Can theists be rational?

[RandFan]

And what is the metaphysical null hypothesis?

No idea. Are you saying if there is something I don't agree with I must then toss everything else out?

 

[Beth]

And what is the metaphysical null hypothesis?

For atheists, it's that no god exists. For theists, it's that god(s) do exist. Militant agnostics refuse to pick one over the other.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

For intelligent life in the universe, we know 100% that it exists because we exist. To claim that we are unique in the universe would suggest that all the physical processes that led to us being here cannot happen anywhere else (or that we were the result of some supernatural act of creation).

To say that our intelligence is similar evidence for the existence of a discarnate intelligence such as God (or "Fine-Tuner" which is just a dishonest way of referring to God) is absurd. We have no evidence at all of the existence of intelligence without a material "substrate" (a brain, for example). None.

 

[RandFan]

For atheists, it's that no god exists. For theists, it's that god(s) do exist. Militant agnostics refuse to pick one over the other.

Thanks. I didn't care to take the time to think through it.

In any event, it would have to be that no god(s) exist for both atheists and theists. Otherwise, how would you falisfy they hypothesis that god exists?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

For atheists, it's that no god exists. For theists, it's that god(s) do exist. Militant agnostics refuse to pick one over the other.

I understand your point, but it has nothing to do with what a null hypothesis is.

Metaphysical claims aren't falsifiable, so there are no real hypotheses. Same as with the supernatural (in fact, I take the terms as synonyms).

All the God claims that weren't metaphysical (or came to be testable) have proven false, and the definition of God retreated into the gaps in our knowledge (in order to remain supernatural).

As I've said all along, belief in a god or gods is not rational--it's a matter of faith. These attempts to make it seem scientific or even logical are merely apologies (that is, they start with a conclusion based on their faith and attempt to construct a word game to prove or support what they already believe based on faith and NOT on experiment or even reason).

ETA: To anticipate a reply: What about Randi's MDC? Aren't those tests examples of falsifying supernatural claims? No, they're not. As Randi himself does, even when these claimants fail these kind of tests, all they've shown is that their supernatural claim didn't work that time. Supernatural (and metaphysical) claims by definition aren't bound by the rules of the natural world. For instance, results needn't be reproducible. If a miracle fails to happen in a lab, it doesn't disprove the hypothesis that a miracle happened elsewhere. That's the thing about miracles--they're supposedly the suspension of the normal rules of the universe (like the laws of physics and so on).

 

[Jonnyclueless]

For atheists, it's that no god exists. For theists, it's that god(s) do exist. Militant agnostics refuse to pick one over the other.

No one regardless of any belief can say for certain there is not god and Atheists agree on this. So its not so much as a belief there is no god as it is they don't believe there is one. Any Atheist includes thee being a god as a possibility. As much a possibility as the universe being created by the Easter bunny. And likewise they agree that they cannot say with complete certainty that the Easter bunny is not the creator of the universe.

The only group that boasts certainty are theists.

So the argument would be like saying Christians believe in no lying Spaghetti monster and using that as definition of a theist.

There's a difference between a belief and a lack of a belief.

 

[Paulhoff]

Here's another one. Phlogiston. Or maybe the aether.

I thought you would miss the point.

Serendipity, finding other news things, that are completely difference from what you where looking for.

Paul

 

[westprog]

I thought you would miss the point.

Serendipity, finding other news things, that are completely difference from what you where looking for.

I'm afraid that I can't parse that sentence.

 

[westprog]

For intelligent life in the universe, we know 100% that it exists because we exist. To claim that we are unique in the universe would suggest that all the physical processes that led to us being here cannot happen anywhere else (or that we were the result of some supernatural act of creation).

The corrolary to which appears to be that if we are unique in the universe, indicating that the physical processes that led to us being here were not repeated anywhere else, then that implies some supernatural act of creation.

 

[westprog]

?

It's odd. I think we finally get some consensus and then it all goes to hell. So we are back to the beginning?

What more can I say? {sigh}

I said "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."

And you agreed.

So, why is there a problem here?

If we've blundered into consensus then that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The corrolary to which appears to be that if we are unique in the universe, indicating that the physical processes that led to us being here were not repeated anywhere else, then that implies some supernatural act of creation.

I don't know. Makaya claims he's an atheist who thinks we're unique. You'll have to ask him why he thinks the physical processes that led to us being here can't happen anywhere else in the universe. So far all the "arguments" I've heard him make didn't come close to supporting his claim.

I tend to agree with you though. When someone makes that claim, I tend to suspect they're harboring a supernatural belief.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No one regardless of any belief can say for certain there is not god and Atheists agree on this.

Careful. I'm pretty sure Skeptigirl would disagree. For myself, I've yet to see any well-defined God that I don't say for sure doesn't exist. (There's nothing I can do about the vague, God of the gaps or "Fine-Tuner" or "Designer" except to point out that those concepts are poorly defined.)

So its not so much as a belief there is no god as it is they don't believe there is one. Any Atheist includes thee being a god as a possibility.

While I tend to think of atheism as being to a religion as baldness is to hair color, I don't think your statement is true. There are atheists who reject the possibility of the existence of god.

For me, I reject the possibility of any well-defined God for the same reason I reject the possibility of 4-sided triangles. And logical discussion of an undefined term is pointless. You end up with validating arguments like the one cj posted where you could put in anything instead of the word "God" and get the same result for the existence of that thing.

 

[Herzblut]

ETA: Doing so might lead you to the preposterous notion that aliens are sending messages that can be received on your TV (but have been missed by the radio telescope at Arecibo).

The therapists and watchmen I am talking to neither understand that. If I start screaming and shouting they react very negatively. It's a bad world.

 

[Paulhoff]

I'm afraid that I can't parse that sentence.

So.

Paul

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

For atheists, it's that no god exists. For theists, it's that god(s) do exist. Militant agnostics refuse to pick one over the other.

The point of a null hypothesis is that it is well defined. For atheists the null hypothesis is simply what would be expected to happen in the absence of a god interfering with nature.

Can you provide an example of a well defined null hypothesis which includes a god?

 

[fls]

And what is the metaphysical null hypothesis?

Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Linda

 

[Belz...]

It's not a matter of boolean logic, it's a matter of probabilities.

Not, it isn't. Your argument is invalid. It is most certainly a matter of logic.

You started with the premise that the coin was unbiased, without any reason to suppose it.

That is incorrect. I started with the premise that someone flipped 30 heads in a row. You're going to have to understand this if we're to make any progress.

How does one estimate whether a coin is biased?

One would be to look at it. The other would be, as you seem to be doing, to decide that it is biased.

This is all besides the point, however. We're talking about rolled die and flipped coins, areas in which we KNOW that people cheat. This is not the case with the laws of physics.

And suppose you can't check the coin physically? I'd suggest that the only way to decide whether it's biased or not is to throw it.

Then it's just a possibility. Without evidence one can't reach a conclusion.

It is however correct.

Let me give you another example, then, and see how it sticks:

Let's say that person A tells person B a sentence. Person B is offended by said sentence. Person B also reasons that there is a greater probability of the sentence being offensive if person A is being offensive on purpose. Therefore, person A was probably saying this to offend ? Really ? You must have great social skills if you believe that.

Well, that's a starting point.

This is ridiculous. "Evidence that person A may have murdered person B", to you, means "evidence that it was physically possible". Well, congratulations, you have manage to say nothing useful.

 

[westprog]

Not, it isn't. Your argument is invalid. It is most certainly a matter of logic.



That is incorrect. I started with the premise that someone flipped 30 heads in a row. You're going to have to understand this if we're to make any progress.

If the initial premise was that the throws were fair, then of course we'll end up with the conclusion that the throws were fair.

One would be to look at it. The other would be, as you seem to be doing, to decide that it is biased.

This is all besides the point, however. We're talking about rolled die and flipped coins, areas in which we KNOW that people cheat. This is not the case with the laws of physics.

In the case of the laws of physics, we don't know what the rules are. When someone tries to make rules - e.g. "God does not play dice" then it's very likely that the laws of physics will fail to conform to what they are supposed to do.

Simply put - we don't know whether the laws of physics are fixed or not.

Then it's just a possibility. Without evidence one can't reach a conclusion.



Let me give you another example, then, and see how it sticks:

Let's say that person A tells person B a sentence. Person B is offended by said sentence. Person B also reasons that there is a greater probability of the sentence being offensive if person A is being offensive on purpose. Therefore, person A was probably saying this to offend ? Really ? You must have great social skills if you believe that.

That would be equivalent to believing that a single throw of a coin would demonstrate it to be biased. If someone said something offensive to me the first thirty times we met, then I'd figure that Mr A was very likely trying to be offensive.

Mr Bond, They have a saying in Chicago: "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time it’s enemy action".

This is ridiculous. "Evidence that person A may have murdered person B", to you, means "evidence that it was physically possible". Well, congratulations, you have manage to say nothing useful.

It's a very useful distinction.

 

[Belz...]

If the initial premise was that the throws were fair, then of course we'll end up with the conclusion that the throws were fair.

What part of "I started with the premise that someone flipped 30 heads in a row." didn't you understand ?

In the case of the laws of physics, we don't know what the rules are.

Therefore it is irrational to say that it is more likely that they were fine-tuned to the way they are given a fine-tuner.

That would be equivalent to believing that a single throw of a coin would demonstrate it to be biased.

No, it isn't, because the odds of getting tails or heads on a die isn't greater, one way or another, whether you cheat or not, unless you call the result first. This shouldn't be hard for you to understand.

If someone said something offensive to me the first thirty times we met, then I'd figure that Mr A was very likely trying to be offensive.

If you're going to be willfully obtuse, westprog, at least try to conceal it a little.

Mr Bond, They have a saying in Chicago: "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time it’s enemy action".

Well, I don't remember that particular line from the movie, but I find it usually quite telling when people use fiction to support their view of reality.

It's a very useful distinction.

Saying that something is physically possible in order to come to the conclusion that it is possible sounds rather useless to me.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Linda

This sounds like the principle of parsimony in generating hypotheses rather than an actual null hypothesis. (I for one accept the idea that if the supernatural entity isn't necessary, you should reject it as an explanation, but I don't think that's actually a testable hypothesis.)

If something is beyond the laws of physics, and doesn't necessarily produce consistent, reproducible results, I don't think you can generate hypotheses from it.

In his talks, Randi frequently gives the example of testing the claim that reindeer can fly:

We are going to test whether or not reindeer can fly. You have your reindeer all lined up, a video-camera operator standing by, lots of pads of paper and pens at work. The time is now ten past ten in the morning.

OK, first experiment. Number one reindeer, please, up to the edge. Camera going? Good. Push. Uhh, write down "no". Really NO! Number two. Push. I don't know what the result of the experiment will be; I suspect strongly what it will be, based upon my meagre knowledge of the aerodynamics of the average reindeer, though I'm not an expert on it. But based upon previous accounts of what reindeer can and cannot do, I think we are going to end up with a pile of very unhappy and broken reindeer at the foot of the World Trade Center. And probably a couple of policemen will be standing by a squad car saying, "I don't know, but here comes another one."

What have we proven with this experiment? Have we proven that reindeer cannot fly? No, of course not. We have only shown that on this occasion, under these conditions of atmospheric pressure, temperature, radiation, at this position geographically, at this season, that these 1000 reindeer either could not or chose not to fly.

Linky.