if people want to believe in things like Bigfoot there is nothing that will disabuse them of the notion because the paranormal has a get out of jail free card. One doesn't need evidence, facts or theory. One just needs to note that his or her claim is "supernatural" and all is forgiven.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Wow, I can't keep up with this thread even lurking.

My feelings exactly! I am skipping a lot - but trying to pick up the gist and to concentrate on reading, e.g.Randfan'snd others' similar views.

And I bet that, while writing this, another dozen or so posts will have been added!

 

[RandFan]

Theoretically possible vs theoretically impossible.

Sorry for all of the posts but I just realized Bri the nature of the mistake you are making.

Before Einstein came up with E=MC² there was no theoretical basis for relativity. That there is no theoretical basis for a proposition doesn't translate into theoretically impossible. If it did then relativity would have been theoretically impossible until Einstein. That's obviously nonsense.

Your error is that you are creating a false dilemma.

Just because I say there is no theoretical basis for god doesn't translate into theoretical impossibility anymore than the lack of a theoretical framework (basis) for relativity translated into theoretically impossible.

In short, you are excluding the middle which in this case is simply the lack of a theoretical basis. You know, like relativity before Einstein.

 

[RandFan]

My feelings exactly! I am skipping a lot - but trying to pick up the gist and to concentrate on reading, e.g.Randfan'snd others' similar views.

And I bet that, while writing this, another dozen or so posts will have been added!

I am to please.

 

[fls]

What are the "results" of scientific inquiry other than evidence that are used by reason or rationality? If they're results of scientific inquiry and are used to support a theory, why aren't they evidence?

Not all observations are collected for the purpose of supporting or denying an idea/hypothesis/theory.

In the fine-tuning argument we don't know the exact value of some of the data because there is little or no evidence to support those values.

That part is also the case, but the main problem with the argument is that there is nothing to direct or constrain the argument because it is not based on any information/hypothesis/theory. While it is possible to attempt to understand the extent to which there is apparent fine-tuning, there isn't any information that allows us to form the rest of the argument.

Whether the universe is fine-tuned, by the way, is supported by evidence.

I agree that there is a small amount of information available for the argument. Unfortunately it isn't even adequate to form the "fine-tuning argument" in the first place. It makes more sense to simply proceed with normal science in order to understand the conditions that lead to apparent fine-tuning and begin to form hypotheses and theories.

Fine-tuning in and of itself has nothing to do with universe creation or God. According to Wikipedia:

In theoretical physics, fine-tuning refers to circumstances when the parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in order to agree with observations. Theories requiring fine-tuning are regarded as problematic in the absence of a known mechanism to explain why the parameters happen to have precisely the needed values.​

In this case, the question of fine-tuning refers to whether varying the universal constants would preclude the existence of life. There is evidence to support that it would.

Right, but we're not talking about exploring this idea through normal science, which uses Bayesian analysis in order to test hypotheses. We are talking about forming ideas without any theoretical or hypothetical basis. And it's simply a fruitless endeavour - we inevitably get it ridiculously wrong when we do so.

As for aliens, we don't know the conditions and events by which intelligent life emerged on this planet, and therefore don't know whether those conditions and events occurred elsewhere.

-Bri

These ideas are based on theories and hypotheses which does allow us a way to explore the idea of aliens in a way that is meaningful.

Linda

 

[SusanB-M1]

#1271
I have just listened to everyh totallyh interesting word.
Okay, now pressing on to next page....

 

[Belz...]

Fine-tuning in and of itself has nothing to do with universe creation or God.

Ergo, there is no fine-tuning "argument".

 

[Bri]

Then why or why bring it up? It's proof of nothing.

Nobody said it was proof of anything. It supports the conclusion in the fine-tuning argument only if you accept the other premises.

My point is that the term "fine-tuning" is usually used in theoretical physics, a field which typically has nothing to do with gods or intelligent fine-tuners.

This is somewhat misleading. We don't know the exact conditions and events but we do have a framework for what could permit life to emerge and given that it is an empirical question there are many, many scientists who are regularly advancing the field of knowledge. BTW: The research is leading to more and more of a consensus as to what did happen. Feigning ignorance in the light of what we do know is really not appropriate and it is crossing a line of honesty. If you sincerely don't know the state of the science then I implore you to educate yourself.

Nobody said anything different, and what I did say was accurate. Please stop accusing me of "crossing a line of honesty" which is simply an ad hom attack and doesn't advance your argument in the least.

Repeating "we don't know the events" ad nauseam is not fair to the scientists and researchers who are working to unlock the mysteries of Abiogenesis.

Not fair to scientists and researchers in what way? Do you think they'd disagree? The fact that we don't know is precisely why they're working to unlock the mysteries of abiogenesis. That doesn't change the fact that we don't know.

Also, another major problem with this premise is that it assumes that there could only be a limited range of criteria for life and intelligent life. The earth might be rare but that says nothing of what could give rise to life. Your premise does not reflect the understanding and knowledge of researchers in the field.

It's not my premise and I've stated my objections to the premise many times, as you should be well-aware.

But the Rare Earth Hypothesis argues that the emergence of complex multicellular life (metazoa) on Earth required an improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances. It's possible that there is some other life, but that is pure speculation since there's no evidence of it (and in this case you can't even claim that a single example exists). The truth is that we simply don't know.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Not all observations are collected for the purpose of supporting or denying an idea/hypothesis/theory.

Can you give a concrete example of an observation that is not evidence of something?

That part is also the case, but the main problem with the argument is that there is nothing to direct or constrain the argument because it is not based on any information/hypothesis/theory.

Again, I think what you call "information/hypothesis/theory" would have to be "evidence" in order to support any proposition. Many of the variables of Drake's equation are not based on information/hypothesis/theory, but rather are pure guesses just like those variables of the fine-tuning argument.

While it is possible to attempt to understand the extent to which there is apparent fine-tuning, there isn't any information that allows us to form the rest of the argument.

Again, the same could be said of an argument based on Drake's equation. Even if we knew the number of stars and some of the other variables for certain (we don't, but even if we did), there isn't any information that allows us to form the rest of the argument.

I agree that there is a small amount of information available for the argument. Unfortunately it isn't even adequate to form the "fine-tuning argument" in the first place.

Yes, many of the values in the premise are guesses. The same is true of an argument for aliens.

It makes more sense to simply proceed with normal science in order to understand the conditions that lead to apparent fine-tuning and begin to form hypotheses and theories.

Sure, we can continue to look for evidence. The question seems to be whether there is yet enough evidence to support the belief, or if we must remain agnostic about any proposition for which there isn't conclusive evidence.

Right, but we're not talking about exploring this idea through normal science, which uses Bayesian analysis in order to test hypotheses. We are talking about forming ideas without any theoretical or hypothetical basis. And it's simply a fruitless endeavour - we inevitably get it ridiculously wrong when we do so.

What do you mean by "theoretical or hypothetical basis" and what theoretical or hypothetical basis is there for aliens?

These ideas are based on theories and hypotheses which does allow us a way to explore the idea of aliens in a way that is meaningful.

In part they are based on theories and hypotheses (for example, when looking at the number of stars). However, there is no theory or hypotheses for many of the terms of Drake's equation. According to Wikipedia:

The fundamental problem is that the last four terms (fraction of planets with life, odds life becomes intelligent, odds intelligent life becomes communicative, and lifetime of communicating civilizations) are completely unknown. We have only one example, rendering statistical estimates impossible, and even the example we have is subject to a strong anthropic bias.​

The same can of course be said for the fine-tuning argument, which is in part based on theories and hypotheses.

-Bri