P-inductive argument for God's existence

[Recusant]

You are doing your best to ignore the fact that an arrangement of 3 elements is necessarily more complex than an arrangement of 2. This has nothing to do with "what  [ I ] know inductively."

And you're deftly trying to reconfigure the actual arrangements I'm proposing:
- 1 (person)
Vs
- 10^76 particles, not including dark matter, units of energy, and the additional dimension of time

That doesn't fly. Now you're trying to exclude people from the situation entirely. What we actually have in the naturalistic view is:

- 1 person (the observer)
+
- 10^76 particles, not including dark matter, units of energy, and the additional dimension of time

The supernaturalist view:

- 1 person (the observer)
+
- 10^76 particles, not including dark matter, units of energy, and the additional dimension of time
+
a conjectured (or taken on faith) "god"

[bandit4god]

That doesn't fly. Now you're trying to exclude people from the situation entirely. What we actually have in the naturalistic view is:

- 1 person (the observer)
+
- 10^76 particles, not including dark matter, units of energy, and the additional dimension of time

The supernaturalist view:

- 1 person (the observer)
+
- 10^76 particles, not including dark matter, units of energy, and the additional dimension of time
+
a conjectured (or taken on faith) "god"

There was no observer 100 billion years ago (yes, long before planck time).  We're debating what's simpler to have existed then, 1 person or oodles of particles and natural laws?

[MrStakhanovite]

It is for each person to assess whether or not the above evidence, when properly evaluated, results in P(h|e) > 0.5.  Such an exercise would be a truly rigorous assessment of the inductive probability of the existence of God.  Let's get started, which of the above evidential points should we discuss first?

First, I don't understand how this would be truly rigorous, Swinburne makes it pretty clear in the final chapter of The Existence of God (1991 ed.) that these epistemic probabilities lack any precise numerical value.

Second, you've completely ignored all the evidence that would have an effect of the posterior results, it would gerrymandering not to have things like the Problem of Evil lowering your values.

If you have Plantinga's WBC, check out his section on the problem of dwindling probabilities, I think he makes some good remarks as to why inductive inferences fail to justify religious beliefs.

[Recusant]

There was no observer 100 billion years ago (yes, long before planck time).  We're debating what's simpler to have existed then, 1 person or oodles of particles and natural laws?

Heh, as I mentioned in an earlier post, talking about billions of years before the existence of the universe is pure speculation, and probably makes no sense. Also, the scientific/naturalistic position is not as you have characterized it. No self-respecting cosmologist says that we know that there were "oodles of particles" from which the Big Bang arose. Some have speculated about quantum fluctuations in some sort of empty space which might have generated the Big Bang, but that isn't anything more than a speculative hypothesis; it certainly isn't an established model. Science doesn't at this time make any definitive statements at all about what might have given rise to the Big Bang. If the "empty space" model were to gain precedence, then we would have "god" vs "empty space." In that case, the most charitable view on which is simpler would to be to call it a wash, but a case could be made for either side to say that the other was more complex.

Let's look at your initial premise for the current discussion:

P0 (instrinsic probability): That C would be true is the simpler than ~C, therefore C has a higher intrinsic probability than ~C

C being "God exists."

We wouldn't be having this discussion if we didn't exist. So the very fact that the premise was proposed necessitates an element, namely humans. Humans exist as a part of the universe, which necessitates the universe as another element. So far we have those two elements. The premise says that adding a third element makes things simpler, but the very existence of the premise contradicts that statement.

[bandit4god]

It is for each person to assess whether or not the above evidence, when properly evaluated, results in P(h|e) > 0.5.  Such an exercise would be a truly rigorous assessment of the inductive probability of the existence of God.  Let's get started, which of the above evidential points should we discuss first?

First, I don't understand how this would be truly rigorous, Swinburne makes it pretty clear in the final chapter of The Existence of God (1991 ed.) that these epistemic probabilities lack any precise numerical value.

...and in the same chapter, concludes that his is a good P-inductive argument, making the existence of God more likely than not.

Second, you've completely ignored all the evidence that would have an effect of the posterior results, it would gerrymandering not to have things like the Problem of Evil lowering your values.

I have not ignored them (evil, hiddenness, etc.), look at the posts on the last page.  The Problem of Evil is a good C-inductive argument against the existence of God, but not a very strong one for reasons Swinburne shows in detail.

If you have Plantinga's WBC, check out his section on the problem of dwindling probabilities, I think he makes some good remarks as to why inductive inferences fail to justify religious beliefs.

Will do, thanks!

[MrStakhanovite]

...and in the same chapter, concludes that his is a good P-inductive argument, making the existence of God more likely than not.

Right, but these are epistemic probabilities that are relative to persons assessing evidence. I'm all for Bayes as a heuristic for assessing beliefs, but I think it should be strongly acknowledged that unless you get the other parties in the argument to agree to numerical values you assign, Bayes won't provide much force and I would be hesitant to call that rigor.

I have not ignored them.

I just noticed that, my mistake, sorry bout that!

[bandit4god]

We wouldn't be having this discussion if we didn't exist. So the very fact that the premise was proposed necessitates an element, namely humans. Humans exist as a part of the universe, which necessitates the universe as another element. So far we have those two elements. The premise says that adding a third element makes things simpler, but the very existence of the premise contradicts that statement.

How is this so difficult?  You're welcome to construct you're own P1 and P2 for the arguments from the universe and humans respectively--that's where they belong, in the meat of the inductive argument.  P0 is about the mere simplicity of one person always existing or quantum fluctuations + general relativity + matter + 11 dimensions always existing.

[Recusant]

How is this so difficult?

It isn't. It seems very clear and straightforward to me.

You're welcome to construct you're own P1 and P2 for the arguments from the universe and humans respectively--that's where they belong, in the meat of the inductive argument.  P0 is about the mere simplicity of one person always existing or quantum fluctuations + general relativity + matter + 11 dimensions always existing.

I think that I've been very clear that what you are doing is making a caricature of the naturalistic position which suits the needs of your argument. Also, the speculative hypothetical model I mentioned does not try to include "+ general relativity + matter + 11 dimensions always existing." It only speaks of quantum fluctuations in an otherwise empty continuum.

[bandit4god]

How is this so difficult?

It isn't. It seems very clear and straightforward to me.

You're welcome to construct you're own P1 and P2 for the arguments from the universe and humans respectively--that's where they belong, in the meat of the inductive argument.  P0 is about the mere simplicity of one person always existing or quantum fluctuations + general relativity + matter + 11 dimensions always existing.

I think that I've been very clear that what you are doing is making a caricature of the naturalistic position which suits the needs of your argument. Also, the speculative hypothetical model I mentioned does not try to include "+ general relativity + matter + 11 dimensions always existing." It only speaks of quantum fluctuations in an otherwise empty continuum.

Fluctuations of what exactly?

[Recusant]

...

**Click here**

**Or maybe this one**

The thing is, this is a red herring. Science doesn't pretend to know the origin of the universe, supernaturalists/theists do. So as is stands right now, we have a choice of "my god did it" or "I don't know."  To use the supposed simplicity of saying "god did it" as a premise or point of evidence in support of the existence of that god when there is no firm hypothesis which the premise can be simpler than is an ineffective tactic at best.

Trying to point to the complexity of the universe as evidence that a god's supposed creation of that universe is simpler than the universe having come into existence on its own is irrelevant as well.

This premise fails.

[Davin]

Trying to point to the complexity of the universe as evidence that a god's supposed creation of that universe is simpler than the universe having come into existence on its own is irrelevant as well.

This premise fails.

I'm not sure how one could express this point any simpler without losing the meaning. Well put.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

He is ultimately setting the bar too high for the definition of "God."  He says:

Let h be our hypothesis "God exists" which I take to be logically equivalent to "there exists necessarily a person without a body (i.e. a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things."

Why does God have to be "perfectly free"? Can he not be limited by his own nature?  Why does he have to be omnipotent?  Again, can he not be limited by his own nature, such that he is incapable of acting contrarily thereto?   Why does he have to be omniscient?  Can he not be limited in his knowledge because he created beings whose actions are inscrutable?  And why does he have to be perfectly good?  Is there a standard above God that judges his actions (the "good")?  Can't he just be himself?   

[Recusant]

I think that the theological position which holds that the Christian god is the ultimate in perfection goes at least as far back as Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, in which he writes,

...All created perfections are in God. Hence He is spoken of as universally perfect, because He lacks not any excellence which may be found in any genus.

Of course this has a biblical basis (both Old and New Testament).

All of the Christian theologians and apologists whose work I have read seem to follow this line. Maybe I don't get out enough, but you Ecurb Noselrub, may be the first Christian I've seen arguing against the perfection of their god (if that is indeed what you are doing).

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I think that the theological position which holds that the Christian god is the ultimate in perfection goes at least as far back as Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, in which he writes,

...All created perfections are in God. Hence He is spoken of as universally perfect, because He lacks not any excellence which may be found in any genus.

Of course this has a biblical basis (both Old and New Testament).

All of the Christian theologians and apologists whose work I have read seem to follow this line. Maybe I don't get out enough, but you Ecurb Noselrub, may be the first Christian I've seen arguing against the perfection of their god (if that is indeed what you are doing).

Depends on what you mean by perfection.  Christianity has inherited the Greco/Roman concept of perfection and has manufactured this omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent concept of God, which causes so many logical problems.  If you just back off of this concept of perfection a little on all fronts, it gives you a lot more room to work with, and it's not so hard to fit a concept of God into what we actually observe.  God can be veripotent, veriscient, veripresent and veribenevolent (all words I manufactured) without all the omni stuff.  This concept of God actually fits in better with what we see in the Bible - God can't lie or "deny himself; Jesus doesn't know when the end is or how long a boy has been afflicted with a particular malady; God is not in everyone's thoughts or "heart"; and God really hates the Amalekites, for whatever reason.   

[Ecurb Noselrub]

[ Science doesn't pretend to know the origin of the universe, supernaturalists/theists do. So as is stands right now, we have a choice of "my god did it" or "I don't know."  To use the supposed simplicity of saying "god did it" as a premise or point of evidence in support of the existence of that god when there is no firm hypothesis which the premise can be simpler than is an ineffective tactic at best.

Trying to point to the complexity of the universe as evidence that a god's supposed creation of that universe is simpler than the universe having come into existence on its own is irrelevant as well.

This premise fails.

Nobody knows the origin of the universe.  Only fundamentalist theists purport to do so, but they are just as stupid as the rest of us.  We are all speculating about what might have been "on the other side" of the Big Bang, but none of us know.  All theists need to say is "based on the totality of my personal experiences, I believe that God exists."  They don't have to pretend to have actual knowledge - they just have faith based on their experience in life.  Everyone is actually agnostic, whether they admit it or not, because none of us "know" about these ultimate issues. It just seems to me that the whole matter has been blown out of proportion.  I have experiences that lead me to believe; you don't.  Let it go at that.