Can theists be rational?

[Bri]

I am aware of the fine tuning argument.Its not my favorite but is well supported by some scientists who happen to be believers. I don't think that the fine tuning argument uses special pleading, its not an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence. I am curious, why use the word 'irrational' to express the point you are attempting to make? Its confrontational and misleading (if you are using the common definition).

I'll try to bring you up to speed a bit. The term "irrational" in general usage is defined as something akin to "incoherent" and some add something like "or inconsistent with reality" (externally consistent with what is known to be true).

Some here have argued that there is some (as of yet unknown) definition of "irrational" that would apply to belief in a god but not to other beliefs such as extra terrestrial intelligent life. I, Beth, cj.23 and some others have been skeptical that such a definition exists without resorting to special pleading (as in "rational - any coherent belief except for belief in a god").

In the course of the discussion, comparisons were made between beliefs in a god and other beliefs (aliens, teapots orbiting Jupiter, etc) in order to determine whether or not a valid distinction could be made to label belief in a god necessarily irrational but other beliefs (particularly other beliefs for which there is no compelling evidence) rational.

cj.23 at one point posted a logical Bayesian argument (i.e. one that uses Bayes theorem) for the existence of a god based on evidence of fine-tuning. This was compared to a hypothetical logical argument for aliens based on the Drake equation to see if a valid difference could be found.

So...given your background you might agree that there is probably not a definition of "irrational" that would allow belief in a god to be considered "irrational" without also marking other beliefs commonly held to be "rational" to be "irrational" (without resorting to special pleading). You might not agree as to whether the belief in a god is actually unsupported by compelling evidence -- I personally don't think it is, but I don't think it's necessary for it to be in order to be rational as long as it's not incoherent or inconsistent with reality.

So, you said that there is compelling evidence (in the form of logical arguments rather than empirical observation, I assume) of a god (presumably the Christian God, although I'd be fine with it being any god). I'm interested in knowing what you feel is the most compelling of these types of arguments. The fine-tuning one is based on some premises that are unsupported by compelling evidence, which makes the conclusion less than compelling (as would be an argument for aliens based on Drake's equation). Do you know of an argument that has stronger premises?

Anyway, my favorite logical and reasonable arguments for the existence of God are the KCA as expressed by William Craig ThD PhD. Its a first cause argument. BTW there are 20 (!) arguments for the existence of god that are considered worthy of professional 'academic' consideration.

Can you post a link to the one that you feel is the most compelling (what is "KCA")? Also, if you have a link to a reference to the 20 arguments of which you speak that might be interesting as well. Thanks!

-Bri

 

[PixyMisa]

Can you post a link to the one that you feel is the most compelling (what is "KCA")?

I presume it's the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which has already been discussed and dismissed here. The only thing you can take away from the Cosmological Argument - if, for the sake of argument, you were to accept its premises, including the unstated ones - is that God is either finite or does not exist.

Typical of all such arguments, it is both logically flawed and self-defeating.

 

[Bri]

Thanks PixyMisa! Typical of such arguments, there seems to be a lot of back-and-forth about its validity, with some scholars attacking the premises with their own arguments, and then Dr. Craig attacking their attacks. It's fairly clear that the premises of the argument are far from airtight, but it's also unclear whether or not the objections to the premises are also unproblematic. You can see some of Dr. Craig's own objections to objections of his argument on his website.

One article that is critical of the argument states what I assume to be a vast oversimplification of the argument:

(1) everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence;
(2) the universe began to exist; therefore
(3) the universe has a cause of its existence.​

If that's accurate (and I don't assume that it is) it's got a gaping hole, which is that if everything that begins has a cause, then the assumption is that God didn't begin to exist, which given the premise that the universe must have begun to exist seems problematic. Why would one have to begin to exist but not the other?

It also seems that the argument has another shortcoming -- it doesn't say anything about the cause, specifically it doesn't give any indication that the cause must be anything akin to God.

I'll be interested in RevDisturba's opinion on these issues.

-Bri

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Is belief in pixies rational or irrational?

 

[fls]

Really? Which planets is SETI looking at?

We have looked at samples from the moon, Mars, and meteors for evidence of life. Also, we would have picked up on ordered electromagnetic radiation from our exploration of the planets in this solar system.

Which planets is SETI targeting?

Other than the planets in our own solar system, I think SETI does targeted searches of other sun-like stars as well as broader searches. I am not a SETI expert, so you may want to look at their website if you need more detailed information.

You didn't answer my question, which was:

OK, where are people looking for extra-terrestrial intelligent life? Where is it more likely to be found, and what evidence is there to determine where it is more likely to be found?​

A reference to which planets SETI (or anyone else) is actually looking, why they are looking there, and how they are looking there would be fine.

They may have specific targets listed on their website. I think they also outline what kinds of searches they perform (i.e. what kind of radiation, what kind of search algorithms, etc.).

What about them? Have I indicated that such an argument is any more scientific or unscientific than a similar logical argument for the existence of aliens based on Drake's equation?

You said that nobody is searching for God and claiming it is science. I agree that it isn't actually science, but it really seems to me that people are claiming that it is. Otherwise, why would it be presented as a rational argument for God that involves empirical inputs?

I'm not sure what you're comparing here. I don't know of any paleontologists who base their work on the hypothesis that there are no dinosaur bones in Tasmania.

Earlier you suggested that statements of a certain type were unfalsifiable and therefore couldn't be science. It now seems that you have backed down from that assertion.

Sure, compared to the search for gods or teapots orbiting Jupiter. I don't care if you want to call SETI "good science" or not, but I don't think there's a relevant distinction between what they're doing and other similar "science," certainly not enough of a distinction to state unequivocally that the belief that aliens exist is "based on scientific theory" but other comparable beliefs aren't.

So you agree that it was a perfect example of 'begging the question' in that this discussion has centered around what it is that distinguishes good science from pseudo- or non-science. You simply keep asserting that SETI is pseudo- or non-science because those characteristics which apply to pseudo- or non-science also apply to SETI, without ever addressing whether SETI actually has those characteristics. It's kind of funny, actually.

First, the hypothesis "a god exists" is as much a formal hypothesis or theory as "aliens exist" (however you wish to define "formal hypothesis or theory").

I define formal hypothesis or theory in the way that they are used as technical scientific terms.

Second, in what say isn't the hypothesis "a god exists" not formed by considering what gave us the idea in the first place?

Of the modern concepts of God that we have been considering (mostly sorta variations on Deism, I think), we start with God and look for something for it to do - like create the universe, fine-tune the universe, control/represent universal consciousness, etc.

I think God was proposed in response to the questions I list below, but our scientific exploration of those observations that gave us the idea of God led to non-God explanations. If we were to start fresh - that is, if we started with the understanding that we have achieved through science - what would lead us to propose God de novo?

What gave us the idea about aliens in the first place (and how do you know)?

Probably the discovery of other planets and then other stars and galaxies.

What gave us the idea about a god in the first place (and how do you know)?

Probably questions like 'what is it that controls the weather?', 'what are those lights in the sky and why do they move in patterns?', 'why do humans seem unique among animals?', etc.

Because that's how it was defined near the beginning of the discussion. Why was it defined that way? Because the presumption of the fine-tuning argument (as an example) is that a god is a being with the power to change the universal constants, which would imply that the god could not be a part of the natural universe, yet couldn't be entirely separate from the natural universe, hence the term "supernatural."

I don't understand the implication. If God has the power to change the universal constants, and the universal constants are part of the natural universe, wouldn't that make God part of the natural universe? Why would it have to be separate?

Linda

 

[Paulhoff]

Is belief in pixies rational or irrational?

Must be rational,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

Paul

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Is God physically possible?

ETA:

Let me rephrase that: Is a personal God physically possible?

 

[Bri]

You see, your problem is that you are emphatically ignoring the salient differences. When you say "comparable beliefs", you mean specifically "able to be compared", and are absolutely blindsighted by the similarities.

And what are the similarities that you feel are relevant? I think I've asked that question many times, and each time I get a vague answer that doesn't seem to apply across the board, the implication being that either other beliefs that are generally considered rational become irrational or other beliefs that are generally considered irrational become rational.

There's a difference, that's significant, and relevant. We can get to it if you stop ignoring it, stop straw manning everybody, and stop obsessing about what happens not to be different.

That seems to be an assumption on your part since I've yet to hear any clearly significant, relevant differences that don't require special pleading. If you have one, then by all means share it.

-Bri

 

[westprog]

I don't understand the implication. If God has the power to change the universal constants, and the universal constants are part of the natural universe, wouldn't that make God part of the natural universe? Why would it have to be separate?

Because god isn't natural - he's supernatural. He's the one setting the rules. The universe is whatever is bound by those rules.

 

[PixyMisa]

One article that is critical of the argument states what I assume to be a vast oversimplification of the argument:

(1) everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence;
(2) the universe began to exist; therefore
(3) the universe has a cause of its existence.
​

If that's accurate (and I don't assume that it is)

As far as I am aware, that is exactly the formulation given by Craig.

it's got a gaping hole, which is that if everything that begins has a cause, then the assumption is that God didn't begin to exist, which given the premise that the universe must have begun to exist seems problematic. Why would one have to begin to exist but not the other?

Yes, that's one of the problems.

The first premise may seem reasonable, but we run into major problems even there with such things as virtual particles.

Craig supports the second premise with this argument:

1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.

The first premise here is of course completely unsupported. There is no problem at all with actual infinites in cosmology. Our Universe may or may not be infinite; some cosmologists think that it may be not only infinite but one of an infinite number of universes.

The second premise requires - at a minimum - that time be linear, quantised, and directed. This may be true for our Universe, but it is likely not even meaningful for the larger cosmos.

The Wikipedia article outlines a number of other fatal flaws.

It also seems that the argument has another shortcoming -- it doesn't say anything about the cause, specifically it doesn't give any indication that the cause must be anything akin to God.

That too.

 

[fls]

Because god isn't natural - he's supernatural. He's the one setting the rules. The universe is whatever is bound by those rules.

Why is setting the rules supernatural?

Linda

 

[westprog]

Why is setting the rules supernatural?

Linda

It's just about the definition of the word. Super - over, as in having power over; natural, as in the natural world including the laws of nature. Anything not bound, indeed, able to control the laws of nature, would be supernatural.

It would be useful to be able to distinguish between supernatural creatures like gods, and extranatural beings like ghosts. A ghost isn't bound by natural law, but can't change it.

YMMV. Indeed, I'd be surprised if it didn't. You aren't required to think that gods and ghosts exist, just that they'd be supernatural if they did.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Because god isn't natural - he's supernatural. He's the one setting the rules. The universe is whatever is bound by those rules.

And what is the evidence that an invisible man lives outside of the universe and controls the universe and made the rules for the universe? I am not saying you think there is any.

 

[Paulhoff]

Because god isn't natural - he's supernatural. He's the one setting the rules. The universe is whatever is bound by those rules.

HE?

That is the problem with a so-called god, you can make up the rules for one, and you don't have to prove them, so convenient isn't it. But it still don't explan anything.

Paul

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Because god isn't natural - he's supernatural. He's the one setting the rules. The universe is whatever is bound by those rules.

So you're answer to my question above would be that God is not physically possible, since physically possible is defined as that which is possible according to the rules of physics? Supernatural is certainly not natural.

He is, however, logically possible.

 

[articulett]

How can a god be a he with no material properties?-- No penis, no brain, no Y chromosome? I can't even see how a god qualifies as an "it".

 

[plumjam]

Ignorance, thy name is Linda?

God

(Sorry, Linda. Couldn't resist.

God)

 

[westprog]

And what is the evidence that an invisible man lives outside of the universe and controls the universe and made the rules for the universe? I am not saying you think there is any.

I'm not claiming that there is conclusive evidence, or indeed any solid evidence at all - but supporting the contention that belief that such a thing might be possible is not necessarily irrational.

 

[fls]

It's just about the definition of the word. Super - over, as in having power over; natural, as in the natural world including the laws of nature. Anything not bound, indeed, able to control the laws of nature, would be supernatural.

Ah, I see where you're getting at. So we have supermass (a.k.a gravity), superphoton (a.k.a. electromagnetism), superboson (a.k.a. weak force), etc.

But clearly your supernatural is subject to investigation by science, whereas Bri says that his/hers isn't. So thanks for jumping in I guess, but we'll have to leave it to Bri to answer my question since you guys are talking about two different things.

Linda

 

[Bri]

Is belief in pixies rational or irrational?

What do you think? How do you define "pixies?"

-Bri