-->
@Mopac
I don't expect you would, even though I explained it quite well. That is what fundamentalist/orthodox belief does.
Isn't theism more rational than atheism?
Posts
Total:
103
-->
@Fallaneze
Given the weight of evidence - it’s more likely that God doesn’t exist. In the same way as in my example there is more evidence that the cat doesn’t exist.
The problem you, and many Theists make, is not understanding that the disconfirming evidence for God is very different in nature than that of confirming evidence, much in the way of theistic argument attempts to implicitly and illogically exclude - of at least to implicitly refuse to consider
- this evidence.
The question in the title of this thread is absurd.
-->
@Fallaneze
Given the weight of the evidence, is it more likely that God does or doesn't exist?
No
This places an equal burden of proof between affirming the positive and negative claim.When we observe the absence of something where it was claimed to exist, this is inductive evidence we can then use to justify disbelief. With a prime, eternal consciousness though this is not something observable. So we would need to rely on non-empirical means to evaluate the claim.It's worth mentioning that the source of a claim or the number of variations it has doesn't invalidate it.Is the universe indicative of design or does it seem to be the byproduct of mindlessness?
It is what it is.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Consider that you are projecting your internalized views 'onto' reality based upon reflection.
-->
@Ramshutu
A cat is something that can be verified empirically but an prime, eternal consciousness is not.
I'll illustrate the point with an example. Let's say that there's a simulation and a virtual character says that he doesn't think that the world he's in has a programmer because he hasn't seen the programmer in the same way he hasn't seen a cat in his world. Don't you think that character is making a categorical error?
-->
@Plisken
What internalized views would you be referring to?
-->
@EtrnlVw
Your lack of charity gives me more reason to believe that you are simply being haughty.
-->
@Mopac
What lack of charity?
-->
@Mopac
And what did I write that was haughty while you're at it...
No, it’s not a categorical error. For several reasons. First, anything that can detecably affect the universe is by definition empirically validatable. As God, in every single iteration that has ever been proposed, has been asserted to affect the universe - and thus should be detectable.
If you want to argue that God has never materially affected the universe in anyway, go right ahead : you’re basically ruling out every single God that’s has ever been proposed - doing so lends weight to my position, which is that if every other God is made up - this is evidence to the idea that yours is too.
Secondly, you can’t argue - on one hand - that you believe that there is empirical evidence to support the existence of God - then argue his existence is not empirically determinable. This what is known as “kettle logic”, they can’t both be true.
Thirdly, you missed a key point with what I said. You keep treating your God and yor idea as if no one has ever thought about it ever before. The concept of God has been existence for thousands of years - every one has failed tests, basic laws of non contradicion, basic predictivity is shown to be false, and in most cases their logical explanations of the world turn out to be false. All those Gods are definitively wrong from all the evidence. Why not just discard those Gods as false, rather than assert that despite all these other Gods being nonsense - that yours is absolutely real.
Finally, and this is the kicker. A God that is definitively, provably and objectively real is one that we can objectively detect. A God that is definitely made up, is completely undetectable, and will never be objectively detectable. That is the key distinction between the two. You’re argument is basically saying that your God has a key property that made up Gods have, and objectively and probably real Gods do not - you’re providing key evidence of why God does not exist.
-->
@Ramshutu
Nice - i'll try to remember that argument.
But re the cat analogy, the probelm is that someone put a lot more effort into looking for Jimmy's cat than many atheists put into finding God!
I think we athesits reject god unconconsciously (which is not the same as irrationally!) and then rationalise what we 'feel'. I am a great beliver that we use our cognition less and our gut-instincts more than we care to admit!
-->
@Ramshutu
Does the creator of a simulation "affect" the simulation? After all, the creator was the mind behind it all.
Does logic detectably affect the universe? If yes, then logic must be "empirically validatable." But is logic validated empirically? No, I don't think so.
The fine-tuned universe refers to "dimensionless constants" so they're mathematical objects, not empirical ones.
Are you familiar with the genetic fallacy?
Does "objectively detect" mean something empirically verifiable? We can use logic to determine whether it is true or not, even if we can't evaluate the claim using empirical evidence.
-->
@Fallaneze
So it seems you’re mostly just ignoring the things I’m saying and instead just throwing questions back that are mostly already covered.
So to start with:
1.) Does a programmer affect the simulation?
If God does not affect the universe in any detectable way: then No God every defined by any religion can possibly exist as all religions speak of examples, actions and incidence of God affecting the universe. Magic is empirically validatable.. Are you agreeing with this? If so far from being an attack on my argument - it validates the core premise - that all God’s so far, all the Gods from which your proposed God is the most recent definition - do not exist. In this case, this supports my position.
Secondly, as I also pointed out in my last post: A god that doesn’t exist is undectable and has no measurable effect on the universe: a God that everyone could agree objectively and definitively exists, is one that everyone could see and validate for ourselves. If you are arguing that you’re God has the key property that all made up Gods share - that is basically supporting my case.
2.) Logic is actually empirically validatable. You can confirm the law of non contradiction every day through measurement, and the rudimentary laws of logic can be confirmed through repeated observation. Indeed, the core laws of logic can actually be refuted to some generic degree through the laws of quantum physics - which to some degree refute the laws of non contradiction.
3.) The “fine tune: universe” is a set of dimensionless variables - how do you know they don’t change? How do you know whether if they changed, what the effect on other properties of the universe, how do you even know it’s possible for them to be different? The answer to all of all of these call into two categories: ones that you can empirically validate: and ones that you can’t answer. As a result, you can tell me until you’re blue in the face that the mass of an electron could be different, but you may as well be pulling that conclusion out of your butt - because you can’t show me that is the case.
4.) Yes I know what the Genetic Fallacy. Do you? I would suggest you google what it means - because the genetic fallacy is not what you seem to be arguing (which is where the argument is dependent on a particular premise that may not be true) - which is not a genetic fallacy but a hasty generalization.
5.) Unfortunately you can only use logic alone to prove something is true in the case where you can control and define the premisss upon which it relies. IE: I can use logic to prove all zigs are zags, if I state that all zigs are Zogs and all zigs are Zags. That may or may not be true objectively, but in the context of that statement it’s true. That’s how you can have formal mathematical proofs in many ways. Saying that, maths is itself empirically validatable in its own right.
The main issue with using logic alone in a universal context, is that any logical statement relies on premises. If the premises are false, the conclusions are false. How do you establish that your premises are true without any objective determination that they are true?
-->
@Ramshutu
1) the fine-tuned universe is "detectable" but it is not an empirical means of detection. This can be used to infer God's existence.
We should always compare what we're arguing to the definition. We are here arguing about whether a prime, eternal consciousness exists.
Beginning from the perspective that if God is undetectable, then God is non-existent frames the issue the wrong way. This relies on an implicit assumption that the universe has no creator until shown otherwise. This is wrong. We begin with having no assumptions about whether the universe does or does not have a creator. If we don't have enough evidence to determine the claim either way, we simply remain in a state of ignorance and neither affirm existence nor non-existence.
Logic defines the parameters in which the universe exists. Nothing in the universe can be used to prove logic. Logic is invariant, universal, and abstract. If quantum mechanics refuted logic then sharing statements of knowledge would not be possible.
Do you think that the scientific literature on the fine-tuned constants and parameters are exhibitions of ignorance?
P1) the fine-tuned universe is explained by either design, physical necessity, or chance.
P2) the fine-tuned universe is not due to physical necessity or chance.
C) therefore, the fine-tuned universe is explained by design.
Making a series of statements using logic alone and logic to defend each premise is possible without empirical validation.
-->
@Fallaneze
No, the fine tuning of the universe requires empirical validation.
- All the universal constants are based on measured values, and the mathematical laws of physics which are empirically validated.
- For there to be fine tuning, you need to determine whether these constants can be modified or be different from what they are. You can’t just assume they are, you can’t posit that they are, you can’t just arbitrarily decide that these physical CONSTANTs are not really —->CONSTANT<—. How would you determine that they could even change without an empirically validated mathematical theory that implies they could, or some measurement that showed they could.
As a result, the logical theory, depends on speculative conjecture and is meaningless in its own right without empirical validation to demonstrate that the premises it relies upon are true.
-->
@Ramshutu
Where is the empirical validation for your statements? If you can't provide any corroborating empirical evidence should I discard them?
-->
@EtrnlVw
Orthodoxy is not what you think it is. It is true religion.
And it is surrounded in mystery that Christ's enemies be confounded, and that the glory of God be revealed to those with the eyes to see.
But really, you comparing Orthodoxy to protestant "fundamentalism" is like comparing J.S. Bach to a poorly rehearsed bar band.
I'm just saying, you speak without knowledge. I suggest you look more into Orthodoxy, and really consider it. You may find in it a depth and completeness thaf you weren't expecting.
-->
@Fallaneze
The hole fits the puddle perfectly. It's a muuurikal.
-->
@Fallaneze
Does the hole fit the puddle perfectly? In your paradigm that makes the hole appear designed. Is it?Is the universe indicative of design or does it seem to be the byproduct of mindlessness?
-->
@Fallaneze
Well, for the first - you can validate that these constants were derived empirically by observations of text books and direct consultation with Luther human beings.
For the second point, as I said, it’s a premise of your argument so you have to validate whether it’s true or not. You can empirically validate that the only real way of doing that is by empirical validation by looking at the demonstrable knowledge and practical applicatiok that comes empirical validation vs logical validation: with nothing you see around you being the result of logic alone.
Look at it this way: for there to be fine tuning, it must be true that physical constants are not truly constant, (there’s a whole lot of other issues too), how have you determined that these physical constants are not really constant, what is your proof? How do you know it’s true?
What you’re doing, though, is a brilliant example of avoidance. You’ve avoided answering any specific questions, or acknowledging any point I’m raising throughout this exchange - you’ve dropped every point raised, you’ve ignored every issue that I have pointed out. Instead you keep trying to push the burden back to me - why are you trying to avoid a discussion?
-->
@Ramshutu
Look at it this way: for there to be fine tuning, it must be true that physical constants are not truly constant, (there’s a whole lot of other issues too), how have you determined that these physical constants are not really constant, what is your proof? How do you know it’s true?chang
I disagree. We can test for fine-tuning by theoretically adusting a value and computing the consequences. When that is done the outcome is somethig like atoms don't form, or they are unstable or you only get radiation... I suggest that an alternative universe that supported life could not be slightly different from this one - it would have to be very different with its own set of finely co-ordinated constants.
It is my view that the apparent fine tuning of the universe is real, but it's not due to the it being fine-tuned by a deity. The best explanation is the AP, but like most people with a 'scientific bent' I'm not really happy leaving it at that; I'd like something a bit more 'positive' but given the state of knowledge in 2018 I don't think we can do any better.
Is it rational to believe that fine-tuning has an explanation that doesn't involve a deity when I don't know what it is, let alone i can't prove it? Frankly, I don't care! I have given up pretending I'm Spock. I have hunches and preferences. I try to indentify and examine them and I think I am prepared to change my position if I discover a reason to. It's just that I haven't found one.
-->
@keithprosser
You’re actually missing a step there.
Sure, you can change a universal constant to see what affect it could have on the universe. But why do you feel it’s reasonable to conclude that it is possible that such constants could hold any other value?
This is the problem: the fine tuning around assumes - without any reason or justification - that all these values are free to hold any possible combintion of values to any degree.
How potentially variable is the constant of, say, the mass of an electron? 0.0001%? 1%? 100000000%? In this regard it should be obvious that how fine tuned you could consider the universe is directly dependent on how much you assume these constants are variable. The fine tuning of the universe, is somewhere between 0 and infinite depending on what you assume - which makes the whole exercise meaningless and very much the form of an assumed conclusion.
-->
@Fallaneze
Your god. Doesn't apply to anyone else. Theism and atheism are beliefs that have nothing to do with being rational."God" refers to a prime, eternal consciousness.
-->
@Ramshutu
But why do you feel it’s reasonable to conclude that it is possible that such constants could hold any other value?
Well, for example the value of planck's constant is 6.62607004 × 10-34 m2 kg / s. I don't think it is unreasonable to wonder why it is 'just right' to create atoms with the right balance of properties to produce complex molecules and then even higher level structures on top of molecules. We could easily have a universe filled with uncombined protons and neutrons (ie no nuclei or atoms at all).
I suppose you could say that intelligence and consciousness could arise in a universe without atoms, but that strikes me as just being over-loyal to non-theism! I'm happy to concede there is no knock-down argument against deistic fine tuning - yet. But this is a hard and difficult area - we've only known there was a big bang for a few decades and that the rate of expansion is increasing ('dark energy') since 1998. it's flattering that theists think we should have it all worked out already, but we still have a bit of work to do.
-->
@keithprosser
Except that we effectively have a sample size of 1, which is scientifically inconclusive.there is no knock-down argument against deistic fine tuning - yet.
And except that any appeal to an unverifiable "deity" is an obvious appeal to ignorance fallacy.
It is much more honest to say simply, we don't currently have any blooming idea.
-->
@Ramshutu
My point is that if logic alone is not enough to demonstrate the truth of something, if there must also be corroborating empirical evidence to demonstrate that something is true, then each and every statement you make to purport the truth of something, which is based on logic alone at this point, is pending corroborating empirical evidence.
-->
@Fallaneze
My point is that if logic alone is not enough to demonstrate the truth of something, if there must also be corroborating empirical evidence to demonstrate that something is true, then each and every statement you make to purport the truth of something, which is based on logic alone at this point, is pending corroborating empirical evidence.
There are several important things here.
Firstly - you’ve dropped maybe a dozen critical arguments that all argue against your position. Do you concede all of these? Or are you actually planning on engaging on anything rather than ask an unending series of questions that appear to be nominally answered at least once in the previous arguments you’ve ignored.
Secondly - if you read what I just said, I supported the conclusions that you cannot make your claims via logic alone empirically - this means regardless of whether what you just said is correct - it doesn’t change the conclusion that you cannot make your claims via logic alone.
Thirdly - for something to be true as humans define the word - it must be something that agrees with reality. By definition you can’t tell whether something agrees with reality without basing that of knowledge of what reality is.
Finally, and most importantly. Is that empiricism actually givea you a way to disprove empiricisms easily: Give an example of any objective knowledge or truth about reality that can be determined by everyone to be true - that has been determined to be true without using empiricism.
-->
@Ramshutu
Your central contentions seem to be the following:
1) We can't accept that a claim is true until we have corroborating empirical evidence.
2) the fine-tuned constants might not be able to hold any other values, and even if they could, there might only be a small allowance within the overall range.
3) in order for a claim to be accepted as true or rejected as untrue, it must have a way of being proven or disproven.
Let me know if I missed any or if you want it worded differently.
-->
@Fallaneze
My central contentions are actually that:
A.) You can’t talk about your version of God that you’ve defined as an isolated contention without talking about the thousands of years of Gods that have all ended up being disproven by some means or another. If everyone who has proposed a God who did X and Y up until now have been wrong about their Gods, it is reasonable to presume that your one is too if you assert it without evidence.
B.) Every single God ever proposed causes direct and measurable effects on the universe and his adherents - if it’s been thousands of years and we still have found no evidence of these supposed effects - despite incredible advances in science, technology, and measurement - it’s most likely due to that God not existing, given that it’s reasonable to presume that we’d have some evidence by now.
C.) Evidence that God doesn’t exist is different in nature than evidence that would support God. We can’t prove a negative, so the evidence is primarily historical assessment of prior claims and prior failures of God (A), together with assessments of what we could have seen had he actually ecosystems (B). Theists often attempt to change the burden here by implicitly trying to discount as valid this evidence.
After you ignored these, you simply bombarded me with other questions, leading me to sub contentions:
D.) One key property of a God that definitely and objectively exists vs one that definitely doesn’t - is that the former is measurable and the latter is not. Claiming that God is not measurable confirms that your God has key properties in common with a God that doesn’t exist.
E.) Repeatedly arguing that your God is not measurable, and you can’t have any direct evidence that he exists, strongly supports the Atheist position as a result because we agree with you - we just attribute the lack of evidence to lack of existence whereas you do not - as we know it’s possible for things not to exist, and were not sure that a God could exist - it kinda lends support to the idea that God does not exist.
F.) Logical conclusions are only as good as theor premises, if you can’t validate the premise as true, you can’t validate the conclusion. Relying on asserted premises for which you have no clue as to their validity other than a feeling of whether they are accurate - are invalid and should not be considered proofs unless implicitly predicated on the premises (if this then that).
G.) You can’t say God leaves no measurable effects - and then cite measurable effects as proof he exists. That’s just kettle logic.
once these were also mostly ignored it led to the following:
H.) The asserted premises of the fine tuning argument cannot be proven true, so the conclusion is implicitly begging the question. When you’re makig specific claims about how the universe does or doesn’t work, this must be confirmed against the universe by definition.
So no, these aren’t my main contentions my main contentions are they key points you have ignored over the preceding two pages.