Can theists be rational?

[Belz...]

No, and nor does anyone else. That's another one of those "why" questions, isn't it?

No, it isn't.

If you're talking about the uncertainty principle or anything related to it, the reason why the observer affects the outcome, as I understand it, is obvious. Observation means interaction. I believe I mentioned this in this thread or another one, recently.

So we've gone from a computer (actually some kind of simulator, which might be a computer or it might be something entirely different) massively bigger than the entire universe to one that's probably just beyond our current technology but is something we can envisage. I'd call that a successful planning meeting, budget-wise.

Indeed it's a big improvement, but still something far, far beyond any technology we have today.

Also, I'd argue that such a simulation theory would certainly be testable. There are such things in an imperfect simulation that simply wouldn't parse.

I suppose given a sufficiently long series of posts such a thing was bound to happen.

In all probabilities.

 

[Belz...]

It's the fact that there's no other universes to compare it to that leads one to be suspicious. This universe is like having only one lottery ticket sold, and it's a winner.

How would you know it's a "winner" ? For all you know, ANY possible universe would be a winner, so long as there's ANY form of life in it. I don't think you are justified in that statement.

The multi-universe theory has its advantages, but I don't see how it could be considered a parsimonious solution. An infinite number of alternate universes, all completely undetectable, is a fairly heavy-handed way to explain a few anomalies about this universe.

Well, I agree that the multiverse theory, inasmuch as we can't detect any other universe, doesn't help us. But it's one way to illustrate that _this_ universe isn't necessarily special because it's the one you live in and because it's the one with the only known physical configuration. I just think you're trying to make it special, while we have no reason to believe so.

 

[Belz...]

Uh, no. Those things have no material substance. I don't know that any of those things can be said to exist in the sense you have been using the word.

So "language" doesn't exist, either ?

I can't believe you're seriously arguing this. A legend "exists", but the things it represents do not. "Language" exists, but it doesn't represent anything. It's just a convention. The Easter Bunny doesn't exist, because he's made up. God should be in the same category.

Odd. I agree with your statement that we don't know God exists. That's why I consider myself an agnostic. Why do you consider that a 'free pass'?

My apologies. You seemed to be arguing that "experiences" of god, unlike those for the Easter Bunny, constitude evidence for his existence. For some reason.

 

[westprog]

How would you know it's a "winner" ? For all you know, ANY possible universe would be a winner, so long as there's ANY form of life in it. I don't think you are justified in that statement.

We can only go by what we know. When we run the numbers, the universes that have different constants don't have the capacity to produce life as we know it. (L1). It's possible that other forms of life, extremely different to what we know (L2), could, conceivably be produced in another universe. However, our universe would still be the only universe capable of producing L1. L1 results from chemistry, the existence of elements beyond Helium (and Boron and Iron), stars, planets, etc.

Well, I agree that the multiverse theory, inasmuch as we can't detect any other universe, doesn't help us. But it's one way to illustrate that _this_ universe isn't necessarily special because it's the one you live in and because it's the one with the only known physical configuration. I just think you're trying to make it special, while we have no reason to believe so.

Actually we have very considerable evidence that the universe we live in is special. That's what the numbers tell us. There's a feeling that for philosophical reasons our perception that this universe is special will turn out to be illusory, but that's how it looks at the moment.

 

[westprog]

No, it isn't.

If you're talking about the uncertainty principle or anything related to it, the reason why the observer affects the outcome, as I understand it, is obvious. Observation means interaction. I believe I mentioned this in this thread or another one, recently.

I think there's rather more to the uncertainty principle than that.

Indeed it's a big improvement, but still something far, far beyond any technology we have today.

That's not really much of a barrier. Assume a rather more advanced society than our own.

Also, I'd argue that such a simulation theory would certainly be testable. There are such things in an imperfect simulation that simply wouldn't parse.

I don't know how such things could be discovered. There might be anomalies in the laws of nature, but we have those at present. We've always had such anomalies. We assume that they are a result of our imperfect knowledge, and that we'll eventually come up with a theory to rationalise them. Plenty of time to fix the system.

A sufficiently advanced technology could quite easily ensure that the simulation would operate according to a set of simple rules. And since we're nothing else to compare them to, the rules would seem sensible to us. They do seem sensible to us, and we think that the missing dark matter is our fault for being insufficiently insightful, not a bug in the cosmology subroutine.

In all probabilities.

 

[Beth]

So "language" doesn't exist, either ?

No, that isn't my claim. That's my interpretation of how you are defining 'exist'.

I can't believe you're seriously arguing this. A legend "exists", but the things it represents do not. "Language" exists, but it doesn't represent anything. It's just a convention. The Easter Bunny doesn't exist, because he's made up. God should be in the same category.

Okay. So do you think that language exists or not? Is it in the same category as god and the easter bunny, or is it somehow different? If so, what qualities does it have that make it different from those other two things?

My apologies. You seemed to be arguing that "experiences" of god, unlike those for the Easter Bunny, constitude evidence for his existence. For some reason.

You're half right. I was arguing that such "experiences" of god do constitute evidence. It's not proof, nor is it even terribly convincing evidence to me, but I do consider it evidence. It is one reason why I am agnostic, not atheist. If there existed people of similar maturity and sanity who were claiming "experiences" of the easter bunny, that would, in the same way, constitute evidence for the easter bunny. But of course, unlike god, the easter bunny does not possess such evidence for its existance.

 

[Belz...]

We can only go by what we know. When we run the numbers, the universes that have different constants don't have the capacity to produce life as we know it. (L1).

Let's take your argument to its logical conclusion, shall we ?

If you only go by what we know, there is only one set of physical constants/laws that exist. So it's not surprising at all that this universe has those exact ones.

Actually we have very considerable evidence that the universe we live in is special. That's what the numbers tell us. There's a feeling that for philosophical reasons our perception that this universe is special will turn out to be illusory, but that's how it looks at the moment.

No, it doesn't. It's been pointed out to you more than once.

I think there's rather more to the uncertainty principle than that.

Please elaborate.

There might be anomalies in the laws of nature, but we have those at present. We've always had such anomalies. We assume that they are a result of our imperfect knowledge, and that we'll eventually come up with a theory to rationalise them. Plenty of time to fix the system.

I don't think you understand what I meant by "anomalies". The laws of physics, for example, could be non-constant a cross the universe, things we try to observe might not render properly all the time, science wouldn't always work, etc.

There are always bugs in a system, and no matter how advanced, or simple, the system. Trust me, I'm a computer programmer.

 

[Belz...]

No, that isn't my claim. That's my interpretation of how you are defining 'exist'.

Okay. So do you think that language exists or not?

Of course language "exists". It's a convention. It doesn't "exist" as a set of particles, but it is a PATTERN of things that exist.

Is it in the same category as god and the easter bunny, or is it somehow different? If so, what qualities does it have that make it different from those other two things?

As I said, the MYTH of the eastern bunny exists. The physical being itself does not. This shouldn't be difficult to comprehend.

You're half right. I was arguing that such "experiences" of god do constitute evidence. It's not proof, nor is it even terribly convincing evidence to me, but I do consider it evidence.

Well, it would be very weak evidence, anyway, if not for the fact that we have far better explanations for their presence.

It is one reason why I am agnostic, not atheist. If there existed people of similar maturity and sanity who were claiming "experiences" of the easter bunny, that would, in the same way, constitute evidence for the easter bunny.

Even though we KNOW for a FACT that the easter bunny is made-up ?

But of course, unlike god, the easter bunny does not possess such evidence for its existance.

Ah, but you seem to be forgetting the equally compelling testimony of people who experience imaginary friends, government agents out to get them, UFOs and little green men, bigfoot, and yes, God. In fact, any and all gods. You choose to dismiss all of these claims, except God, as patently false, don't you ?

 

[fls]

There have been multiple references to evidence, albeit weak, for gods. In a different thread I brought up the issue of evidence in relation to parapsychology, but it's relevant here as well.

I like Loss Leader's consideration of 'evidence' that I have in my sig - "evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true." Stories/anecdotes/personal observations don't really serve to make an idea any more or less true, since these things are readily available for any idea, even those that are known to be false. Claiming that a personal spiritual experience is evidence of gods, for example, fails simply because these kinds of experiences occur regardless of whether or not the subject of the experience is real. By itself, the experience does not distinguish between things that are true or false, so it's not useful to talk about it as 'evidence'. It is more useful to confine ourselves to considering information which is only present when an idea is true (or relevant variations).

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I like Loss Leader's consideration of 'evidence' that I have in my sig - "evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true." Stories/anecdotes/personal observations don't really serve to make an idea any more or less true, since these things are readily available for any idea, even those that are known to be false.

<snip>

I think it depends very much on how extreme the idea being described by the teller of the story/anecdote/personal observation is, and the subjective estimate by the listener of how likely it is the teller may be lying or deceived. For example, I have a high level of confidence from reading your posts that you are a physician.

 

[fls]

I think it depends very much on how extreme the idea being described by the teller of the story/anecdote/personal observation is, and the subjective estimate by the listener of how likely it is the teller may be lying or deceived. For example, I have a high level of confidence from reading your posts that you are a physician.

Would you take my posts as evidence that 'physicians exist' if you had no other experience of such a thing?

Linda

 

[Malerin]

Stories/anecdotes/personal observations don't really serve to make an idea any more or less true, since these things are readily available for any idea, even those that are known to be false.

Linda

This is wrong. Most of what we believe about the world comes from anecdotal evidence and others personal observations. I must trot out the burning house example again: Suppose someone you trust calls and tells you your house is on fire. This makes the idea "my house is on fire" much more likely to be true. People very rarely joke about such things. Or a friend tells you they're father just died. This makes the idea "my friend's father died" more likely true than false. We go by anecdotal evidence all the time.

 

[PixyMisa]

This is wrong. Most of what we believe about the world comes from anecdotal evidence and others personal observations.

No.

I must trot out the burning house example again: Suppose someone you trust calls and tells you your house is on fire. This makes the idea "my house is on fire" much more likely to be true.

No.

People very rarely joke about such things. Or a friend tells you they're father just died. This makes the idea "my friend's father died" more likely true than false.

No.

We go by anecdotal evidence all the time.

Maybe you do. It's a lousy idea.

 

[Beth]

Of course language "exists". It's a convention. It doesn't "exist" as a set of particles, but it is a PATTERN of things that exist.



As I said, the MYTH of the eastern bunny exists. The physical being itself does not. This shouldn't be difficult to comprehend.

No, it's not difficult to comprehend. What I don't understand is why you place god with the easter bunny and not language, math, justice, etc. You forgot to tell me what qualities language has that make it different from god and the easter bunny. Well, actually, just that make it different from god. I understand why it's different from the easter bunny.

Well, it would be very weak evidence, anyway, if not for the fact that we have far better explanations for their presence.

Nice to get some agreement from you that it IS evidence. Thanks.

Even though we KNOW for a FACT that the easter bunny is made-up ?

Yes, if such testimony were in existance, it would be evidence in the same way that such testimony is evidence for god. But again, this runs up against the FACT that no such testimony actually exists.

Ah, but you seem to be forgetting the equally compelling testimony of people who experience imaginary friends, government agents out to get them, UFOs and little green men, bigfoot, and yes, God. In fact, any and all gods. You choose to dismiss all of these claims, except God, as patently false, don't you ?

No, actually I don't dismiss all of those claims as patently false. Government agents are, after all, occasionally out to get someone and UFO's certainly exist though I don't think they are alien spaceships. Little green men I dismiss the same way as I do the easter bunny, but likewise, I've not actually heard of a sane responsible credible adult making claims about their existance.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Malerin:

Your house is on fire.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Would you take my posts as evidence that 'physicians exist' if you had no other experience of such a thing?

Linda

Probably not. I'd think you were some kind of Goddess.

 

[fls]

This is wrong. Most of what we believe about the world comes from anecdotal evidence and others personal observations. I must trot out the burning house example again: Suppose someone you trust calls and tells you your house is on fire. This makes the idea "my house is on fire" much more likely to be true. People very rarely joke about such things. Or a friend tells you they're father just died. This makes the idea "my friend's father died" more likely true than false. We go by anecdotal evidence all the time.

But none of this is really an example of what I'm talking about. Our only experience of 'fire', 'fathers', or 'death' doesn't come from stories told by others. We all have personal, direct experience of those things.

Your story would be analogous if someone you trust calls you and tells you that your house has been zapped by a Gorgon Schtuber, the effect of which is undetectable expect that your house will now be invisible to n-rays.

Linda

 

[Paulhoff]

This is wrong. Most of what we believe about the world comes from anecdotal evidence and others personal observations. I must trot out the burning house example again: Suppose someone you trust calls and tells you your house is on fire. This makes the idea "my house is on fire" much more likely to be true. People very rarely joke about such things. Or a friend tells you they're father just died. This makes the idea "my friend's father died" more likely true than false. We go by anecdotal evidence all the time.

The friend exist, the house exist, and fire exist, there is a bases for the idea of the house being on fire to exist, and there is a way to find out if the house is on fire.

Paul

 

[Malerin]

Malerin:

Your house is on fire.

So you consider yourself someone I trust?

 

[Malerin]

But none of this is really an example of what I'm talking about. Our only experience of 'fire', 'fathers', or 'death' doesn't come from stories told by others. We all have personal, direct experience of those things.

Your story would be analogous if someone you trust calls you and tells you that your house has been zapped by a Gorgon Schtuber, the effect of which is undetectable expect that your house will now be invisible to n-rays.

Linda

My point was that anecdotal evidence can be very strong, depending on who's telling you. You seemed to be dismissing it entirely. If you get a phone call from a hospital attendant that a loved one has been hurt in a car accident, it wouldn't even cross your mind not to go.

To your second point: suppose someone you trust tells you they had a supernatural experience?