Can theists be rational?

[Bri]

This is quite disingenuous of you, since you are invoking the natural world as evidence of God. If God does not relate to the natural world, then the fine-tuning argument is entirely invalid from the get-go. You cannot have it both ways.

I didn't say that the natural world is unrelated to God. I said that science only deals with the natural world. Presumably, the natural world is a subset of the supernatural. Science only deals with that subset.

This seems to be yet another example of the fallacy of the excluded middle.

As I said, it was a misunderstanding of your comment, but if you meant it as I thought you had there is no excluded middle. If theists must use logical arguments to make belief in a god rational, then not using logical arguments (for example belief based on faith) would make belief in a god irrational.

This is the point I have made on numerous equations. The Drake equation represents an attempt to form a prior probability. There is no prior probability in the Drake equation. The Drake equation isn't based on Bayes' Theorem.

The sentence in bold makes no sense to me. Prior probability doesn't have meaning to me outside of the context of a Bayes analysis.

Even if you were to form an argument for aliens based on Bayes analysis and tried to use the Drake equation to set the prior probability, it wouldn't be any more valid than guessing because any valid conclusion of the Drake equation would require evidence for all of the variables, some of which there is no evidence for.

Only to the extent that one is specifying what one is looking for.

Specifying what one is looking for has nothing to do with prior probability.

Exactly. And the value for God is a measure of degree of belief, and the value for aliens is a measure of those variables whose names were arrived at from a theoretical and hypothetical consideration of the question.

I don't understand that at all. Can you elaborate?

The value for the prior probability of a god is a guess. The value for the probability of an average planet developing intelligent life is a guess.

The names of the variables in an argument for aliens are arrived at from thinking about what evidence would be required to form a conclusion about the existence of aliens, just as the names of the variables for an argument for a god are arrived at from thinking about what evidence would be required to form a conclusion about the existence of a god.

Then you finally agree that the fine-tuning argument is invalid.

The argument itself is valid -- the values for the premise are not necessarily valid because not all are based on evidence. The same is true of the argument for aliens.

So the development of intelligent life on the average planet is entirely a supernatural phenomenon?

No. The fact that there is no evidence upon which to place any particular value on the probability that an average planet will go on to develop intelligent life does not mean it's supernatural. It means that there is no evidence, just as there is no evidence upon which to place a particular value on the prior probability of a god.

-Bri

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

In the sense Betrand Russell employed it* and we normally see it on this forum sure. However, as my little note about being a historian was meant to suggest, I was using it in the sense of William of Ockham himself - Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate - by which Ockham argued that there must be one necessary reality that underlies all epiphenomena, or contingent entities, and that entity was God. "God did it" was the ultimate in ontological parsimony, as it reduced all contingencies to one necessary self sufficient entity.

But, as a theist, how does this help you? This sort of analysis produces Spinoza's God, not a person directing the cosmos.

Personhood is defined by what it isn't, as is intelligent action. The Ground of All Being cannot be a person and so cannot be the theist's God.

Regarding mysticism, has anyone yet produced the evidence that all forms of mysticism appear identical, that they converge on one reality in the same way that we look at a tree?

 

[fls]

I didn't say that the natural world is unrelated to God. I said that science only deals with the natural world. Presumably, the natural world is a subset of the supernatural. Science only deals with that subset.

You and others keep saying this, but how are you making a distinction between the natural world and the supernatural a priori? Science does not make that distinction.

The sentence in bold makes no sense to me. Prior probability doesn't have meaning to me outside of the context of a Bayes analysis.

Okay. So you agree that there is no comparison to be made between the fine-tuning argument and Drake's equation.

Even if you were to form an argument for aliens based on Bayes analysis and tried to use the Drake equation to set the prior probability, it wouldn't be any more valid than guessing because any valid conclusion of the Drake equation would require evidence for all of the variables, some of which there is no evidence for.

We agreed that no one was trying form an argument for aliens because no one has presented evidence for aliens.

Specifying what one is looking for has nothing to do with prior probability.

That is the very heart of prior probability. That you do not realize this explains why you seem to have such difficulty grasping what is being said here.

I don't understand that at all. Can you elaborate?

The value for the prior probability of a god is a guess. The value for the probability of an average planet developing intelligent life is a guess.

As I have said many times, the souce of the value, rather than the accuracy of the value, is where the distinction is made.

The names of the variables in an argument for aliens are arrived at from thinking about what evidence would be required to form a conclusion about the existence of aliens, just as the names of the variables for an argument for a god are arrived at from thinking about what evidence would be required to form a conclusion about the existence of a god.

What are the names of the variables one arrives at from thinking about evidence for God?

The argument itself is valid -- the values for the premise are not necessarily valid because not all are based on evidence. The same is true of the argument for aliens.

But you said that what was at issue was that the values were not accessible through the natural world. Fine-tuning deals with values that are accessible through the natural world, so how can those values be used for God?

No. The fact that there is no evidence upon which to place any particular value on the probability that an average planet will go on to develop intelligent life does not mean it's supernatural. It means that there is no evidence, just as there is no evidence upon which to place a particular value on the prior probability of a god.

-Bri

Unless you intend to introduce a fallacy (and I guess I shouldn't assume that you aren't), stating that the lack of evidence for intelligent life is the same as the lack of evidence for God means that you are suggesting that both are unavailable in the same way, rather than in two different ways. Otherwise you'd be willing to agree with what I've been saying all along - that they differ in the source.

Linda

 

[Belz...]

[...] how are you making a distinction between the natural world and the supernatural a priori?

That's an excellent question. What is "supernatural", anyway ? Exactly how would one tell the difference without observing. And if you can observe it, does it become "natural" ? And, if so, doesn't that mean that "supernatural" is a gap-filler word which means "unobserved" ?

By the same token, how can something be "supernatural", exactly ? In my book, it means it isn't interacting with the physical world and is, therefore, undetectable, even in theory. But a god who creates the universe most certainly interacts with it. So, how exactly is it "supernatural" ?

 

[RandFan]

Paleontologist or archaeologists have evidence that what they are looking for exists...

As are scientist at SETI. Look in the mirror, look at the evidence I have provided you.

Oh that's right, you refuse....There's no moon.

Irrelevant though as that is not even the point of my post. You have argued that gathering data or simply observing is not scientific.

 

[RandFan]

That is a very poor analogy in so many ways, most notably the line in bold.

No. It's a great analogy.

SETI is essentially listening for something for which there is no evidence it exists.

Look in the mirror. Look at all of the evidence I've given you for why it could exist. It is a lie to suggest that SETI is doing this whithout any basis whatsoever. We don't know if aliens exist anymore than Archeologist KNOW that there are anymore ruins to discover or palentologists know that there are any bones to collect. You won't acknowledge my arguments or my facts provided. Your mind is made up so you won't even go outside to look at the moon.

Why is it that you feel compelled to attack me rather than my argument? Do you really think that advances your argument in some way?

A.) You WON'T acknowledge my argument. B.) You won't rebut or discuss my premises. C.) You are acting like a child with his fingers in his hears refusing to listen. D.) I have addressed every argument and premise you've made. E.) You can't say the same.

 

[Bri]

You and others keep saying this, but how are you making a distinction between the natural world and the supernatural a priori? Science does not make that distinction.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Science doesn't posit the existence of anything for which there is no evidence, including gods and aliens. If we were to discover evidence of something beyond the natural (for example, if a god were to make itself known to us) then scientific theory would have to change to include the new data.

Okay. So you agree that there is no comparison to be made between the fine-tuning argument and Drake's equation.

No, I don't agree. Just because there are differences doesn't mean that no comparison can be made. The two arguments invoke two different equations, but they use the equations in much the same way. Each equation takes several variables as input and outputs a value. It just so happens that one of the inputs of Bayes theorem is a prior probability and one of the inputs of the Drake equation is the probability of an average planet developing life.

We agreed that no one was trying form an argument for aliens because no one has presented evidence for aliens.

I was trying to make sense of your comment. The only context where it would make sense to talk about the Drake equation in relation to a prior probability would be if you're trying to form a Bayes analysis for aliens.

We kind of touched on a possible argument of this form earlier in the discussion when we talked about the implications of finding a building on Jupiter. In that case, you could form a Bayesian argument that the building is new evidence of the existence of aliens, and you might attempt to use the Drake equation as a prior probability.

That is the very heart of prior probability. That you do not realize this explains why you seem to have such difficulty grasping what is being said here.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

I said:

The names of the variables in the Drake equation have nothing to do with prior probability.​

You said:

Only to the extent that one is specifying what one is looking for.​

Obviously I misunderstood what you meant. Can you explain what you mean when you say that the names of the variables in the Drake equation have to do with prior probability to the extent that one is specifying what one is looking for?

As I have said many times, the souce of the value, rather than the accuracy of the value, is where the distinction is made.

And what is the source for any value that you place on the probability of an average planet developing intelligent life? There is no source for this information. It's a complete guess.

What are the names of the variables one arrives at from thinking about evidence for God?

P(H) - the [prior] probability that a god exists
P(~H) - the probability that no god exists
P(E|H) - the probability that the universe is fine-tuned if a god exists
P(E|~H) - the probability that the universe is fine-tuned if no god exists
P(H|E) - the [posterior] probability that a god exists given that the universe is fine-tuned

The values of the first four variables would be evidence of the final one using Bayes analysis. The problem is that we have no evidence to support any specific values for the first three variables.

But you said that what was at issue was that the values were not accessible through the natural world. Fine-tuning deals with values that are accessible through the natural world, so how can those values be used for God?

I never said the values are not accessible through the natural world. There is evidence for one of the premises, that the universe is fine-tuned. I think you're imagining that the supernatural world and the natural world must be completely separate, but that's not necessarily the case. The natural world could be a subset of the supernatural world, in which case we could have evidence of a god. For example, if a god exists and wanted us to know of its existence, it could potentially make itself known to us, and then we could place the prior probability of a god around 1. The problem is that, as with aliens, the proposition is unfalsifiable. If there is a god, we may never know of its existence (for example, it might not want us to know). Or there might not be a god at all. The same is true of aliens (there might not be any aliens, and even if there are we may never know of their existence).

Unless you intend to introduce a fallacy (and I guess I shouldn't assume that you aren't), stating that the lack of evidence for intelligent life is the same as the lack of evidence for God means that you are suggesting that both are unavailable in the same way, rather than in two different ways. Otherwise you'd be willing to agree with what I've been saying all along - that they differ in the source.

I'm not sure what you mean by "unavailable in the same way." In what two different ways are they unavailable and why is that relevant to whether you can call them irrational or not?

It's true that gods and aliens and teapots orbiting Jupiter are all different (I don't think I've said otherwise), but the amount of evidence for each is about the same (that is to say that there's no compelling evidence for any of them). I see no difference by which you can label any one of those as necessarily irrational without labeling them all irrational.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

As are scientist at SETI. Look in the mirror, look at the evidence I have provided you.

So SETI scientists are searching for intelligent life? I thought they were looking for aliens! Intelligent life on Earth is no more evidence of intelligent life elsewhere than teapots on earth are evidence of teapots orbiting Jupiter.

Oh that's right, you refuse....There's no moon.

No moon? Huh?

Irrelevant though as that is not even the point of my post. You have argued that gathering data or simply observing is not scientific.

I argued no such thing. Of course gathering data and observation are a part of the scientific method, provided they are evidence for or against a falsifiable hypothesis.

-Bri

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's true that gods and aliens and teapots orbiting Jupiter are all different (I don't think I've said otherwise), but the amount of evidence for each is about the same (that is to say that there's no compelling evidence for any of them). I see no difference by which you can label any one of those as necessarily irrational without labeling them all irrational.

-Bri

They are in fundamentally different categories. Intelligent aliens are entirely possible since we know some of the necessary conditions for them and have located some of those necessary conditions elsewhere in the universe.

Orbiting teapots are fictional; they are intentionally silly.

Gods/fine-tuners are supernatural. The supernatural is in a fundamentally different category than any natural phenomenon, including intelligent aliens. The existence of intelligent aliens does not require a fundamentally different ontology in the same way that a personal God, for instance, would.

And there is always the interaction problem to deal with anytime immaterial "entities" are considered.

 

[RandFan]

So SETI scientists are searching for intelligent life?

Uh.... yeah. Extrasolar inteligent life.

Intelligent life on Earth is no more evidence of intelligent life elsewhere than teapots on earth are evidence of teapots orbiting Jupiter.

This is where you are being intelectually dishonest. There is no basis for teapots orbiting Jupiter.

There IS a basis for ET inteligent life. I've given you all of the evidence. You ignore it. You won't rebut or refute the evidence or premises so you are left to gainsay.

No moon? Huh?

Yeah, you skipped a number of my posts. I can't force you to read everything.

I argued no such thing. Of course gathering data and observation are a part of the scientific method, provided they are evidence for or against a falsifiable hypothesis.

And what exactly are palentologists and archeologists doing that SETI isn't or vice versa?

 

[Bri]

No. It's a great analogy.

It's really not. And I've pointed out why.

Look in the mirror. Look at all of the evidence I've given you for why it could exist. It is a lie to suggest that SETI is doing this whithout any basis whatsoever.

Again, I don't know what "basis" means other than "evidence" and indeed SETI is doing what SETI does without any evidence whatsoever.

We don't know if aliens exist anymore than Archeologist KNOW that there are anymore ruins to discover or palentologists know that there are any bones to collect.

Actually, NO evidence of aliens is in fact FAR LESS evidence than we have for ancient societies and prehistoric animals.

You won't acknowledge my arguments or my facts provided.

You do realize that my disagreeing with you is not the same as not acknowledging your arguments, don't you? I've acknowledged and responded to nearly all of your posts in a respectful way.

Your mind is made up so you won't even go outside to look at the moon.

??? What's with you and the moon? Specifically, of what relevance is the moon to our discussion that you keep bringing it up?

A.) You WON'T acknowledge my argument. B.) You won't rebut or discuss my premises. C.) You are acting like a child with his fingers in his hears refusing to listen. D.) I have addressed every argument and premise you've made. E.) You can't say the same.

Obviously, I disagree with you on nearly every point. Nonetheless, you feel that attacking me rather than my argument somehow addresses those points?

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

It's really not.

It really is.

And I've pointed out why.

And I explained why you were wrong.

Again, I don't know what "basis" means other than "evidence" and indeed SETI is doing what SETI does without any evidence whatsoever.

{sigh}

• Intelligent life exists.
• Intelligent life on earth is biological and primarily water and carbon.
• These elements exist throughout the universe.
• There are 100,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy and 300,000,000,000 galaxies in our universe.
• We have been finding extra-solar planets everywhere we look.
• If Intelligent life exists on earth, given the right conditions it could exist elsewhere.

Actually, NO evidence of aliens is in fact FAR LESS evidence than we have for ancient societies and prehistoric animals.

I'm sorry but I reject this premise as it is unfounded. We don't KNOW that there are more ruins or more bones.

I've acknowledged and responded to nearly all of your posts in a respectful way.

You have not rebutted or refuted my arguments. You have simply dismissed both my evidence and my premises usually by picking a single premise and responding to that.

??? What's with you and the moon? Specifically, of what relevance is the moon to our discussion that you keep bringing it up?

Go back and read the posts. If you won't read what I write then what the hell is the point?

Obviously, I disagree with you on nearly every point.

Disagreement is not rebuttal nor refutation.

 

[fls]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Science doesn't posit the existence of anything for which there is no evidence, including gods and aliens.

How does Science known beforehand which things there is no evidence for?

If we were to discover evidence of something beyond the natural (for example, if a god were to make itself known to us) then scientific theory would have to change to include the new data.

So how is that not simply natural?

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

I said:

The names of the variables in the Drake equation have nothing to do with prior probability.​

You said:

Only to the extent that one is specifying what one is looking for.​

Obviously I misunderstood what you meant. Can you explain what you mean when you say that the names of the variables in the Drake equation have to do with prior probability to the extent that one is specifying what one is looking for?

For example, the prior probability that a woman with chest pain has coronary artery disease is not determined by looking for the outcome of Superbowl 40, but it is determined by looking at the prevalence among women of coronary artery disease.

And what is the source for any value that you place on the probability of an average planet developing intelligent life? There is no source for this information. It's a complete guess.

'Source' refers to what information I am looking for - in this case, "fraction of average planets developing intelligent life". I would not look for the outcome of Superbowl 43 in order to find a value for that variable.

P(H) - the [prior] probability that a god exists
P(~H) - the probability that no god exists
P(E|H) - the probability that the universe is fine-tuned if a god exists
P(E|~H) - the probability that the universe is fine-tuned if no god exists
P(H|E) - the [posterior] probability that a god exists given that the universe is fine-tuned

That's not what I was looking for. You've simply defined your terms. What I want to know is what information you look at in order to determine the prior probability of God if it is not a measure of your belief.

I never said the values are not accessible through the natural world. There is evidence for one of the premises, that the universe is fine-tuned. I think you're imagining that the supernatural world and the natural world must be completely separate, but that's not necessarily the case.

You are the one who said that you could distinguish the two. How do you do so?

The natural world could be a subset of the supernatural world, in which case we could have evidence of a god.

How does one determine whether a thing is a member of the supernatural world, but not a member of the natural world?

I'm not sure what you mean by "unavailable in the same way." In what two different ways are they unavailable and why is that relevant to whether you can call them irrational or not?

Does that mean you consider both Gods and aliens supernatural in nature?

It's true that gods and aliens and teapots orbiting Jupiter are all different (I don't think I've said otherwise), but the amount of evidence for each is about the same (that is to say that there's no compelling evidence for any of them). I see no difference by which you can label any one of those as necessarily irrational without labeling them all irrational.

-Bri

I have all along specifically said that I am not talking about the amount of evidence, but rather the source.

Linda

 

[RandFan]

And what exactly are palentologists and archeologists doing that SETI isn't or vice versa?

Bri,

This IS a question. It goes directly to the heart of your argument that SETI isn't scientific. It's an argument you've made for days.

As is typical you simply ignore the points you find uncomfortable. It is your claim that gathering evidence must be to falsify a hypothesis to be scientific. Ok, then...

Answer the damn question.

 

[fls]

I argued no such thing. Of course gathering data and observation are a part of the scientific method, provided they are evidence for or against a falsifiable hypothesis.

-Bri

I'm guessing that you have no scientific background. It may interest you to know that gathering data and observation are part of the scientific method even when they are not being used as evidence for or against a falsifiable hypothesis.

Linda

 

[Bri]

They are in fundamentally different categories. Intelligent aliens are entirely possible since we know some of the necessary conditions for them and have located some of those necessary conditions elsewhere in the universe.

All three of them are entirely possible. We don't know the conditions and events by which intelligent life emerged on this planet, much less whether those conditions and events occurred elsewhere in the universe.

Orbiting teapots are fictional; they are intentionally silly.

Absolutely silly, that's my point. Still, just as possible that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter as it's possible that there are aliens. Just because we have one example of intelligent life here on earth doesn't mean that it exists elsewhere.

Gods/fine-tuners are supernatural. The supernatural is in a fundamentally different category than any natural phenomenon, including intelligent aliens. The existence of intelligent aliens does not require a fundamentally different ontology in the same way that a personal God, for instance, would.

Sure, gods are supernatural. Aliens and teapots are not.

The fact that gods are supernatural and aliens are not doesn't seem to provide a valid reason for labeling belief in a god as necessarily irrational but belief in aliens rational without resorting to special pleading. There is no compelling evidence of either.

And there is always the interaction problem to deal with anytime immaterial "entities" are considered.

That's besides the point, but there is no reason that a supernatural being couldn't interact with the natural world, particularly a supernatural being who had the power to modify the constants of the universe (which itself would be an interaction with the natural world).

-Bri

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

All three of them are entirely possible. We don't know the conditions and events by which intelligent life emerged on this planet, much less whether those conditions and events occurred elsewhere in the universe.

Not completely no, but it is likely, given the vast stretch of the universe that there is nothing particularly special about our home.

All three are logically possible. One is purely silly. One is physically (in a material realm with a simple ontology) possible and even probable.

The God hypothesis, while logically possible, still requires a different ontology. The question remains whether or not that ontology -- dualism -- is rational or not.

The fact that gods are supernatural and aliens are not doesn't seem to provide a valid reason for labeling belief in a god as necessarily irrational but belief in aliens rational without resorting to special pleading. There is no compelling evidence of either.



That's besides the point, but there is no reason that a supernatural being couldn't interact with the natural world, particularly a supernatural being who had the power to modify the constants of the universe (which itself would be an interaction with the natural world).

-Bri

I think the interaction issue is a very real problem. For the supernatural to interact with the natural would require magic. Is magic rational, or is it just magical thinking?

For things to interact, by the definitions that we commonly use, implies that they are the same substance fundamentally. If there are two independent fundamental substances, it is not possible for them to interact through any mechanism, since mechanism implies a set of rules followed (how materialism works). The only remaining logical possibility is magic. This is not a category of "we don't know", as is commonly portrayed, but a category of "there is no possible explanation". I'm not sure that fits in the category of the rational.

 

[RandFan]

I'm guessing that you have no scientific background. It may interest you to know that gathering data and observation are part of the scientific method even when they are not being used as evidence for or against a falsifiable hypothesis.

Linda

It's done every day of the year 365 days of the year.

Observation can lead scientists to make predictions and observation (gathering data) can confirm those predictions. The search for a common ancestor of fish and crocodiles was simply a prediction made from a scientific understanding of evolution. Tiktaalik was the confirmation of that prediction. By Bri's logic what the scientists who were looking for the bones to confirm the prediction were doing wasn't scientific.

Likewise, observations of intelligent life on earth has led scientists to make predictions about ET intelligent life.

SETI is doing nothing that the scientists who formulated the plan to look for bones (Tiktaalik) to confirm a prediction about evolution didn't do.

And Bri cannot tell us of any difference other than one of likelihood. If she were honest she would admit that scientists often fail in their predictions to find bones and archaeological ruins. That science isn't about perfect knowledge but simply observing the natural world and formulating ways to answer questions about that natural world.

 

[Bri]

Uh.... yeah. Extrasolar inteligent life.

Well, then they're unlikely find that by looking in the mirror. Without knowing the conditions and events by which intelligent life emerged on Earth and knowing the probability that those conditions and events may have occurred elsewhere, intelligent life on Earth is not evidence of extrasolar intelligent life any more than teapots on Earth are evidence of teapots orbiting Jupiter.

This is where you are being intelectually dishonest. There is no basis for teapots orbiting Jupiter.

Again, what does "basis" mean other than "evidence?" I agree that there is no evidence of teapots orbiting Jupiter, just as there is no evidence of intelligent life outside of our solar system.

There IS a basis for ET inteligent life. I've given you all of the evidence. You ignore it. You won't rebut or refute the evidence or premises so you are left to gainsay.

So does "basis" mean something other than "evidence" or not? There is no more evidence of aliens than of teapots orbiting Jupiter. The so-called "evidence" you've provided (the number of stars, etc) is entirely inconclusive until we know the conditions and events by which intelligent life emerged on earth and can come up with some idea of the probability of those same conditions and events having occurred elsewhere.

Yeah, you skipped a number of my posts. I can't force you to read everything.

It's possible that I missed a few (the posts have been coming rather quickly lately), but I try to respond to all of them, even the ones where you've been intentionally abusive. If you'd like to point me to the one about the moon that I failed to respond to (or just paraphrase it), I'll try to do so.

And what exactly are palentologists and archeologists doing that SETI isn't or vice versa?

They are looking for something for which there is evidence in order to test falsifiable hypotheses.

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

Well, then they're unlikely find that by looking in the mirror.

Yeah, but by looking in the mirror YOU might find some evidence of intelligent life.

Maybe.