Happy Atheist Forum

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?

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.

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?

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

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

Quote from: "bandit4god"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:

Quoteperfectly free

Can your deity counter the law of non-contradiction?

Quoteomnipotent

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)?

Quoteomnipotent, 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.

QuoteAnd now our evidence e:

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

Quotee1:  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.

Quotee2:  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.

Quotee3:  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?

Quotee4:  argument from Providence or the opportunities humans have for making significant differences

You'll have to clarify your meaning here.

Quotee5:  arguments from history

Are logical fallacies, yes.

Quotee6:  arguments from miracles

See above.

Quotee7:  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:

QuoteAnd 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.

QuoteIt 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.

QuoteLet'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.

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.

Quote from: "bandit4god"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.

Quote from: "bandit4god"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 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html), but a short answer might be found in the works of Douglas Adams:

Quote from: "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!"

Quote from: "bandit4god"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.

Quote from: "bandit4god"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.

Quote from: "bandit4god"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?

Quote from: "bandit4god"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.

Quote from: "bandit4god"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.

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...

Excellent post, Recusant.

Thank you both for your kind words.(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg94.imageshack.us%2Fimg94%2F1672%2Fredfaceu.gif&hash=577381cccbc14f407ce522721979a2b4d1856352)
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.

Quote from: "bandit4god"And now our evidence e:

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

Quotee1:  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.

Quotee2:  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!

Quotee3:  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!

Quotee4:  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!

Quotee5:  arguments from history

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

Quotee6:  arguments from miracles

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

Quotee7:  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!

Quote from: "Recusant"if occasionally abrasive. :D

Quote from: "Recusant"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.

Thanks, Recusant, responses follow.

Quote from: "Recusant"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!

Quotee2: 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 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html), 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"

Quotee3: 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.

QuoteMorality.     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?

Quote from: "bandit4god"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?

Quotee5: 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"?

Quotee6: 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.

Quotee7: 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.

QuoteYou'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.

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.

Quote from: "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.

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.

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.

Quote from: "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.

Yes they do.  

Quote from: "Velma"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.

Such a forum would have to be one where Christians aren't allowed to make arguments at all.

For once I'd like to meet a Christian honest enough to say, "I want to go to heaven after I die, and to go to heaven I have to think and say these things, so I think and say them."

Or to say, "To avoid mental chaos I need an external source of wisdom on which to center my mind, and the bible provides me that, so I don't question it."

Or to say, "My epistomology is, 'If it feels right, believe it.'"

Any Christian that honest would be able to just say one of the above and then join us atheists in all sorts of other discussions, participating constructively, without bothering to mention God.

While I await Recusant's response, I have a few problems:

Quote from: "bandit4god"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!

Sure, either one of those positions currently takes faith. Why should I accept either of those positions? I'm just fine with not accepting anything without supporting empirical evidence.

Quote from: "bandit4god"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"

This is not only an appeal to an atheist authority, it also has a poor analogy: can you explain how a pattern of order operates according to information?

Quote from: "bandit4god"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.

Instead of merely speculating what is and is not possible to discover, I'll just leave it at assuming that I don't know whether it will be possible or not. However, given the track record of scientific discovery, I doubt that anything that is real is beyond our understanding.

Quote from: "bandit4god"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?

Why posit that we're not?

Quote from: "bandit4god"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?

Not for most people.

Quote from: "bandit4god"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.

Why accept something as true if you don't understand it?

I'm honored that you chose to reply to my post first bandit4god, but to be fair, hackenslash's answer should take precedence.  I hope that you will take some time to reply to his excellent points, because I actually believe that his response is stronger than mine.  I'd hate to think that you were just answering me because  my arguments are weaker than his. That point made, I'm not going to use it as an excuse to delay answering you. You must understand though, that I'm speaking for myself; I'm not defending the "atheist position," so much as defending "Recusant's position."

Quote from: "bandit4god"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!

"Uncaused cause?"  By what means did you arrive at that?  To me it sounds like pure conjecture.  I know that it's a standard item of Christian apologetics, but I don't think that I've ever seen an adequate basis for positing it's existence.  We simply do not know the "cause" of the universe, so to describe it as an "uncaused cause" is to make an assumption to which we aren't entitled. I'm going to drop the "uncaused" until you can show a good reason why we should make such an assumption about the nature of the origin of the universe.

"...[W]hy wasn't the equilibrium of the billions of years before the Big Bang maintained?"  Who said anything about "billions of years?"   We certainly can't assume that time existed until the moment of the Big Bang.  "Before" the Big Bang is, according to current understanding, a meaningless concept.  I seem to recall one of the most brilliant minds which has wrestled with these matters (Stephen Hawking) saying something along the lines of, "What's south of the South Pole?" when referring to the question of "before the Big Bang."  Since we have absolutely no data (nor even a solid grasp of what might have occurred) from Planck time backward, we cannot make any meaningful statements regarding that era, let alone "before" it.  We can be reasonably sure that the universe exists, however.  I think that only a solipsist would insist that the existence of the universe is something we must take on faith. On the other hand, faith (on the part of some of the population) is our only current basis for the proposition that a god exists.  Until we have proof that a god exists, to posit one as the cause of the universe is to add an unproved, and as far as we know, unnecessary element to our thinking about the universe.  Ockham's Razor would lead us to discard this element.  I say again, we don't know the origin of the universe.  To confess ignorance is not the same thing as to rely on faith, despite your assertion that it is. You present a false dichotomy.

Quote from: "bandit4god"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"

I have no desire to follow Antony Flew.

"Why is there meaning at all" is a problem that philosophers are still chewing on.  You can take one of any number of opinions on that subject, and find several opinions which disagree with it.  I'll give you my own personal answer, but I remind you that I'm not defending an "atheist position" via that answer.  There is meaning because homo sapiens requires meaning to proceed with the business of living.  We as a species most likely manufacture meaning, as part of our mental toolkit for coping with our environment.

"Why is there a pattern of order that operates according to information?"  
What information?

I studied the periodic table when I was in high school.  I don't recall the basis of it's arrangement being "Because that's the way God made it."  On the contrary, it had to do with the arrangement of the constituent parts of the atoms themselves, which produced properties of matter that were classifiable.  It is a purely empirical understanding of matter.  To me that understanding seems more cogent than "A supernatural being chose to make it so."

Quote from: "bandit4god"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.

Even the most advanced neurological scientists do not fully understand how the human brain works.  Should they just give up studying it because people like you believe that "matter cannot produce thought?"  You blithely dismiss the possibility that we will one day understand the function of our brains.  I do not.  We had a member here recently who tried to use a similar argument.  He felt that paramecia are conscious, and that the constituent parts of the paramecium cannot support consciousness.  Just like you, he felt that he understood enough about consciousness to make such definitive statements.  I think that both you and he are incorrect. You overestimate your own understanding, and underestimate the potential for understanding our world and our brain which science presents.

Quote from: "bandit4god"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?

I know that other social species seem to have an instinctive means of maintaining their "society."  Are they aware of "moral truth values" as well?  I'm quite willing to take for granted that their brains are indeed "wired" to allow them to function as a group. Because we don't rely on our instincts as much as other animals does not mean that we don't have them at all. If they evolved, and we evolved, I think it's reasonable to assume that what we term morality only differs from the instincts of other social species because we are not bound as strictly by our instincts.  We are an extremely adaptable species.  We wouldn't be so adaptable if our instincts were as powerful as those of other animals.  We evolved intelligence as a means of adapting, which has given us the opportunity to exploit a wide variety of habitats.  We lost the strict guidance which instincts give to other species in the process.  Thus we are troubled by questions of morality, but there is still a (weakened) core of instinctive social imperatives which allows us to continue as a social species. This seems to me to be a reasonable explanation of what I know of humans and human history.

Quote from: "bandit4god"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?

I would agree that this is a pretty cool world.  I'll tell you what though; I wouldn't think it was as cool if I believed it was the creation of some cosmic game programmer.  That thought is actually rather nauseating to me.  

Quote from: "bandit4god"Where did the Jews come from? What was the initial cause to create a people conceiving themselves as "Hebrew"?

So because the Hebrews came up with YHVH, which you happen to think is the creator god, they are as special as they think they are?  No.  Many many cultures have come up with deities; many of them quite different than YHVH.  Are they something special too? All of humanity is special.  Which actually means that from another perspective, none of it is.  Give me a break.  Is the phenomenal rise of the Arabs, and subsequent domination by their religion of large parts of the world a reason to believe that their version of a god is valid?  Mass delusion is not evidence of a deity. Jew, Arab, Roman, Amerindian, Hindu; the list is long.  You take your pick.

Quote from: "bandit4god"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.

I don't expect to get to the bottom of things, if by that you mean one of us suddenly agreeing that the other's view of the world is correct.  It would be very cool if I learned something from you, but I doubt that I can help you learn anything (I'm no genius, either).  For me this is a type of sport, I guess.  I like the exercise for it's own sake, and don't expect any other benefit.  I don't engage in it as much as I once did, and perhaps I'm gradually losing my taste for it.  Maybe one day I'll be like a couple of the other members in this thread, and be content to walk away from such pastimes, considering them too tedious and pointless to be fun.  I keep my hand in for now.

Quote from: "bandit4god"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!

At the bottom of my sig, currently, is a motto I made for myself: "In the face of mystery, do science, not theology."  I think this is one of the best sentences I ever said, wrote, or thought.  I'm very proud of it.  It would make an excellent epitaph for my tombstone, and a great tattoo as well, if I wanted one, although I'd make it an acronym for the tattoo: ITFOMDSNT.  Let my imaginary tattoo be my reply to your points that follow.  

Oh, but by way of preface, I'll mention another acronym I made up, preceded by an indefinite article: the UIGO.  That stands for, the Universes's Impersonal Governing Order, and represents the laws of nature, the axioms of mathematics, and the rules of logic.  The UIGO is continually being investigated by the people best qualified to do so, namely, scientists, mathematicians, and logicians.  There is no reason to posit anything antecedent or in any way causal to the UIGO.  The sensible response to the UIGO is either a shrug and a nod of the head, or else curiosity, not as to origins, but as to what other laws of nature, axioms of mathematics, or rules of logic can be uncovered, or what other uses we can make of the ones we already know.

QuoteWhy 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"

ITFOMDSNT.

QuoteA natural emergent property of life?  You're in sparse company of atheists who admit it [consciousness - Droid] even exists

I would be astonished to learn that your comment above is accurate, since one would have to doubt that one is experiencing what one is experiencing, a doubt instantaneously rejected by any but the most bizarre mind.  What many neurobiologists do is disregard consciousness because they currently have no way to access it.  Similarly, most of us disregard the planet Jupiter most of the time, because we have no way to access it.  We don't make the leap to saying Jupiter doesn't exist.  Many neurobiologists also choose to view consciousness as an epiphenomenon of neurological activity, which means, if/when we know and understand all there is to know and understand about neurological activity*, we will know and understand all there is to know and understand about consciousness.    

* We don't yet, by a long shot - long, long, long, long, long.

Quote, so I'll have to ask you to elucidate your position on consciousness

Mystery.  ITFOMDSNT.

QuoteA 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.

Yet.

QuoteIt 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.

Unsubstantiated conjecture.

QuoteThe 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?

Mystery.  ITFOMDSNT.

QuoteIt'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?

The world meets our needs (often enough to keep us alive, until it doesn't) because if it didn't, we wouldn't be here, because our parents wouldn't have been here, and their parents wouldn't have been here.  The Earth's conduciveness to human survival is the very opposite of a mystery.  It's a logical necessity.

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

Apparently this guy Abraham took a wife, Sarah, and they had a son named Isaac, who took a wife, Rebecca, and these two had a son, Jacob, who took two wives, Leah and Rachel, who together gave Jacob twelve sons.

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

I was actually amazed you offered miracles as proof of God's existence, on an atheist forum.  Atheists consider miracles as such impossible, since natural laws cannot be contravened, else they wouldn't be natural laws, but merely natural suggestions.  We therefore view the accounts of miracles in the bible to be unreliable in the extreme.  Nevertheless, if some particular inexplicable phenomenon from the bible were discovered to have actually happened, and I was pressed to explain it on a thread like this one, where the subtext was one of debate as to God's existence, my response would be:

Mystery.  ITFOMDSNT.

QuoteDefer also.

I was likewise amazed you offered religious experience, presumably of the sort whereby someone sees, for example, Jesus or Mary, as proof of God's existence - on an atheist forum.  Atheists tend to apply Occam's Razor, which is the principle of preferring a simpler explanation over a more complex one, all else being equal.  Occam's Razor, applied to sightings of Jesus or Mary, yields hallucination induced by chemical imbalance in the brain.  If the entity seen were Superman, or Bugs Bunny, theists themselves would take as non-controversial and even obvious that the explanation was chemical imbalance in the brain.  But make the entity Jesus or Mary, and now the explanation is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent entity who was born of a virgin in Bethlehem.
 

QuoteThis 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.

The fact that you pressed me twice to repent makes me wonder if your own goal on threads like this one is to have fun and learn.

Regarding your preceding arguments, the only way such arguments would be in any way compelling to anyone is if one of the following statements applied to that person.

1. "I want to go to heaven, and to go to heaven I have to think and say certain things, so I do."

2. "To avoid mental chaos I need an external source of wisdom on which to center my mind, and the bible provides me that, so I don't question it."

3. "My epistemology is, 'If it feels right, believe it.'"

Absent any of the above, the response not only to your preceding arguments, but to any argument from nature as a proof of God's existence, any argument from nature at all, will always be, ITFOMDSNT.

Being an inductive argument, doctors of medicine are the only persons I rely on regarding this type. And still I want a second opinion. I don't want to sound ad hominem or ad verecundiam but inductive arguments are inconclusive.

Thanks, hackenslash.

QuoteWhich 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.

An infinite regression of causes leads to Planck time, as Recusant observed.  One's belief about that moment's departure from equilibrium is outside of the empirical.  Yours, Recusant's, and my belief about the cause of the Planck moment is what each of us take as a Brute Fact.  The oft quoted Occam's Razor approach of simplest is best would cause one to consider which is the simplest of two types of explanations for the cause of the event at Planck time: agency or non-agency?

Quotewhat 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.

Stability.  Predictability.  Empiricism.  That each successively complex arrangement of matter has powers and liabilities that can be reliably observed.  

QuoteAnd 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 handled the Human Awareness of Morality bit in my response to Recusant, though I think he replied with some other comments.  Will continue discussion there.

QuoteI 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?

I am certainly up for testing it, under one condition: that you acknowledge that my decision to comply with your experiment is, in fact, a choice that is not the result of trillions of microcausal events, but rather the choice of a conscious will.

QuoteAnd 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.

He wrote a book titled "The Existence of God" in which these were key pillars of his inductive argument...

QuoteArguments 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.

I feel like a supercomputer trying to send an email over 1991 vintage dial-up.  "The Argument from x" is how philosophers have classified and handled the above topics for a couple hundred years.  The term "evidence e" is part of the technical construct used to build the P-inductive probability formula with which you said you had no objection.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Such a forum would have to be one where Christians aren't allowed to make arguments at all.

For once I'd like to meet a Christian honest enough to say, "I want to go to heaven after I die, and to go to heaven I have to think and say these things, so I think and say them."

Any Christian that honest would be able to just say one of the above and then join us atheists in all sorts of other discussions, participating constructively, without bothering to mention God.

Or better yet "I can wrap my head around 'God did it', but that science stuff confuses and frightens me so I prefer to continue to believe in magic"

Ah, my favorite topic... an inductive argument for the existence of God.  I, like you, am exhausted by theists who bring about as much intellectual rigor to their faith as they would to a hot dog eating contest, so I read as much as I could get my hands on from all sides of the debate.  Needlesstosay, I'm still a Christian and know exactly why.

This is an old thread I'm refreshing, so please read back through the prior posts--especially the original articulation of the argument--to get caught back up to speed!

- - -

In my late 20s, I put on my sojourner's gear and undertook a clean sheet survey of the full offering of Western philosophy, past and present, to answer the Big Questions using my utmost powers of reason (and that of others brighter than I!). After this sojourn, I came to believe that there is a compelling inductive argument (probability > 0.5) for the existence of God.

Philosopher Richard Swinburne's brilliant work on this topic is much of the reason I came to the conclusion I did. I'll be brief in my below attempt to capture it.

The point of arguments is to get people, in so far as they are rational, to accept conclusions. Deductive arguments for (or against) the existence of God don't work very well because protagonists from either side disagree on the truth of the premises. For example:

P1: If life is meaningful, God exists
P2 Life is meaningful
C: God exists

Athiests (and perhaps many theists!) would likely disagree with P1, P2, or both, making is a poor jumping-off point for discussion. Inductive arguments have much more promise because they can use premises agreeable to many to add to the probability of the conclusion. For example:

P1: 70% of the inhabitants of Dilworth drive a Lexus
P2: Terry inhabits Dilworth
C: Terry drives a Lexus
In the above, the premises can be said to support the conclusion--that is, make C more likely to be true.

Going forward, let's call an argument in which the premises add to the probability of the conclusion a good C-inductive argument. Further, let's call an argument in which the premises make the conclusion probable--that is, P( C ) > 0.5--a good P-inductive argument.

The objective of Swinburne's work was provide an argument for the existence of God that is a good P-inductive argument; that is, P ( C | P0 ... Px ) > 0.5. I take the proposition "God exists" 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."

--------------------

Set out in a great feast, the argument looks as follows--once again, get out your steak knives!

C: God exists

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

P1 (cosmological argument): It is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but rather more likely that God would exist uncaused--therefore, C | P1 is a good C-inductive argument

P2 (teleological argument): It is very unlikely that the general order of the universe would have such laws and boundaries conditions as to make possible the existence of human bodies if ~C, therefore C | P2 is a good C-inductive argument

P3 (argument from consciousness): It is very unlikely that, if there is no God, human bodies would give rise to the conscious life typical of humans, therefore C | P3 is a good C-inductive argument

P4 (argument from human impact): It is very unlikely that, if there is no God, humans would be able to make significant differences and impact the world around them. therefore C | P4 is a good C-inductive argument

P5 (problem of evil): It is as slightly less likely that there would exist evils in the world to such a degree as we see them today if there was a God than we would expect on experiential evidence alone, therefore C | P5 is a good C-inductive argument against the existence of God--but not a very strong one, for reasons Swinburne explains

P6 (problem of hiddenness): It is just as likely as not that, if God exists, there would be an "epistemic distance" between God and man, therefore C | P6 is not a good C-inductive argument for or against the existence of God

P7 (argument from history/miracles): It is unlikely that, if there is no God, there would be such a preponderance of testimony of the involvement of God in human affairs and miracles, therefore C | P7 is a good C-inductive argument--but not a very strong one, for inability to verify the historicity of these events

P8 (argument from religious experience): It is unlikely that, if there is no God, there would be such a preponderance of personal testimony from contemporaries of conscious mental events involving God, therefore C | P8 is a good C-inductive argument for the existence of God

Taken together:
P ( C | P0, P1, P2, P3, P4, P7, P8) - P ( ~C | P0, P5, P6 ) > 0.5

In other words, it is more probable than not that God exists. There is a book full of attendant logical constructs (Bayes' theorem) and evidence presented that I have to leave out here, but hope the above gives a good flavor!

-------------------------

Alvin Plantinga does a great job of explaining further that Christians believe there are broader sources of knowledge than naturalistic learning, the firing of neurons and synapses, etc.. Mind events--perhaps even soul events--such as those that take place with the aid of the Holy Spirit, provide experience and knowledge outside of naturalistic means.

And finally, other philosophers bring to bear terrific arguments from information. DNA segments and strands have been shown to contain information, real meaning. The precipitant actions they invoke in cells are not a product of physics, the cells actually "read" them and act in concert with the information contained therein. How is there even such a thing as meaning or information? WHY does GA-TA-GC... mean what it does?  It is unlikely that, if there is no God, meaning or information would exist in this consistent, readable, non-physics based form.

Cool, it looks like you've added a couple of premises here, bandit4god. For now, unless you want to continue discussing the ones you used in the OP, I'll just be looking at the "new" ones.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 01:12:17 AMP0 (instrinsic probability): That C would be true is the simpler than ~C, therefore C has a higher intrinsic probability than ~C

Why is it simpler if there is a god? Also, why is it simpler if the god is YHVH in particular? As it is, we have the natural universe that all of us experience every day. It seems undeniable that adding a god to this is adding an element, which makes the situation more complex. It simplifies things for theists because they can answer questions by invoking that god, but again, they are adding an element which in reality is not parsimonious at all.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 01:12:17 AMP5 (problem of evil): It is as slightly less likely that there would exist evils in the world to such a degree as we see them today if there was a God than we would expect on experiential evidence alone, therefore C | P5 is a good C-inductive argument against the existence of God--but not a very strong one, for reasons Swinburne explains

So the degree of evil (however "evil" is defined) present in the world being greater makes the existence of a god more likely? Please expand on that one.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 01:12:17 AMAlvin Plantinga does a great job of explaining further that Christians believe there are broader sources of knowledge than naturalistic learning, the firing of neurons and synapses, etc.. Mind events--perhaps even soul events--such as those that take place with the aid of the Holy Spirit, provide experience and knowledge outside of naturalistic means.

And finally, other philosophers bring to bear terrific arguments from information. DNA segments and strands have been shown to contain information, real meaning. The precipitant actions they invoke in cells are not a product of physics, the cells actually "read" them and act in concert with the information contained therein. How is there even such a thing as meaning or information? WHY does GA-TA-GC... mean what it does?  It is unlikely that, if there is no God, meaning or information would exist in this consistent, readable, non-physics based form.

I'm not interested by Plantinga's musings, so I'm not going to bother with them. Maybe somebody else will take you up on that one.

As for DNA, I agree that its function is not a product of physics (at least not directly). It's a product of chemistry. Do you actually deny that DNA is a chemical, and that what happens inside of a cell is chemical reactions? Maybe you could expand on that one too.

Though scientists don't currently understand the details of how life arose on earth, that doesn't mean that they never will. You are making an argument from ignorance and incredulity. First, since we don't yet know how life arose on earth, you feel justified in saying that your god created it. Second, since you don't think it's possible that life arose as a result of natural processes, you consider yourself doubly justified in invoking your god as the creator. This seems to me to be simply the "god of the gaps" fallacy.

Quote from: Recusant on October 16, 2011, 10:44:59 AM
Why is it simpler if there is a god? Also, why is it simpler if the god is YHVH in particular? As it is, we have the natural universe that all of us experience every day. It seems undeniable that adding a god to this is adding an element, which makes the situation more complex. It simplifies things for theists because they can answer questions by invoking that god, but again, they are adding an element which in reality is not parsimonious at all.

The foundational, intrinsic probability of an explanation being accurate is mainly a function of how simple it is.  The police, when trying to solve a murder, will by default assume it was one agent acting alone rather than two or three.  The evidence may thereafter dictate stronger explanatory power to a more complex hypothesis, but the default is simplicity.

Bare theism is a very simple hypothesis indeed because, being a personal explanation, posits the simplest kind of person imaginable.  Being eternal, vice coming into existence at such and such a time.  All powerful, as opposed to having this or that power only.  All knowing, as opposed to knowing only this or that.  All places at once, as opposed to being limited to this or that spatial region.  Completely free, as opposed to having only such and such freedom.  It's also the simplest intent-driven explanation which, as we're finding on the other thread, is worth considering beside non-intent-driven ones.

The alternative, a non-intent-driven explanation, is simpler from the perspective that we see things happen in nature that are free of sentient intent.  But this is not the perspective of intrinsic probability--that is, probability based solely on the bare simplicity of the hypothesis before applying any inductive evidence.  Taken this way, Hawking's concept of ever-existing and complex laws, while billed by some as simple, was described by Hawking himself on his Discovery tv program as, "difficult to grasp if you are not a physicist or mathemetician.".  Therefore the intrinsic probability of a personal explanation is higher than that of a naturalistic one.

My iPad is acting up, so I'll post this and get to your others in a bit.

Your assertions to the contrary do not actually constitute an effective reply, and in fact in your first paragraph, you restated my point. According to a naturalistic description, we are dealing with the universe itself. However hard to understand the details of its workings may be, the relation is in essence very simple and consists of two elements: the human mind and the universe. The supernaturalist adds a god to the relation: creator god, universe, human mind. The fact that the third element makes certain questions easier to answer for the supernaturalist does not mean it's a more parsimonious position. As for the "intent-driven" issue from the other thread (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8446.0), again, Ockham's Razor/the law of parsimony would lead us to discard any intent-driven explanations for the origin of life on earth, since they add an extraneous element where none is necessary.

Quote from: Recusant on October 16, 2011, 07:23:42 PM
Your assertions to the contrary do not actually constitute an effective reply, and in fact in your first paragraph, you restated my point. According to a naturalistic description, we are dealing with the universe itself. However hard to understand the details of its workings may be, the relation is in essence very simple and consists of two elements: the human mind and the universe. The supernaturalist adds a god to the relation: creator god, universe, human mind. The fact that the third element makes certain questions easier to answer for the supernaturalist does not mean it's a more parsimonious position. As for the "intent-driven" issue from the other thread (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8446.0), again, Ockham's Razor/the law of parsimony would lead us to discard any intent-driven explanations for the origin of life on earth, since they add an extraneous element where none is necessary.

You're having difficulty keeping what you know inductively (nature existed each day of my life, and therefore probably existed for a long time going back through the ages) out of the consideration of the two alternatives for their stated simplicity:
- One person, the simplest kind imaginable, has always existed
- A universe with complex interrelationships between matter, space, time, energy, and other components has always existed

Intrinsic probability is just about the simplicity of the statements themselves based on no inductive evidence.  The opportunity for inductive evidence comes later.

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."

Quote from: Recusant on October 16, 2011, 09:21:59 PM
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

Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 10:17:33 PM

Quote from: Recusant on October 16, 2011, 09:21:59 PM
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"

Quote from: Recusant on October 16, 2011, 10:29:12 PM
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?

Quote from: bandit4god on December 04, 2010, 02:25:28 AMIt 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.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 10:35:14 PMThere 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 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=6316.msg93457#msg93457), 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:

Quote from: bandit4god on October 15, 2011, 01:12:17 AMP0 (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.

Quote from: MrStakhanovite on October 16, 2011, 10:38:04 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on December 04, 2010, 02:25:28 AMIt 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.

QuoteSecond, 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.

QuoteIf 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!

Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 11:15:11 PM
...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.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 11:15:11 PMI have not ignored them.

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

Quote from: Recusant on October 16, 2011, 11:13:09 PM
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.

Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 11:33:37 PMHow is this so difficult?

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

Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 11:33:37 PMYou'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.

Quote from: Recusant on October 16, 2011, 11:49:14 PM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 11:33:37 PMHow is this so difficult?

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

Quote from: bandit4god on October 16, 2011, 11:33:37 PMYou'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?

...



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.

Quote from: Recusant on October 17, 2011, 06:51:09 AMTrying 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.

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?   

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,

Quote...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 (http://www.bible-topics.com/Perfection.html)).

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).

Quote from: Recusant on October 18, 2011, 07:54:38 AM
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,

Quote...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 (http://www.bible-topics.com/Perfection.html)).

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.   

Quote from: Recusant on October 17, 2011, 06:51:09 AM

[ 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.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 19, 2011, 04:02:12 AMI have experiences that lead me to believe; you don't.  Let it go at that.

Fair enough. You aren't the one who proposed the arguments in this thread, and if you aren't interested in defending them, I don't blame you.

Bandit4god obviously put some effort into creating this thread, and then into adding a couple of premises (and additional material) when he returned after his absence. I think that by examining his premises and putting forward counter-arguments/objections, I'm giving him some feedback. I suppose I could have written some sort of off-hand dismissal of the whole thing ("I don't agree with your arguments, and never had a personal numinous experience that convinced me that there is a deity of any sort; I can't be bothered paying attention to those that have"), but that wouldn't have been any fun, nor would it have been a proper acknowledgment of the efforts that he put into his posts in this thread.

He may find my responses frustrating and thick-headed, but he was taking a chance that he would get unsatisfactory responses when he proposed the arguments in the first place.

Regarding your previous post proposing "veri" as opposed to "omni" attributes of the Christian god, I have no problem with that. It's up to Christians to describe their god. However, since you don't seem to put much store in the Old Testament, why bother describing YHVH's opinion of the Amalekites at all? I think it's a good thing for you that you hold that (Old Testament discounted) position though, because in 2 Chronicles 18:22 and Ezekiel 14:9, it certainly sounds as if YHVH is willing to lie. Oops, what about 2 Thessalonians 2:11, where the Christian god purposely sends a delusion so that the followers of "the man of lawlessness" will "believe the lie"? Ah, I forget myself; 2 Thessalonians can also be dismissed as "not a true Pauline epistle." Never mind. YHVH/Jesus/Holy Ghost never lies, if viewed from the proper interpretive perspective. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg830.imageshack.us%2Fimg830%2F860%2Fsmilew.gif&hash=8238eab24d16418eb1c8cd60d971239ab1363c74)

Quote from: Recusant on October 19, 2011, 06:09:45 AM

Regarding your previous post proposing "veri" as opposed to "omni" attributes of the Christian god, I have no problem with that. It's up to Christians to describe their god. However, since you don't seem to put much store in the Old Testament, why bother describing YHVH's opinion of the Amalekites at all? I think it's a good thing for you that you hold that (Old Testament discounted) position though, because in 2 Chronicles 18:22 and Ezekiel 14:9, it certainly sounds as if YHVH is willing to lie. Oops, what about 2 Thessalonians 2:11, where the Christian god purposely sends a delusion so that the followers of "the man of lawlessness" will "believe the lie"? Ah, I forget myself; 2 Thessalonians can also be dismissed as "not a true Pauline epistle." Never mind. YHVH/Jesus/Holy Ghost never lies, if viewed from the proper interpretive perspective. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg830.imageshack.us%2Fimg830%2F860%2Fsmilew.gif&hash=8238eab24d16418eb1c8cd60d971239ab1363c74)

The Bible is not a perfect book.  It may have any number of contradictions.  People are relating their experiences of God, and those differ.  The core of the early Christian gospel revolved around a few historical events such as the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus.  Other than that, there was a wide range of experiences and concepts of God.  It shouldn't surprise anyone that people will experience the same thing differently - take an 80 year-old and a 15 year-old to a Justin Bieber concert and they will have vastly different experiences of the exact same thing.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 18, 2011, 04:26:40 AM
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?    

Bare theism (vice specifically Christian theism, Islamic theism, etc) is the simplest form of theism, and therefore the one with the highest intrinsic probability.  This makes it a fairly useful jumping off point for an inductive argument, the explanatory power of which we can set next to that of atheism.  As I mention above, it is simpler to posit a God with "omni" attributes than "veri" attributes (though, as also mentioned above, it may come to pass that more evidence will be levied that warrants additional specificity).

Quote
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.

This is an exciting perspective, Ecurb, thank you for posting it.  Nearly everyone approaches this topic inductively, and it looks as though your own inductive reasoning process gives considerable weight to your personal experiences.  I have many myself that also carry immense evidential weight (e.g., watching RPGs bounce off of humvees in Iraq, the curious actions of family members in their final minutes, etc.), but past occasions in this and other threads have led me to believe sharing these experiences do little to advance the discussion... and in many cases draw no small amount of ridicule.  So I've opted to keep it cerebral!  :)

Worth mentioning, though, that I have come to find that love is the only way to truly pass these personal experiences on.  I love each and every person on this blog and would cheerfully do all I could to help meet the needs of any out there who are experiencing tough times with their jobs, medical bills, or otherwise to do what I can to help, no strings attached.  Just huck me a personal message, would love to chat!

Quote from: bandit4god on October 20, 2011, 09:42:36 PM

Bare theism (vice specifically Christian theism, Islamic theism, etc) is the simplest form of theism, and therefore the one with the highest intrinsic probability.  This makes it a fairly useful jumping off point for an inductive argument, the explanatory power of which we can set next to that of atheism.  

Deism is the simplest form of theism, therefore in your own words 'the one with the highest intrinsic probability'. But you're a Christian, and Christianity has a creed, a holy book, a son of god, a saviour and an entire religion, therefore it is not 'bare theism'. You believe in lots of things that have nothing inherently to do with the idea of a god. Theism can exist without all of this excess baggage.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 21, 2011, 09:47:02 AM

Quote from: bandit4god on October 20, 2011, 09:42:36 PM

Bare theism (vice specifically Christian theism, Islamic theism, etc) is the simplest form of theism, and therefore the one with the highest intrinsic probability.  This makes it a fairly useful jumping off point for an inductive argument, the explanatory power of which we can set next to that of atheism.  

Deism is the simplest form of theism, therefore in your own words 'the one with the highest intrinsic probability'. But you're a Christian, and Christianity has a creed, a holy book, a son of god, a saviour and an entire religion, therefore it is not 'bare theism'. You believe in lots of things that have nothing inherently to do with the idea of a god. Theism can exist without all of this excess baggage.

Yep!  I'm not delivering an inductive argument to Christian Theism on this thread.  I'm delivering an inductive argument to bare theism.

Even deism adds a complicating hypothesis from the standpoint that it depicts God as "stepping back" or "remaining absent" after the setting in motion of the universe.  Bare theism is even simpler than this in that it doesn't have that hypothesis.

ah cool, sorry b4g, I didn't understand the 'vice specifically Christian theism, Islamic theism' comment. You're right that bare theism is the type with the highest intrinsic probability