P-inductive argument for God's existence

[bandit4god]

Swinburne: "Let us call an argument in which the premises make the conclusion probable a correct P-inductive argument."

For a hypothesis h, evidence e1 through ex, we could state the phrase "the probability of the hypothesis given the evidence" as
P(h|e1&e2&...&ex)
From here on, let's collectively represent e1 through ex as evidence e.

An argument from e to h is a correct P-inductive argument if and only if
P(h|e) > 0.5

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."

And now our evidence e:
e1:  the cosmological argument or "the argument from the universe's existence"
e2:  the teleological argument or "the argument from the general pattern of order"
e3:  arguments from consciousness and morality
e4:  argument from Providence or the opportunities humans have for making significant differences
e5:  arguments from history
e6:  arguments from miracles
e7:  argument from religious experience

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?

[Tom62]

None of these arguments are proof for the existence of [a] God or Gods. They are nothing more than faith-based assumptions and logical fallacies (like begging the question) and also don't tells us anything about the nature of God (who he is, whether he is truly omnipotent and all-loving, what he wants, why we should worship him, etc.). Belief in God(s) requires faith, no-one has ever been able to proof the existence of God with any logical-, theological- or philosophical arguments. Any attempt to do so, has miserably failed. Feel free to give it another try.

[SSY]

Well at least he's only going for an inductive proof, you have to at least give him credit for that. On the other hand, he has slipped a few deductive arguments in as evidence, when surely, a deductive argument should be enough to prove a god's existence by itself?

[hackenslash]

Oh dear. Let's take a look at this, shall we?

We can skip the initial definition, as it is not really controversial.

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."

Well, we have problems right out of the gate, because this entity cannot exist, regardless of what semantic wibblings are erected in a fatuous attempt to support it. Let's deal with them one at a time:

perfectly free

Can your deity counter the law of non-contradiction?

omnipotent

Can your deity construct a pile of bricks so heavy that he is unable to lift it (Note that I employed a pile of bricks rather than a rock. The reason for this is that they are perfectly equivalent except in one respect, namely that I can perform this action, while creating rocks is currently beyond my ability, or at least without technological aid)?

omnipotent, omniscient

I included the former again here, because the two are mutually exclusive, completely aside from the absurdity of omnipotence already demonstrated. Can your deity do something that he didn't know he'd do? This also contradicts the former attribute of 'perfectly free' stated above.

And now our evidence e:

I'm going to defer this for a moment and come back to it, for reasons that will become apparent.

e1:  the cosmological argument or "the argument from the universe's existence"

Which particular cosmological argument? There are many, and they are not equivalent, except in the sense that none of them hold any water. If you wish to present a specific cosmological argument for us to laugh at, be my guest. I know a little about cosmology, so due rigour please.

e2:  the teleological argument or "the argument from the general pattern of order"

what general pattern of order would that be? In any event, your definition of a teleological argument is wrong. A teleological argument is one that infers design or purpose. Can't wait till you present a robust metric for design.

e3:  arguments from consciousness and morality

And why do you lump these two together? They are not remotely related, except in the loose sense that morality can be said to be a product of consciousness. You certainly can't say that the existence of morality, if it indeed has any kind of existence beyond the conceptual, is evidence for a deity. Further, while consciousness is not fully understood, it's a lot better understood than those who erect such fatuous arguments are comfortable with.

I have an experiment for you, if you wish to test our understanding of consciousness. It's a simple experiment, and it can be conducted without any specialist equipment. All that is required is a suitably robust wall. Are you up for testing it?

e4:  argument from Providence or the opportunities humans have for making significant differences

You'll have to clarify your meaning here.

e5:  arguments from history

Are logical fallacies, yes.

e6:  arguments from miracles

See above.

e7:  argument from religious experience

And again. Swinburne would most definitely not agree with you that any of the above constitute valid constructs, not least because they are, by definition, logical fallacies.

Which brings me back to the section I deferred, namely:

And now our evidence e:

Arguments are not evidence, they're arguments. I do hope you note the distinction between the two. I could argue that gravity is caused by little pixies holding everything down. Does that constitute evidence for the existence of gravity-pixies? Of course it doesn't. Evidence is independent of argument. Evidence can be used to bolster arguments, but arguments themselves do not qualify as evidence, except as evidence that you don't understand what evidence actually is.

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.

Well, in the interests of rigoour, then, please address the highlighted fallacies above, and present these arguments that you seem to think constitute evidence.

Let's get started, which of the above evidential points should we discuss first?

As soon as you present an evidential point, we'll discuss it. Thus far, all we have is apologetic wibble.

[Recusant]

Hackenslash has done a much better job than I expect to do in answering the OP. However, I'm mildly intrigued by the direction this discussion might take, so I think I should take a more active part in it than watching from the sidelines.  I think I'll just go through the list of evidence, and see what I find.

And now our evidence e:
e1: the cosmological argument or "the argument from the universe's existence"

"The universe exists, therefore, God?"  Not buying it. We don't know the origins of the universe, therefore we cannot conclusively say that a god created it, anymore than we can say some extra-dimensional 7th grader did it for her science project homework.

e2: the teleological argument or "the argument from the general pattern of order"

Astrophysicists have done a fair job of explaining the order we see in the universe by means of the properties of physical reality, mainly gravity. These properties seem to be integral to the nature of the universe. "Patterns of order" we see on a smaller scale appear to be generated by properties of precisely the same type as those which generate macroscopic structure in the universe.  There are some variables that aren't understood yet, and there is much to be learned, but so far none of it points conclusively toward the existence of a cosmic engineer. Many of the other patterns which some claim to have perceived are most likely the result of apophenia.  A subset of this argument is the weak anthropic principle, otherwise known as "the universe is fine-tuned to allow life to exist."  This has been thoroughly debunked, but a short answer might be found in the works of Douglas Adams:

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

e3: arguments from consciousness and morality

As hackenslash mentioned, these properly should be two separate points of evidence, but it's your choice.

  Consciousness seems to be a natural emergent property of life.  No deity required there. (I'm curious why you didn't use the existence of living things as a point of evidence.)

Morality.     There are many varieties of morality.  If there's a god, we would see one morality which is universal.  General tendencies toward axioms of desirable behavior in humanity {from which various moral systems have been developed) can be explained by the social nature of our species without any recourse to supernatural entities, let alone a deity.

e4: argument from Providence or the opportunities humans have for making significant differences

What do you mean by significant differences?  I can build a house; that makes a significant difference to the family that will live in the house.  The only way that I would say that the opportunity to build that house came from a god is if I already believed in that god.  I may be missing the true nature of this evidence.

e5: arguments from history

History is a long tale of greed, treachery, murder and rapine, with occasional moments of lucidity when real progress was made.  Where is a god in this tale, aside from being the central theme of one of the favorite shell games run by knaves and charlatans?

e6: arguments from miracles

That the question must be asked, "Do you believe in miracles?" shows that this is no evidence at all.  True miracles would be undeniable examples of supernatural intervention in the world, and known to all.  No such thing.

e7: argument from religious experience

Entirely subjective.  Evidence for the one who has had the experience maybe, but non-transferable. That many have had religious experiences is not evidentiary in light of the fact that many have not. Apparent encounters with the numinous may have other explanations than, "It was God."  They are not conclusive, even if some who've had them consider them so.

You're just toying with me, right?  The swirling red cape has fooled me, and I've charged at it, only to find empty air.  I'm making my turn to see where it went, only to be met with the shiny poignard that I didn't notice you were holding in your other hand all along; the real evidence.  Don't worry, I can take it. This certainly wouldn't be the first time I was made to look like a fool, forced to acknowledge my errors.  Don't hold back.  Bring on the real evidence.

[Ihateyoumike]

Very OT, but I just gotta say this. Recusant, I thouroughly enjoy reading every post by you. In the almost 2 years I've been a member on this site, I've looked forward to reading what you have to say everytime I see that you've posted. You are one of the reasons this is such a great and informative forum. Thank you.  

Now back to your regulary scheduled programming...

[hackenslash]

Excellent post, Recusant.

[Recusant]

Thank you both for your kind words.
I'll say in return, at risk of this sounding like a mutual admiration society, that I honestly admire your superb sense of humor, Ihateyoumike-- I've found myself laughing out loud many times reading your posts. As well, I've found your laser-like posts to be unfailingly on target and well written, hackenslash, if occasionally abrasive.

[Inevitable Droid]

And now our evidence e:

Hmm.  Since you don't actually provide any arguments, I'll pretend you offered evidence against God's existence.

e1:  the cosmological argument or "the argument from the universe's existence"

You're right, that an omnipotent, omniscient God made a whole big universe of matter is pretty implausible.  Why bother?  Why not make a video game world where nobody has to use the bathroom?  Everybody could have cool gear, and if they died, it would just be a restart!  This universe of matter is pretty lame by comparison.  No way it was created by someone who can do anything.

e2:  the teleological argument or "the argument from the general pattern of order"

I agree, a universe of consistent order is way too boring for a Creator who can do anything.  Would you make a universe that stayed largely the same for millions if not billions of years?  No way!  I sure woudln't.  My universe would reboot daily.  New color scheme, new laws, new challenges.  Plus everybody would move around to different planets.  Today Earth, tomorrow Mars, next day Jupiter!  Why not?  I'm omnipotent!

e3:  arguments from consciousness and morality

Well, consciousness seems like something I'd create, but morality?  Never.  My universe would have one rule: "Don't get caught!"  I mean, why the heck would I want my creations wasting time getting all worked up over tedious conundrums of right and wrong?  I want them going off on quests, invading strongholds, fighting, killing, stealing - the game's no fun otherwise!

e4:  argument from Providence or the opportunities humans have for making significant differences

Aren't those mutually exclusive?  Providence is determinism.  Making a significant difference goes out the window if we're automotons, right?  I don't actually think that, but theists seem to.  But you're right, if I were God, I'd be too lazy to provide Providence.  I'd press the start button, sit back, sip a Guinness and watch the show!

e5:  arguments from history

I agree.  If I made a universe, history would get wiped out each morning.  Reboot!

e6:  arguments from miracles

Right!  Exactly!  Why the heck would I make a universe where my rules got broken?  Why make rules, then?  Seems silly.

e7:  argument from religious experience

Heck yes.  If I made a universe, none of my creations would ever experience me!  I want my privacy!  If no one can see me, I can sit and watch naked and nobody'd know!

Excellent arguments.  I agree.  The God proposition is completely implausible!

[hackenslash]

if occasionally abrasive.

[SSY]

You're just toying with me, right?  The swirling red cape has fooled me, and I've charged at it, only to find empty air.  I'm making my turn to see where it went, only to be met with the shiny poignard that I didn't notice you were holding in your other hand all along; the real evidence.  Don't worry, I can take it. This certainly wouldn't be the first time I was made to look like a fool, forced to acknowledge my errors.  Don't hold back.  Bring on the real evidence.

That would be a staggeringly original debating tactic.

The OP mainly seems to be "Throw as many arguments at them as I can, hopefully one sticks", less original, but it does give us a lot of cud upon which to chew.

[bandit4god]

Thanks, Recusant, responses follow.

e1: the cosmological argument or "the argument from the universe's existence" - "The universe exists, therefore, God?"  Not buying it. We don't know the origins of the universe, therefore we cannot conclusively say that a god created it, anymore than we can say some extra-dimensional 7th grader did it for her science project homework.

Being outside of science, the uncaused cause at the origin of the universe is either the universe itself or God.  If the universe itself, then why wasn't the equilibrium of the billions of years before the Big Bang maintained?  Either position takes faith, so pick your poison!

e2: the teleological argument or "the argument from the general pattern of order" - Astrophysicists have done a fair job of explaining the order we see in the universe by means of the properties of physical reality, mainly gravity. These properties seem to be integral to the nature of the universe. "Patterns of order" we see on a smaller scale appear to be generated by properties of precisely the same type as those which generate macroscopic structure in the universe.  There are some variables that aren't understood yet, and there is much to be learned, but so far none of it points conclusively toward the existence of a cosmic engineer. Many of the other patterns which some claim to have perceived are most likely the result of apophenia.  A subset of this argument is the weak anthropic principle, otherwise known as "the universe is fine-tuned to allow life to exist."  This has been thoroughly debunked, but a short answer might be found in the works of Douglas Adams:

This is the primary argument that convinced atheist philosopher Antony Flew to recently convert to theism.  To go where he went, you need to think much higher than your above points.  Why is there meaning at all?  Why is there a pattern of order that operates according to information?  Don't take that for granted, it's quite an extraordinary thing!  When we look at the periodic table and the attributes that rows and columns of elements have in common, the explanatory power of an argument to agency seems more cogent than one of "that's just how it is, bro"

e3: arguments from consciousness and morality - As hackenslash mentioned, these properly should be two separate points of evidence, but it's your choice.  Consciousness seems to be a natural emergent property of life.  No deity required there. (I'm curious why you didn't use the existence of living things as a point of evidence.)

A natural emergent property of life?  You're in sparse company of atheists who admit it even exists, so I'll have to ask you to elucidate your position on consciousness.  A fairly effective argument concerning consciousness is "matter cannot produce thought".  To be sure, brain events and mental events are connected, but the former does not completely explain the latter.  Let's say that in the next few years, a machine was created that could scan your brain and record when each synapse fires in real time.  What decoder ring would you use to translate a 1 or 0 (fire or no-fire) into thoughts?  There is none.  It is not a scientifically attainable goal to discover what a person is thinking from brain events.  If the pleasure center of my brain lights up when I see Megan Fox, is it because I'm thinking "she's hot" or am I thinking "I'm so glad she's my girlfriend.  It's beyond the reach of science to ever know.  If, then, mental events are only known to the subject experiencing the event while brain events are observable, they are separate things and support the argument to consciousness.

Morality.     There are many varieties of morality.  If there's a god, we would see one morality which is universal.  General tendencies toward axioms of desirable behavior in humanity {from which various moral systems have been developed) can be explained by the social nature of our species without any recourse to supernatural entities, let alone a deity.

I've never put a whole lot of stock in arguing to the existence of God from the existence of morality.  It's an endless debate of premises that only gives hackenslash a chance to gratuitously use the term "Laplacian determinism" for the 5 billionth time!  The argument from human awareness of moral principles, however, is more interesting.  While there are many varieties of moralities, as you observe, it is curious to me that humans have the capacity to think of things as having moral truth values.  In other words, a survey of adults asking whether Hitler's genocidal actions were were evil is not interesting to me because 99.9% of respondents said yes, but that human have the awareness of moral truth values to issue (and respond to) the survey in the first place.  Why just "take for granted" that we're wired that way?  Why?

e4: argument from Providence or the opportunities humans have for making significant differences - What do you mean by significant differences?  I can build a house; that makes a significant difference to the family that will live in the house.  The only way that I would say that the opportunity to build that house came from a god is if I already believed in that god.  I may be missing the true nature of this evidence.

I wouldn't have expected this to be a head-scratcher, I would have thought that you'd have run across this one before.  It's basically that, going beyond the cosmological (universe exists) and teleological (universe is orderly), there's a third step that argues to the existence of God from the fact that the universe is one in which humans can provide for themselves, provide for others, and manipulate the contents thereof to do creative things.  As a video game fan, I observe that developers are eons away from creating an MMO with all of the detailed, nuanced options available to a person in the real world.  And even then, the options would be limited to stuff you can (only) see on the TV and control with your thumbs.  Ours is a pretty cool world, huh?

e5: arguments from history - history is a long tale of greed, treachery, murder and rapine, with occasional moments of lucidity when real progress was made.  Where is a god in this tale, aside from being the central theme of one of the favorite shell games run by knaves and charlatans?

Where did the Jews come from?  What was the initial cause to create a people conceiving themselves as "Hebrew"?

e6: arguments from miracles - That the question must be asked, "Do you believe in miracles?" shows that this is no evidence at all.  True miracles would be undeniable examples of supernatural intervention in the world, and known to all.  No such thing.

This one gets snarky and subjective, so will defer until later in the discussion.

e7: argument from religious experience - Entirely subjective.  Evidence for the one who has had the experience maybe, but non-transferable. That many have had religious experiences is not evidentiary in light of the fact that many have not. Apparent encounters with the numinous may have other explanations than, "It was God."  They are not conclusive, even if some who've had them consider them so.

Defer also.

You're just toying with me, right?  The swirling red cape has fooled me, and I've charged at it, only to find empty air.  I'm making my turn to see where it went, only to be met with the shiny poignard that I didn't notice you were holding in your other hand all along; the real evidence.  Don't worry, I can take it. This certainly wouldn't be the first time I was made to look like a fool, forced to acknowledge my errors.  Don't hold back.  Bring on the real evidence.

This topic on the existence of God has been bandied about for hundreds of years by folks much smarter than you or (especially) me, so you're asking a tall order of this funny little forum if you want to get to the bottom of things.  Let's just have fun talking about it and see if we can learn something new from each other.

[Whitney]

For the record, pretty much every philosophical argument for god has at one point or another been discussed on this forum.  

I'm going to let the others field this one, they are doing a good job and I don't have the patience.

[Velma]

For the record, pretty much every philosophical argument for god has at one point or another been discussed on this forum.  

I'm going to let the others field this one, they are doing a good job and I don't have the patience.

Not just here, Whitney.  I've seen the same arguments made on several other forums.  If there is a forum where atheists congregate where these philosophical arguments haven't been made, I'd like to know where it is, because I find them quite boring and useless.

[Whitney]

I agree they are ultimately useless.  I can make a convincing argument for the existence of fairies but that only stands up if my premises hold water...the pro god arguments that even look a little bit good have holey premises.