Can theists be rational?

[Bri]

You said that those interested in fine-tuning weren't interested in it as a scientific endeavour.

Most of them understand it to be a logical argument, not an argument for which one would go out in search of evidence (and indeed few actually do go out in search of evidence to support logical arguments).

I am simply curious as to whether or not it is possible to show you how this is a lovely example.

I'm not sure how using the wrong definition is going to show it to be an example of the fallacy you claim it to be.

Do you think that we'd consider it less likely that intelligent aliens exist based on that information - i.e. would that information change our minds?

Sure, if we knew that the conditions and events by which intelligent life emerged here were extremely rare, it would seem that it would decrease the probability that intelligent life exists elsewhere. However, the hypothesis "aliens exist" would still be unfalsifiable without proving that there actually isn't another planet with the conditions necessary.

Really? If you say that a set necessarily has these three characteristics and someone shows you that a thing doesn't have one of the characteristics, you're still willing to say that the thing is a member of the set?

I never said that members of the set necessarily have the three characteristics. I said that things that have the three characteristics are members of the set. The set of "unscientific things" might also include other things as well.

Well, that's a given. But my point was only that being curious about something could be scientific. A list of things that aren't scientific doesn't really have anything to say about the matter.

I agree that a scientific or non-scientific endeavor might include curiousity. Curiosity by itself has little to do with whether the endeavor is scientific.

Really? We had compelling evidence that there were moons orbiting Jupiter before they were first observed through a telescope? We had compelling evidence that there were microscopic organisms in pond water before we observed them through a microscope?

Yes, of course there was evidence that there were very distant and very small things to view when the telescope and a microscope were invented. I'm not sure they would have been invented otherwise.

So you are saying that when a paleontologist picks a site to dig for bones, they almost always find bones there?

No. I said that in general when a paleontologist picks a site they pick the site because there is evidence that they will likely find something there. They rarely throw a dart at a map and start digging.

Does that mean that you consider most drug research unscientific, since it turns out that most substances are ineffective (i.e. the proposition being tested is almost always false)?

I don't know much about drug research, but I doubt that they combine substances at random in hopes that it will cure a particular ailment.

What's your threshold for "likely"? Greater than 50%?

At least greater than "I have no idea whatsoever."

Look, this is a minor point and I don't really want to keep going around and around on this. SETI has been criticized because it has characteristics of pseudo-science. There are huge differences between paleontology and what SETI is doing. If you disagree, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

So now you agree that some of these things may be conditions for life, since their absence makes life less likely?

No, that's not what I was asking. A universe is also necessary for intelligent life to develop but I think you realize that's not what I meant. I was asking for the specific events and conditions by which intelligent life emerged on this planet. We don't know enough about those conditions to know how rare the events and conditions were. That's my point. This isn't really that controversial.

It would explain any collection of constants in which we would happen to find ourselves.

Not really. A god would not be a more likely explanation for a universe in a particular state that doesn't support life. The fine-tuning argument only works because of the assumption that a life-supporting universe is much more likely to exist with a god than without one.

Nobody would. What sort of things would nobody say were the work of God?

You said:

Except 'aliens' wouldn't be the best explanation for 'lakes' on Jupiter.​

I said:

Exactly. Who ever said they would be?​

So the question isn't what sort of things nobody would say were the work of God (who some believe is the creator of the universe). The question is what things aren't best explained by a god.

That can't be true. God has been an explanation for all kinds of stuff for a lot longer than the idea of fine-tuning has been around.

Again, put "sun rising" into the argument instead of "fine-tuning" and it doesn't work unless a god is a better explanation for the sun rising than other explanations.

The set of observable events and their influences is methodological naturalism. If you think that includes God then you would agree that God would be knowable through scientific inquiry rather than unknowable?

I've already said that I think that some aspects of a supernatural entity could be known, specifically the aspects that intersect with the natural world. I'm not sure that we could know everything about the supernatural though.

-Bri

 

[fls]

Statistically, yes. Locally, no. And any local effect can scale up to an almost limited extent. Shrodinger's cat is an example of such scaling. Put a young Adolf Hitler in the box and see what difference that might make.

Perhaps Hitler's mom had received the warning about the inadvisability of placing infants in those mysterious black boxes showing up on street corners?

What I'm trying to establish is the simple logical possibility that an entity from outside the universe can effect the universe without being detectable in any way. IMO Shrodinger's cat proves the principle. The only way to detect the will of god in the world is to find some statistical variation from what would be expected in theory, and hope that god left sufficient clues for his purpose to be worked out. I don't think that's remotely practicable in practice, and I doubt if it's even possible in theory.

If, for example, God hated Swedes, and used quantum effects to kill them all off in statistically unlikely ways, then that could possibly be figured out. It would be extremely difficult, but doable. But if God's intervention was to kill Lenin so that Stalin would take over (for some incomprehensible purpose) then that would not be statistically detectable.

If a world in which a god is present is not detectably different from a world in which is it absent, what would give us an idea that it is present?

Linda

 

[biomorph]

Perhaps Hitler's mom had received the warning about the inadvisability of placing infants in those mysterious black boxes showing up on street corners?



If a world in which a god is present is not detectably different from a world in which is it absent, what would give us an idea that it is present?

Linda

Um , an international mass death crisis in Sweden?

Ah that hasn't actually occured has it?

Well , count that one out I guess,,,,,,,,,

 

[westprog]

More, because you now not only need to fine tune the simulation just the same, but you've the added overhead of the support system too maintain that simulation.

You might need to fine tune the support system too, probably, so there's even more.

Its just turtles all the way down really, that is why it's irrational.....

If that simulation is the whole universe, you've just ground to a halt.

It also begs the question, simulation of what?

More turtles.............

Are you seriously claiming that a simulation requires more energy than the thing simulated?

(Leaving aside the question that everything we know about energy comes from observing this universe, and hence may be entirely mistaken if it is a simulation).

 

[fls]

By the discovery of information that makes the explanation necessary and useful (it specifies observations that would exclude the multiverse, specific predictions can be made as to consequences, observations would otherwise be poorly explained, etc.)

Which is to say that it explains possible future evidence. I can make the same claim about theism: it explains possible future messages from God.

But you are referring to a different sort of explanation - a useless explanation. There aren't any constraints on those future messages which would alter your underlying idea that God exists.

While the idea of a god is necessary for the reported experiences, it is not necessary for a god to exist in order to have the idea of a god.

I don't see a point here.

Simply that having an idea is not evidence that the subject of the idea exists.

And "God exists" is not a useful explanation (it doesn't make specific predictions, it doesn't specify observations which would exclude God, other more useful explanations are available, etc.)

If God exists, the "other more useful explanation" (i.e., science) would cease to be so useful. If we knew God existed, it would go very far in explaining anecdotal spiritual accounts, NDE's, cross-cultural spiritual experiences, etc. Remember, not all hypotheses have predictive power. "OJ is a murderer" predicts very little, but explains a whole lot.

"OJ is a murderer" is highly predictive. For example, it predicts OJ's presence at a crime scene in a way that falsifies the hypothesis if his presence is not possible.

In what way does God's existence explain those things (in a way that's different from "Goddidit")? How would we even know to relate any of that to God?

I'm not a physicist, so I don't really know what that evidence would look like. But that is exactly the point of scientific inquiry - to propose what sort of evidence we should look for that only the multiverse would explain.

I agree. But at the moment, the existence of other universes looks good on paper, but has no empirical evidence supporting it. Which, oddly enough, is similar to a lot of atheist's positions: sure, it would be nice to think we survive death somehow (e.g., wishful thinking), but there's no evidence for it, so you're just deluding yourself.

Which is why the multiverse isn't considered factual in the way that something like dark matter is (as far as I can tell).

I guess if we're dealing with science, wishful thinking and elegant theories are to be belived in with no evidence to support them. When we're dealing with metaphysics, different standards of evidence seem to apply.

What are you thinking of with this example? Theories with no evidence to support them aren't theories and aren't to be believed in.

Well, he does exhibit the sort of sloppy thinking that arbitrarily attempts to insert a supernatural explanation - a strategy that has never been shown to be useful. However, that may otherwise be an example of how we start to approach the question from a rational perspective. Can fine-tuning serve as evidence of the multiverse?

Yes. Fine-tuning supports the disjunction "God or a multiverse exists" (if the values of the physical constants can actually vary). That's probably one of the reasons multiverse theory is so popular among physicists: it really is either a multiverse or God. I don't think there are many cosmologists who would dispute the claim that very precise values of the physical constants are needed for a life-permitting universe.

Try this:

"If there is no gravity,” Carr says, “you might have to have a heavenly-body controller. If you don’t want God, you’d better have gravity."

Linda

Disanalogous. Carr's point is that there are two reasonable ways to explain the existence of life: a universe creator, or a multiverse. Your point doesn't make sense: the existence of gravity is not evidence for or against God, nor do we think possible universes without gravity would necessitate a God. The precise value of the gravitational constant, is evidence for a universe creator or multiverse.

I strongly suspect that we haven't exhausted all the possibilities except 'multiverse'. However, if we had, what is wrong with avoiding a particularly useless strategy (supernaturalism) in favour of a particularly useful strategy (naturalism) when figuring out how to make further inquiries?

The point about Gravity is simply that we could have abandoned naturalism at any place in our search for understanding. To do so now is as arbitrary as it would have been to do so after Special Relativity.

Linda

 

[Beth]

Gotcha.

Of course we were discussing hallucinations. It's one of several explanations for NDEs, which you seem to conveniently ignore.

I haven't ignored it. It hadn't come up. I'm quite happy to acknowledge that it is one of several possible explanations.

I just happen to mention the real cause of my "experience" of the easter bunny, and you jump right on it, ignoring the explanation I gave.

If you tell me you saw a hallucination, no I'm not going to assume you actually saw a real entity. Doesn't matter if you say it's the easter bunny or jesus.

Well, news flash: I know for a fact that God doesn't exist, so he doesn't count as an explanation for NDEs.

News flash for you. While you may be quite certain of the non-existance of God, I don't share your certainty. Thus, I don't count that out as a possible explanation for NDE's.

 

[fls]

Not always. The eye, for example, can detect individual quantum events.

I don't disagree, but I would like a smidgen of thought to go into wondering just what it is that would be different if that detection was different.

Linda

 

[westprog]

Perhaps Hitler's mom had received the warning about the inadvisability of placing infants in those mysterious black boxes showing up on street corners?

Once the principle is established, we don't actually need a big black box with a skull on the outside. The rest of the universe will do fine.

If a world in which a god is present is not detectably different from a world in which is it absent, what would give us an idea that it is present?

Remember that I'm not claiming that god exists and intervenes in this universe undetected. I'm just saying that such intervention would be possible. It's also possible to have detectable intervention, or no intervention at all, or indeed no god at all.

 

[westprog]

Um , an international mass death crisis in Sweden?

Ah that hasn't actually occured has it?

Well , count that one out I guess,,,,,,,,,

Though we do get IMDC's on a regular basis. What do we call such events again?

 

[biomorph]

Are you seriously claiming that a simulation requires more energy than the thing simulated?

No, the whole package requires the simulation, and the simulated. You are talking about everything, not something in particular.

Although one could say that the earth is a simulation in a non-simulation space, for example., thats's not the issue, the issue is everything.

You cant just divide out what you think fits and what doesn't.

Either this is all there is, or there's more (like god) in which case the whole energy requirement starts to escalate that the whole thing requires (inc god)

Cant work, too many turtles and occams razor is sharp on this one. See below in my sig.

(Leaving aside the question that everything we know about energy comes from observing this universe, and hence may be entirely mistaken if it is a simulation).

What else do you have, there's no evidence that this is a simulation even if this is not the only available universe.

 

[biomorph]

Though we do get IMDC's on a regular basis. What do we call such events again?

whatever they're called, its not regarded as evidence of some, as you said, godly act.

No evidence......see........

If it was then god is lacking in forgiveness and morals anyway, so he's out. god can't lack anything can he?

 

[Belz...]

No, I don't.

Okay... so the fine-tuning argument, according to you, is not that the universe is fine-tuned for life, per se, but that the universe is fine tuned for us ?

In other words, the universe is fine-tuned for precisely the result that we have here. Didn't we talk about probabilities a short while ago ? Didn't anybody mention that you can't draw conclusions from the result alone ? Sheesh, this is going nowhere.

The anti-FT arguments seem to be similar to someone walking into a room and finding a needle perfectly balanced on its point, saying that this is just as likely as any other configuration and the needle had to be placed somewhere.

The problem is, it's NOT as likely. Bad analogy. HHHHH is just as likely as HTHTH.

 

[Belz...]

If you tell me you saw a hallucination, no I'm not going to assume you actually saw a real entity. Doesn't matter if you say it's the easter bunny or jesus.

That's what I said. You KNOW, from my example, that it's a hallucination. But it doesn't matter. The hypothetical is that somebody has an awakened experience of the easter bunny. By your logic, this is evidence that the easter bunny exists.

 

[fls]

Once the principle is established, we don't actually need a big black box with a skull on the outside. The rest of the universe will do fine.

So you are referring to God as a First Cause?

Remember that I'm not claiming that god exists and intervenes in this universe undetected. I'm just saying that such intervention would be possible. It's also possible to have detectable intervention, or no intervention at all, or indeed no god at all.

In what way is undectectable intervention different from no intervention? And how would we obtain any idea about God if it was undetectable?

Linda

 

[yy2bggggs]

Malerin:

Quickly, because I don't have much time to post...

Your response is a giant piece of sophistry--remember, you're here to defend the rationality of theists, but most of your argument is trying to, literally, argue against parsimony, make excuses as to why you do not have to support your views, and, literally, argue that it's more rational to believe what you believe willy nilly than to base it on reality.

Those are not marks of rationality.

Furthermore, your first statement gives you away:

I'm not the one claiming to be wracked by self doubt.

...the fact that you think this puts me in a worse position, that you think you don't have to support your views, and that you think any random thing you don't know exists, but believe, is justified, testifies against your rationality.

Now, how about you tell me your epistemic approach? Otherwise, I'm going to have to go with what you gave me. I would personally recommend against the latter.

Edit: Also, need I remind you, through your denial-of-materialism extreme idealism rant, that the fine-tuning argument is heavily based on the assumption that there are such things as physical constants. Let's try being a bit consistent?

 

[badnewsBH]

I tried to search the forums and didn't see him mentioned in this thread, so I'll mention him, at the risk of repetition.

Dr. Ken Miller.

He's a theist, I believe (Roman Catholic, IIRC), and is a rational person in my opinion, based on his participation in the Dover trial. So, I'd say yes, it's possible for a theist to be rational.

 

[westprog]

As I said previously I hadn't realized that we had come up with TOE- can you provide me a link to the news of its formulation and verification?

Do you really think we need the TOE to figure out how celestial bodies would behave if g were .95 of its present value? Yes, you've said that previously, and yes, I've made the same answer.

 

[Darat]

Do you really think we need the TOE to figure out how celestial bodies would behave if g were .95 of its present value? Yes, you've said that previously, and yes, I've made the same answer.

Yes we do because we don't know if g could be .95 of its present value (let alone that we don't know if g was different everything else could be the same). Remember the map is not the territory and at the moment we haven't even got to the map making stage!

 

[Darat]

Do you really think we need the TOE to figure out how celestial bodies would behave if g were .95 of its present value? Yes, you've said that previously, and yes, I've made the same answer.

Yes we do because we don't know if g could be .95 of its present value (let alone that we don't know if g was different everything else could be the same). Remember the map is not the territory and at the moment we haven't even got to the map making stage!

 

[westprog]

Yes we do because we don't know if g could be .95 of its present value (let alone that we don't know if g was different everything else could be the same). Remember the map is not the territory and at the moment we haven't even got to the map making stage!

We might need a TOE to determine if g could have a different value. We don't need it to determine how the universe would behave if it did have a different value. It's no more speculative than precalculating the path of a satellite before launching.