Can theists be rational?

[JoeTheJuggler]

In space there is no sound signal to be perceived, but there is gravity. Which the crew of the ISS don't "sense". Because humans don't have any native sense for gravity, if humans could "directly sense gravity", the ISS crew could do so as well. But they cannot, which disproves the assertion. Yawn...

That's not logical at all.

Since we can't see a single photon, does it follow that we can't directly sense light? What about sound below a certain decibel level? If I can't hear that, does it follow that I can't directly sense sound?

I'm sure there are minute changes in temperature that I can't sense. Does it follow that I can't sense changes in temperature?

Humans can directly sense gravity and linear acceleration. I showed you the statement from Wiki's article on otoliths. Now I'll quote my old A & P textbook (Human Anatomy & Physiology, 3rd Ed. Elaine M. Marieb):

Transducing Gravity and Linear Acceleration Stimuli.

Let's look more closely at the "happenings" in the maculae that lead to sensory transduction. When your head starts or stops moving in a linear direction, inertia causes the otolithic membrane to slide backward or forward like a greased plate over the hair cells, bending the hairs.
<snip>
Likewise, when you nod your head or fall, the otoliths roll inferiorly, bending the hairs of the maculae in the saccules. When the hairs are bent toward the kinocilium, the hair cells are depolarized and step up their pace of neurotransmitter release. As a result, a faster stream of impulses is sent to the brain. When the hair cells are bent in the opposite direction, the receptors are hyperpolarized, and neurotransmitter release and impulse generation decline. In either case, the brain is informed of the changing position of the head in space.
<snip>
Thus, the maculae help us to maintain normal head position with respect to gravitational pull.

There's a lot more. I tried to trim it a bit.

Gravity is a natural phenomenon, like radioactivity. But that says nothing about our senses for these. I don't get your point.

My point is that the following isn't accurate:

We don't observe gravity. We observe that we are falling down when jumping from the roof.

As I said, we can sense changes in linear acceleration and changes in the orientation of our head with respect to the center of mass of the Earth. We can directly sense gravity.

And that the existence of gravity is not analogous to the existence of God. As I suspected, that was how this came up in this discussion--an attempt somehow to liken our "belief" in the existence of gravity to belief in the existence of God.

 

[Paulhoff]

ID, sure.............



Paul

 

[PixyMisa]

Now, it is a trivial point, but you clearly were calling the subjective evidence I mentioned post hoc. Your use of "and" can only be read as an addendum to my quote: "There is evidence that God does exist, though it is usually very subjective, and post hoc.". Which, of course, makes no sense. A theory can be post hoc, but not the evidence itself. If you're going to question someone's comprehension skills, you should at least avoid such common errors.

You're both partly right.

What you are claiming as evidence is post hoc. Which means it's not evidence.

 

[PixyMisa]

Er, quite. Would you care to substantiate your assertions?

Sure.

As soon as you substantiate yours. You presented two syllogisms, each containing multiple unsupported premises, some of which were false. Therefore both syllogisms were unsound.

As you can see all you gave me as a response was alist of one word assertiosn without supporting argument or evidence!

In other words, I did the same as you, but I was more concise.

On the contrary, it being one of my academic specialties I'm under the impression I understand them very well indeed

You are mistaken.

which is why I often end up arguing with people about it here. Would you care to inform me how I am wrong?

Comprehensively.

 

[Malerin]

This is a rather bold assertion imo.



Of course its staggeringly unlikely. If you seemingly arbitrarily decide that all the constants are independent and each could have taken any random real number then the probability of any universe goes to 0.
For starters you need to talk about ranges of values which include the constants we have. But what ranges?
Then...
How do you define big changes and small changes?
Do we just vary one constant at a time or can we do several?
Can we have extra dimensions (spatial and/or temporal)?
Can we add extra forces and corresponding constants?
Are we sure these alternative Universes could not support intelligent life or are we biased by our view of the world and lack of imagination?
etc...
Without answers to the above can we really make any meaningful statement about FT?

Reputable physicists, such as Hawking, have talked about the apparent fine-tuning of the constants. I've quoted almost a dozen, I think, in this thread alone.

 

[Malerin]

You're both partly right.

What you are claiming as evidence is post hoc. Which means it's not evidence.

This doesn't make sense. What I am claiming as evidence is an event (a subjective experience). So you're still stuck with saying the event happened after the event.

If you're saying my idea or formulation of the evidence is post hoc, that is a trivial point. Unless we start communicating telepathically, all formulations of evidence will be expressed linguistically, which, of course, happens after the fact. How could I possibly tell you about any evidence before the evidence happened/was observed/was collected?

 

[PixyMisa]

This doesn't make sense. What I am claiming as evidence is an event (a subjective experience).

No, you're not. What you're claiming as evidence for your idea is experiences (I'll grant that the experiences are real for the sake of argument) interpreted in the light of your idea.

You don't get to do that.

If you're saying my idea or formulation of the evidence is post hoc, that is a trivial point.

No. What you are claiming as evidence is post hoc. What you are claiming as evidence is not what the evidence actually is.

Unless we start communicating telepathically, all formulations of evidence will be expressed linguistically, which, of course, happens after the fact. How could I possibly tell you about any evidence before the evidence happened/was observed/was collected?

If you talk about a "religious experience" or a "supernatural experience", you are not talking about the experience, but about an interpretation of the experience. You can't use that to support the theory that gave you that interpretation in the first place.

 

[articulett]

In order for a god belief to be more rational than a belief in Satan or demons, you'd have to show why your "experience" was more reliable than someone who believed they or others were possessed or influenced by demons. The fact that there is suffering in the world is not evidence of demons...

In the same way, belief that you are talking to a god or your being flummoxed at how well the universe fits you, is not evidence of god(s). Or rather, there is not a rational reason for concluding it is. We have much better reasons for why people believe these things than to presume it's because these things exist:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...s-god.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=human-evolution

It's not rational to conclude that anyone (including you) really are getting messages or signals from "spirit entities" (gods, ghosts, sprites, etc.) It would be up to a believer to show evidence that their god belief was more rational than a belief in demons--more reliable--more likely to be true. Absent such evidence, parsimony indicates that a believer is fooling themselves in a very common way that humans are known to do so.

The god conclusion is not warranted by the evidence. Rather, the evidence suggests a misperception on par with delusions of demons or space alien visitors, etc. If you need to "believe in" something to experience the evidence, then chances are it's a delusion--confirmation bias.

Those who don't believe in chupacabras, never see them. Those who don't believe in gods don't get messages from them. Those who don't believe in demons, don't get haunted by them. Voo-doo doesn't work on those who don't believe. Some people might believe they have evidence for these claims, but clearly the evidence is a "post hoc" interpretation that fits in with a preconceived framework. If you don't know about seizures, schizophrenia, etc., and you believe in demons--then demon possession might seem like a logical conclusion for aberrant behavior. But aberrant behavior is not evidence of demons. You would have to illustrate why your evidence for god is not on par with the above--or more rational than the above. What differentiates god belief from belief in demons?

 

[yy2bggggs]

But you weren't referring to the claim.

...

Now, it is a trivial point, but you clearly were calling the subjective evidence I mentioned post hoc. Your use of "and" can only be read as an addendum to my quote: "There is evidence that God does exist, though it is usually very subjective, and post hoc.". Which, of course, makes no sense. A theory can be post hoc, but not the evidence itself. If you're going to question someone's comprehension skills, you should at least avoid such common errors.

 

[Malerin]

...

Nice try, but it's clear "and post hoc" is describing "it", which stands for "subjective experience". Unless you want us to think English is your second language and you can't formulate a sentence properly.

"There is dinner in the fridge, though it is usually in the oven and homemade."

Same sentence structure, and it's obvious "homemade" describes the food and not the fridge.

A for effort though.

ETA: homemade can apply to both fridge and food, but the sentence sounds weird even if an adjective can't describe food (as post hoc can't describe evidence):

"There is dinner in the fridge, though it is usually in the oven and too heavy to move".

So either you suddenly lapsed into near incoherency (unlikely), or mistakenly believed evidence can be ad hoc. Either way, I wouldn't be giving advice to someone.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Nice try, but it's clear "and post hoc" is describing "it", which stands for "subjective experience".

Antecedents come before pronouns, and "post hoc" is Latin. What is this obsession about me being wrong? I'm legitimately wrong quite a bit--all you need to do is look. Why, if you're correcting my English, I do believe I used "you're" instead of "your" only a few posts ago. If my ironyometer weren't busted, I'm sure it would be in the red right now, but I'm not the one digging this hole.

I would recommend that you simply calm down, only, apparently, I'm not in a position to give advice to you. So... hmm.... what to talk about....

I know. How's that rational theist argument coming along? Do you, perchance, have anything to say about the meat of my arguments in prior threads? You know, the stuff I meant, as opposed to which adjectives I throw in when considering almost everything logically possible to be possible, or which antecedents of which pronouns I refer to when I say "or post hoc"?

I really don't mind being wrong, and I absolutely love being corrected... when I'm wrong... because I learn things. I love learning things. But it gets pretty irritating to get corrected about minutia that I'm not wrong about--especially irrelevant minutia.

 

[Mashuna]

Sorry! yes that is correct. We could not scientifically assert a supernatural cause, so science would offer

a) the pattern of stars is random, but coincidentally apperas to be like letters, a simulacra, in a similar way to the fact the constellation Taurus i no treally aBull.
b) the pattern of stars is in fact random, but appears to us to have a pattern owing to the way our language perception pattern recognition heuristics work, so it's an artifact of our brains. - pareidolia.
c) the perceived pattern is not random, but determined by constraints of the laws of nature that happen to make it spell out "Hey it's Zeus!" This did not arise however from an intelligent Zeus - in fact the shaping of the stars simply obey natural cycles, and at the moment the configuration happens to be meaningful to us - but in 5 billion years the stars will read "Eat more Fibre!".
d) the stars do indeed spell out "Hey it's Zeus", and this is because worshippers of Zeus took the name from the positions of the stars, which also formed the basis for ancient alphabets, so our langugaes reflect the stars, not vice versa: we evolved to fit the stellar configurationnot the other way round.
e) The stars do spell out the message, because the unknown super-PK powers of Zeus worshiippers were able to effect physics and cause the stellar alignement. Manchester United are nor practicing mass meditation for the fans in the hope of getting some decent advertising, and the Church of England are suing the hellenist pagans over the monoploy in divine flyposting.

All of the above would bizarrely enough be legitimate scientific hypotheses: "Zeusdidit!" would biazzarely enough, not be. This is actually not as tragic as it sounds, as we could just use the theological hypothesis Zeus did it, and test that against the natural data - but it is excluded from science, yes...

cj x

Thanks for the answer. I think only option e) would be an acceptable hypothesis by your definition, as I specified that the stars were rearranged, rather than found in that position. I chose it partly to contrast with your lightening bolt example, because lightening is something that we regularly observe, and have a good physical model for. It's also interesting that your definition of supernatural allows the investigation of PK ability strong enough to move stars as a natural phenomenon, but not the investigation of what would seem to be the obvious answer.

This is why I like my defintion of supernatural much more than the one that people here have tried to use. Because clearly, that should be considered supernatural, right?

Linda

I would certainly consider it to be supernatural. If there's an event which explicitly contradicts or overturns everything we currently understand to be possible, I can't imagine science would be limiting its scope of investigation. . .

 

[cj.23]

Sure.

As soon as you substantiate yours. You presented two syllogisms, each containing multiple unsupported premises, some of which were false. Therefore both syllogisms were unsound.

In other words, I did the same as you, but I was more concise.

You are mistaken.

Comprehensively.

OK. concise I grant you. What were the syllogisms I presented then? Please demonstrate.

cj x

 

[Tubbythin]

Reputable physicists, such as Hawking, have talked about the apparent fine-tuning of the constants. I've quoted almost a dozen, I think, in this thread alone.

The bold assertion I was referring to was that of all possible values of any given constant being equally likely. So maybe you should explain to me why I'm wrong in saying this is a bold assertion.
The words of Hawking do nothing to change the fact that the probability of a precise value taken from a continuous variable being correct is always 0.
As for my questions, got any answers for them?

 

[PixyMisa]

OK. concise I grant you. What were the syllogisms I presented then? Please demonstrate.

Perhaps you didn't intend them as syllogisms.

Perhaps your structures of:

Premise
Premise
Therefore, conclusion

Were merely your way of tossing random assertions into the air to be shot down like so many passenger pigeons.

 

[cj.23]

Perhaps you didn't intend them as syllogisms.

Perhaps your structures of:

Premise
Premise
Therefore, conclusion

Were merely your way of tossing random assertions into the air to be shot down like so many passenger pigeons.

Well shoot them down then. You always say "Fail", but never explain how. Can you please outline the problem in my argument, otherwise one might suspect you are bluffing?

cj x

 

[westprog]

The bold assertion I was referring to was that of all possible values of any given constant being equally likely. So maybe you should explain to me why I'm wrong in saying this is a bold assertion.
The words of Hawking do nothing to change the fact that the probability of a precise value taken from a continuous variable being correct is always 0.
As for my questions, got any answers for them?

It is possible to take any event of a given probability, and to subdivide the alternatives into other events of equal probability. Hence we can regard all events as being equally probable, and never get surprised or suspicious about anything.

 

[westprog]

Well, I suppose that depends on what "omnipotent" means, then. Can an omnipotent being bend the laws of logic ? Of physics ?

Assuming the answers are respecively "no" and "yes", such a God would have to cover his tracks with a series of alterations that would be detectable, even if only in principle. Of course, if the answer to the first question is "yes", then anything is possible and any discussion about god is meaningless.



Of course, the problem with your whole line of argument here is that I talked about beings that interract with the natural world. I was not talking about omnipotence, since we've already established, as many have done before, that omnipotence is logically incoherent.

Even if I accepted that point, it is only necessary to allow god to be omnipotent with respect to this universe, which provides no such logical conumdrum.

And that wouldn't leave traces ?

An omnipotent being would leave traces or not, as he wished.

The problem with arguing omnipotence for any debate is that it allows you to explain anything away, and reach any conclusion you see fit. This means that the omnipotence argument actually makes no explanation at all.



You are correct. I never said otherwise. My point is that something that cannot, in principle, be observed, cannot, in principle, interract with the physical world, and vice-versa. Omnipotence is the only way out, but since it makes no sense, it can easily be dismissed.

It's possible to easily dismiss almost anything, but since the usual definition of god includes omnipotence, then ruling out omnipotence and making up some arbitrary other limitations is obviously going to get the result you want.

There's no logical implausibility in a being having total control over the universe. It's no more impossible than an author having control over a book.

Sounds a little convoluted, to me. If the effect cannot be observed in principle then it is not an effect.

That sounds to me like an assertion, but I don't see anything to justify it. If I hide a key in a drawer and nobody finds it, the key is still there. A tree falling in a forest always makes a sound.

The flaw in yours is to assume that just because you can imagine something, makes it possible.

I think the corollary is obvious.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well shoot them down then.

Happy to do so.

I've already rebutted essentially the same points in previous responses to you and others, but you don't last long on a skeptics forum if you get tired after refuting the same specious nonsense ten or twenty times.

But first, a question for you, if you will: Do you stand by those claims? Do you consider them to represent valid logical arguments based on true premises?

You always say "Fail", but never explain how.

Fail. I frequently go into considerable detail about exactly how and why your - and others' - arguments are a load of foetid dingos' kidneys.

Can you please outline the problem in my argument, otherwise one might suspect you are bluffing?

Okay, problem one: None of your assertions are supported, and at least three of them are untrue, as indicated earlier.

Would you care to argue the point? Do you have any logic or evidence to support those assertions?

 

[Belz...]

Because humans don't have any native sense for gravity

That's a weird thing to say. If you've ever been upside down, you know full well that you can sense the direction of gravity.