Debating a theist: What am I doing wrong?

[a_unique_person]

On The Miniatures Page, in a thread on The DuuuuhVinci code, I made a crack about how entertaining it was to watch Christians get bent out of shape over a work of bad iction when they believe in their own, equally banal fiction (i.e. God). Of course, I'm now locked in a tooth and nail battle with a theist over the existance of God.

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=76067

I'm getting nowhere, can I get some pointers? I suck at debate.

Use your finely honed skills developed in the politics forum, call him names.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Inductive just means the truth of the premises make the conclusion probably-- versus certainly-- true.

Although to assign a probability to a future event is to assume the validity of the inductive principle i.e that reality will in the future continue to exhibit the same patterns as it has in the past.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The guy's only argument is this "the universe if evidence of God." Everything else he's said is simply a different approach to the same argument "order of nature's laws"=the universe. His arguments are equally as retarded and absurd as "the roses are evidence of God."

He hasn't given any evidence. He's claimed to have circumstantial evidence, but he has none. However, ask him if he has a circumstantial god.

 

[roger]

Inductive just means the truth of the premises make the conclusion probably-- versus certainly-- true.

Am I mistaken, or is this a more accurate distinction?

Hmm, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/)

An inductive logic is a system of reasoning that extends deductive logic to less-than-certain inferences.

However, they go on to discussive enumerative inductive logic, i.e. the old 'the sun rose yesterday, and the day before' arguments. So I guess one should be specific about whether they mean induction in general, or a specific type of inductive logic.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Yes, this is just silly. To explain the existence of things we can see, he invokes the existence of something we can't see, for the existence of which he offers no explanation. Yup, it's that classic old theist regress. Is the mind of God orderly? Who made it? Oh, so it just exists ... ? This, my friends, is Occma's stubble.

With this he conflates the idea that this invisible inexplicable cause should be God. Why not call it "X" until we have verified that it has a personality, is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and all the other qualities we ascribe to God?

Take intelligence, for example. We know of a zillion different processes that create order. One of these is intelligent human activity, but it is only one. Is there, then, any reason besides dogma or vanity to suppose that the "X" responsible for the order of the universe resembles a human? Instead of a metaphysical object which resembles a human engineer, why not a metaphysical object which resembles the action of the sea grading and sorting the pebbles on the beach?

(Note to Interesting Ian --- I noticed on the other thread someone mentioned Hume and you asked for a reference. I think the guy must have been talking about Part 7 of the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, which says much what I've said in the last paragraph.)

As to why there are "laws of phsyics", there is a partial answer to that within physics, and that is that there are only so many different kinds of things. For example, we can have laws of chemistry because there are only so many isotopes of so many elements, and once you've seen one atom of carbon-12, you've seen them all. We can have laws of electricity because all electrons are exactly the same.

Do we need a God, or a factor "X", then, to explain why there aren't infinitely many kinds of things? To put it another way, do we have to postulate an extra kind of thing in order to explain why there aren't more kinds of things?

 

[Interesting Ian]

With this he conflates the idea that this invisible inexplicable cause should be God. Why not call it "X" until we have verified that it has a personality, is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and all the other qualities we ascribe to God?

Sure, some fundamental metaphysical cause is all we can legitmately infer.

Take intelligence, for example. We know of a zillion different processes that create order. One of these is intelligent human activity, but it is only one. Is there, then, any reason besides dogma or vanity to suppose that the "X" responsible for the order of the universe resembles a human?

Resembles our bodies?? I should think not. We might think that X is some consciousness of some description though, which is the very point.

(Note to Interesting Ian --- I noticed on the other thread someone mentioned Hume and you asked for a reference. I think the guy must have been talking about Part 7 of the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, which says much what I've said in the last paragraph.)

Eh? You haven't really said anything.

As to why there are "laws of phsyics", there is a partial answer to that within physics,

I think not. How could there possibly be?

and that is that there are only so many different kinds of things.

Yes, due to the laws of physics there are only so many kinds of things. And if these laws had been different then there could have been many more kinds of things.

Do we need a God, or a factor "X", then, to explain why there aren't infinitely many kinds of things?

As I pointed out before. Either there is no explanation, or some metaphysical explanation. Some type of "God" is not needed, but there again the hypothesis that other people are conscious is not needed either. It's a question of what we reasonably should believe.

To put it another way, do we have to postulate an extra kind of thing in order to explain why there aren't more kinds of things?

No we don't have to, but it might all kind of fall into place and make sense if we do.

 

[RandFan]

Debating a theist: What am I doing wrong?

Patient: Doctor, it hurts when I do this.
Doctor: Don't do that.



Sorry, I'm late to the game.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Sure, some fundamental metaphysical cause is all we can legitmately infer.

Thanks.

Resembles our bodies?? I should think not. We might think that X is some consciousness of some description though, which is the very point.

But of course I never said anything about X "resembling our bodies", and of course you know that. I questioned whether we need believe that X is like humans in being intelligent. As you say, this is "the very point", and you avoid this by pretending that I've said "resembles our bodies".

I should think not. I am raising the question of whether X resembles us in intelligence.

Eh? You haven't really said anything.

Well, I think I have; but apart from that, the purpose of that paragraph was to tell you that the person you were talking to on that thread was trying to refer to part 7 of the Dialogues of Hume. We disagree with one another about so many things ---- but I just helped you with a reference, 'cos we're interested in the same subject and 'cos you asked.

It took some trouble on my part. Not much, but I spent five minutes trying to work out what he was thinking about and then trying to find the precise bit of Hume that he was thinking of. This, neither he nor you could do, 'cos you don't know Hume that well.

NOW SAY THANK YOU.

I think not. How could there possibly be?

I explained that in my post.

You will note my use of the word "partial".

Yes, due to the laws of physics there are only so many kinds of things.

Or, alternatively, there are only so many kinds of things and that's why there are laws of physics.

Would you like to propose an experimental test, or shall we just get out the ol' razor?

And if these laws had been different then there could have been many more kinds of things.

Or, alternatively, if there had been many more kinds of things, then the laws would have been more complex.

As I pointed out before. Either there is no explanation, or some metaphysical explanation. Some type of "God" is not needed, but there again the hypothesis that other people are conscious is not needed either. It's a question of what we reasonably should believe.

I wouldn't agree with that analogy. The fact that other people behave like me (as though they were conscious) is explained by the theory that they feel like me. See also, "Razor, Occam's".

No we don't have to, but it might all kind of fall into place and make sense if we do.

Surely you're too smart to say "it might all kind of fall into place and make sense if ..." to justify a system of philosophy.

 

[Interesting Ian]

But of course I never said anything about X "resembling our bodies", and of course you know that. I questioned whether we need believe that X is like humans in being intelligent. As you say, this is "the very point", and you avoid this by pretending that I've said "resembles our bodies".

I'm confused. Why are you singling out humans? Why not point out we need not believe that X is like dolphins, apes, alien beings, elephants etc in being intelligent?

And what do you mean by "intelligence"? You see to me intelligence necessitates consciousness, but it seems that people on this board don't follow me in this since they say that computers can be intelligent and they don't seem to be saying that this necessitates conscious experiences.

Let's assume that you mean the fundamental metaphysical principle responsible for the orderly nature of the Universe might well be wholly lacking in any consciousness. This is atheism. But it's also important to realise that if this fundamental metaphysical principle is consciousness, then that is precisely what many people, including myself, mean by "God". Such a "God" is not compelled to have the qualities you refer to i.e omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and ummm . . a personality.

Please don't dictate to me the qualities of the God I believe in must have. If I say that I believe in X, it is not up to you to define what X is, rather it is up to me.

Now, are you saying we have no reason to think this fundamental metaphysical principle is consciousness? If so I disagree. Consciousness is marked by intentions and goal orientated activities. The order exhibited by physical reality and the fact that it can be so elegantly described by mathematics is prima facie indicative of conscious understanding (intelligence in my definition of the word) and the ability to bring about this state of affairs

If on the other hand this fundamental physical principle responsible for all order is completely non-conscious, then there is no reason why any one Universe should have arisen rather than any other. Since the number of ordered Universes represent only a very small number of possible Universes, but we live in an ordered Universe, then we have to say that it is just a brute fact that this non-conscious metaphysical principle is of a such a nature that a ordered Universe is derived from it. Or wait. Perhaps there is a non-conscious meta-metaphysical principle responsible for this metaphysical principle? But then we just get in an infinite regress.

No, either the reason why physical laws exist is simply a brute fact, or there is a conscious metaphysical principle behind reality and responsible for it as a whole. From the explanatory perspective a non-conscious metaphysical principle just doesn't get us anywhere.

Well, I think I have; but apart from that, the purpose of that paragraph was to tell you that the person you were talking to on that thread was trying to refer to part 7 of the Dialogues of Hume. We disagree with one another about so many things ---- but I just helped you with a reference, 'cos we're interested in the same subject and 'cos you asked.

It took some trouble on my part. Not much, but I spent five minutes trying to work out what he was thinking about and then trying to find the precise bit of Hume that he was thinking of. This, neither he nor you could do, 'cos you don't know Hume that well.


NOW SAY THANK YOU.

Well if that's Hume's argument I've fully refuted it in what I've said above. So much for Hume.

II
Yes, due to the laws of physics there are only so many kinds of things.

Dr A
Or, alternatively, there are only so many kinds of things and that's why there are laws of physics.

No. Physical things are defined by the totality of their causal impact on their environment. But a thing's causal powers is simply another way of talking about physical laws. In other words there is nothing to a thing other than physical laws. Physical things are not somehow prior to physical laws.

II
As I pointed out before. Either there is no explanation, or some metaphysical explanation. Some type of "God" is not needed, but there again the hypothesis that other people are conscious is not needed either. It's a question of what we reasonably should believe.

Dr A
I wouldn't agree with that analogy. The fact that other people behave like me (as though they were conscious) is explained by the theory that they feel like me. See also, "Razor, Occam's".

No, according to people on here Occam's principle states that we must never introduce the existence of entities to explain something when such entities are not required. Since everything we ever observe of people is supposedly wholly accountable by 3rd person facts, it follows that other people cannot be conscious. So applying Occam's principle leads us to the precise opposite conclusion to what you claim.

Of course this Occam's principle is absolutely absurd. At least if used in the context of metaphysics. I fully endorse it in the context of science though.

II
No we don't have to, but it might all kind of fall into place and make sense if we do.

Dr A
Surely you're too smart to say "it might all kind of fall into place and make sense if ..." to justify a system of philosophy..

It's extremely clear that hypothesising entities might make the whole more elegant and understandable. Certainly in the context of physics where we hypothesise entities so that reality as a whole can be more elegantly mathematical described and hence more comprehensible to human intellect.

 

[hammegk]

I should think not. I am raising the question of whether X resembles us in intelligence.

Good question that has no answer. Next.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

We cannot have a scientific explanation for why physical laws are as they are since science operates under the assumption that reality is uniform.

Okay, so is reality not uniform? Or is science unable to exceed the boundaries of physical laws?

So you would then be saying maybe physical laws can be explained by physical laws. This is of course circular.

I'm saying we have physical laws that work for isolated, macroscopic systems. It doesn't mean there aren't better, more comprehensive, more uniform laws that account for motion and all forces across all time and length scales. And it doesn't mean that those laws aren't routed in the nature of this particular universe's existence and in how other potential universe's could exist, which could have different physical laws.

If there's a physical, we can always presume a metaphysical. So what.

 

[Jimbo07]

Now, given the premises of 20th century physics, we can deduce the orbit of the sun. A sampling of these premises are: the universal constants are locally constant, Newtonian orbital mechanics is grossly correct...

This is rather different from the Popper argument, as I understand it, which I simplify as "well, we saw the sun rise yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that; so, we can conclude inductively that it will rise tomorrow."
...

My crude knowledge of history lends me to think:

knowledge, observations, etc. by the ancients, Brahe, etc. -> Kepler's work on planetary motion -> Newton's work on motion and gravitation

That is, historical observations led to the laws from which predictions could be made.

With enough data points, we can be very precise about the position of the point, and even give error bars for our estimates...

And data they had.

Rather, we make observations, create a tenative hypothesis, test that with an entirely different set of observations, etc. We 'triangulate'.

You could make an inductive hypothesis based on your observations and have 'successful' tests of that hypothesis validate your inductive reasoning... within experimental error, no?

So here comes my bald faced hand waving assertion. This error elimination allows us to achieve certainty in our decisions, within the limit of our premises.

Error reduction is not uncertainty elimination. Improved experiments and refined hypotheses can reduce the error, but some uncertainty will always be present, no matter how small.

Hasn't this just shown some sort of validation of inductive thinking in science?

On the other hand, has deductive thinking shown up in places like particle physics? Has the existence of particles been shown theoretically before their discovery? If so, is that truly deductive, or was the deduction based on observation of other particles previously? This is a heck of a snarl for a not-fully-educated schmuck like me...

If anyone has the answers...



ETA: For the practicing scientists out there, is this sort of questioning useless in the workaday world of science? Is science a sort-of 'whatever gets us there' sort of operation?

 

[roger]

Error reduction is not uncertainty elimination. Improved experiments and refined hypotheses can reduce the error, but some uncertainty will always be present, no matter how small.

Well, my 'thinking' here (I use the term loosely) is not just error reduction, but elimination of possibilities. Sort of a Sherlock Holmes thing - when you have eliminated all possibilities but one, the remaining explanation, no matter how unlikely, is correct.

For example, I give you a data point: A man and woman are arguing, and the woman accuses the man of infidelity.

person 1: ah, they are married, and are having a fight.
person 2: ah, a woman's friend caught her friend's husband cheating, and is telling him to stop.
person 3: ah, they are shooting a movie
person 4: ah, they are practicing for a play they are in


Now, add a data point: A man in a chair marked "director" yells "cut" at the end of the argument

-or- they put down sheafs of paper after the argument, you walk up and read them, and they have the argument printed verbatim on them

-or- etc.

Throw in 20 or so data points, and we can explain what is going on with certainty. For example, suppose they were really shooting a movie. For each new data point, the person arguing for a real marriage spat would have to create more and more convoluted explanations, and each subsequent data point would easily invalidate the explanation. With enough data points, it becomes impossible to create a logically coherent 'marriage' theory. And this is in the mushy world of human behavior, where it is pretty hard to get solid data. For example, they could be shooting a movie, but really suffered infidelity in their lives, and even adopted the the words of the script to have their own argument. Hard to disprove in itself, but pretty unlikely, and easy to falsify if in fact there was no infidelity, for example.

So, for something like the existance of gravity, I argue we know it exists, as a fact. 4+ billion people, that's trillions of observations a day since the dawn of recorded history in a wide variety of situations. I suggest any alternative explanation for gravity (like I'm staying on my chair right now because I was glued to it) has been rendered impossible to be true. Not unlikely, impossible. We may or may not have yet done the mental manipulations to prove this to our satisfaction, but that doesn't mean it is not possible in principle.

For example, assume a Euclidian space. We could measure right triangles for a long time, and use inductive reasoning to come up with x*x + y*y = z*z. But eventually somebody, perhaps with the name Euclid, will derive that equation from the axioms (premises) and definitions of Euclid geometry. Henceforth, no other equation can be considered as a possibility for the equation of a hypotenuse. There's no chance for it to be correct, no matter how small.

I suggest the same is possible, in principle, in science, given the premises that there are a small handful of laws that nature obeys, that they can be codified in math like systems, and that the universe is material.

But I dunno.

 

[rocketdodger]

No, either the reason why physical laws exist is simply a brute fact, or there is a conscious metaphysical principle behind reality and responsible for it as a whole. From the explanatory perspective a non-conscious metaphysical principle just doesn't get us anywhere.

What about the view that we are existing in one of the infinite possible universes? In such a scenario, regardless of how probable our ordered physical reality would be if we didn't exist in it, since we do exist in it, that probability is unity. I am sure you know this, but your metaphysical view seems to disagree with that possibility.

Furthermore, do you claim it is possible for consciousness to exist outside of some ordered system? I would have to side with Dr. Adequate, even though he is so unnecessarily abrasive, because I don't see how you could even consider a consciousness to be as such if it existed prior to an ordered reality for it to exist in.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I'm confused. Why are you singling out humans? Why not point out we need not believe that X is like dolphins, apes, alien beings, elephants etc in being intelligent?

Quite so. You might have added spiders. Did you actually read the reference I gave you?

Let's assume that you mean the fundamental metaphysical principle responsible for the orderly nature of the Universe might well be wholly lacking in any consciousness. This is atheism. But it's also important to realise that if this fundamental metaphysical principle is consciousness, then that is precisely what many people, including myself, mean by "God". Such a "God" is not compelled to have the qualities you refer to i.e omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and ummm . . a personality.

Please don't dictate to me the qualities of the God I believe in must have. If I say that I believe in X, it is not up to you to define what X is, rather it is up to me.

Er ... it's up to neither of us. If you say you believe in unicorns, this doesn't give you free rein to redefine "unicorn" to mean "horse".

Now, are you saying we have no reason to think this fundamental metaphysical principle is consciousness? If so I disagree. Consciousness is marked by intentions and goal orientated activities. The order exhibited by physical reality and the fact that it can be so elegantly described by mathematics is prima facie indicative of conscious understanding (intelligence in my definition of the word) and the ability to bring about this state of affairs

No. We know of lots of things in nature which create order without consciousness. Hence, order is not prima facie indicative of conscious understanding

If on the other hand this fundamental physical principle responsible for all order is completely non-conscious, then there is no reason why any one Universe should have arisen rather than any other.

Would you care to argue this?

Since the number of ordered Universes represent only a very small number of possible Universes, but we live in an ordered Universe, then we have to say that it is just a brute fact that this non-conscious metaphysical principle is of a such a nature that a ordered Universe is derived from it.

Or that it's a "brute fact" that the universe is the way it is.

It is, after all, a brute fact that we live in a universe of limited variety.

Or wait. Perhaps there is a non-conscious meta-metaphysical principle responsible for this metaphysical principle? But then we just get in an infinite regress.

Oh, you noticed?

No, either the reason why physical laws exist is simply a brute fact, or there is a conscious metaphysical principle behind reality and responsible for it as a whole.

Its existence being what ... a "brute fact"?

From the explanatory perspective a non-conscious metaphysical principle just doesn't get us anywhere.

As far as I can see, a non-conscious thing which creates order is just as good an explanation for order as a conscious thing which creates order.

Well if that's Hume's argument I've fully refuted it in what I've said above.

No.

No. Physical things are defined by the totality of their causal impact on their environment. But a thing's causal powers is simply another way of talking about physical laws. In other words there is nothing to a thing other than physical laws. Physical things are not somehow prior to physical laws.

Really, you know, you cannot reify the laws of physics by fiat alone.

No, according to people on here Occam's principle states that we must never introduce the existence of entities to explain something when such entities are not required.

Supposing the existence of p-zombies is an unnecessary multiplication of species. Occam's principle dictates that if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then I should not imagine it to be something which looks exactly like a duck but isn't.

Since everything we ever observe of people is supposedly wholly accountable by 3rd person facts, it follows that other people cannot be conscious.

It is in fact impossible to understand people without possessing a theory of mind. Ask anyone with severe autism. Don't expect an answer, though.

 

[hammegk]

Er ... it's up to neither of us. If you say you believe in unicorns, this doesn't give you free rein to redefine "unicorn" to mean "horse"..

Wrong as usual vis-s-vis this discussion. Define god, and we'll agree that specific one does not exist.

Let me know when you have compiled the complete list and we'll cross 'em off one by one.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Define god ...

Certainly. "God" means "my left leg". There is a God, and it's attached to my crotch.

Now, have I just made

(a) A startling theological discovery?

(b) An error in English usage?

I don't get to define what "God" means any more than Interesting Ian does.

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
Now, are you saying we have no reason to think this fundamental metaphysical principle is consciousness? If so I disagree. Consciousness is marked by intentions and goal orientated activities. The order exhibited by physical reality and the fact that it can be so elegantly described by mathematics is prima facie indicative of conscious understanding (intelligence in my definition of the word) and the ability to bring about this state of affairs

Dr A
No. We know of lots of things in nature which create order without consciousness. Hence, order is not prima facie indicative of conscious understanding

You really truly are breathtakingly dense. How the hell do you imagine you can win arguments by pre-supposing that your position is correct.

I really can't be bothered to even read the rest of your post. You are incorrgibly stupid and I really have better things to do with my time.

 

[Interesting Ian]

What about the view that we are existing in one of the infinite possible universes? In such a scenario, regardless of how probable our ordered physical reality would be if we didn't exist in it, since we do exist in it, that probability is unity.

What?? If you're saying the probability is one that the world has the order that it has, then the answer is quite obviously no. How can it possibly be one?

Furthermore, do you claim it is possible for consciousness to exist outside of some ordered system?

Yes of course it is! Why on earth shouldn't it be?

I would have to side with Dr. Adequate, even though he is so unnecessarily abrasive, because I don't see how you could even consider a consciousness to be as such if it existed prior to an ordered reality for it to exist in.

I have no idea why you think that consciousness couldn't exist in a wholly lawless, completely unpredictable, random Universe.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You really truly are breathtakingly dense. How the hell do you imagine you can win arguments by pre-supposing that your position is correct.

I don't imagine that, which is why absolutely nothing in my argument requires this presupposition. Why are you pretending otherwise?

I really can't be bothered to even read the rest of your post. You are incorrgibly stupid and I really have better things to do with my time.

Your inability to argue with any statement which I have actually made is noted.