Can theists be rational?

[JoeTheJuggler]

We do? Are viruses alive? What do they require? Is the sun alive? What does it require?

I'd like to think that you and I are alive, but given that the number of people posting here who insist that consciousness, free will, and god are all illusions/delusions , I'm not sure how to tell whether being alive isn't just an illusion as well.

As I mentioned, there are assumptions in Drake's equations, and they may be weaknesses. (I agree with some of these objections. I think we're limiting ourselves by not considering life on moons of gas giants, or any number of other things that may be possible. But I think it's a useful tool, nonetheless.)

One weakness is not that the argument is circular. We do know each of those factors exists. (You're asking--legitmately--whether each factor is necessary for intelligent life.) Bri is trying to say that if the argument in question is circular, then so is Drake's equation. It is not.

In the argument in question, the premises assume the existence of God when that is the very question. (Or at least, they assume a probability for the existence of God and result in a conclusion that is a probability for the existence of God.)

t. Anyway, I have one question - am I rational yet, y'know, being a theist and all?

My answer is that your belief in God is not rational, but you are doubtless very rational in many (if not most) aspects of your life. Surely you don't rely on any reason to accept the existence of God. It's a matter of faith. You're basically believing something that someone told you.

Yet you wouldn't believe that the guy e-mailing you from Nigeria promising to give you tons of money is telling the truth--at least not without evidence compelling enough to accept such an outlandish claim.

(And I have addressed the matter of subjective experience as well. It's not enough for you to get confused by optical illusions or believe that Copperfield can actually cause the Statue of Liberty to vanish, so it's obvious you don't rely on that alone.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

To sum it up? No, they cannot summarize why theists are irrational.

See blobru's long-ish initial post in this thread about what being rational means.

I think of it using the skeptical idea. You follow the evidence. If there is sufficient/compelling evidence for a claim, you provisionally accept that claim. (The "provisionally" is important. Without that, it becomes dogma when you can ignore subsequent evidence.)

Since there is not sufficient/compelling (or even ANY) evidence of God's existence, it is irrational to accept that claim.

ETAL FWIW, there are many believers who would agree with me. They even take great pride that their faith in God is a matter of. . . well, faith.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Back the probability of zero question. Bri says the only time the probability is zero is when there's a contradiction. OK. In the die example, the premise I gave was that the die does not have a three on it. You're trying to add the premise that the die does have a three on it (giving it a non-zero probability of coming up). These two statements are contradictory, "there is a three on the die" and "there is not a three on the die". Therefore it's impossible.

What's the probability of your winning a poker hand if you fold the hand? What's the probability of your winning a lottery if you did not buy, beg, borrow, steal, find, receive as a gift or otherwise obtain or possess or own or have (or any combination of two, three or four of these) an entry to the lottery?

If your answer is something on the order of "the probability is non-zero because you might suddenly find yourself in an alternate universe where you did not fold the hand or where you did have a lottery ticket", then is there any point in discussing probabilities?

On the die question, you said the chance of getting a three on a fair die (or random selection of a card) was only "approximately 1:6". So what is it? How do you calculate that? Why isn't it nowhere near 1:6? (Again, the ratio of possible successful outcomes to possible outcomes as you see it should be infinity to infinity. What does that mean?)

 

[The Atheist]

Just getting caught up after being away a couple days. . .

Pretty easy - just assume nothing new has been said and you'll be fine.

 

[RandFan]

What's the probability of your winning a poker hand if you fold the hand? What's the probability of your winning a lottery if you did not buy, beg, borrow, steal, find, receive as a gift or otherwise obtain or possess or own or have (or any combination of two, three or four of these) an entry to the lottery?

If your answer is something on the order of "the probability is non-zero because you might suddenly find yourself in an alternate universe where you did not fold the hand or where you did have a lottery ticket", then is there any point in discussing probabilities?

I think this is about as succinct as one can put it.

That said, I don't buy lottery tickets but that doesn't mean that I don't hold out hope that I will win.

 

[Bri]

What is a key similarity?

If you don't understand how two things can be different, but have similarities, there's not much hope for you, RandFan.

(see my previous post)

What am I looking for? Are you referring to the quotes by me?

I did tell you what the difference is.

I don't think either proposition is known other than that they are not impossible.​

If so, what about them? The two propositions are different (I even listed some of the differences), but they have at least one similarity (which is that neither is known). I'm just not sure where I said that something is both A and not A. What is "A" in this analogy?

As articulate says, "We have evidence of material life and how it evolves... we have evidence that life can evolve in our universe... we have a basis on which to make a speculation..."

Precisely.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Well that begs the question "what qualifies as an observance of the divine?" And if you saw such a thing can it be proven that this observance is in fact from a creator-deity?

If the being is omnipotent, it can make itself known (it can do anything). If by no other means than by reconfiguring out brains so that we believe it exists, although I doubt that would be necessary as it could provide any evidence you ask for.

But aside from that, let's be real. Are you telling me that if a being materialized in front of you, performed a few miracles at your request, could read your thoughts, added another moon to our planet, won Randi's million dollars, gave Randi a wedgie without touching him, and then made another million dollars fly out of your butt, you wouldn't believe it?

Come on! You require less evidence to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

It is possible to come up with a probability for the existence of something without knowing that it exists.

Is not!

I think RandFan might disagree as he has been arguing that it is possible to come up with a probability for the existence of extra terrestrial intelligent life. Unless you're claiming he knows that extra terrestrial intelligent life exists. Are you?

It does not. You could put at zero probability in any one of the factors in Drake's equation and the result would be a zero probability of ET intelligence.

The same goes for the argument cj posted.

By the way, what you're saying here is the same thing I addressed very early on. I agree that it would be equally circular in the argument you're defending to start from a premise that the probability of God's existence is zero.

Neither argument would be circular. The conclusion would just be a zero probability that a god exists considering a fine-tuned universe if you change the premise to a zero probability of a god existing without consideration of a fine-tuned universe.

Did you read any of the articles on Bayesian analysis that were linked to in earlier posts?

-Bri

 

[articulett]

I don't think very many people are even clear as to what they actually believe or mean when they say "god exists" or they believe in "god". I suspect it's more of a primal feeling of feeling watched over or having your thoughts read.

I really cannot fathom a conscious entity that has no material brain... no material anything.

I don't know how you'd tell such a thing from it's absence. We evolved to think, feel, and want, because the best way to survive and pass genes that code for these things... but why would a god need any of that? Why would anger and judgment and planning and love and jealousy evolve in a god... or "always exists".

The more you understand the way the world works, the more backwards and incoherent the whole god concept seems. It seems like a childish thought... the way a child thinks that the world revolves around them, because their world does. To me, trying to make sense of a god just seems as embarrassing and irrational as trying to force myself to believe in a real Santa.

It all sounds like special pleading... the kind of special pleading that the believer would instantly recognize if it was proffered as a reason to believe some other woo they don't believe in.

 

[RandFan]

1. I did tell you what the difference is.
2. I don't think either proposition is known other than that they are not impossible.

If so, what about them?

#1 contains no information. Odd that you couldn't come up with anything. But let's assume you accept my premises (my list).

#1 would be A
#2 would be not A.

What is "A" in this analogy?

What we know.

 

[RandFan]

I think RandFan might disagree as he has been arguing that it is possible to come up with a probability for the existence of extra terrestrial intelligent life. Unless you're claiming he knows that extra terrestrial intelligent life exists. Are you?

No, only that somethings are simply not impossible while other things are reasonable to believe could exist.



Reasons to believe that ET inteligent life could exist (plausible).

1. Inteligent life exists.
2. Inteligent life is based at least on carbon and other elements and molecules like H₂O.
3. These elements are quite abundent in our universe.
4. Inteligent life requires energy (at minimum a Sun).
5. Inteligent life requires a place to develop (at minimum a planet).
6. There are 100,000,000 (stars in our galaxy) x 300,000,000,000+ (galaxies) stars.
7. So far everywhere we look in the universe to look for planets we find them indicating there are likley a lot of planets out there.

Reasons to believe that god could exists (plausible).

• Nothing.

So, can you really see no difference between ET inteligent life and God. And don't reply that you have because you then turn around and say that there is no difference. Arguing both A and Not A is not coherent.

 

[slingblade]

A friend of mine told me this evening that she got a nice surprise in the mail. Her auto insurance company had made an error, and overcharged her. They sent her a check for the overcharge.

She said it was probably because of all the money she and her hubby had tossed into the collection plate, even when they didn't have it to spare.

I thought to myself, "That, or all the pennies you've tossed into wishing wells recently. Same diff."

Why isn't the rational explanation given her good enough? How does one person's mistake become another person's magic?

 

[Bri]

#1 contains no information. Odd that you couldn't come up with anything. But let's assume you accept my premises (my list).

I don't know what else you want me to say, RandFan. I've already said several times that I accept your lists for the most part:

I did tell you what the difference is. You've listed differences in nearly every post:

• We know that inteligent life has occured.
• We know that inteligent life is composed of organic materials.
• We know that these organic materials are common in our universe.
• We know that there are 100,000,000,000 (stars in our galaxy) x 300,000,000,000 (galaxies in our universe) stars.
• We know that planets which is also likely required for life are everywhere we look.

I agree (except maybe the lst one -- I have no idea what that means).

I'm just now sure how I could have been any clearer that I agree that there are differences between the two.

1. I did tell you what the difference is.
2. I don't think either proposition is known other than that they are not impossible.

If so, what about them?

#1 would be A
#2 would be not A.

What is "A" in this analogy?

What we know.

So #1 = "what we know" and #2 = "not what we know"?

No, #1 is "I did tell you what the difference is" and #2 = "I don't think either proposition is known other than that they are not impossible".

In other words, there are differences and similarities. I'm not sure where you get "what we know" and "not what we know" from that. Please explain. Then explain how your ad hom attack that this somehow demonstrates that I'm being disingenuous advances your argument.

No, only that somethings are simply not impossible while other things are reasonable to believe could exist.



Reasons to believe that ET inteligent life could exist (plausible).

1. Inteligent life exists.
2. Inteligent life is based at least on carbon and other elements and molecules like H2O.
3. These elements are quite abundent in our universe.
4. Inteligent life requires energy (at minimum a Sun).
5. Inteligent life requires a place to develop (at minimum a planet).
6. There are 100,000,000 (stars in our galaxy) x 300,000,000,000+ (galaxies) stars.
7. So far everywhere we look in the universe to look for planets we find them indicating there are likley a lot of planets out there.

Those statements certainly support the possibility of ET intelligent life, but unfortunately without the missing pieces to the puzzle no probability for the existence of ET intelligent life can be concluded from it.

So is your argument then that a belief is rational if you have reasons to believe it?

Reasons to believe that god could exists (plausible).

* Nothing.

Are you saying that a theist cannot provide any reasons to believe in a god then?

So, can you really see no difference between ET inteligent life and God. And don't reply that you have because you then turn around and say that there is no difference. Arguing both A and Not A is not coherent.

I have not said that there is no difference. In fact, sentence #1 that you quoted above indicates that there are differences. I even said that I agree with most of the differences you've already listed. How many times are you going to assert the same straw man, even after I've corrected you?

-Bri

 

[fls]

If you don't understand how two things can be different, but have similarities, there's not much hope for you, RandFan.

What am I looking for? Are you referring to the quotes by me?

I did tell you what the difference is.

I don't think either proposition is known other than that they are not impossible.​

If so, what about them? The two propositions are different (I even listed some of the differences), but they have at least one similarity (which is that neither is known). I'm just not sure where I said that something is both A and not A. What is "A" in this analogy?

-Bri

When trying to figure out what probabilitity to assign to gods or intelligent aliens or anything else for that matter, all values are equally likely. When we speculate on the basis of information, some of those values become more likely than others. You have even stated this yourself.

We don't really have any information about god on which to speculate. You agree that that we have information about intelligent aliens on which to speculate. Therefore, while all values for gods remain equally likely, some values for intelligent aliens are more likely than others. That is, you state that they are not equally unknown. Yet you go on to vigorously defend the idea that they are equally unknown. That is the contradiction.

Linda

 

[Belz...]

It's possible that the natural universe is a subset of a supernatural universe.

That doesn't make a bit of sense.

 

[Belz...]

No, it's saying that the probability of the universe containing life if a diety exists is much higher than if a diety doesn't exist, the universe contains life, therefore it is likely that a diety exists.

Er... no.

 

[Bri]

When trying to figure out what probabilitity to assign to gods or intelligent aliens or anything else for that matter, all values are equally likely. When we speculate on the basis of information, some of those values become more likely than others. You have even stated this yourself.

Some of the values assigned to the terms for both may be more likely than others, true enough.

We don't really have any information about god on which to speculate.

Not true. We have information about some of the variables, depending on which argument for a god you're talking about. For example, we have information about how "fine-tuned" the universe might be.

You agree that that we have information about intelligent aliens on which to speculate. Therefore, while all values for gods remain equally likely, some values for intelligent aliens are more likely than others.

That certainly wouldn't follow for one and not the other, as indicated above. We have partial information for both. But one or more terms of each is largely or entirely based on conjecture.

That is, you state that they are not equally unknown. Yet you go on to vigorously defend the idea that they are equally unknown. That is the contradiction.

I didn't say they are "equally unknown" (I don't really know what that would mean). I may have said that I'm not sure we can know which is more likely than the other without being able to assign probabilities to either that are more than speculation.

ETA: Even if we could calculate a "relative probability" and, say, show that the proposition that god exists is a lower probability than the proposition that aliens exist, I'm not sure that would help in determining which is rational and which is irrational. To do so would require defining some threshold that falls in-between the two without knowing where the two actually are. Not only would the threshold be arbitrary, but it would be impossible to define what it is without knowing both probabilities.

-Bri

 

[fls]

Some of the values assigned to the terms for both may be more likely than others, true enough.

Not true. We have information about some of the variables, depending on which argument for a god you're talking about. For example, we have information about how "fine-tuned" the universe might be.

That is not information about gods, though. That is only information about life.

That certainly wouldn't follow for one and not the other, as indicated above. We have partial information for both. But one or more terms of each is largely or entirely based on conjecture.

Um...no. The information about fine-tuning does not apply to the probability that god exists.

Let me try an example to illustrate this point.

I'm looking for a disease to name after myself, so I declare that Linda's Syndrome is a condition which leads to a sodium measurement of 118. Out of hundreds of sodium measurements, only a handful will have a measurement of 118. Considering that Linda's Syndrome does not actually exist, does someone with a sodium measurement of 118 make it possible that my idea is true?

It's the difference between observing the characteristics of something and assigning a characteristic to something that we have not observed.

I didn't say they are "equally unknown" (I don't really know what that would mean). I may have said that I'm not sure we can know which is more likely than the other without being able to assign probabilities to either that are more than speculation.

You have stated that:

"I don't think either proposition is known other than that they are not impossible."

If you cannot make any other distinction between them, this is the same as saying they are "equally unknown".

If we look back at where this quote came from (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4330750#post4330750) we see that RandFan stated that they were not equally unknown - that one was more plausible than the other. You disagreed with that statement.

ETA: Even if we could calculate a "relative probability" and, say, show that the proposition that god exists is a lower probability than the proposition that aliens exist, I'm not sure that would help in determining which is rational and which is irrational. To do so would require defining some threshold that falls in-between the two without knowing where the two actually are. Not only would the threshold be arbitrary, but it would be impossible to define what it is without knowing both probabilities.

-Bri

I'm not sure that anyone is suggesting that, though. I think the suggestion is that the extent to which an idea is considered plausible reflects the extent to which there is evidence for that idea (or the extent to which it is constrained).

Linda

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It does not. You could put at zero probability in any one of the factors in Drake's equation and the result would be a zero probability of ET intelligence.

The same goes for the argument cj posted.

No. Because the premises of that argument include the conclusions. The factors in Drake's equation do not include the conclusion but are probabilities about things we know 100% for sure actually exist.

FWIW, you do know that Drake's equation was not put forth as any argument for the existence of ET Intelligence, don't you? It really is there to say, here is what we'd need to know.

The conclusion would just be a zero probability that a god exists considering a fine-tuned universe if you change the premise to a zero probability of a god existing without consideration of a fine-tuned universe.

Considering a fine-tuned universe?! That's not even part of this argument. (And even asserting that, assumes the existence of a tuner, doesn't it?) If it is, I'll take that on. Are you saying the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of humans?

The argument starts with the assumption of a probability that God exists and concludes with a probability that God exists. It really is circular.

 

[Belz...]

Unfortunately, the probability for each is unknown (somewhere between 0 and 1).

There is life on earth. The probability is 1.