Can theists be rational?

[yy2bggggs]

You're not sure of your own rationality?

Correct. I'm constantly questioning my rationality, just as you are constantly defending yours.

Empirical evidence? No. There is indirect evidence (life exists), but it also supports "God exists" equally well.

That life exists isn't empirical? Or is this a form of True Scotsman fallacy?

So you believe reality is likely atheistic, yet you have no evidence with which to base this belief on. How is this A) any different than theism B) not a faith-based belief, and C) rational?

A) It's based on a better epistemic approach.
B) Probably is, probably isn't. It depends on how vague you want to define "faith". Regardless, this is certainly an attempt at a straw man/tu quoque argument.
C) Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum.

Sure, you believe in a reality without any evidence to support that belief and yout "espistemic approach" is better.

And look what you slipped in.

I'm ready to defend the thing I actually did claim any time you get around to actually bothering to ask me to. But so long as you're arguing against some shadow caricature of me in your head, I'm not interested.

 

[Malerin]

Correct. I'm constantly questioning my rationality, just as you are constantly defending yours.

Where's the laughing dog graphic? I'll just say that people who question other's reading skills when debating are usually too sure of themselves, not possessed of some aw-shucks self-doubt they've suddenly found convenient to adopt.

That life exists isn't empirical? Or is this a form of True Scotsman fallacy?

Life exists can be empirically known. "Life exists" isn't empirical evidence for a multiverse or God in the sense that it is derived from observation of God or a multuiverse. It is indirect evidence the same way a person telling you they got 50 heads in a row is indirect evidence that a mysterious coin is double-headed or heavily biased towards heads. If the person is trustworthy, we would have a definite belief about the coin without having observed it at all.

A) It's based on a better epistemic approach.

What superior epistemic approach are you basing atheism on?

B) Probably is, probably isn't. It depends on how vague you want to define "faith". Regardless, this is certainly an attempt at a straw man/tu quoque argument.

Faith: Firm belief in something for which there is no proof
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

You admit to having no evidence that shows atheism to be more likely, nor do you have any proof that God doesn't exist. Your belief is faith-based.

C) Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum.

Two things:
1. Parsimony only helps you if reality is, in fact, parsimonious. But without any evidence, your assumption that multiplaying entities is more likely to result in an incorrect view of reality is itself faith-based. You may think that atheism is more parsimonious, and yet still be completely wrong about reality being atheistic because reality is theistic, complex, and doesn't conform to the law of parsimony. The claim boils down to this: the law of parsimony is valid because reality is parsimonious, and we know reality is parsimonious because the law of parsimony is valid. Sound a little circular?

Here's an example of parsimony gone awry: it is parsimonious to believe Madison Hobley is an arsonist who killed five people, including his wife and kids. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. A confession and eyewitnesses sealed his fate. The truth, however, is much more convoluted, involving torture, corrupt detectives, coached witnesses, and planted evidence: http://truthinjustice.org/hobley-sues.htm

Fortunately, evidence of the conspiracy against Hobley gradually came to light. How would you go about collecting evidence to prove that your allegedly parsimonious atheistic view of reality actually conforms to reality? Or do you just sort of assume it does

2. It is not at all clear that atheism is the more parsimonious theory. Atheism would have to give a very complex answer to the question: Why did we evolve to have intensely spiritual experiences at near-death, which include reported visitations by dead people, being in the presence of God, and veridical OBE accounts? As the Lancet study shows, the atheistic materialist account of NDE's is far from complete. Might the more parsimonious theory simply be we are actually spiritual beings with souls which are capable of leaving our bodies? This would parsimonously explain cross-cultural religious experience of God, past-life accounts from children, and anecdotal supernatural accounts from reliable people.

More fundamentally, atheism, when paired with materialism, posits the existence of a physical universe, the cause of which is somehow contained within itself, and the evidence for which is based solely on sense-data, which is equally compatible with non-materialistic models of reality. The true parsimonious theory of reality is idealism, which posits reality is composed of something we at least know exists: thought.

You can avoid this by being a non-materialist atheist, but for someone who prizes parsimony, I don't think Karma, the Tao, or reincarnation will seem very appealing.

And look what you slipped in.

What, typos? Really now. Even the lowliest debaters here don't resort to that tactic. I like to think you underlined that because it had something to do with the following:

I'm ready to defend the thing I actually did claim any time you get around to actually bothering to ask me to. But so long as you're arguing against some shadow caricature of me in your head, I'm not interested.

You claim that reality is more likely atheistic than theistic. You've admitted there's no evidence for your claim. Parsimony doesn't help you out. You're in the realm of faith. I believe that about covers the waterfront.

 

[yy2bggggs]

I'll just say that people who question other's reading skills

Guilt by association?

Life exists can be empirically known. "Life exists" isn't empirical evidence for a multiverse or God in the sense that it is derived from observation of God or a multuiverse. It is indirect evidence the same way a person telling you they got 50 heads in a row is indirect evidence that a mysterious coin is double-headed or heavily biased towards heads.

Can you give me a definition for empirical evidence? I do want to note that with respect to coin flips, we know the full theory behind coins as it is relevant (they have two sides, they generally land on each side with equal probability, they have things imprinted on each side, usually a heads or a tails). We also know that unfair coins exist. So all of the entities are in place. This may or may not be relevant to your definition.

What superior epistemic approach are you basing atheism on?

Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. For example, God is a brand new entity--a new ontological being. A new type of being. Non-godliness isn't an entity. Non-godly universes, as much as you want to equivocate, are simply universes that do not have this entity--God--in it. You can rephrase it all day, but in the end, a universe without a God is a universe, lacking a certain entity.

Multiverse theory also introduces other entities--universes. They are less problematic because they are less extrapolating--they are not entirely new types of entities, they are the same type of entity that we already have--a universe. They're problematic, still, because they are still new entities.

Faith: Firm belief in something for which there is no proof http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

So this comes down to whether or not you think my atheism is firm. I myself claim that atheism doesn't mean that much to me, but you no doubt don't believe it. Fortunately, it doesn't matter. I really don't care if you call my belief faith or no, because things work out the same even if, hypothetically, the person I'm describing as myself existed and was someone else. Since you really have no clue about me, who really cares if I'm that person or not, unless you're simply using an ad hominem argument?

You admit to having no evidence that shows atheism to be more likely,

Correct. It's simply a belief that absurdly extrapolated entities--such as Gods--more likely don't exist than do, all things being equal. Do you deny that God is a unique entity? Do you deny that God is not even a class duplication of another existing entity that we have? Do you hold that God is, in fact, superior to all entities we otherwise know we exist?

If you do, my epistemic approach rules it out, without good reason to believe the entity exists in the first place. Your "priors" are not only post hoc, they aren't priors.

nor do you have any proof that God doesn't exist.

Right. But how is that relevant, unless you're introducing an argument from ignorance?

Your belief is faith-based.

So long as "faith-based" gets to allow it being based on my epistemic approach, sure. But my epistemic approach is still better than yours.

1. Parsimony only helps you if reality is, in fact, parsimonious. But without any evidence, your assumption that multiplaying entities is more likely to result in an incorrect view of reality is itself faith-based.

This is definitely a case of denial of uncertainty. Parsimony works with uncertainty, and uncertainty does not lie with reality, it lies with you.

The number of entities that could possibly exist exceed your imagination, and they can't all possibly exist. Of all of the entities that can possibly exist, the percentage of entities that actually do exist is extremely tiny. There's nothing about external reality (being, whatever exists beyond our immediate control) that would be able to change this fact; the concepts themselves conflict. So you're not going to find non-parsimony in reality.

You have one and only one place to find a non-parsimonious reality--and that is in yourself--specifically, your own ability to happen upon existent entities not based on observation (and by based on, I mean whose existence is inferred specifically due to observed fact). So the only reasonable way that you can claim that reality is not parsimonious is for you to hold that, for some reason, the things you happen to think are true, are true, regardless on whether or not said things are based on observation.

This is, in fact, what I believe to be your epistemic approach.

You may think that atheism is more parsimonious,

What are you talking about? atheism is more parsimonious.

and yet still be completely wrong about reality being atheistic because reality is theistic, complex, and doesn't conform to the law of parsimony.

Yep. I most certainly can be wrong. But that's not what the debate is about. That I can be right, and that I can be wrong, doesn't mean the odds of each is 50/50. You're playing the same trick, and it doesn't work. If X and Y are mutually exclusive, and collectively exhaustive, you cannot make any claims about X being 50%. With all of your words, you've managed to not describe the situation any differently than the way that it started--there either is a god (or gods), or there is none.

Here's an example of parsimony gone awry: it is parsimonious to believe Madison Hobley is an arsonist who killed five people, including his wife and kids.

Random false analogies? Remember... in our case, we're dealing with whether or not a brand new class of entities, which transcends all currently known classes of entities, exists.

2. It is not at all clear that atheism is the more parsimonious theory.

It's crystal clear. There's an entity, God, that may or may not exist. You're clouding it with irrelevance. "Atheism" is simply a lack of belief in the entity in question.

Atheism would have to give a very complex answer to the question: Why did we evolve to have intensely spiritual experiences at near-death, which include reported visitations by dead people, being in the presence of God, and veridical OBE accounts?

Right. But this shows a complete failure of understanding what parsimony is all about. I hear a noise--I come into the living room, and I see a knocked over glass with water spilling out, on a table, near an open window. A mouse is in the corner trying to hide under a big piece of furniture, and a cat pawing at it.

I could posit that the cat chased the mouse, as cats are want to do, knocking over the glass, but that involves two entities.

Or, I could posit that a dog jumped through the window, knocking the glass over, got spooked, and went back out.

Parsimony would favor the cat and mouse theory, even though that has two entities in it. The entities, you see, are there, and are perfectly capable of causing said scenario. The dog explanation is simpler--only one entity--but it requires that entities be multiplied unnecessarily.

God is the ultimate multiplication.

More fundamentally, atheism, when paired with materialism, posits the existence of a physical universe, the cause of which is somehow contained within itself, and the evidence for which is based solely on sense-data, which is equally compatible with non-materialistic models of reality. The true parsimonious theory of reality is idealism, which posits reality is composed of something we at least know exists: thought.

Something else we know exists--things beyond our control. Something else we know exists--patterns in things beyond our control. Those patterns suggest an external reality. That external reality may actually be held to be idealistic in itself--it really doesn't matter, because you wind up with the same thing either way, but the necessitatum comes into play at some point.

What, typos?

No, Malerin. Not the typos. You asked me to provide evidence that God was unlikely. I told you to read where I said I had none. You then said:

Sure, you believe in a reality without any evidence to support that belief and yout "espistemic approach" is better.

When did I say I didn't have evidence my epistemic approach was better?

Do you not see that you slipped that in? Do you not see that I underlined the entire phrase? I don't care about your typos.

 

[articulett]

It's always more parsimonious to presume that things for which there is no evidence don't exist. This is true rather we call those things gods, demons, psychic powers, or reincarnation. And thus, I would presume it's always more rational.

We don't believe that things exist until there is sufficient evidence to show they do. What could be more parsimonious and rational that that???

 

[Belz...]

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.

How, exactly, are NDEs evidence for God ?

 

[Belz...]

Empirical evidence? No. There is indirect evidence (life exists), but it also supports "God exists" equally well.

No, it doesn't. "God did it" is not an explanation and what god supposedly did is not evidence for god.

 

[Belz...]

The why questions.

The "why" questions are not mysterious. You're assuming there's a "why" but that assumes an intelligence behind it all.

This is the reason why theists' arguments always seem to fail: they assume their conclusions from the get-go and never realise it.

 

[westprog]

The "why" questions are not mysterious.

If they weren't mysterious you'd have an answer to them.

You're assuming there's a "why" but that assumes an intelligence behind it all.

No, because one valid answer is "no reason".

This is the reason why theists' arguments always seem to fail: they assume their conclusions from the get-go and never realise it.

If you start with the premise that the theists are wrong then you'll certainly find it easy enough to prove that the theists are wrong.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, because one valid answer is "no reason".

I'm afraid not exactly. "Why" questions do presume a purpose -- that is what "why" communicates.

The answer "no reason" or "there is no why" is a sort of meta-answer. It is a way of saying "You have asked the wrong question."

 

[Belz...]

If they weren't mysterious you'd have an answer to them.

I think you misunderstood. Aside from very mundane, and not very mysterious, "why" questions that pertain to human actions, there ARE no "why" questions.

No, because one valid answer is "no reason".

And here you contradict yourself.

If you start with the premise that the theists are wrong then you'll certainly find it easy enough to prove that the theists are wrong.

I don't see how this follows from what I've said. Were you trying to mount a tu quoque ?

 

[Beth]

How, exactly, are NDEs evidence for God ?

It's fairly common for people who have had an NDE to claim that they experienced being in the presence of god. Thus, one possible explanation for the experience is that god exists.

 

[Malerin]

Guilt by association?

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

Can you give me a definition for empirical evidence? I do want to note that with respect to coin flips, we know the full theory behind coins as it is relevant (they have two sides, they generally land on each side with equal probability, they have things imprinted on each side, usually a heads or a tails). We also know that unfair coins exist. So all of the entities are in place. This may or may not be relevant to your definition.

Empirical evidence would be evidence derived from direct observation of the thing under question. "Life exists" is not empirical (or direct) evidence for either God or a multiverse. It is indirect evidence from which a multiverse or God may be inferred.

Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.

Unless those entities actually exist, which is something you have no knowledge about. If those entities (such as god) do exist, then those entities are not being multiplied unnecessarily. That's the key word here: in order to know if I'm multiplying entities unncesessarily, you need to know that reality is likely atheistic, which is the very thing you're trying to prove. Parsimony will get you nowhere on this.

For example, God is a brand new entity--a new ontological being. A new type of being.

What do you mean "brand new entity"? A theist would argue that matter is a "brand new substance" with it's own unprovable ontology.

Non-godliness isn't an entity. Non-godly universes, as much as you want to equivocate, are simply universes that do not have this entity--God--in it. You can rephrase it all day, but in the end, a universe without a God is a universe, lacking a certain entity.

Which is trivial. You need to show that the universe lacking a God is at all similar to the universe we actually inhabit. Let's turn your quote around a little:

Non-godliness Non-physicality isn't an entity a substance. Non-godly non-physical universes, as much as you want to equivocate, are simply universes that do not have this entity substance--God physical matter--in it. You can rephrase it all day, but in the end, a universe without a God matter is a universe, lacking a certain entity substance.

So naturally, idealism is more parsimonious.

Multiverse theory also introduces other entities--universes. They are less problematic because they are less extrapolating--they are not entirely new types of entities, they are the same type of entity that we already have--a universe. They're problematic, still, because they are still new entities.

God is not an entirely new entitity. It is an extrapolation based on our own minds and abilities- we can make changes to reality, and we have knowledge of certain things. God simply can make more changes to reality and has more knowledge. God has an advantage over, say, physical matter, in that we know a necessary condition for God exists (mind). We have no such knowledge concerning physical matter.

So this comes down to whether or not you think my atheism is firm. I myself claim that atheism doesn't mean that much to me, but you no doubt don't believe it.

You're not a mattress. I don't care how firm you are. I'm attacking the notion that it's rational to believe reality is more likely atheistic than theistic without any evidence. I know you believe this because you are not willing to give Pr("God exists") an agnostic value.

Fortunately, it doesn't matter. I really don't care if you call my belief faith or no, because things work out the same even if, hypothetically, the person I'm describing as myself existed and was someone else. Since you really have no clue about me, who really cares if I'm that person or not, unless you're simply using an ad hominem argument?

Pointing out your belief is faith-based has no relevance in a thread titled "Can theists be rational"?

Correct. It's simply a belief that absurdly extrapolated entities--such as Gods--more likely don't exist than do, all things being equal.

A belief which you have no evidence for.

Do you deny that God is a unique entity?

In the same way that physical matter is a unique susbstance.

Do you deny that God is not even a class duplication of another existing entity that we have? Do you hold that God is, in fact, superior to all entities we otherwise know we exist?

"Superior" does not put God in an entirely new ontological class, as we would have to do with matter. We and God both share properties: mind, the ability to think, to know, to make changes in the world. Physical matter is in a class all by itself. There is no existing substance that matter can be extrapolated from, because there is no known substance at all, other than thought itself.

If you do, my epistemic approach rules it out, without good reason to believe the entity exists in the first place. Your "priors" are not only post hoc, they aren't priors.

Even if I thought God was in an entirely new ontological class, your epistemic appraoch is valid only if I had reason to think reality does not contain God. I have no evidence to base that on, no way to calculate the probability of reality being one way or another. Your epistemic approach would also rule out the eixstence of physical matter.

Right. But how is that relevant, unless you're introducing an argument from ignorance?

Introducing? I've been arguing we're ignorant of the ultimate nature of reality for at least a page now. You are making a metaphysical claim about reality (that it is more likely atheistic) without the least shred of evidence. All I've done is point this out repeatedly. Parsimony only helps you if you know reality lends itself to the simplest explanation. We are ignorant of even this basic knowledge of reality.

So long as "faith-based" gets to allow it being based on my epistemic approach, sure. But my epistemic approach is still better than yours.

Your epistemic approach is the same as the theist's: you both assume reality is a certain way with no evidence to support your belief.

This is definitely a case of denial of uncertainty. Parsimony works with uncertainty, and uncertainty does not lie with reality, it lies with you.

Trivial point. Reality cannot be "uncertain". Parsimony is only valid if you can prove that reality is simple and atheistic materialism is the most parsimonious theory. You haven't given any evidence for either.

The number of entities that could possibly exist exceed your imagination, and they can't all possibly exist. Of all of the entities that can possibly exist, the percentage of entities that actually do exist is extremely tiny.

What evidence do you have that this percentage is "tiny"? And even granting this, how do you know that God is not part of a set of this "tiny percentage"?

There's nothing about external reality (being, whatever exists beyond our immediate control) that would be able to change this fact; the concepts themselves conflict. So you're not going to find non-parsimony in reality.

How do you know? Again, you're assuming reality to be this neat simple thing with very few entities. Prove it. Also prove that a theistic reality is non-parsimonious, and while you're at it, prove that positing the existence of an unproven "brand new" substance (physical matter) is parsimonious.

You have one and only one place to find a non-parsimonious reality--and that is in yourself

So you assume. Let's turn it around again:

You have one and only one place to find a non-parsimonious non-idealistic reality--and that is in yourself

It's easy to assert things.

--specifically, your own ability to happen upon existent entities not based on observation (and by based on, I mean whose existence is inferred specifically due to observed fact).

Not true. An idealist "happens upon existent entities" based on observation constantly. For an idealist, observation itself is empirical evidence of God's existence; it is literally observing the mind of God. Since idealism doesn't posit any unknown unprovable susbstance, like materialism does, it is the most parsimonious theory. There is an extrapolation from us to God, but that is based on things we know are true: mind, thought, knowledge, self-awareness, etc.

So the only reasonable way that you can claim that reality is not parsimonious is for you to hold that, for some reason, the things you happen to think are true, are true, regardless on whether or not said things are based on observation.

No, I can claim that reality may or may not be parsimonious because we don't know whether reality is atheistic or theistic, and we don't know if atheism or theism is parsimonious. YOU are the one making the positive claim that reality is more likely atheistic than theistic.

Let's remember what the law of parsimony actually says: the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. If reality is theistic, then multiplying entities to include God does not violate parsimony at all. It would be irrational to NOT multiply entities in a theistic reality. So you're right back where you started: what evidence do you have that theism is multiplying entities needlessly?

This is, in fact, what I believe to be your epistemic approach.

Ok.

What are you talking about? atheism is more parsimonious.

How do you know this? Atheism (in conjunction with materialism) is hopelessly complex, posits the existence of soemthing unprovable and unknowable (physical matter), asserts the universe contains the cause of its own existence, and claims that if you gather enough physical matter together (neurons), you magically get a non-physical phenemenon (consciousness). This is not parsimonious at all.

And even ignoring the above, how do you know that theism posits entities needlessly? You can assert it all you want, if it makes you feel better, but eventually, you'll have to prove it, and the only way to prove it is to give evidence that reality is more likely atheistic than theistic, which you have been quite unable to do.

Yep. I most certainly can be wrong. But that's not what the debate is about. That I can be right, and that I can be wrong, doesn't mean the odds of each is 50/50.

In the absence of any evidence, yes, the odds of you being right or wrong are 50/50. If all you know is a flerg can land grun, then the odds of you being right or wrong about the next flerg landing grun are 50/50. Likewise, you can be right or wrong about reality being atheistic. In the absence of any evidence, the only rational odds to lay are 50/50.

You're playing the same trick, and it doesn't work. If X and Y are mutually exclusive, and collectively exhaustive, you cannot make any claims about X being 50%.

Given a lack of any evidence, which you admit to, what other claim is there to make, other than 50%? You are making the cardinal sin of assigning a non-agnostic espistemic probability with no evidence at all to support it. You've been doing it the entire thread.

With all of your words, you've managed to not describe the situation any differently than the way that it started--there either is a god (or gods), or there is none.

And you can see how frustrating it is that you keep claiming
Pr(God exists) <.5 with no proof at all. And kind of pointless too. You should have gotten it by now, esp. if you're constantly questioning your rationality, as you claim to be. You're either being deliberately obtuse or actually don't get it after this many pages. Either way, I'm out of patience. Good luck with that mindset.

 

[westprog]

I think you misunderstood. Aside from very mundane, and not very mysterious, "why" questions that pertain to human actions, there ARE no "why" questions.

Here you also presuppose an answer. Insisting that there are no why questions is to answer the questions as I said. The difference is that I gave a question, to which multiple answers are possible.

Naturally if you're sure what the answer is, you'll deny that there's anything mysterious.

And here you contradict yourself.



I don't see how this follows from what I've said. Were you trying to mount a tu quoque ?

When you claim that there are no "why" questions, then you're setting the argument up in advance.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Most mysterious 'why' questions can be adequately answered: 'Why not?' Or, if you prefer, 'Why should there be nothing instead of something?'

 

[Belz...]

It's fairly common for people who have had an NDE to claim that they experienced being in the presence of god. Thus, one possible explanation for the experience is that god exists.

It's fairly common for people to claim that they experience being in the presence of god. Is it a possible explanation for the experience that god exists ?

 

[Belz...]

Here you also presuppose an answer. Insisting that there are no why questions is to answer the questions as I said.

Blah blah blah. You must find it very fun to run away and try to turn the tables on me because that's all you've been doing, recently.

Asking "why" to things that are not ascribed to intelligent action presupposes intelligent action, anyway. That was my point. Since there is no reason to believe that an intelligent agent is reponsible for these, it's quite reasonable to say that "why" is nonsensical in this context. That was my other point.

The difference is that I gave a question, to which multiple answers are possible.

I am not interested in bare possibilities, as I've mentioned before.

 

[Beth]

It's fairly common for people to claim that they experience being in the presence of god. Is it a possible explanation for the experience that god exists ?

Yes. If someone claimed they had experienced being in your presence, I would accept that a possible explanation for the experience is that you actually exist. Likewise, if someone claims they have experienced being in the presence of god, I think that one possible explanation is that god exists.

 

[Belz...]

So, let me get this straight.

If I have a hallucination of the easter bunny, one of the possible explanations for the experience is that the easter bunny exists ?

Come on, now.

 

[westprog]

Most mysterious 'why' questions can be adequately answered: 'Why not?' Or, if you prefer, 'Why should there be nothing instead of something?'

And do you find such answers entirely satisfying?

 

[articulett]

Yes. If someone claimed they had experienced being in your presence, I would accept that a possible explanation for the experience is that you actually exist. Likewise, if someone claims they have experienced being in the presence of god, I think that one possible explanation is that god exists.

And if someone believes "the devil made them do it", is one possible explanation that there's a devil that made them do it? Shall we start performing exorcisms just in case? At what point to you rule out the invisible magical entity or conclude that it's more likely to be a hallucination, misperception, or something else? I say you do so from the get-go because there IS NO EVIDENCE that any form of consciousness CAN exist absent a material brain.

Therefore, the rational explanation is that it's "something else"--anything else-- anything is more likely than a supernatural entity. "I don't know" is a much better answer, than the explanation that they are subjectively experiencing some communication with an invisible undetectable immaterial entity!