Can theists be rational?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I assume it was a premise of the argument, which you can either accept or reject for the purposes of the argument. Still, unless the premise assumed a 100% probability rather than a 0.0001% probability, it doesn't assume the existence of a diety.

Again, yes it does. Check out my ETA above about how one calculates probabilities. If you are assuming a non zero probability for something, you're assuming the existence of a successful outcome. In this case "successful outcome" is existence. So to assume a non zero probability you have to assume a universe with the existence of a god. You can't start from that assumption and then claim you've proven the existence of a god.

When you say that the only alternative to making some non zero assumption for the existence of god is to assume a zero percent probability of the existence of god, you're making a false dichotomy. I don't have to make ANY argument that makes assumptions about the probability of the conclusion of the argument in order to show that the argument cj presented is flawed.

In fact, if I did, I'd be making the same flawed (circular) argument. I pointed that out above by substituting the term "not God" wherever cj used "God". That argument is equally invalid, and I don't have to make that argument to refute cj's.

 

[Bri]

And this is way I earlier said I didn't use the word "excuse" lightly. You are showing how folk will use a semantic dance to avoid saying anything meaningful about "god". Your definition simply means that you can make no meaningful statements about "god".

No, it's just a category of beings about which I can say is that the beings which belong to it are believed to be supernatural. I can also say that I know of no hard evidence of any god.

Just like "dog" is a category of beings about which I can say that the beings that belong to it have four legs. I can also say that I know of no dog that doesn't like to pee on fire hydrants.

Unless you want to dictate what attributes a believer must assign to their belief in order to call it a god (I don't), if you want to discuss specifics about gods it's best to narrow the field a little. The same goes for dogs.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

How do you know that is "possible"?

I was using "possible" to mean "consistent with what is known about the universe." The theory that what we know about the universe that the natural universe is a subset of a supernatural universe is not inconsistent with what is known about the universe.

-Bri

 

[fls]

This is something that came up on another thread (where I said I have yet to hear any definition of a god that people actually believe in that I couldn't show to be internally inconsistent). By "definition" I mean all the characteristics that are necessary and sufficient for putting an object into a class and excluding other objects from that class.

Defining god as a "supernatural being", for example, is insufficient because you could put the Tooth Fairy, Zeus, Thor, Ganeesha, Gandalf the Wizard, and any number of other objects into that class, and yet these might not be what you mean by "God".

The strongest challenge I got to this was the idea of a deist god. The point of a deist god is that it is rather a rejection of other definitions of god, and not a definition itself. (They said, "that which created the universe" but I pointed out that a singularity might fit into that class, and that's not what they're talking about when they use the word "God".)

What about my definition?

"A creative/controlling force that is not lawful."

It seems to cover what people mean when they talk about gods, it says something useful about gods and it is testable. It would exclude something like a singularity, since that would be lawful.

Linda

 

[Bri]

What is *not* possible?

By "possible" I meant consistent with what we know about the universe. But to answer your question, it's not possible for a square to have fewer than 4 sides (without changing the generally accepted definition of "square").

Defining god as a "supernatural being", for example, is insufficient because you could put the Tooth Fairy, Zeus, Thor, Ganeesha, Gandalf the Wizard, and any number of other objects into that class, and yet these might not be what you mean by "God".

Or they might. Which is why it's necessary to talk about attributes of a particular god rather than gods in general.

Webster's definition includes worship, but I'm not certain that it's necessary for the being to be worshiped to be considered a god.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

A creative and/or controlling force that is not lawful.

And "not lawful" means something that is impossible in nature? That is, it means something either internally inconsistent or inconsistent with the empirical world.

Is "force" being used metaphorically, or does it imply a mass and an acceleration? What about gravity? If we take measurements and find something that doesn't fit in Newton's laws, are we talking about God or even something supernatural?

At any rate, if this is offered as a definition, it is clearly insufficient since a LOT of things could fit that which are not what they mean when they use the word God.

And this is way I earlier said I didn't use the word "excuse" lightly. You are showing how folk will use a semantic dance to avoid saying anything meaningful about "god". Your definition simply means that you can make no meaningful statements about "god".

That's why I offered a formal definition of definition above.

In real life, theists talk about a being with all sorts of characteristics (that are easily proven to be internally inconsistent or inconsistent with empirical evidence): omniscient, omnipotent and all compassionate, for instance. Others talk about a god that can reveal future events--as revealed to prophets, for instance, yet still insist that it is logical for that god to judge humans for their moral choices (which must be predetermined or else how could that god know what those choices will be before they're made?)

They talk about a god who can intervene in a natural disaster to save one child (and yet not be the intervening force that slaughtered other children).

They talk about a god who existed in a fleshly form in historical times, walked on water, raised the dead, etc.

But, when you talk about rational proofs for the existence of their god, they suddenly become very coy about all these defining characteristics, and all you get is creator or "force".

 

[Bri]

Again, yes it does. Check out my ETA above about how one calculates probabilities. If you are assuming a non zero probability for something, you're assuming the existence of a successful outcome.

I'm not a mathematician or a statistician, but my understanding is that a non-zero probability simply assumes the possibility of a successful outcome.

-Bri

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

What about my definition?

"A creative/controlling force that is not lawful."

It seems to cover what people mean when they talk about gods, it says something useful about gods and it is testable. It would exclude something like a singularity, since that would be lawful.

Linda

A singularity is lawful?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

By "possible" I meant consistent with what we know about the universe. But to answer your question, it's not possible for a square to have fewer than 4 sides (without changing the generally accepted definition of "square").

What about the Tooth Fairy, the FSM or "not God"?

Just because an undefined idea doesn't provide anything to show it's internally inconsistent doesn't mean that you can meaningfully calculate a probability for its existence.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not a mathematician or a statistician, but my understanding is that a non-zero probability simply assumes the possibility of a successful outcome.

Re-read cj's "proof" and see if it makes sense that way. You're changing the word "possible" into a non zero value, then multiplying it by a really large number to turn any "possibility" into something "highly probably". That's absurd.

 

[fls]

And "not lawful" means something that is impossible in nature? That is, it means something either internally inconsistent or inconsistent with the empirical world.

No, we have assumed that the natural world is lawful, but we haven't proven that it is. It is possible that there are elements that are not lawful or are capricious - they are not constrained by those things that constrain natural laws (like symmetry, for example).

Is "force" being used metaphorically, or does it imply a mass and an acceleration?

It implies an "influence that produces a change in a physical quantity".

What about gravity? If we take measurements and find something that doesn't fit in Newton's laws, are we talking about God or even something supernatural?

It depends upon whether or not that discrepancy is lawful (i.e. general relativity) or not.

At any rate, if this is offered as a definition, it is clearly insufficient since a LOT of things could fit that which are not what they mean when they use the word God.

Can you give me some examples?

Linda

 

[Bri]

What about the Tooth Fairy, the FSM or "not God"?

I don't know what you mean by "not God" (is "not God" a being?), but someone might consider the Tooth Fairy or the FSM to be a god (and might even choose to worship one or both).

Another attribute I've heard often included in the definition is "creator of the universe" (or something similar) but clearly some gods (particularly those related to polytheistic religions) do not possess that attribute.

Just because an undefined idea doesn't provide anything to show it's internally inconsistent doesn't mean that you can meaningfully calculate a probability for its existence.

I agree (and never said otherwise).

Re-read cj's "proof" and see if it makes sense that way. You're changing the word "possible" into a non zero value, then multiplying it by a really large number to turn any "possibility" into something "highly probably". That's absurd.

I agree (and never said otherwise). But it is a rational argument. Whether or not you accept the premises is another question.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What about my definition?

"A creative/controlling force that is not lawful."

It seems to cover what people mean when they talk about gods, it says something useful about gods and it is testable. It would exclude something like a singularity, since that would be lawful.

Sorry--my reply crossed your reply.

Mostly it's not sufficient to exclude a lot of ideas that people really aren't talking about when they use the word god. Second, I'm not sure what to make of "unlawful" and "force". I think they're both being used figuratively somehow, but if we're talking about making testable hypotheses, maybe not.

Also, how does "unlawful" differ from our ignorance? If we find some measurement or result that we can't yet explain by our current laws, does it necessarily mean it's supernatural or "God"?

If so, "God" must keep popping into and out of existence as our science changes. (Don't laugh! There are people who honestly believe something similar to that. But I don't think that's how most people use the word "God".)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I agree (and never said otherwise). But it is a rational argument. Whether or not you accept the premise is another question.

No it's not, and you still are missing the point. No argument that contains the conclusion in the premise is a valid or rational argument. It's circular reasoning.

ETA: also known as "begging the question".

It's not a matter of whether I agree or disagree with the premise.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Can you give me some examples?

Linda

The state of quantum-scale particles before they are measured.

 

[Bri]

No it's not, and you still are missing the point. No argument that contains the conclusion in the premise is a valid or rational argument. It's circular reasoning.

It doesn't contain the conclusion in the premises. The premise in question is that the probability of a god existing are 0.0001%. Then it multiplies that by a really large number and concludes that the result is a really large number. The conclusion follows from the premises.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't know what you mean by "not God" (is "not God" a being?), but someone might consider the Tooth Fairy or the FSM to be a god (and might even choose to worship one or both).

Do you think any people worship the Tooth Fairy or the FSM? Really?



The "not" is from propositional logic (or boolean algebra). Think of it as a proposition "p" which might, in a full sentence be "God exists". "Not p" means "God does not exist".

cj is assuming a mathematical probability for "p". I'm point out since this probability is based on the assumption of "p" and the conclusion of the argument is "p", it's circular reasoning. You're basically saying "if p, then p".

I think you're stuck on an ambiguity of the use of the term "probability". You can't talk about it as a non-statistical term (starting with the premise that p is a very low probability event) and then switch to using it mathematically to come to the conclusion that p is a very high probability event.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Rubbish. It might make them useful, attractive, beneficial, or even really bloody good, but it cannot make them rational.

Why not? Subjective experience is inherently useless on an individual level?

Making a decsion on incomplete data is irrational and I'm not about to accept ignorance as an excuse. Appearing to be right can apply to homeopathy, bigfoot, parapsychology and crop circles by aliens.

But it isn't rational.

We make decisions based on incomplete data all the time, no one suspends judgement while they wait to reason out whether or not eating when their starving to death will really save their life. Likewise I wouldn't expect a theist to suspend belief until the existence of gods were proven to be absolutely true...nor would I expect atheists to suspend disbelief until the existence of gods were proven to be absolutely untrue.

Again I have to ask why they can't be rational? Rationality and truth are not the same thing. Not by a long shot.

Check Darth Rotor's sig line regarding atheists.

Atheist spiritualists are most definitely not rational.

These are a lot of words simply to quote yourself.

Again I must ask why they are inherently irrational.

Reason is close enough, and it ought to be plain that evidence is required for reasoned analysis.

Not in the least actually. While I consider myself an empiricist-rationalist I still have met numerous rationalists who toss out empirical knowledge and inductive reasoning entirely. I know many rationalists who believe that one can deduce all knowledge using foundational principles. I consider it far too skeptical to toss out empirical evidence, of course, but reason doesn't necessarily require empirical evidence.

All rationalists are atheists, but for an absolute certainty, all atheists are not rationalists.​

Emphasis mine. The existence of the Calvinist-Rationalist I'm currently debating with refutes your statement.​

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Rubbish. It might make them useful, attractive, beneficial, or even really bloody good, but it cannot make them rational.

Why not? Subjective experience is inherently useless on an individual level?

Making a decsion on incomplete data is irrational and I'm not about to accept ignorance as an excuse. Appearing to be right can apply to homeopathy, bigfoot, parapsychology and crop circles by aliens.

But it isn't rational.

We make decisions based on incomplete data all the time, no one suspends judgement while they wait to reason out whether or not eating when their starving to death will really save their life. Likewise I wouldn't expect a theist to suspend belief until the existence of gods were proven to be absolutely true...nor would I expect atheists to suspend disbelief until the existence of gods were proven to be absolutely untrue.

Again I have to ask why they can't be rational? Rationality and truth are not the same thing. Not by a long shot.

Check Darth Rotor's sig line regarding atheists.

Atheist spiritualists are most definitely not rational.

These are a lot of words simply to quote yourself.

Again I must ask why they are inherently irrational.

Reason is close enough, and it ought to be plain that evidence is required for reasoned analysis.

Not in the least actually. While I consider myself an empiricist-rationalist I still have met numerous rationalists who toss out empirical knowledge and inductive reasoning entirely. I know many rationalists who believe that one can deduce all knowledge using foundational principles. I consider it far too skeptical to toss out empirical evidence, of course, but reason doesn't necessarily require empirical evidence.

All rationalists are atheists, but for an absolute certainty, all atheists are not rationalists.

Emphasis mine. The existence of the Calvinist-Rationalist I'm currently debating with refutes your statement.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It doesn't contain the conclusion in the premises. The premise in question is that the probability of a god existing are 0.0001%. Then it multiplies that by a really large number and concludes that the result is a really large number. The conclusion follows from the premises.

This conversation is beginning to get as circular as cj's argument.

First, if you don't understand how probabilities are calculated, how can you continue to argue that the premise does not contain the conclusion?

I'm trying to ignore what the probability means, and figure out what you're saying. If the premise "there is a 1 in a million chance that God exists" is not an actual probability (calculated by the existence of successful outcomes divided by the total number of possible outcomes) then you must think it merely means, "it's very unlikely God exists". There's no way you can then multiply that by numbers and get "it's very likely God exists".

It would be better, though, for you to understand how a probability is calculated, then you will understand that the cj's premise assumes the existence of God.

Try this one.

Premise: There is a 1 in 6 probability of rolling the number 4 on this die.

If I roll this die 1000 times, I can use statistics to show that it is highly probably (virtually certain) that I will roll at least one 4.

Conclusion: Therefore 4 exists.

Do you understand that the premise necessarily requires you to assume from the outset that the die in question has 6 possible outcomes and one of them is a 4 (that is, the 4 must exist)?

This is what I mean that when you assume there is a non-zero chance of God's existence (and use that as an actual mathematical probability), then you are assuming that God exists.