Can theists be rational?

Ichneumonwasp said:
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.
Click to expand...

The interesting thing about the ET issue is that it's in some ways associated with the fine-tuning issue. If there really are no ET's, then that adds to the suspicion that there's something odd going on. But proving that there are no ET's is like proving there's no God. The ET of the gaps?

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.
Click to expand...

Magic is just a name given to interactions that we don't understand. The belief that two things of different substance cannot interact is not based on a fundamental principle - it's based on experience so far. Such experience has changed fundamentally several times in the last few hundred years.
 
GStan said:
I just read about six pages of this thread over the last two hours. My head hurts and I kept getting confused because I felt like I was reading the same posts over and over.

Bri, you keep using the word "aliens." I can't help but think you are trying to score cheap points by using a term that may invoke images of little green men or Will Smith and Jeff Goldbloom fighting to save the planet. You keep stating that "there is no evidence of aliens" and that "SETI is looking for aliens." To put a finer point on it, Scientists are looking for life. There is evidence of life. Life exists. Life has existed on this rock for perhaps a couple of billion years. But only for the last 100 years, out of 2 billion, has life on this rock evolved to the point where we could conceptualize and make legitimate progress toward discovering life on other rocks in the universe (there are a lot of rocks out there). Go back and replace the word "alien" in your posts with the word "life" and I think, while you may not be convinced of the opposing side of this argument, you may at least end up with a greater appreciation for the opposition.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence that ET life might exist. There is no evidence* that ET life does exist. It should be noted that SETI is searching for evidence of aliens - life as such would not be detectable at interstellar distances AFAIAA.
 
westprog said:
There is plenty of evidence that ET life might exist. There is no evidence* that ET life does exist.
Click to expand...
To make their decision to search for a transitional form between fish and crocodiles the scientists relied on evidence that bone for a creature like Tiktaalik MIGHT exist. They had no evidence that it did exist.

Your point is silly and irrelevant. Science does not operate on perfect knowledge. They make inductive guesses based on the best evidence that they have at their disposal and they are often wrong.

You simply have no clue as to how science works.
 
GStan said:
I just read about six pages of this thread over the last two hours. My head hurts and I kept getting confused because I felt like I was reading the same posts over and over.
Click to expand...

Painful, I know.

Bri, you keep using the word "aliens." I can't help but think you are trying to score cheap points by using a term that may invoke images of little green men or Will Smith and Jeff Goldbloom fighting to save the planet.
Click to expand...

If you've read through the thread, you'd know that I've defined "aliens" as "extra terrestrial intelligent life" but I got tired of typing that all the time. Enough said.

Go back and replace the word "alien" in your posts with the word "life" and I think, while you may not be convinced of the opposing side of this argument, you may at least end up with a greater appreciation for the opposition.
Click to expand...

I understand the opposition. I understand how many stars there are, and how each one might have planets that might support life. The problem is that there's no actual evidence of intelligent life anywhere but on Earth. The conditions and events by which intelligent life have emerged on this planet are not known, and therefore the probability of those conditions and events having occurred elsewhere is unknown.

For more information see Rare Earth Hypothesis and Fermi Paradox.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
westprog said:
The interesting thing about the ET issue is that it's in some ways associated with the fine-tuning issue. If there really are no ET's, then that adds to the suspicion that there's something odd going on. But proving that there are no ET's is like proving there's no God. The ET of the gaps?
Click to expand...
Ignorant and flat out wrong. No scientific supposition of Abiogenesis, evolution or the natural world relies on the existence of ET life.

The search for ET life is based on the same inductive questions that follow from observations of the natural world that all scientific searching is based on. Like searching for Tiktaalik the search for inteligent life is simply an attempt to understand our natural world. Nothing less nothing more.
 
Bri said:
SETI is looking for something for which there is NO evidence in order to prove an UNFALSIFIABLE hypothesis.
Click to expand...
Again you refuse to answer the question. Why?

How is searching for dinosaur bones a falsifaible hypothesis in a way that SETI isn't?

Can you just focus and answer the question. You claim there is a difference. THERE ISN'T!!!!

And simply declaring that one is unfalsifiable and the other falsifiable is just flapping your gums.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
You are the one that evoked supernatural as if it had any meaning. It doesn't but if you want to play the game of supernatural I can play it too. Either give up the supernatural nonsense or be consistent.
Click to expand...

Again, your response had absolutely nothing to do with refuting the statement to which you replied, a statement that had nothing to do with the supernatural at all.

You said there is no evidence that god doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I said that science doesn't deal with the supernatural, and I said that your insistance that a god is not theoretically possible (but not theoretically impossible) was just plain silly.

There is no evidence that the moon doesn't exist as I posited it does.
Click to expand...

What in the world are you talking about, and what does it have to do with the statement you were commenting on or this discussion in the slightest?

-Bri
 
Bri said:
I said that science doesn't deal with the supernatural, and I said that your insistance that a god is not theoretically possible (but not theoretically impossible) was just plain silly.
Click to expand...
And this is the source of my frustration. Not only is it not "silly" but it's demonstrably true.

Ok, let's take this one step at a time.

Before Einstein provided the theoretical basis for relativity there was no known theoretical basis for realtivity. True or false?

That did not make rativity theoretically impossible. True or false?
 
Last edited:
Bri said:
What in the world are you talking about, and what does it have to do with the statement you were commenting on or this discussion in the slightest?
Click to expand...
You are the one that made a lot to do of the Suprenatural being outside of the realm of science. You then made a big stink about no evidence of the moon being made of cheese.

You are playing a game and I am exposing that game. Just as you can posit magical abilities for your unkown "god" I can posit magical abilities of the moon.

If you don't like the consequences of your logic then don't use it.
 
Bri said:
SETI is looking for something for which there is NO evidence in order to prove an UNFALSIFIABLE hypothesis.
Click to expand...
BTW: The basis for paleontologists is the same for SETI. It's based on inductive reasoning and an observation of the evidence.


Saying there is NO evidence doesn't make it so.
  • Humans are evidence that there is intelligent life in our universe.
  • The biological components that make up life exist throughout the universe.
  • The energy needed for biological life is abundant throughout the universe.
  • Extra-solar planets have been found everywhere we look.
To state that there is NO evidence is dishonest. It's as if you are saying the moon isn't there because you can't see it.

Sorry but the moon and the evidence to cause SETI to infer the possibility of life is the same as the evidence that paleontologists use to infer the possibility of bones exist whether you like it or not.
 
Last edited:
fls said:
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
Click to expand...
Wrong. Data as such is completely irrelevant if not carrying information. Nobody collects such crap, except maybe blond women.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Given the vast expanse of space, it would seem unreasonable not to expect life to have arisen elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Given the vast expanse of space, it would seem unreasonable not to expect you to have arisen elsewhere, you are most probably all over the place, living at trillion different places, aren't you? Just that you might never meet yourself, for the very same given, if I may speculate a little.
 
Herzblut said:
Given the vast expanse of space, it would seem unreasonable not to expect you to have arisen elsewhere, you are most probably all over the place, living at trillion different places, aren't you? Just that you might never meet yourself, for the very same given, if I may speculate a little.
Click to expand...


Given infinite space and infinite time, I unfortunately will have to impose myself on the rest of you an infinite number of times in an infinite number of ways.

It's enough to drive a man to drink.
 
westprog said:
Magic is just a name given to interactions that we don't understand. The belief that two things of different substance cannot interact is not based on a fundamental principle - it's based on experience so far. Such experience has changed fundamentally several times in the last few hundred years.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a common use of the word 'magic' but not what I am referring to above. I am using magic in a stronger sense to refer not to something that we do not yet understand but something that is fundamentally not understandable.

It actually is based on a fundamental principle; that is the basis of the argument I am making. It is based on Spinoza's discussion of substances in his Ethics.

ETA:

The interaction problem plagues all dualisms. Plato never solved how the Forms could "participate" with actual objects, nor could Descartes explain how mind and body interact -- why he had to try seemingly to solve the problem with the unpaired central pineal gland. But even that couldn't have worked, really. Philosophers since have all understood that dualism is a trap with no clear solution, so they try to avoid it.
 
Last edited:
Ichneumonwasp said:
Given infinite space and infinite time, I unfortunately will have to impose myself on the rest of you an infinite number of times in an infinite number of ways.
Click to expand...
No problem. That hotel with an infinite number of rooms, hosting an infinite number of guests will still accommodate you again and again, unendingly, without running out of space for an unlimited number of even more guests.

The difference between 'vast' and 'infinite' is .. vast, if not infinite!

H
 
RandFan said:
To make their decision to search for a transitional form between fish and crocodiles the scientists relied on evidence that bone for a creature like Tiktaalik MIGHT exist. They had no evidence that it did exist.
Click to expand...

Good, you accept the point.

Your point is silly and irrelevant. Science does not operate on perfect knowledge. They make inductive guesses based on the best evidence that they have at their disposal and they are often wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that.

You simply have no clue as to how science works.
Click to expand...

You seem to be making inductive guesses about my opinions based on imperfect knowledge. I am well aware how science works, and my post above doesn't contradict that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom