Can theists be rational?

[Paulhoff]

Can theists be rational?

When it comes to a so-called god, and making it work into their universe, it is a flat out NO.

Paul

 

[Herzblut]

My original point was that if this is a simulation, there's very little we can deduce from within the simulation about the world in which the simulation exists. It might be similar - or it might be entirely different.

Or it might be simulated. And the world in which the simulation of the simulation exists might as well be a simulation.

I'm looking at this discussion, but haven't found out why that should be a useful assumption. Why should it?

 

[westprog]

Or it might be simulated. And the world in which the simulation of the simulation exists might as well be a simulation.

I'm looking at this discussion, but haven't found out why that should be a useful assumption. Why should it?

Metaphysics is not usually concerned with usefulness.

 

[westprog]

How does that follow from what I said ?

If it would be easy to spot whether the universe was a simulation, then presumably there must be some kind of experiment we could perform to detect it. There must be some observable effect, right? If there isn't any observable effect, then we can't "spot it".

Really ? That's odd. I see a clear contradiction as well.

Then you should be able to describe what the contradiction is.

Nice try, 'prog. I was simply answering your question.



I'm not basing my opinion on programming experience. In fact, I don't see how that would help me about the "nature of the universe".

So where do you derive your view that a simulation would have bugs in it, and that these would manifest themselves as observable anomalies?

I see. So you haven't been using the Matrix as support for your argument ? Why the hell did you mention it, then, if it has no bearing on the issue ? Or worse, if it hurts your argument ?

How can it hurt my argument when my argument doesn't depend on it in any way?

 

[Belz...]

Oh, absolutely you can't know that all who make such claims are not sane. That's why I don't dismiss their claims out of hand, just as I don't dismiss the claims of those who experience god or claim to have seen bigfoot. OTOH, if no such claims exist, and as far as I can tell they don't for things such as the easter bunny, little green men, the IPU or the FSM, it's reasonable to say there is no evidence for those things and draw a distinction between them and things like aliens in general, bigfoot and god.

Again, IF someone made the claim that they've seen the easter bunny, you'd consider that to be evidence ? A yes or no will do.

That's perfectly reasonable when, in fact, the claims are not reconcilable with reality as we know it. Not all god claims fit that description.

I know of none that don't.

 

[Belz...]

If it would be easy to spot whether the universe was a simulation, then presumably there must be some kind of experiment we could perform to detect it.

When did I say it would be "easy" to spot those ? I said that we could, that's it. The fact that the physics of said simulated universe are inconsistent (i.e. akin to dreams) is certainly something that would affect us. If the laws of physics aren't constant across the entire simulation then someone is going to spot it. Of course, if you're going to argue that they modify our memories to make us forget those, then there is no point in any discussion on the matter.

There's no contradiction in a universe without physical law.

Physical laws, westprog, in case you aren't aware, allow things to behave in a predictable way. Without them, patterns can't form and be sustained. Ergo, there can't be intelligent beings, because those would require said patterns. In other words, the idea of intelligent beings in a universe without physical laws is contradictory.

So where do you derive your view that a simulation would have bugs in it, and that these would manifest themselves as observable anomalies?

A single post ago you said "nature of the universe", and now we're back at bugs. Would you please be careful about the words you use ?

How can it hurt my argument when my argument doesn't depend on it in any way?

What's funny about this is that the reason I mentioned that possibility was to prevent you from saying "but it HAD something to do with my argument". And now you've focused on the second possibility and ignored the first one altogether.

Tell me, if it didn't HELP and didn't HURT your argument, why the hell did you bring it up ?

 

[Herzblut]

Metaphysics is not usually concerned with usefulness.

Disputants are normally concerned with the usefulness of their argument. I just try to get your argument. Say I agree that we might as well be part of a sufficiently sophisticated simulation. Then what?

 

[Beth]

Again, IF someone made the claim that they've seen the easter bunny, you'd consider that to be evidence ? A yes or no will do.

As I've said before, Yes - provided they are a credible witness.

I know of none that don't.

Yet you neglected to respond to my previously posted definitions of the deistic and pantheistic beliefs on that question. As near as I can tell, their beliefs have no conflicts with reality as we know it.

 

[Belz...]

Yet you neglected to respond to my previously posted definitions of the deistic and pantheistic beliefs on that question. As near as I can tell, their beliefs have no conflicts with reality as we know it.

I must've missed them, because I've just looked back a few days and found nothing.

By the by, did my point come across better with Gandalf ?

 

[Beth]

I must've missed them, because I've just looked back a few days and found nothing.

By the by, did my point come across better with Gandalf ?

Post #2437. I messed up the quotes, so you might have missed my response for that reason.

 

[westprog]

Disputants are normally concerned with the usefulness of their argument. I just try to get your argument. Say I agree that we might as well be part of a sufficiently sophisticated simulation. Then what?

Then you figure out how to live your life.

 

[Paulhoff]

Then you figure out how to live your life.

Yes, not playing up to a so-called god all the time, saying things in just the right way not to offen it, like "I want to thank Jesus for letting me win this race" "winning the game", not being "killed in the plane crash" etc.

It's me and you so-called god.

Paul

 

[GODISNOWHERE]

Again, IF someone made the claim that they've seen the easter bunny, you'd consider that to be evidence ? A yes or no will do.

Hi to this thread.....great rational discussion. Not seen a bunny tho.

Surely a building is proof that there has to of been a Builder.

A painting is evidence there was a Painter.

A banana is evidence and natures proof of a designer. It has colour-coded on outside telling of freshness inside, easy to open it, easy to hold in the hand- the outside is 5 sided and snuggly slots into the thumb & first finger, etc...it is even bio-degradable waste too !

Rationally speaking then, creation evidences a Creator.

 

[Belz...]

It seems to me that the concept of God is more akin to wormholes than Gandalf since we (humans as a whole) are far more certain that Middle Earth and Gandalf exists nowhere except in the minds of people who are familiar with the novel and/or movies of LOTR than we are about the existance or non-existance of god or wormholes.

I don't know, Beth. Do we know that Middle-Earth wasn't inspired by some divine vision that Tolkien had of a time in our distant past ? Same for the Hyborian world and Howard ? Now, why would it be different for God and the Bible ?

Interesting. How did you come to this conclusion? I have no idea how to discern what a universe created by a god would look like as opposed to a universe that wasn't.

We wouldn't, necessarily, though I supposed that could constitude an entire debate. But that's not my point: The universe behaves as though it was assembled through physical laws alone. God is an unnecessart entity. Occam takes care of god, so to speak.

But there are other indications that a smart person was NOT involved in the creation of, say, the human eye.

In pantheism the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that God is better understood as an abstract principle representing natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) than an anthropomorphic entity.

I don't see how this salvages the idea of a god. It just eliminates god altogether and takes "universe" and renames it "god" in order to keep the name.

Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature that he configured when he created all things.

And so, again, he's useless. Not impossible, mind you. Not at face value, anyway. But then I'd like to hear how a being creates physical laws. Or did he learn how to create false vacuums ?

I think our disagreement then is simply on the degree of certainty that we each individual hold that some god exists. You put quite low. I put it about 50% for concepts such as the deists or pantheists hold.

Why 50 % ? Because it could be and could not be ? That's true for the Easter Bunny, too.

 

[Belz...]

Surely a building is proof that there has to of been a Builder.

A painting is evidence there was a Painter.

I seem to remember that very same line from another thread.

Rationally speaking then, creation evidences a Creator.[/QUOTE]

And I answered this: what evidence do you have of CREATION ?

A banana is evidence and natures proof of a designer.

No. Read on.

It has colour-coded on outside telling of freshness inside

Actually, animals have learned to interpret its colour. Not the other way around.

easy to open it

Only because you know how.

easy to hold in the hand

Actually, the hand adapted to hold a great many things. Not the other way around.

You also seem to have missed the fact that natural-occuring bananas are inedible. A key point, I'd say.

 

[alfalfafour]

Can theists be rational?

When it comes to a so-called god, and making it work into their universe, it is a flat out NO.

Paul

I am a very rational person. I diligently studied the bible and I developed my own theology which vacates your authoritative opinion. In fact, Ahura Mazda, the god of the Zoroastrians, vacates your authoritative assertion. Ahura Mazda is the embodiment of supreme and rational truth. Zoroastrians must be rational, or they are infidels or apostate.


Also! Spracht Zarathustra. Wie konnen wir den warlich befunden?

 

[westprog]

When did I say it would be "easy" to spot those ? I said that we could, that's it. The fact that the physics of said simulated universe are inconsistent (i.e. akin to dreams) is certainly something that would affect us. If the laws of physics aren't constant across the entire simulation then someone is going to spot it.

And why shouldn't the laws of physics be consistent across the entire simulation? And why should anyone spot this inconsistency as being evidence of the universe being simulated.

Example - the law of gravity has been found to apply to the surface of the earth and to the motion of the planets. However, when applied on a cosmic scale, there doesn't appear to be enough matter around. Do scientists immediately say "Aha! The giveaway - it's a big fake!" No, they fill in the gaps in the equation with "dark matter".

Of course, if you're going to argue that they modify our memories to make us forget those, then there is no point in any discussion on the matter.

If there are any other valid arguments you'd like to rule out, then please do so. The immutability and reliability of memory, the irreversability of time - these are assumptions that are necessary to make science work, but it would be highly unwise to assume that they reflect some pure "truth".

Physical laws, westprog, in case you aren't aware, allow things to behave in a predictable way. Without them, patterns can't form and be sustained. Ergo, there can't be intelligent beings, because those would require said patterns. In other words, the idea of intelligent beings in a universe without physical laws is contradictory.

All that's necessary is some local and temporary consistency.

A single post ago you said "nature of the universe", and now we're back at bugs. Would you please be careful about the words you use ?

In my world, I use different words to denote different things. Do you want to restrict my vocabulary as well as the arguments I use?

When you claim that the universe is not a simulation then you are making assertions about the fundamental nature of the universe. When you say that a simulation would have to be computational in nature, and that it would have bugs, then you are describing how a hypothetical simulation would function. For you then to insist that I shouldn't refer to both sides of your argument - which I don't accept - seems to be taking the restrictions to an absurd level.

 

[westprog]

...as we learn more, via a quest for rational explanations using rational methods. Sure, our concept has changed, but your examples are merely showing the death throes of a priori reasoning.
No. We're going to presume that there might be a problem with a priori reasoning, and that seeking rational explanations through rational methods is our only hope.

It may well be our only hope - and it's certainly been a useful tool. But a means to ultimate truth? It may turn out not to be enough.

 

[L The Detective]

Then you figure out how to live your life.

Wouldn't our lives pretty much be the same? Is there any meaningful difference between a world that's a simulation, and a world that's real, from our point of view?

 

[westprog]

Wouldn't our lives pretty much be the same? Is there any meaningful difference between a world that's a simulation, and a world that's real, from our point of view?

There might be no difference at all. There might be a huge difference.

If death is just a matter of waking up in a little cocoon and emerging into a different world, that would make a big difference.

Whether or not one would live one's life any differently with the mere possibility that this world is a simulation of some kind is a matter for each person to decide for himself. Much as with the other views of how the universe might work.