Can theists be rational?

[Beth]

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.

Er, no. We weren't discussing hallucinations. If someone tells me they had an hallucination, I'm going to evaluate their testimony a bit differently than if they describe something that they feel was NOT an hallucination.

 

[Beth]

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?

There is a rather large difference between allowing something as a possible explanation and concluding it is the most likely explanantion.

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!

I don't know is a fine answer and the one I am personally most comfortable with. Why do you confuse support for the statement that something is possible with support for the idea that it is the most likely explanation?

 

[Bri]

Take a set of universal constants, any set of universal constants different from those that there are now. Those different constants are explained just as well by a/the God hypothesis (Goddidit) as are the current constants. Or are they not? Why or why not?

As far as the fine-tuning argument is concerned, the assumption is that a god who presumably wants the universe to support life would be a more likely explanation than other possible explanations. So, no, the likelihood that the universe has some other set of values wouldn't necessarily be higher with a god than without one.

That is about the fine tuning argument. My response was about the explanatory power of that which is called God.

OK, but we were discussing the fine-tuning argument specifically. The idea is that an intelligent god (presumably one who desires life in the universe) has better explanatory power than some other explanation.

-Bri

 

[Paulhoff]

Fine-tuning, sure, when about 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe has no life in it.

Paul



And I’m being generous

 

[westprog]

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

As I've already said, there are a number of possible answers to the question. Until there's only one answer, the question remains mysterious.

Since Belz is satisfied that there is only one legitimate answer to the question, he will presumably not see any mystery at all. A fundamentalist will see the universe as a fairly simple place, and will only ask the questions with the answer "Check the bible".

 

[westprog]

Er, no. We weren't discussing hallucinations. If someone tells me they had an hallucination, I'm going to evaluate their testimony a bit differently than if they describe something that they feel was NOT an hallucination.

The essence of materialism is that ones perceptions reflect a real world. There's a problem in that it also has to be accepted that perceptions are sometimes incorrect, and don't reflect reality. Figuring out whose perceptions are valid and whose should be discarded is effectively done on the basis of popular vote.

 

[westprog]

Fine-tuning, sure, when about 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe has no life in it.

Paul



And I’m being generous

That would seem to be extremely precise fine tuning. The universe we have is pretty much identical to many of the various "alternative" universes - they'd consist, as this one does, mostly of hydrogen clouds. There are some significant impurities - stars - and they have produced the tiny, tiny impurities that make up the elements beyond boron. And a tiny fraction of these congealed on the surface of molten iron balls have become self-aware.

I certainly don't see how a universe so extraordinarily balanced to make life almost impossible but not quite is an argument against fine tuning.

 

[westprog]

Why do you confuse support for the statement that something is possible with support for the idea that it is the most likely explanation?

Why do you assume that she reads your posts before replying?

 

[biomorph]

The essence of materialism is that ones perceptions reflect a real world.

Nope, materialism is based on evidence. This gives the perception (whatever that is) the correct viewpoint to assess an objective world, that is, that which is there whether you are there to experience it or not.
There is no "unreal" world.

There's a problem in that it also has to be accepted that perceptions are sometimes incorrect, and don't reflect reality.

I sorta see where this is going, however reality doesn't change, even with an incorrect perception.

Just because one might think it is so, does not make it so.

Figuring out whose perceptions are valid and whose should be discarded is effectively done on the basis of popular vote.

Only amongst some of the population, the more uneducated perhaps.

A lot of people once thought the world was flat and had corners, it wasn't just a vote that convinced them it was round.
The independant evidence did most of the work.

Even if that evidence is rejected, as in a lot of theological thought sometimes, that don't make it so..

After all, if our perception told us the world is flat, and it became so, what a mess that would create........

 

[PixyMisa]

I certainly don't see how a universe so extraordinarily balanced to make life almost impossible but not quite is an argument against fine tuning.

Special pleading, moving the goalposts, affirming the consequent, and a bunch of other things.

You argue that the existence of life is evidence that the Universe is fine-tuned to support life.

When it's pointed out that most of the Universe is utterly inimical to life, you claim that a Universe where life is almost impossible is evidence for fine-tuning.

Well, life isn't almost impossible. Life has spread to every part of the globe. Life exists in frozen wastelands and in acidic hot springs near the boiling point of water. Most of the Universe is empty space, and empty of life, but there are an estimated 70 sextillion stars in the visible Universe, and now that we have instruments sensitive enough to detect them, we are finding planets everywhere we look. Life is almost certainly spread all over the Universe. But most of the Universe is still barren and hostile.

So, now what? The Universe is "fine" tuned so that life is common, but has its awkward moments?

Your God seems to be rather careless with his creation.

 

[biomorph]

That would seem to be extremely precise fine tuning.

Not really, if you tune a piano you make it highly probable that it will hit the right note.

With a lot of tuning the more you do, as with an engine, the law of diminishing returns sets in.

If one considers the universe to be fine tuned, the amount of energy to do that most probably would exceed the total enrgy in the universe, including the "creator".

It's not hard to go bust just tuning a sports car, never mind life and huge amount of diversity therein.

The universe we have is pretty much identical to many of the various "alternative" universes - they'd consist, as this one does, mostly of hydrogen clouds.

Evidence?

There are some significant impurities - stars - and they have produced the tiny, tiny impurities that make up the elements beyond boron. And a tiny fraction of these congealed on the surface of molten iron balls have become self-aware.

Allegedly

I certainly don't see how a universe so extraordinarily balanced to make life almost impossible but not quite is an argument against fine tuning.

Because you fine tune (or the supposed creator does) for something, not against.

Fine tuning for life would surely mean there'd be life within easy reach of us maybe? On the moon?

Life's not there, is it?

Sounds to me like you've got this all a bit backwards.

You religious or something?

Perhaps if you're a theist, you might want think right now whether you are acting/thinking rationally on this.....

 

[Belz...]

Er, no. We weren't discussing hallucinations.

Gotcha.

Of course we were discussing hallucinations. It's one of several explanations for NDEs, which you seem to conveniently ignore. I just happen to mention the real cause of my "experience" of the easter bunny, and you jump right on it, ignoring the explanation I gave. Why ? Because I gave you the correct answer in my question, and because you know for a fact that the easter bunny doesn't exist.

Well, news flash: I know for a fact that God doesn't exist, so he doesn't count as an explanation for NDEs.

 

[Belz...]

I certainly don't see how a universe so extraordinarily balanced to make life almost impossible but not quite is an argument against fine tuning.

You don't ?

 

[westprog]

Evidence?

If the constants are needed to be particular values in order to have stars form, and if they need to be of particular values for supernovae and red giants to make the heavy elements, then what you'd have if they were different (if such a thing were possible) is hydrogen and helium.

How the universe would behave with different constants is not that hard to work out. Run the same equations that explain the present universe with different numbers.

Is this a valid "What if?" scenario? I don't see why not. It's a matter of whether the numbers are right after that.

Allegedly


Because you fine tune (or the supposed creator does) for something, not against.

Fine tuning for life would surely mean there'd be life within easy reach of us maybe? On the moon?

Life's not there, is it?

Sounds to me like you've got this all a bit backwards.

As with the pixie, you seem to be assuming the conclusion I'm trying to reach because of the data that I'm citing. I didn't say that the universe was fine-tuned by god to produce as much life as possible. Indeed, the evidence seems to be that if we can determine any purpose from the fine-tuning; and it's not certain that we can; then it's to produce as little life as possible.

You religious or something?

Perhaps if you're a theist, you might want think right now whether you are acting/thinking rationally on this.....

Because if I'm an atheist I get an automatic pass?

 

[westprog]

You don't ?

No, I don't. The fallacy here seems to be to assume the intention of some creator, and then to look at ways in which the actual universe fails to fullfil those aims, and hence decide that the creator is effectively debunked.

The anti-FT arguments seem to be similar to someone walking into a room and finding a needle perfectly balanced on its point, saying that this is just as likely as any other configuration and the needle had to be placed somewhere.

I'm saying that to find a needle in that position is at least strange and worthy of thinking about.

 

[westprog]

Not really, if you tune a piano you make it highly probable that it will hit the right note.

With a lot of tuning the more you do, as with an engine, the law of diminishing returns sets in.

If one considers the universe to be fine tuned, the amount of energy to do that most probably would exceed the total enrgy in the universe, including the "creator".

It's not hard to go bust just tuning a sports car, never mind life and huge amount of diversity therein.

And if the universe is a simulation? How much energy is involved in that?

 

[biomorph]

As with the pixie, you seem to be assuming the conclusion I'm trying to reach because of the data that I'm citing. I didn't say that the universe was fine-tuned by god to produce as much life as possible. Indeed, the evidence seems to be that if we can determine any purpose from the fine-tuning; and it's not certain that we can; then it's to produce as little life as possible.

What for?

Surely the creator loves life.

The creator could make all the planets like ours, all the suns like ours, but hasn't.

It could've but didn't. Why make it so hard to do on purpose, when you have the tools to build a universe?

Why would the creator bother, which technically it can't, as it's above such things like having to bother.?

This isn't that much about universal constants, which indicate that any creator had no choice. There for was not needed.

If you are going to post evidence then you ought at least follow where it's going. Thats most likely for me where pixy is at too, maybe.

Because if I'm an atheist I get an automatic pass?

No 'cause you'd still be wrong headed here on this IMO anyway.

No free points.

However the thread topic is "Can theists be rational?"

You might be addressing the topic more than you think you are............

 

[Darat]

...snip...
How the universe would behave with different constants is not that hard to work out. Run the same equations that explain the present universe with different numbers.

...snip...

As I said previously I hadn't realized that we had come up with TOE- can you provide me a link to the news of its formulation and verification?

 

[PixyMisa]

No, I don't. The fallacy here seems to be to assume the intention of some creator, and then to look at ways in which the actual universe fails to fullfil those aims, and hence decide that the creator is effectively debunked.

You are asserting the intention of this creator. That is your entire argument. We are merely pointing out that if your assertion were true, then this creator of yours would not be very good at his job.

The anti-FT arguments seem to be similar to someone walking into a room and finding a needle perfectly balanced on its point, saying that this is just as likely as any other configuration and the needle had to be placed somewhere.

The needle is lying on the floor.

I'm saying that to find a needle in that position is at least strange and worthy of thinking about.

Well, it's not. There's an infinite number of places that the needle could be such that you would still be marvelling at the improbability of such an event.

 

[biomorph]

And if the universe is a simulation? How much energy is involved in that?

More, because you now not only need to fine tune the simulation just the same, but you've the added overhead of the support system too maintain that simulation.

You might need to fine tune the support system too, probably, so there's even more.

Its just turtles all the way down really, that is why it's irrational.....

If that simulation is the whole universe, you've just ground to a halt.

It also begs the question, simulation of what?

More turtles.............