Can theists be rational?

[PixyMisa]

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

Depends on how you define "building". If a building is something that is built, then it is not proof, it's a tautology.

A painting is evidence there was a Painter.

See above.

A banana is an example natures proof of a designer.

No, it's only proof of a bananaer.

Anyway, modern bananas are not only selectively bred (and have been for between 7000 and 10,000 years) they are clones. Banana trees are sterile.

Creation itself evidences a Creator.

Only if you define it so. And then you have to demonstrate that we are living in a Creation.

We count our year from the time it takes for the earth to rotate the sun, we get a month by the moon rotating the earth and a day with the rotation of the earth on its own axis.

Yet we divide our calendar into weeks. So where did we get our week from ? Maybe Genesis chapter 1 is not just a book, but is a true account of 7 days of creation.

It isn't a true account of seven days of creation. Even if you take "day" as an arbitrary span of time, it makes no sense.

...and the fact that natural bananas are inedible.

At the very least, they need to be cooked first.

 

[PixyMisa]

Why do I feel like I'm in a Wendy's commercial.

Quantum effects correspond to classical effects when scaled to the macro world.

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

 

[Malerin]

A building is proof that there has to of been a Builder. A painting is evidence there was a Painter. A banana is an example natures proof of a designer. eg colour-coded for freshness, pull tab to open it, the outside is 5 sided and snuggly slots into the thumb & first finger, etc.

There is a good argument from design, but it doesn't involve bananas.

 

[yy2bggggs]

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.

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.

Malerin:

Thank you. I almost had to go look up post 4381737 again, but you're helpful in repeating the blunder right here on this very page.

Multiverse theory is supported by the same exact evidence, for the same exact reason, that you're proposing for God in the fine tuning argument. To argue that it's proof of God and that multiverse theory has no evidence is special pleading.

I'm just going to mention this post's number in the future whenever this comes up again.

 

[GeeMack]

There is a good argument from design, but it doesn't involve bananas.

Well, if by "good" you mean compelling, scientifically valid, logically consistent, and well supported by evidence, then no, there isn't. But then who ever accused theists of being rational?

 

[Malerin]

Malerin:

Thank you. I almost had to go look up post 4381737 again, but you're helpful in repeating the blunder right here on this very page.

Multiverse theory is supported by the same exact evidence, for the same exact reason, that you're proposing for God in the fine tuning argument. To argue that it's proof of God and that multiverse theory has no evidence is special pleading.

I'm just going to mention this post's number in the future whenever this comes up again.

Two things:
1. Fine. If cosmologists are rational in beleiveing in a multiverse theory with no evidence (which is a majority of them, I think), then theists are rational in believing in God based on that same evidence, agreed?

2. As I pointed out before, "life exists" is not the only evidence for God. NDE accounts, spiritual accounts, subjective experience, etc. are all evidence for God.
So I'm not arguing the FT argument, by itself, is "proof for God". It is an argument (one of many) that the theist can use to support their belief. OTOH, the only thing that even indirectly supports a multiverse theory is, oddly enough, the FT argument. So on the one hand, it's Multiverse Theory supported by "life exists". On the other, it's "God exists" supported by "life exists", spiritual accounts, NDE accounts, etc. The weight of the evidence tilts toward theism.

You're assuming it's the FT argument or bust for theists, which is an odd thing to assume. The vast majority of theists have probably never heard of the FT argument.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Two things:
1. Fine. If cosmologists are rational in beleiveing in a multiverse theory with no evidence (which is a majority of them, I think), then theists are rational in believing in God based on that same evidence, agreed?

No, disagree.

I don't see what even changed here.

Let's make this very easy. Multiple choice:

• Life, in light of fine tuning, is evidence for God.
• Life, in light of fine tuning, is evidence for multiverse theory.
• Both of the above
• Neither of the above

Given your arguments, you are choosing a. Rationality must at a minimum be consistent. The only two consistent options are c and d. What cosmologists are is a red herring.

2. As I pointed out before, "life exists" is not the only evidence for God. NDE accounts, spiritual accounts, subjective experience, etc. are all evidence for God.

None of those helps you establish a prior.

You're assuming it's the FT argument or bust for theists,

Not so. I'm dismissing FT. The other arguments haven't even been properly made--as they stand, the only thing proposed is "there's stuff" and "it can be explained", which is insufficient.

Which leads to the other topic--and that is our epistemic approaches. Yours seems to be based on the idea that none are better than any other, so long as they are consistent. Furthermore, your inconsistencies seem to demonstrate that you show preference for theories that already explain things; i.e., once you have a theory, you discount others. This is the only reason I can see that you would say multiverse theory has no evidence, while using something that suggests it as evidence for a theory you already have.

And your other evidences are no good, because they depend entirely on such sloppy epistemic approaches.

 

[PixyMisa]

Two things:
1. Fine. If cosmologists are rational in beleiveing in a multiverse theory with no evidence (which is a majority of them, I think), then theists are rational in believing in God based on that same evidence, agreed?

What you call "multiverse theory" is a group of highly speculative mathematical models that might not even be testable. Cosmologists believe in these models in the sense that the models exist. They do not believe in other universes.

2. As I pointed out before, "life exists" is not the only evidence for God. NDE accounts, spiritual accounts, subjective experience, etc. are all evidence for God.

As has been pointed out, none of these are evidence for God, and for a variety of reasons.

Do I need to go over all those reasons again?

So I'm not arguing the FT argument, by itself, is "proof for God". It is an argument (one of many)

All of them worthless.

that the theist can use to support their belief. OTOH, the only thing that even indirectly supports a multiverse theory is, oddly enough, the FT argument.

Actually, no.

For starters, the so-called "fine tuning" argument is not well-named. It would better be called the "not-very-fine, really-rather-coarse tuning" argument. Sure, if you change the fundamental constants, you'll get a universe that could not support life, but if you recall the earlier discussion we were talking about changing the strength of fundamental forces not by some small percentage but by nine orders of magnitude.

Second, the properties of the Universe now allows us to rule out some possible models of its formation. You can't ever do this for God, which is just one of the many reasons we reject the idea as worthless.

So on the one hand, it's Multiverse Theory supported by "life exists".

And CMB, energy/mass ratios, the number of dimensions, the number and values of the fundamental constants, and a variety of other factors.

On the other, it's "God exists" supported by "life exists", spiritual accounts, NDE accounts, etc.

Define "God". Define "exists" with respect to "God".

The weight of the evidence tilts toward theism.

So far, there not only is no evidence supporting theism, but there can be no evidence supporting theism.

The vast majority of theists have probably never heard of the FT argument.

True enough.

 

[Malerin]

No, disagree.

With what, that a majority of cosmologists believe in some sort of multiverse? I know a majority believe in many-worlds theory. I don't have numbers for an actual multiverse, but I know somewhere in this thread I posted a link where a physicist claims it is a popular theory at the moment.

I don't see what even changed here.

Let's make this very easy. Multiple choice:

• Life, in light of fine tuning, is evidence for God.
• Life, in light of fine tuning, is evidence for multiverse theory.
• Both of the above
• Neither of the above

Given your arguments, you are choosing a. Rationality must at a minimum be consistent. The only two consistent options are c and d.

No, I've repeatedly said "life exists" confirms a disjunction of both theories.

What cosmologists are is a red herring.

Not at all. The title of the thread is "Can theists be rational?". If "life exists" equally confirms a disjunction of two theories, and cosmologists can rationally accept one of those theories without any other evidence, theists can rationally do the same.

None of those helps you establish a prior.

Nonsense. It's entirely possible for a person to look at spiritual experiences, NDE accounts, etc. and come to an agnostic view about the existence of God. That agnostic value would then be the prior value for "God exists" wrt the FT argument.

Not so. I'm dismissing FT. The other arguments haven't even been properly made--as they stand, the only thing proposed is "there's stuff" and "it can be explained", which is insufficient.

Asserting it doesn't make it so. I've referenced specific phenomena as my evidence. Look at the largest study ever done on NDE's in the Lancet. It includes a veridical account of an OBE and specifically rejects materialistic explanations like lack of oxygen. Spiritual experiences have also been reported across all cultures and throughout recorded history. This is exactly what we would expect given "God exists". Dismissing it as "stuff" without any argumentation is lazy and doesn't advance your point at all. A defense lawyer may try to dismiss DNA evidence as "stuff" but it probably won't fly with too many juries.

Which leads to the other topic--and that is our epistemic approaches. Yours seems to be based on the idea that none are better than any other, so long as they are consistent.

If you mean agnosticism in the face of lack of evidence, yes. That is a rational position to take. I take it you're not going to offer any evidence for assigning Pr("God exists") a value lower than .5. This is belief without evidence. Not exactly "sound judgement", is it?
Sounds more like faith to me.

Furthermore, your inconsistencies seem to demonstrate that you show preference for theories that already explain things; i.e., once you have a theory, you discount others.

If that were true, I would discount the existence of a multiverse because I am a theist. I don't. What I have stressed over and over is agnosticism in the face of lack of evidence. We don't know if reality is materialistic, dualistic, theistic, idealistic, or atheistic. Yet, in your desire to lower Pr("God exists) below .5, you consistently betray a belief that reality is more likely atheistic than theistic. I simply ask for the evidence on which you base this belief. You've offered none so far. So at the moment, you have a faith-based belief that reality is atheistic (and probably materialistic- I doubt you would give a .5 value to the claim "This desk only exists when it is being perceived").

This is the only reason I can see that you would say multiverse theory has no evidence, while using something that suggests it as evidence for a theory you already have.

It has indirect evidence to support it. If I said there is no evidence, I meant in the sense that there is no empirical evidence. I should have been clearer. The FT argument, in the same way, is indirect evidence for God.

And your other evidences are no good, because they depend entirely on such sloppy epistemic approaches.

Asserting it doesn't make it so. Maybe at this point you should offer up some proof that reality is more likely atheistic than theistic.

 

[westprog]

For starters, the so-called "fine tuning" argument is not well-named. It would better be called the "not-very-fine, really-rather-coarse tuning" argument. Sure, if you change the fundamental constants, you'll get a universe that could not support life, but if you recall the earlier discussion we were talking about changing the strength of fundamental forces not by some small percentage but by nine orders of magnitude.

That's the ratio of gravity to the electromagnetic force, IIRC. But other forces need to be balance to an extremely tight degree.

 

[cj.23]

You know, until the believers in a so-called god realize that there idea of a god explains nothing, is useful for nothing other then the division of people, we will get nowhere.

Paul

But Paul, as Ockham pointed out, the concept of God explains everything. Literally - everything.

cj x

 

[Paulhoff]

But Paul, as Ockham pointed out, the concept of God explains everything. Literally - everything.

cj x

OH, so does Peter Pan, he gives good flying lessons.

The christain one does give good killing lessons.

Paul

 

[cj.23]

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.

I know. It's why I'm still here talking ti you, but I hope you will learn one day.

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?

Yes, of course.

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

Go on then.

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?

Which three are untrue. And yes, large amounts. Which assertions am I making that you dispute? This has been going on from page 46, I thought in 450 posts time oyu might have addressed the point.

I have made the following points that logically follow from methodological naturalism employment in science. You have said they are all wrong. Please explain how they are wrong...

1 Science can not address the question of the existence of God, or miracles. .

2. Science can not study the supernatural, if by supernatural we mean things that don't follow the laws of physics, or other natural laws.

3. Therefore whatever the evidence for God, and it may be very good evidence, by definition it can not be scientific evidence

4. Methodological Naturalism means science can tell us nothing about God.

5. Therefore to say "there is no scientific evidence for God" is a perfectly circular argument.

You then say "You're hopelessly confused about the distinction between evidence and theory."

I think you are. One can find evidence for almost any assertion - it is not the existence or absence of evidence that makes a theory succeed or fail, though this appears to be a very common belief on this forum - it is the strength of the evidential case. Weak evidence is not not non-existent evidence. You might well say the existence of God is a weakly evidenced argument - what no one can claim is in it an unevidenced hypothesis. Many people claim to have spoken to God after all, and others to have seem God. That is direct evidence, in the technical sense - it might not however be convincing, but now we enter the subjective element of deciding what the evidence signifies, a philosophical or mathematical procedure usually (in that one ways the evidence in accordance with certain philosophical premises, or in some cases where the evidence is amenable to mathematical testing one sees if there is statistical significance.) Even if the evidence fails to meet these criteria, it remains evidence for the assertion in question - evidence is simply data that has a bearing on a given issue.

I find the claim "there is no evidence for (assertion X)" is almost always untrue, and is simply a shorthand for "I personally am not very convinced by the evidential case for (assertion X)" It's really just sophistry, a rhetorical ploy, because by asserting no evidence exists one automatically precludes discussion of such evidence.

If you want evidence for God, the Pope says he exists. There you go. That is evidence for God. Neither I nor I expect anyone else is likely to be impressed by that assertion, but it remains evidence. So in short - it is the weight of evidence that matters, not its existence or not.

Also, look up underdetermination, and important concept in Science, and you will see how difficult it is to move from evidence to saying a hypothesis is liable to be accurate.


Anyway I look forward to your explanation of how I am wrong.

cj x

 

[Paulhoff]

1 Science can not address the question of the existence of God, or miracles.

cj x

BS, why, because a lot of people say so, they also say that there is a so-called god, define this so-called god then we can test for one, unless it is only in your brain.

Paul

 

[articulett]

How can there be "good evidence" for something for which there is no measurable evidence at all?

How is the evidence for gods likely to be any better or more reliable than evidence for demons? How can you consider evidence for demons "evidence" --much less "evidence of DEMONS"? Isn't it much more likely to be a misunderstood phenomenon coupled with confirmation of indoctrination? How can evidence for god be anything more than this?

We are talking about something that is indistinguishable from a delusion-- from a myth-- from the known ways people have of fooling themselves. How would we distinguish a "rational" belief in an invisible-immeasurable entity from an "irrational" one? How would one distinguish good evidence from bad evidence? If others could use similar evidence to support a belief in something you think of as imaginary--then how can you convince yourself that you have actual "evidence" of a god?

If your god evidence has no more going for it than demon evidence or Thetan evidence or IPU evidence... then how can it be actual evidence of anything? You might not understand how ideas come to you--but that doesn't mean sprites are the answer!

It sounds like the argument boils down to "god is magic... and scientists can't understand magic!" How is the argument any different than that?

If god is magic and scientists can't understand magic, then what in the hell makes anyone think they can? And if this god isn't "magic", then what is the differential--what makes him different from "magic" or "imaginary". --Certainly nothing physical, measurable, or detectable by ordinary means. So is there anything at all?! Is there a rational reason to think any invisible form of consciousness exists without a living brain? And if so,what could you possibly know or say about such a thing?

I'm not sure believers even really know what they mean when they say "god exists". They "feel" like someone is there-- but it's an invisible someone with no eyes that watches over them and no brain but he "loves" them, and no ears, but he hears their prayers (but only answers them when it is is "will") etc. Their "belief" becomes evidence to them. And then they need it to be true, so they play semantic games and chase the feeling of "knowingness".

It really doesn't make sense. God is the ultimate mind game--but, oh, how people love to play! Perhaps the idea that one can fool oneself in such a profound way is just too frightening to face.

 

[Paulhoff]

It really doesn't make sense. God is the ultimate mind game--but, oh, how people love to play! Perhaps the idea that one can fool oneself in such a profound way is just too frightening to face.

Yes, it is a mind game, I wish they would get over it, it is just some much self indulgence.

And it is such a limited game, even if they think they get it, it is much less the the universe has to offer. Study any of the physical sciences in depth, there is so much more there then anyone's idea of a so-called god.

Paul

 

[PixyMisa]

Which three are untrue.

See my previous post, the one you are complaining about.

And yes, large amounts.

Then isn't it time you presented some?

I have made the following points that logically follow from methodological naturalism employment in science.

The problem is, three of your premises are non-sequiturs. That means your conclusions, even if they follow logically from the premises, are at best unproven.

You have said they are all wrong.

Yep.

Please explain how they are wrong...

Let's start with one, shall we?

1 Science can not address the question of the existence of God, or miracles.

Let's take a miracle, for example. Say, a statue that cries tears of blood.

Do you honestly claim that science can't address this? That we can't scientifically examine the statue, show that the tears - ooh, surprise - have the DNA of the statue's owner?

Let's take God. Your own definition of God is logically inconsistent, so we'll ignore that one. And the deist God does not interact with his creation, so cannot be meaningfull said to exist, so we'll ignore that one too.

Let's take a God that does interact with his creation. Such interactions of necessity would break the laws of physics, because otherwise they would be indistinguishable from no interaction. Therefore, when you wish to claim that God did something, there are two initial requirements: You need to show that something actually happened, and you need to show that said something is impossible according to our current understanding of the laws of physics.

Now, these are only the initial conditions, because we are testing against our current understanding of the Universe, and our understanding grows by the day. So, for example, the late 19th-century problem of the age of the Sun - something was clearly happening that couldn't be explained by the scientific knowledge of the day. That led to the discovery of nuclear energy.

We can't ask you to prove a negative - to prove that your observation cannot be explained by physical law. But we can ask you to at least show us something.

So, as I noted earlier, you are comprehensively wrong. Science cannot definitively answer the general question of the existence of miracles, or of God(s), but that is not a limitation of science, it's because you haven't rigorously defined those terms.

But to say that science cannot address these questions is obviosuly untrue.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Furthermore, your inconsistencies seem to demonstrate that you show preference for theories that already explain things; i.e., once you have a theory, you discount others.

If that were true, I would discount the existence of a multiverse because I am a theist. I don't.

Then what is this?

1. Fine. If cosmologists are rational in beleiveing in a multiverse theory with no evidence (which is a majority of them, I think), then theists are rational in believing in God based on that same evidence, agreed?

 

[PixyMisa]

But Paul, as Ockham pointed out, the concept of God explains everything. Literally - everything.

The theory that explains everything explains nothing.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

That's the ratio of gravity to the electromagnetic force, IIRC. But other forces need to be balance to an extremely tight degree.

But it still makes no difference, because the argument rests on a teleological assumption. There is no reason to suppose that this world should be the end-game.

Reality had to take some form. Trying to figure out why it took this particular form already assumes a fine-tuner (a teleology).