Evidence On Both Sides
Victor Reppert knocks down the supposed assertion of atheists that there is no evidence for the existence of God.
A lot depends on what exactly one means by evidence. My own view of evidence, in the context of the discussion of God, is something that is more likely to be there if God exists than if God does not exist. Evidence against God would be something that is more likely to exist if there is no God than if there is a God. With that understanding, I think the fine-tuning of the universe is a clear case of something that is more likely to exist if there is a God than if there is no God, so it's evidence for God. The degree and kind of pain and suffering that exists in the world does seem to be something that is more likely without God than with God, so that's evidence against God. Whether the positive evidence outweighs the negative evidence, to me, is the interesting issue. The no-evidence claim looks like a non-starter. - ReppertTrouble is, the "no-evidence claim" is not the assertion that any reasonable atheist would make. Generally, they hold that there isn't empirical evidence to support the existence of God. Some may use the word 'evidence' when they mean 'empirical evidence' or 'objective evidence', but that is not to deny that theists have some kind of evidence for their beliefs. It may be, however, a denial that they have good evidence for those beliefs. Good evidence is objective and factual. That's something theists lack.
I have addressed these issues repeatedly. In particular, in this post, I referred to a philosophical paper, here, that discusses the epistemic value of factual versus perceived evidence. But it seems that every time theists argue with atheists about evidence for belief in God, they reject the kind of evidence that has the epistemic value that would merit belief. Why? Because they know that kind of evidence simply doesn't exist. And instead of admitting that their evidence is lacking in epistemic value, they fault atheists for wanting good evidence.
As a philosopher, Victor should recognize that not all evidence is equal. In his latest assault on reason, he cites two arguments, claiming that one is evidence for God, an the other is evidence against god. He then notes that it is a question of weighing the positive evidence against the negative evidence. So perhaps it would be worthwhile to examine the epistemic value of those two pieces of evidence.
Victor's positive evidence is the "fine-tuning" of the universe. The first thing to note about this is that it is an assertion, not a fact. Theists have a subjective feeling that the universe is tuned to support our existence. This supposed tuning works at at least two different levels. One of them is the existence of conditions within our universe that are amenable to biological life. The other is the existence of physical laws and constants that are amenable to producing our universe in the first place, a world that has stars and planets where there could possibly be conditions suitable for life.
If we look at the first part of this argument, we will note that most of the universe is utterly hostile to biological life. But there are trillions of stars, and trillions of planets, with a vast range of different environmental conditions. Given this wide variety of conditions, it is not surprising that there is at least one place in the universe where the random combination of those conditions is suitable for life. Indeed, it would be quite surprising if there was not a single place among all those trillions of possibilities where life could be sustained. So it seems to me that given the laws of physics as we see in our universe, it is not reasonable to assert that there is any fine-tuning to support biological life. Most of the universe doesn't support life, but we should expect to find some variant among the broad range of conditions that is favorable for life, by virtue of randomness alone.
As for the second part, we can extend the same reasoning to the laws of physics. If there can be multiple universes, each with its own set of physical laws and constants, then we should expect that at least one variant exists among all the possibilities where we would find a world containing stars and planets. Of course, theists will object that we have no evidence that there is more than one universe. Fair enough. But neither do we have evidence that there is only one universe, and they have no basis for asserting that there must be no other universes. What we do have is an understanding of physics that allows and predicts the existence of multiple universes. And given that understanding, there is absolutely no reason to assume that this is the one and only universe. That being the case, the assertion of fine-tuning falls flat on its face. Fine-tuning as evidence has little epistemic value.
Victor's negative evidence is the existence of suffering. The first thing to note about this is that it is a fact, not just an assertion. If this argument has any merit at all, we can say at the least that it is based on objective fact, as opposed to Victor's positive evidence, which is not based on objective fact. On this basis alone, the negative evidence has greater epistemic value than the positive evidence.
If you want to ignore epistemic value, you can say that it's a battle of collections of evidence that argue for or against the existence of God. But if you are interested in having epistemic justification for what you believe, you should be willing to consider the epistemic value of the evidence. And furthermore, you need to consider all the available evidence. It's not really a question of one collection of evidence for and another collection of evidence against. The real question should be what hypothesis best explains all the evidence we have? The fact of the existence of conditions suitable for life is taken into account along with the fact that most of the universe isn't at all suitable for life. That tends to point to a hypothesis of randomness or lack in intention. In a scientific approach to evaluating evidence, there is no room for cherry-picking bits of evidence that tend to support a favored hypothesis (which is what ID does).
Every theistic argument I have ever heard is based on some assumption or assertion that lacks epistemic justification (or just plain bad logic). If theists were willing to open their eyes and take an honest look at the whole body of evidence available, and giving appropriate weight to that which is objective and factual versus that which is subjective or non-factual, they would find that their arguments fall short. Rather than castigating atheists for demanding evidence that doesn't exist, they should look at the evidence that does exist - all of it. There's a very good reason that there's no objective evidence for their assertions of miracles and immaterial beings: because there are no miracles and immaterial beings. The story told by the totality of evidence is quite clear.
Evidence for the existence of God? Which one? Allah? Ganesha? Shiva? Jupiter? Dionysius?
ReplyDeleteWhat constitutes proof in Reppert's dazed perspective is simply proof of post hoc rationalisation rather than proof of evidence. The list purporting to be proof of god's existence is and always has been a construct of rhetoric rather than a construct grounded in evidence and fact.
Yes, I've heard them all.
DeleteThe amazing thing about Victor is that he's arguing about evidence, and he doesn't want to learn about scientific evidence. As far as I'm concerned, you might be the best philosopher in the world, but if you ignore scientific evidence, you have no basis to make any argument at all involving evidence. It's all just argument from ignorance.
Wow, I can't believe you actually typed the following quote, "Victor's positive evidence is the "fine-tuning" of the universe. The first thing to note about this is that it is an assertion, not a fact. Theists have a subjective feeling that the universe is tuned to support our existence." When I read this I did a face palm that nearly cracked my skull wide open. Ignorant statements like these make me wonder if you have ever paid attention to anything a theist has ever said.
ReplyDeleteOK, now that I'm done venting I'll proceed. Yes, there is a subjective "sense" that theists have that God created and fine tuned the universe, but the fine tuning argument and its support comes from scientific objective facts. According to physicist P.C.W. Davies, changes in either αG or αW of only one part in 10^100 would have prevented life from forming the universe. Also, Oxford physicist Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of the special low entropy condition having arisen by chance alone in the absence of any constraining principles is a least as small as about one part in 10^10(123) in order for the universe to exist. These are odds so insanely low it's not even possible to really wrap our minds around them. So, it's not surprising that you appeal to the multiverse objection. Of course, besides the fact that we can't confirm whether or not there actually is a multiverse, you also don't know that the multiverse, if it actually exists, wasn't caused to exist by a transcendent being. Also, according to Ockham's razor, we should eliminate the multiverse as an explanation for fine tuning as it is far simpler to say that one powerful God set the cosmological constants as they are verses the existence of an infinite number of universes, and we happen to be in "right" one.
As to the problem of evil, I do think that it's obvious that there is evil in the world, but it is also quite possible that God has perfectly good reasons for permitting evil, and that's all one needs to defeat the argument from evil. Before you start objecting about how unconvincing logical possibilities are, remember that skeptics make ample use of logical possibilities when objecting to the various arguments for God's existence.
What is your rock solid objective evidence that an eternal physical brute fact exists outside of the observable universe and that this thing caused the universe to exist?
Let's start with Penrose, who is well respected for his contributions in the field of physics. He says he holds no religious doctrine, but at the same time, he thinks the universe has a purpose. If that's not a religious doctrine, I don't know what is, because it implies that there was a creator who had reason to make the universe. But Penrose also holds certain beliefs that are well outside the mainstream of scientific understanding. For one thing, he thinks that consciousness can't in principle be explained by the known laws of physics. For another, he thinks that cosmic inflation is a fantasy. So his ideas are not well aligned with contemporary science.
DeleteAs to his speculations about entropy, he pulled that probability out of his ass (if he in fact made that calculation). In the singularity (prior to the big bang), all laws of physics break down. Furthermore, nobody knows what conditions existed or how they arose, that were the precursor to the big bang. There's no way to make any such calculation. So in this matter, Penrose is just engaging in pure speculation with little or no scientific basis.
On to Davies: "changes in either αG or αW of only one part in 10^100 would have prevented life from forming the universe". Many real scientists have taken issue with his bogus calculations. Many will tell you that a substantial variance in these constants would still be consistent with producing a universe in which there could be stars and planets. See the discussion in wiki. This paper takes issue with the reasoning that leads to these extremely low probability calculations.
Only deep ignorance and the profound self-serving arrogance of the religiose would have the temerity to peddle the 'fine tuning of the universe' argument as evidence for the existence of gods. Trotting out calculations by Penrose and Davies only serves to compound the extent of that ignorance. Those calculations contribute not a jot to the argument for fine tuning. Indeed they are a non-sequitur to the substance of the claim.
DeleteOne need not go further than Douglas Adams's (of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy fame) Puddle Analogy to sweep away the utter anthropocentric nonsense of 'fine tuning' argument so enamoured of the religiose:
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!"
Yes, the hole fits us rather neatly. But that doesn't mean the hole was designed to have us in it. We evolved to fit in the hole that happened to be here. If the hole had been shaped differently, something else would have happened instead.
And how perfect is this hole, anyway?
Bitter Expanses of Cold and Blasting Chaotic Heat -- The Perfect Vacation Spot!
Douglas Adams' puddle analogy doesn't end there. It continues:
This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. The rest of this article is HERE.
The 'fine tuning of the universe' argument has all the misperceived hallmarks of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west of geo-centricism.
Sheesh!
What is your rock solid objective evidence that an eternal physical brute fact exists outside of the observable universe and that this thing caused the universe to exist?
DeleteThe first thing for you to realize is that I don't have this belief you seem to think I have. I don't know what kind of thing caused the universe to come into existence any better than you do. The difference between us is that you pretend to know. The best I can do is to hypothesize something, and if it turns out that I am wrong about it, it's not going to ruin my life. If some discovery should be made about the real cause of the universe, I will be anxious to learn all about it.
What are the possibilities? There could be some kind of cyclic universe. There could be a sort of transcendent quantum vacuum that spawns universes. There could be some other kind non-intentional of creator, or there could be an intentional creator (what we call God). One last possibility is that the universe just popped into existence without any cause at all. Note that of all the creator possibilities, they all exist outside space-time, and therefore, they are all necessarily transcendent. Note also that none of them must exist necessarily, because it is not necessary that the universe exist at all, and therefore it is not necessary that the creator exist. However, if we want to hold to the notion that the universe is caused by something, we can assume that a transcendent creator of some kind exists.
Why should we think that the creator is intentional? I just don't see it. Despite all the design arguments, a modern-day understanding of science gives us perfectly good explanations for how structure arises, and how biological organisms develop complex mechanisms for coping with their environment. Furthermore, we observe that the appearance of design is superficial. The reality is that things are flawed and imperfect in many ways, and this is perfectly in line with the idea that there was no intelligence behind their development, but it argues strongly against design by intention. Therefore, I have evidence-based reason to reject the notion of an intentional creator. I don't know this for a fact, but a creator god just doesn't fit the observed facts as well as something that simply follows some natural process, and has no purpose or intention.
Of the remaining options, the idea of a cosmic quantum vacuum seems reasonable, for the reason that it appears to be consistent with modern physics, and it is consistent with what we observe in our universe. If there is such a thing, we would expect it to produce multiple universes. Again if this is not the case, it's not going to ruin my life.
I find it interesting to observe how adamant theists are that there is no brute fact thing that creates the universe. What's the difference between that and God? You can rationalize it as being necessary or self explanatory, but your God's existence (if true) is just another brute fact. The real difference is that this God does it intentionally. But as I have said, this intentionality, along with all the other attribute you insist he has, are not evident to me. So why should I think this creator exists?
First, I want to note that you opened with invoking the possibility of the multiverse as an explanation for fine tuning, and now you have switched to saying that it probably doesn't really what value the physical constants take. If it doesn't really matter what value the constants take then why didn't you lead with this instead of trying to explain why we observe the values that we do rather than some other values by invoking an un-observable multiverse?
Deleteim-skeptical wrote: "Let's start with Penrose, who is well respected for his contributions in the field of physics. He says he holds no religious doctrine, but at the same time..."
This whole first paragraph is irrelevant to the discussion, and is an instance of the poisoning the well fallacy. Remember, two can play that game, as a theist could point out that Victor Stenger was an unabashed New Atheist and so was probably less than unbiased when it comes to evaluating things with possible theological implications.
im-skeptical wrote: "As to his speculations about entropy..."
I want to note the temerity you're displaying here in calling out the conclusions of guys with PhD's in mathematics and physics and who both have scientific research named after them.
I could point out that scientists like Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne and Martin Rees all believe that fine tuning is real and significant. Or how a mathematician like John Lennox thinks that fine tuning points to God. Or that philosophers like William Lane Craig and Robin Collins both think that fine tuning has theological implications. But I know that you'll dismiss all these people because they're Christians.
So, instead I'll quote a few guys in your camp instead. Adam Frank, a physicist and open atheist, has written, "Cosmologists have, for example, known for a while that lots of Universes with lots of different kinds of conditions could have popped out of the Big Bang. Most of them would be sterile places where life could never have formed. Physicists call this the problem of "fine tuning" — getting the Big Bang's conditions to be exactly right, such that the Universe allows our existence. Fine-tuning demands an explanation. Without that explanation we seem like a highly improbable accident and physicists hate highly improbable accidents.
There had been the hope that the problem of fine tuning would disappear when deeper laws of physics were discovered. These new laws would explain why we ended up with this Universe and no other. Unfortunately it hasn't worked out that way."
Sean Carroll, a physicist and non-believer who I believe leans towards the atheist camp, wrote, "[O]ur universe looks very unusual. You might think we have nothing to compare it to, but that’s not quite right; given the particles that make up the universe (or the quantum degrees of freedom, to be technical about it), we can compare their actual configuration to all the possible configurations they could have been in. The answer is, our observed universe is highly non-generic, and in the past it was even more non-generic, or “finely tuned.” One way of describing this state of affairs is to say that the early universe had a very low entropy. We don’t know why; that’s an important puzzle, worth writing books about...We find that inflation is very unlikely, in the sense that a negligibly small fraction of possible universes experience a period of inflation. On the other hand, our universe is unlikely, by exactly the same criterion. So the observable universe didn’t “just happen”; it is either picked out by some general principle, perhaps something to do with the wave function of the universe, or it’s generated dynamically by some process within a larger multiverse."
I think that these quotes demonstrate that fine tuning is more than just some vague "sense" that theists have--that it's a real mystery that come from real objective observations about the world that demands an explanation.
im-skeptical wrote: "The first thing for you to realize is that I don't have this belief you seem to think I have. I don't know what kind of thing caused the universe to come into existence any better than you do. The difference between us is that you pretend to know."
DeleteHere we go again, you're back peddling by claiming that you don't really believe anything and that you're completely open to all possibilities even though you wrote, "[T]here are no miracles and immaterial beings. The story told by the totality of evidence is quite clear." Your previous statement clearly shows that you have eliminated God from the list of possible candidates for what caused the observable universe to exist, and so by deduction you're concluding that the candidate must be some sort of physical brute fact. In fact, your rejection of the cosmological arguments for God's existence hinges on the logical possibility that a physical brute fact exists and was the cause of the universe. Well, what is your clear, objective evidence that this physical brute fact exists?
im-skeptical wrote: "What are the possibilities? There could be some kind of cyclic universe. There could be a sort of transcendent quantum vacuum that spawns universes. There could be some other kind non-intentional of creator, or there could be an intentional creator (what we call God). One last possibility is that the universe just popped into existence without any cause at all."
Since you said that it's clear that immaterial beings don't exist, what is your evidence for these other possibilities? What evidence do you have that after 13.8 billion years of expanding that the universe is going snap back into a big crunch? Why would it be the case that there would be just one instance of something popping into existence un-caused out of literally nothing?
im-skeptical wrote: "Note also that none of them must exist necessarily, because it is not necessary that the universe exist at all, and therefore it is not necessary that the creator exist."
DeleteMetaphysical necessity has nothing to do with with whether or not the universe exists, in fact metaphysically necessary things exist necessarily sans anything else because they don't depend on things like matter/energy and time/space in order to exist.
im-skeptical wrote: "Why should we think that the creator is intentional? I just don't see it."
The cause of the universe doesn't have to be an intentional being; it's just that we wouldn't have an explanation that involves an intentional agent making a decision to create the universe.
im-skeptical wrote: "Despite all the design arguments, a modern-day understanding of science gives us perfectly good explanations for how structure arises, and how biological organisms develop complex mechanisms for coping with their environment."
Yes, but this is perfectly consistent with a God who created the universe and set up physical processes that lead to what we observe.
im-skeptical wrote: "Furthermore, we observe that the appearance of design is superficial. The reality is that things are flawed and imperfect in many ways, and this is perfectly in line with the idea that there was no intelligence behind their development, but it argues strongly against design by intention."
Saying that you could have done better than God hardly proves that there was no intelligence behind the mechanisms that lead to the universe we observe.
im-skeptical wrote: "Of the remaining options, the idea of a cosmic quantum vacuum seems reasonable, for the reason that it appears to be consistent with modern physics, and it is consistent with what we observe in our universe."
OK, what is your objective evidence that quantum vacuums are un-caused, eternally existing things? Saying that we observe them now is hardly convincing because the universe is filled with temporal, contingent things.
im-skeptical wrote: "I find it interesting to observe how adamant theists are that there is no brute fact thing that creates the universe. What's the difference between that and God?"
The difference between God and say the quantum vacuum is that God exists in all possible universes while the QV can't. The QV depends on the existence of space/time and energy in order to exist while God does not.
First, I want to note that you opened with invoking the possibility of the multiverse as an explanation for fine tuning, and now you have switched to saying that it probably doesn't really what value the physical constants take.
DeleteI never said it doesn't matter what values the physical constants take. I explained that of all the possibilities, there are some combinations that are compatible with a world that supports life. Also I would never say that the universe is fine-tuned. I would say that this is an illusion because out of all the many possibilities we could only exist in the subset that is compatible with life. So no matter what those constants turn out to be, it is 100% certain that we will end up living in a universe where the values are "just right".
The term "fine-tuning" itself is a reference to God (the one who tweaks the knobs). So any atheist who uses that term is merely being deferential to the theists who propose it. By definition, atheists don't believe that the universe is tuned by any god. Why do I mention that the people you cited are theists? Because by definition, you have to be a theist to believe that the universe is fine-tuned. And if you're a theist, then you believe things that are not scientific. If you're a theist, you're not looking for a natural explanation for the universe, because you already think you know what created it. So pardon me for pointing out that "scientists" who think fine-tuning is real are theists. But that very fact is what prevents them from being objective.
Adam Frank, a physicist and open atheist, has written ...
He says that this fine-tuning is a problem that demands an explanation. Where you ended the quote, he goes on to mention a multiverse as a possible explanation. This idea is not favored by some scientists, and rejected almost universally by theists (remember that objectivity thing?), but it has gained respect steadily since the time it was first postulated. I don't know if it's true or not, and neither does anybody else, but it has the advantage that it is fully consistent with physics (it doesn't require us to reformulate what we already understand), and it even has some possibility of empirical confirmation.
Sean Carroll, a physicist and non-believer who I believe leans towards the atheist camp, wrote ...
It's fairly easy to find some words that you can take out of context to support your point. Carroll is not in any way saying that he believes the universe is fine-tuned. He has argued strongly against it.
it's a real mystery that come from real objective observations about the world that demands an explanation.
We all want to know why things are the way they are. Theists have a ready-made explanation. Meanwhile, scientists are searching for answers.
Here we go again, you're back peddling by claiming that you don't really believe anything and that you're completely open to all possibilities even though you wrote ...
DeleteI haven't backpedaled on anything. I consider the possibilities. The evidence tends to point us to certain conclusions. We don't reject some possibilities out-of-hand, we reject them on the basis of evidence. You can point to "fine-tuning" as evidence for God, but many feel that there are better hypotheses for why the universe turns out to be the way we find it.
your rejection of the cosmological arguments for God's existence hinges on the logical possibility that a physical brute fact exists and was the cause of the universe. Well, what is your clear, objective evidence that this physical brute fact exists?
I have the exact same evidence that you do. We just look at it differently. I think my hypothesis is a better explanation for the evidence we see than yours is.
Since you said that it's clear that immaterial beings don't exist, what is your evidence for these other possibilities? What evidence do you have that after 13.8 billion years of expanding that the universe is going snap back into a big crunch? Why would it be the case that there would be just one instance of something popping into existence un-caused out of literally nothing?
I said the evidence tells a story. There's nothing in it that leads me to believe there are immaterial beings - absolutely nothing. I didn't mean to imply that I believe all the other possibilities are equally likely. In fact I also rejected the uncaused universe.
metaphysically necessary things exist necessarily sans anything else because they don't depend on things like matter/energy and time/space in order to exist.
The metaphysical necessity of God is implied by theists from the existence of our world. If there were no universe, there would be no basis for the five ways, for example, and so God would not be metaphysically necessary.
The cause of the universe doesn't have to be an intentional being; it's just that we wouldn't have an explanation that involves an intentional agent making a decision to create the universe.
Nor do we need one.
Yes, but this is perfectly consistent with a God who created the universe and set up physical processes that lead to what we observe.
It's also consistent with no God, which is a better explanation.
Saying that you could have done better than God hardly proves that there was no intelligence behind the mechanisms that lead to the universe we observe.
Doesn't prove, but does argue strongly against it.
OK, what is your objective evidence that quantum vacuums are un-caused, eternally existing things? Saying that we observe them now is hardly convincing because the universe is filled with temporal, contingent things.
Same evidence you have for your uncaused God, except that quantum vacuums are observed, and God isn't.
The difference between God and say the quantum vacuum is that God exists in all possible universes while the QV can't. The QV depends on the existence of space/time and energy in order to exist while God does not.
I can easily postulate a universe in which God does not exist. Our is an example. Like God, the QV is postulated as the thing that creates space, time and matter, not the other way around.
im-skeptical wrote: "The term "fine-tuning" itself is a reference to God (the one who tweaks the knobs). So any atheist who uses that term is merely being deferential to the theists who propose it."
DeleteNo, the Wikipedia article on fine-tuning says, "In theoretical physics, fine-tuning refers to circumstances when the parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in order to agree with observations." Notice that this definition says nothing about God and the tweaking of knobs. So, the finely-tuned nature of the physical constants is an objective scientific fact, and not just a vague feeling that theists have. Now, the fine-tuning argument for God's existence takes this fact and argues that God is the best explanation for why we see the values that we do rather than others.
im-skeptical wrote: "I would say that this is an illusion because out of all the many possibilities we could only exist in the subset that is compatible with life. So no matter what those constants turn out to be, it is 100% certain that we will end up living in a universe where the values are "just right".
This is completely circular reasoning.
im-skeptical wrote: "He says that this fine-tuning is a problem that demands an explanation. Where you ended the quote, he goes on to mention a multiverse as a possible explanation. This idea is not favored by some scientists, and rejected almost universally by theists (remember that objectivity thing?), but it has gained respect steadily since the time it was first postulated. I don't know if it's true or not, and neither does anybody else, but it has the advantage that it is fully consistent with physics (it doesn't require us to reformulate what we already understand), and it even has some possibility of empirical confirmation."
Yes, but he didn't deny that there is fine-tuning in the universe or that fine tuning is just a vague feeling that only theists have. Of course, since he's an atheist, he'll appeal to something like the multiverse to explain the objective existence of fine tuning. That's all well and good, but why should I believe that the multiverse is anything more than a logical possibility?
im-skeptical wrote: "Carroll is not in any way saying that he believes the universe is fine-tuned. He has argued strongly against it."
Carroll is clearly saying that there is fine-tuning in the universe, it's just that methodological naturalism dictates that he invoke a natural explanation for it such as the multiverse.
im-skeptical wrote: "We don't reject some possibilities out-of-hand, we reject them on the basis of evidence."
DeleteAnd what evidence do you have for rejecting God as an explanation for the universe? As far as I can gather, you have rejected God as the best explanation because it is logically possible that an eternal physical brute fact exists and was the cause of the universe despite having no objective evidence that such a thing exists; and that it's logically possible that the multiverse exists despite having no objective evidence that such a thing exists.
You have said, "I reject believing something that doesn't have epistemic justification." But what objective evidence do you have to support all the other possibilities?
im-skeptical wrote: "I have the exact same evidence that you do. We just look at it differently. I think my hypothesis is a better explanation for the evidence we see than yours is."
OK, so in the absence of any conclusive evidence for the existence of an eternal physical brute fact, what would I gain from belief in said brute fact?
im-skeptical wrote: "In fact I also rejected the uncaused universe."
So does almost everyone because the idea is metaphysically absurd.
im-skeptical wrote: "The metaphysical necessity of God is implied by theists from the existence of our world. If there were no universe, there would be no basis for the five ways, for example, and so God would not be metaphysically necessary."
OK, I'm going to quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on God and Other Necessary Beings in the hopes that I can finally clear this matter up. The article says, "It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings...There are various entities which, if they exist, would be candidates for necessary beings: God, propositions, relations, properties, states of affairs, possible worlds, and numbers, among others. Note that the first entity in this list is a concrete entity, while the rest are abstract entities." OK, what's common among all the possible necessary objects? They are all immaterial and so depend on nothing for their existence.
Now you're right that the cosmological arguments for God start from the observation of a contingent universe exists and concludes that God must have been the cause, and if the PSR is correct then God must exist necessarily. But God exists necessarily regardless of anything else existing.
im-skeptical wrote: "Nor do we need one."
DeleteNo, not necessarily, but if the cause of the universe exists eternally and is not sentient and hence the cause was a random event it begs the question of why did this random event only happen 13.8 billion years ago and not 500 billion years ago or an infinite time ago?
im-skeptical wrote: "Doesn't prove, but does argue strongly against it."
It doesn't follow that a perfect being's processes for creating things would have be perfect; whatever a perfect process is in the first place.
im-skeptical wrote: "Same evidence you have for your uncaused God, except that quantum vacuums are observed, and God isn't."
Actually, many people have claimed to experience God, so your claim is contentious. I observe cars, so maybe cars are eternal and un-caused.
im-skeptical wrote: "I can easily postulate a universe in which God does not exist. Our is an example. Like God, the QV is postulated as the thing that creates space, time and matter, not the other way around."
Of course you can conceive of God not existing, but there is no possible world where he can't exist. It sounds like you're suggesting that quantum vacuums are immaterial objects that are made of nothing and occupy no space, but I don't think that this is what you mean because you've said that immaterial objects don't exist.
Wikipedia article on fine-tuning says ...
DeleteSorry - wrong fine tuning. The subject of my discussion has been the theistic argument known as the Fine Tuning of the Universe, as presented here by WL Craig. It is a variant of the argument from design In this context, fine tuning means the intentional tweaking of various physical constants to bring about a universe that supports life. As I already explained, atheists, by definition, don't buy this. Notice the quote from Hawking. He says it seems to be finely adjusted. Some atheists use the term "fine-tuned" simply to express their agreement that the constants are tightly constrained to a small range, but not to concede the argument that it was done intentionally.
This is completely circular reasoning.
No, you have failed to grasp what I'm saying. Consider the case where a million universes exist, and the probability if supporting life is one in a million. So we would expect that one of those universes supports life. Now, consider the fact the we humans are alive and we live in one of those million universes. What is the probability that we live in a universe that supports life? It is 1.0. There is no chance that we live in any universe that doesn't support life. So out of those million universes, the only one that we could possibly live in is the one that supports life. What are the odds that we find ourselves in that one-in-a-million universe? 100%, exactly. No circular reasoning - just simple logic.
That's all well and good, but why should I believe that the multiverse is anything more than a logical possibility?
Because that's what the evidence indicates. There's no evidence (aside from theistic arguments) to support the God hypothesis, but physics and observation of quantum phenomena support the multiverse hypothesis.
Carroll is clearly saying that there is fine-tuning in the universe, it's just that methodological naturalism dictates that he invoke a natural explanation for it such as the multiverse.
Again, the term may be used in the sense I have described. It does not indicate that he believes the universe was actually tuned, finely or otherwise. He argues that point with WL Craig.
And what evidence do you have for rejecting God as an explanation for the universe?
DeleteAs I keep saying, it is the same evidence you have. And it is entirely natural. I interpret the evidence scientifically. You interpret it through the prism of theism. And I might add, you believe in God despite having no objective evidence that any immaterial being exists.
But what objective evidence do you have to support all the other possibilities?
As I explained, we take the totality of evidence into consideration, both what is observed, and what isn't. We come up with the best hypothesis that explains the evidence.
OK, so in the absence of any conclusive evidence for the existence of an eternal physical brute fact, what would I gain from belief in said brute fact?
What we gain is an explanation the best fits the known facts. There isn't conclusive evidence for God, either. The theist thinks God explains everything, and it doesn't matter what the evidence points to. The answer is always the same, no matter what evidence you show him. In theism, there is no attempt to make the hypothesis fit the facts.
There are various entities which, if they exist, would be candidates for necessary beings
I would agree that if God actually existed he might exist necessarily. However, the mere act that we don't know if God really exists is a sure sign that God is not in fact a necessary being. I get that they don't depend on material things for their existence. The point that eluded you (and the irony of it all) is that the arguments in support the existence of such a being are based on the existence of material things. Argument from Desigh (of material things). Argument from First Cause (of material things). Etc.
and if the PSR is correct then God must exist necessarily.
Wrong. If the PSR is correct, then something must exist that is the cause of the universe. It doesn't have to be God. And it still doesn't have to be a necessary being. If it fails to exist, then so does the universe. But it is only necessary in the sense that the universe depends on it.
it begs the question of why did this random event only happen 13.8 billion years ago and not 500 billion years ago or an infinite time ago?
Who says it didn't? Who says it doesn't happen all the time? Not me.
It doesn't follow that a perfect being's processes for creating things would have be perfect; whatever a perfect process is in the first place.
It would stand to reason that a perfect creator would not design things so badly. You have to jump through hoops to explain away what we observe as being intentional. A natural explanation doesn't have that problem.
Actually, many people have claimed to experience God, so your claim is contentious. I observe cars, so maybe cars are eternal and un-caused.
One is objective and verifiable. The other is an emotional feeling that is subjective and can't be verified.
Of course you can conceive of God not existing, but there is no possible world where he can't exist.
Only if you accept your theistic assumptions. This is a real world where as far as I can tell, and in all likelihood, God doesn't exist.
im-skeptical wrote: "Sorry - wrong fine tuning. The subject of my discussion has been the theistic argument known as the Fine Tuning of the Universe, as presented here by WL Craig."
DeleteWell, maybe the word fine-tuning is synonymous with the fine-tuning argument for God in your mind, but I don't think this is the case for most people including Victor. My understanding of what Victor was saying is that we observe things in the world like the fine-tuning of the physical constants and evil and that these things can support theistic and atheistic arguments respectively. I think that there is ample evidence to say that fine-tuning of the physical constants is an objective scientific fact, whether or not this fact has theological significance is a debatable philosophical topic. I happen to think that the fine-tuning argument succeeds in showing that God is most likely the best explanation for fine tuning, given our available evidence.
I might add that, even on your understanding of the word fine-tuning it doesn't make sense to say that theists only have a subjective sense that the universe is fine-tuned, as they have a deductive argument that either succeeds or fails.
im-skeptical wrote: "No, you have failed to grasp what I'm saying. Consider the case where a million universes exist..."
I've been following you the whole way, but I still think that this is circular reasoning. First, I want to point out that if there are an infinite number of universes then there are an infinite number of inhospitable worlds. Anyway, essentially what you're saying that we're living in the universe that we're living in because it's the one we're living in.
im-skeptical wrote: "Because that's what the evidence indicates."
Un-testable String Theory and one of the nine interpretations of QM is not an empirical confirmation of the multiverse.
im-skeptical wrote: "Again, the term may be used in the sense I have described. It does not indicate that he believes the universe was actually tuned, finely or otherwise. He argues that point with WL Craig."
I don't think Caroll used the word fine-tuning in the sense that you described, but I do agree that he's not in WLC's camp.
im-skeptical wrote: "I interpret the evidence scientifically. You interpret it through the prism of theism. And I might add, you believe in God despite having no objective evidence that any immaterial being exists."
DeleteI guess the bottom line is that you presume that naturalism is true while I don't. And I might add, that you believe in naturalism despite having no objective evidence that brute facts exist.
im-skeptical wrote: "What we gain is an explanation the best fits the known facts."
Not only have you not presented an argument for why I should think that the physical brute is anything more than a logical possibility, I also don't see the utility in brute factism. I can't be in relationship with a physical brute fact--I can't even know what is let alone if it actually exists. The physical brute fact doesn't endow my life with objective meaning nor does it offer the promise of an afterlife. As I see it, I could only stand to lose by converting to brute factism.
im-skeptical wrote: "I would agree that if God actually existed he might exist necessarily. However, the mere act that we don't know if God really exists is a sure sign that God is not in fact a necessary being..."
If God exists then he exists in all possible worlds--that follows from the concept of God. The fact that we don't have enough information about the world to convince all rational people that God exists is not a sign that God is not a necessary being, as having absolute certainty about God's existence is not a necessary condition for God having the property of necessary existence.
Most of the arguments for God's existence stem from the observation of physical contingent objects, but the ontological augment is an a priori that doesn't deal with material things.
im-skeptical wrote: "Wrong. If the PSR is correct, then something must exist that is the cause of the universe. It doesn't have to be God. And it still doesn't have to be a necessary being. If it fails to exist, then so does the universe."
The PSR says that everything that exists has an explanation for its existence. So, the cause of the contingent universe would have to be a necessary object because brute facts have no explanation for their existence and so don't exist. Abstract objects like the number two have no causal power, so by deduction God is the ultimate cause of all contingent objects.
Well, maybe the word fine-tuning is synonymous with the fine-tuning argument for God in your mind, but I don't think this is the case for most people including Victor
DeleteThat is exactly what Victor was saying. He was making an argument for God based on the supposed fine-tuning of the physical constants that make the universe what it is, which had to be done intentionally by God, according to the argument. You seem to be confused because you looked up "fine tuning" and found an article that discusses something different - namely, the adjustment of parameters in a physical model to match observation, which is NOT what this discussion is about. Look up "fine tuning of the universe" and you will see many articles that are relevant to this discussion, including the correct Wikipedia entry, and Craig's argument that I cited earlier.
I think that there is ample evidence to say that fine-tuning of the physical constants is an objective scientific fact
As I tried to explain, yes scientists agree that some of these constants must be constrained to a narrow range in order to support life. That is an objective fact, and they refer to this as "fine tuning", or very often, they prefer to say "the constants seem to be fine tuned" (see the quote of Hawking in Craigs argument). However, it is not an objective fact that those constants were literally "tuned" by an intentional act of the creator, as the argument claims. No atheist believes this, by definition.
I might add that, even on your understanding of the word fine-tuning it doesn't make sense to say that theists only have a subjective sense that the universe is fine-tuned, as they have a deductive argument that either succeeds or fails.
There are many deductive theistic arguments. They are generally based on assumptions that are not a matter of fact. It is only by accepting these theistic assumptions that the arguments can succeed.
essentially what you're saying that we're living in the universe that we're living in because it's the one we're living in.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that we're in this universe because it supports life. This is not hard to understand if you just think. We couldn't possibly live in a universe that doesn't support life. Out of all the possible universes, the probability that we live in one that supports life is 100%, no matter how improbable such a universe might be. And no, this is not circular reasoning. Just think about it.
Un-testable String Theory and one of the nine interpretations of QM is not an empirical confirmation of the multiverse.
Why do you keep saying this? How many times do I have to tell you that I don't know what made the universe, and neither do you. But I still think my hypothesis makes more sense, and is much better supported by the available evidence than yours.
I don't think Caroll used the word fine-tuning in the sense that you described, but I do agree that he's not in WLC's camp.
Of course he's not in Craig's camp. No atheist believes the universe is fine-tuned by God, by definition. Did you read the article I cited about the debate between Carroll and Craig?
I guess the bottom line is that you presume that naturalism is true while I don't. And I might add, that you believe in naturalism despite having no objective evidence that brute facts exist.
DeleteNo evidence for naturalism, except for one little fact that you seem to ignore: every single thing we observe is natural, and not one single thing we observe is not natural. So why should I accept naturalism? Because that's what the evidence tells me. And why should you accept the supernatural? It sure isn't because of the evidence.
The physical brute fact doesn't endow my life with objective meaning nor does it offer the promise of an afterlife. As I see it, I could only stand to lose by converting to brute factism.
OK. Now I understand why you refuse to follow where the evidence leads. Why didn't you just say that in the first place?
If God exists then he exists in all possible worlds--that follows from the concept of God. ... having absolute certainty about God's existence is not a necessary condition for God having the property of necessary existence.
You define God as a being that exists necessarily, and then proceed to shoot down any argument that denies it on the basis that God exists necessarily. Now that's circular reasoning. You can't define god into existence.
Most of the arguments for God's existence stem from the observation of physical contingent objects, but the ontological augment is an a priori that doesn't deal with material things.
The ontological argument is circular reasoning.
The PSR says that everything that exists has an explanation for its existence. So, the cause of the contingent universe would have to be a necessary object because brute facts have no explanation for their existence and so don't exist.
No. The PSR says everything has a cause. It does not require that that cause must be explained. Furthermore, there is no justification for your claim that something cannot exist if it is not explained. Your God is not explained in any rational sense. It is essentially just another brute fact. You can play word games and say "God is his own explanation", or some other such nonsense, but you are only fooling yourself.
im-skeptical wrote: "OK. Now I understand why you refuse to follow where the evidence leads."
DeleteI think that the evidence points to God being the best explanation for a whole host of things that we observe. However, given that the evidence is less than conclusive, I think that the rational person aught to pick the option with the most utility, and believing in God's existence brings a far better pay-off than believing in the brute fact. I mean, suppose that you're right about the evidence. I will never even know that I was wrong because when I die I will just cease to exist. At least the idea of God gave me hope, albeit a false hope, as I complete humanity's death march into oblivion. When the universe is nothing but a cold, dark and lifeless place it really doesn't matter what any of us thought or did.
im-skeptical wrote: "You define God as a being that exists necessarily, and then proceed to shoot down any argument that denies it on the basis that God exists necessarily."
No, I clearly see the distinction between the concept of God and God as an actual being. The property of necessary existence in the concept of God doesn't imply that it is strictly logically impossible for God not to exist. I say that God exists because I think that he is the most likely the cause of the universe that we observe.
im-skeptical wrote: "The ontological argument is circular reasoning."
Point out specifically how this argument is circular:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
im-skeptical wrote: "No. The PSR says everything has a cause. It does not require that that cause must be explained. Furthermore, there is no justification for your claim that something cannot exist if it is not explained. Your God is not explained in any rational sense. It is essentially just another brute fact."
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in the Principle of Sufficient Reason article says, "If you accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason (= PSR), you will require an explanation for any fact, or in other words, you will reject the possibility of brute, or unexplainable, facts.
Formally, the Principle states (PSR): For every fact F, there must be an explanation why F is the case." So, actually the PSR dose rule out the physical brute fact. As to justification for the PSR, all the evidence that we have indicates that things have explanations for there existence. Science is driven by the PSR.
As to God, the ontological argument and the various cosmological arguments support the concept of God's necessity.
im-skeptical wrote: "That is exactly what Victor was saying. He was making an argument for God based on the supposed fine-tuning of the physical constants that make the universe what it is, which had to be done intentionally by God, according to the argument. You seem to be confused because you looked up "fine tuning" and found an article that discusses something different..."
DeleteWell, only Victor could explain exactly what he meant to say in his post. As to the Wikipedia article you referenced, it says, "The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood." This definition makes no reference to God or to turning knobs or to a subjective sense that theists have. As to WLC's formation of the fine-tuning argument, he also makes no reference to these things. Premise one of the argument, which I think is obviously true, lists all of the possible explanations for the objective scientific fact of fine-tuning in the universe. Premise two eliminates physical necessity and chance. By deduction, the conclusion follows that fine-tuning is due to design.
im-skeptical wrote: "However, it is not an objective fact that those constants were literally "tuned" by an intentional act of the creator, as the argument claims. No atheist believes this, by definition."
Right, we don't have enough information about the world to conclusively eliminate physical necessity and chance as possible explanations. It is logically possible that a naturalistic multiverse exists.
im-skeptical wrote: "No evidence for naturalism, except for one little fact that you seem to ignore: every single thing we observe is natural, and not one single thing we observe is not natural."
OK, but how can you distinguish a naturalistic world from a world where a creator God causes a universe to exist and creates natural processes to develop that universe and the things in it? I think that the creator God scenario fits perfectly with what we observe in the universe. It even has the benefit of not forcing us to the extreme of saying that every single one of the countless religious experiences and miracle claims over the millennia either stems from someone lying or from a delusional state. In your opinion, how would the creator God scenario look different from the universe we observe, and why must it be that way?
I think that the evidence points to God being the best explanation for a whole host of things that we observe. However, given that the evidence is less than conclusive, I think that the rational person aught to pick the option with the most utility
DeleteI disagree. An honest rational person should seek the truth, even if the truth is not pleasant to learn. But even still, the notion that there is more utility in theistic belief is based on the assumption that theism is true, and it reveals the selfish aspect of Christian belief. Try considering the question from another perspective. If there is no God, you could spend your one and only shot at life doing something worthwhile, or you could waste it by dedicating your time to a false god. To do something worthwhile is to have an impact on the lives of other people - something that is meaningful, even after you are gone. In particular, it might be worthwhile to help others find their way out of the darkness.
I clearly see the distinction between the concept of God and God as an actual being. The property of necessary existence in the concept of God doesn't imply that it is strictly logically impossible for God not to exist. I say that God exists because I think that he is the most likely the cause of the universe that we observe.
OK. So god is metaphysically necessary because your theistic worldview demands it.
Point out specifically how this argument is circular:
Coming soon.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in the Principle of Sufficient Reason article says ...
Yes, it does say that. It is worth noting a few things. First, not everyone believes that the PSR excludes the possibility of brute facts. Second, even Theists like Leibniz believe that the need for an explanation applies to contingent things. In a non-theistic context, this implies that there can be something eternal, other than God. That article says "Parmenides, another pre-Socratic, implicitly appeals to the PSR when he claims that the world cannot have come into existence because then it would have come from nothing." So the world is eternal, but not considered to exist as a brute fact? This brings up the question What is a brute fact, anyway? The modern scientific view is similar to Parmanides, but it postulates the existence of some eternal thing from which the world comes, and you call that a brute fact. But according to the SEP article, it wouldn't be considered a brute fact because it is not contingent.
Well, only Victor could explain exactly what he meant to say in his post.
He did. Read it again. He is clearly arguing for the existence of God from the supposed fine-tuning of the universe.
This definition makes no reference to God or to turning knobs or to a subjective sense that theists have.
Correct. But as I keep trying to tell you, the very words in the term "fine tuning" literally refer to someone tweaking the knobs to adjust the outcome. Nature doesn't do anything intentionally. Only God does. Why can't you see this?
As to WLC's formation of the fine-tuning argument, he also makes no reference to these things.
The conclusion of design is saying that God does the fine tuning.
In your opinion, how would the creator God scenario look different from the universe we observe, and why must it be that way?
I think if that god didn't care about us, it might look exactly as it does. But if that God loves us, and wants us to believe in him, then he would let that be known to us. Not just in terms of vague hints, but loud and clear, so that we can then make an informed decision about how we want to respond.
im-skeptical wrote: "I disagree. An honest rational person should seek the truth, even if the truth is not pleasant to learn. But even still, the notion that there is more utility in theistic belief is based on the assumption that theism is true, and it reveals the selfish aspect of Christian belief..."
DeleteYes, but what do we do when we don't have enough information to obtain The TRUTH™? I know I'm biased, but your case for the physical brute fact is shaky at best. It's not even remotely compelling. And, even though I think that God is the best explanation for the universe, my case is not indisputable as the logical possibility that a physical brute fact caused the universe can't be conclusively eliminated.
So, in the face of this uncertainty, I propose that one ought to pick the option with the most utility, and I think that belief in God offers the most benefits.
You say that the benefits of believing in God depend on theism being true, and I largely agree with you, although I think that you are forgetting the joy that belief (even false belief) in God can bring. OK, but I know, as far as I can tell, that the only benefits that I would get from believing in the brute fact are the chance of being right, which is actually something that theists have as well, and the chance to do things that Christian morality prohibits without there being eternal consequences to them, although the natural, ephemeral consequences would remain. However, I could risk losing an eternity of utter joy with God. The pay-off for believing in God is much greater.
I'm dismayed that you still hold this bizarre view of authentic Christian faith being about selfishness. Do I need to remind you that we called to love our neighbor as our-self (Mark 12:33). We are to love and help those in need (Matthew 23:34-40, James 1:27, James 2:15-17). We are also not to hoard our salvation but to spread the good news about how to be saved (Matthew 28:19-20).
I find this false dichotomy, that you've set up where one can either serve God or do good worthwhile things to help people, to be quite strange. Umm, Mother Teresa's faith didn't hinder her from helping people, after all she did receive the Nobel Peace Prize for her charity work with poor and sick people. I have a Christian friend from Nepal who has dedicated her life to setting up and running a safe-home to rehabilitate victims of child sex trafficking in her home country. I know people from World Concern and World Vision who have dedicated their lives to relief missions. And, even though I'm no Mother Teresa, I have committed resources to helping those in need. So, clearly being a Christian doesn't impair someone from helping others.
im-skeptical wrote: "Second, even Theists like Leibniz believe that the need for an explanation applies to contingent things. In a non-theistic context, this implies that there can be something eternal, other than God. That article says 'Parmenides, another pre-Socratic, implicitly appeals to the PSR when he claims that the world cannot have come into existence because then it would have come from nothing.'"
DeleteLeibniz held that God is a necessary being and so the explanation for his existence is in the nature of his own being.
I think it's strange that Parmenides saw a problem with the arbitrariness of the moment of the universe coming into being being as a brute fact and not with the inexplicable fact of an eternal universe. Of course, we now know that the observable universe is finite. Also, if the contingent universe is caused to exist by an eternal necessarily existent God then the universe's moment of coming into being would have an explanation. It's interesting to note that on your idea of the quantum vacuum causing the universe, there would be two brute facts involved 1) the existence of the vacuum itself and 2) the arbitrary, random moment when the universe came into being.
im-skeptical wrote: "This brings up the question What is a brute fact, anyway?"
A brute fact is anything that has no explanation for why it is.
im-skeptical wrote: "I think if that god didn't care about us, it might look exactly as it does. But if that God loves us, and wants us to believe in him, then he would let that be known to us. Not just in terms of vague hints, but loud and clear, so that we can then make an informed decision about how we want to respond."
I hear you on this, but I think that there are good answers to the Divine Hiddenness/Silence problem. First, I think that God does reveal himself to those who are genuinely seeking him and who are willing to follow him. I know that you think that religious experiences are the subjective hallucinations of some people, but some people claim to have experienced amazing things that they attribute to God. Perhaps those that don't see any signs of God don't really want to see them--they're looking at the world with eyes wide shut.
I also think that God cold have good reasons for making his presence indubitable. It would seem that if an omnipotent, good God was an indisputable fact then this could force the hand of all rational people to follow him because only a madman would rebel against an all powerful God who loves them. Also, there might be people who are tempted to pretend to love God in order get stuff from him; much like a gold digger who chases wealthy men.
I know, as far as I can tell, that the only benefits that I would get from believing in the brute fact are the chance of being right, which is actually something that theists have as well, and the chance to do things that Christian morality prohibits
DeleteI think it's much more than that. It's living your life in pursuit of the right thing. Remember, this is the one and only shot you get. If you devote your life to a lie, you blew it. That's a heavy loss. As any gambler knows, the risk calculation involves not only the payoff for winning, it involves the probability of winning. So a $100 payoff on a sure bet is better than a $1,000,000 payoff on a losing bet.
I find this false dichotomy, that you've set up where one can either serve God or do good worthwhile things to help people, to be quite strange.
No false dichotomy. I understand that Christians can have a positive impact, and that's good. I was simply contrasting to the view that many Christians have that an atheist's life doesn't matter. That simply isn't true. However there are many Christians who dedicate themselves to a false God when they could be doing something meaningful instead.
Leibniz held that God is a necessary being and so the explanation for his existence is in the nature of his own being.
But it seems that wouldn't matter, as far as the PSR is concerned, because it applies to contingent things. So if he allowed that any eternal object or world could exist, it would not be subject to the PSR any more than God is.
A brute fact is anything that has no explanation for why it is.
But clearly, the SEP article discusses things (like an eternal world) that are not regarded as brute facts. That would not fit with your definition of brute fact.
I think that God does reveal himself to those who are genuinely seeking him and who are willing to follow him.
That's the problem. You can't use your intellect and follow the evidence. You have to just accept it before the revelation occurs. It's problematic because once you submit to a belief, there is a strong tendency to lose objectivity. You are willing to see everything as evidence that would not be at all convincing to someone who doesn't believe.
I know that you think that religious experiences are the subjective hallucinations of some people, but some people claim to have experienced amazing things that they attribute to God.
I assume you are aware that a "religious experience" can be induced at will by physical means.
It would seem that if an omnipotent, good God was an indisputable fact then this could force the hand of all rational people to follow him because only a madman would rebel against an all powerful God who loves them.
Exactly. With God remaining hidden, he fools people into rebelling because they don't think he's real. What a prick.
im-skeptical wrote: "Remember, this is the one and only shot you get. If you devote your life to a lie, you blew it. That's a heavy loss."
DeleteNot really. If naturalism is true then it doesn't ultimately matter what we do, say or think. Compare a serial killer with a doctor. The serial killer shortens someone's life by a relatively small amount while the doctor might increase someone's life by a relatively small amount. The bottom line is that, that person will die soon anyway and all traces that all three people lived will eventually be expunged from the universe. All human endeavors will fade away, as the universe turns into a cold, dark, and lifeless expanse.
im-skeptical wrote: "As any gambler knows, the risk calculation involves not only the payoff for winning, it involves the probability of winning. So a $100 payoff on a sure bet is better than a $1,000,000 payoff on a losing bet."
Not only is the pay-out for the brute fact essentially zero, your case is most certainly not a sure bet. Asserting that it's logically possible that a brute fact exists is hardly a sure bet. Not only that, but I'm also risking an infinitely good pay-out and risking an infinitely bad penalty. The choice is obvious.
im-skeptical wrote: "I was simply contrasting to the view that many Christians have that an atheist's life doesn't matter. That simply isn't true."
Now that's something we can agree on. Some atheists do good things to help their fellow man.
im-skeptical wrote: "So if he allowed that any eternal object or world could exist, it would not be subject to the PSR any more than God is.
Making a contingent object eternal doesn't mean it has an explanation for its existence--it's still a brute fact.
im-skeptical wrote: "That's the problem. You can't use your intellect and follow the evidence. You have to just accept it before the revelation occurs. It's problematic because once you submit to a belief, there is a strong tendency to lose objectivity. You are willing to see everything as evidence that would not be at all convincing to someone who doesn't believe."
Suppose you're trying to convince an external world skeptic that there is a world external to their mind. The skeptic says that there is no such thing as experiences of the external world because there is no such thing as the external world, and any experiences you claim to have had are subjective illusions. What would you say to convince the skeptic that the external world exists?
im-skeptical wrote: "I assume you are aware that a "religious experience" can be induced at will by physical means."
I assume you know that suggesting that because some people experience weird things when there brain is magnetically stimulated proves that religious experiences are false would be to commit the genetic fallacy. Besides, only 1 percent of study participants say that they experience something like God. How many people outside of labs have their brain magnetically stimulated anyway?
im-skeptical wrote: "Exactly. With God remaining hidden, he fools people into rebelling because they don't think he's real. What a prick."
Wait a minute, just recently you wrote, "We have no choice but to obey [divine commands], unless we are insane," but now you're saying that God is being unfair by not making his existence an indisputable fact. If God's existence was an indisputable fact wouldn't any non insane person follow him perhaps just to avoid negative consequences? If God's existence was less than certain rebellious people have the freedom to say, "Well, there's not enough information to conclusively prove that God exists, so I'm just going to live my life as I want to." While those that seek and love God can freely decide to do so.
All human endeavors will fade away, as the universe turns into a cold, dark, and lifeless expanse.
DeleteExactly right. That's why it's important to have the most favorable impact we can on the lives of others. This life, while it lasts, is our only opportunity to do that, and their lives, while they last, are what we can have an impact upon. Once they're gone, there is no further opportunity for us to do anything worthwhile. This is our only shot at it. In the selfish Christian view, none of this matters in the end, because the only thing that matters is sitting in the presence of your God for all eternity. In my view, that's really pathetic.
Not only is the pay-out for the brute fact essentially zero, your case is most certainly not a sure bet. Asserting that it's logically possible that a brute fact exists is hardly a sure bet. Not only that, but I'm also risking an infinitely good pay-out and risking an infinitely bad penalty. The choice is obvious.
That's on the assumption that your worldview is correct. There's practically zero chance of that.
Now that's something we can agree on. Some atheists do good things to help their fellow man.
And if we don't, that would be the major loss. That's what would make our lives a total failure.
Making a contingent object eternal doesn't mean it has an explanation for its existence--it's still a brute fact.
Something that's eternal has no cause. According to the SEP article you cited, it isn't considered a brute fact, either.
Suppose you're trying to convince an external world skeptic that there is a world external to their mind. The skeptic says that there is no such thing as experiences of the external world because there is no such thing as the external world, and any experiences you claim to have had are subjective illusions. What would you say to convince the skeptic that the external world exists?
I would say "Then don't bother eating your illusory dinner."
I assume you know that suggesting that because some people experience weird things when there brain is magnetically stimulated proves that religious experiences are false would be to commit the genetic fallacy.
I said nothing about proving that those experiences are false. It does show that they are physical experiences, and that they are interpreted in many different ways.
"Wait a minute, just recently you wrote ..."
Yes, that was on the assumption that we know God exists.
but now you're saying that God is being unfair by not making his existence an indisputable fact.
Correct. Because we are deprived of the opportunity to make a correct (informed) decision.
If God's existence was an indisputable fact wouldn't any non insane person follow him perhaps just to avoid negative consequences?
That is the sane (and self-serving) choice.
If God's existence was less than certain rebellious people have the freedom to say
No. That's not rebellion. You can't rebel against something unless you believe it exists. But there would be people who are quite rational in not believing it exists.
im-skeptical wrote: Exactly right. That's why it's important to have the most favorable impact we can on the lives of others."
DeleteBut why does it matter if all traces of what I did during my ephemeral life are wiped out of existence when the universe is a lifeless expanse?
im-skeptical wrote: "This life, while it lasts, is our only opportunity to do that, and their lives, while they last, are what we can have an impact upon. Once they're gone, there is no further opportunity for us to do anything worthwhile."
Even supposing that naturalism is true, it doesn't follow that a Christian can't do all of this. If someone's faith brings them happiness and meaning and leads them to love and help their fellow man then I don't see how this life is worse then any other life. The fate of the Christian and the atheist is the same.
im-skeptical wrote: "In the selfish Christian view, none of this matters in the end, because the only thing that matters is sitting in the presence of your God for all eternity. In my view, that's really pathetic."
The actual Christian view, which is contrasted by your warped view, is that we are to be part of bringing God's kingdom to earth by loving our fellow man and making the world a better place. As opposed to the naturalistic view, we and some our good works carry on into eternity.
im-skeptical wrote: "Something that's eternal has no cause. According to the SEP article you cited, it isn't considered a brute fact, either."
It is a brute fact because there is no explanation for why this contingent object exists.
im-skeptical wrote: "Yes, that was on the assumption that we know God exists...That is the sane (and self-serving) choice. "
OK, recall that that we're supposing that God made his existence undeniable, and that you've said that if this were the case that even rational people who despise God would feel compelled to follow God for self-serving reasons. So, if God only gives us less than certain knowledge of his existence then it would seem that we have greater freedom to accept or reject God for who he is rather than for what he can do for or to us.
im-skeptical wrote: "Correct. Because we are deprived of the opportunity to make a correct (informed) decision."
One does not need absolute knowledge of something in order to make a decision. In fact, many of the major life decisions we make are made with a great deal of uncertainty.
im-skeptical wrote: "No. That's not rebellion. You can't rebel against something unless you believe it exists. But there would be people who are quite rational in not believing it exists."
You're missing my point. My point is that the lack of certainty about God can be used to enable rebellion, as one can feel safe in choosing their own path if they think that there are no eternal consequences to them.
I also think that God may not bother to reveal himself more fully to those he knows will reject him.
But why does it matter if all traces of what I did during my ephemeral life are wiped out of existence when the universe is a lifeless expanse?.
DeleteThis is a matter of perspective. I think it matters if we make a difference in the lives of others (the only life they have). What happens in the long run is of no consequence. Your perspective is more about what happens to you in the end.
The fate of the Christian and the atheist is the same.
The difference is that I care about what is real - the lives we have, and you care about what is imaginary - something that is of no consequence.
we are to be part of bringing God's kingdom to earth by loving our fellow man and making the world a better place.
It's a fantasy. The high priests (who have always had it pretty good) tell the people they need to grit their teeth and suffer through the trials and tribulations of life, and then they will get their reward. How can any reasonable person believe that?
It is a brute fact because there is no explanation for why this contingent object exists.
I didn't write the SEP article. There is a disagreement there.
So, if God only gives us less than certain knowledge of his existence then it would seem that we have greater freedom to accept or reject God for who he is rather than for what he can do for or to us.
We would have less rational basis to make the "correct" choice, and consequently, less likelihood of doing so. If God wants us to make the correct choice, he should give us a rational basis for it. If he doesn't, he's a prick.
One does not need absolute knowledge of something in order to make a decision. In fact, many of the major life decisions we make are made with a great deal of uncertainty.
We work with the information we have. I make a rational choice, based on my assessment of what I know (and God is not something I know). But if God is real, this is a situation that is forced upon us with the most dire consequences.
I also think that God may not bother to reveal himself more fully to those he knows will reject him.
That's bullshit. It's blaming the victim. If I knew god exists, it would be really stupid to rebel. I'm not that stupid.
Skep says: "The difference between us is that you pretend to know. The best I can do is to hypothesize something, and if it turns out that I am wrong about it, it's not going to ruin my life. If some discovery should be made about the real cause of the universe, I will be anxious to learn all about it."
ReplyDeleteAn honest and intellectually modest response. It is indeed OK to say, "I don't know". Theists cannot, by virtue of their claims, make the same response. It is simply not in the DNA of theological thought of even the possibility there being no God. Such thinking is anathema to religious inculcation.
Professor David Eller, renowned anthropologist, best characterises the utterly problematic nature of religious belief: "If there is a God [intelligent designer], scientists only have to revise their science books. If there is no God [intelligent designer], Christians have to throw out their Christian book. Science could live with a designer, Christianity would die without one. That is why Christianity fights so hard for what it claims is a scientific idea."
Papa wrote: "An honest and intellectually modest response. It is indeed OK to say, 'I don't know'."
DeleteOK, so you think that God is just as likely an explanation for the universe as anything else?
Oh no, not at all. Or put another way. It's simply too big a stretch of credulousness to doggedly persist with an explanatory paradigm known to be nothing more than a primitive culture-dependent construct. God [together with the question of which one [?] of the myriad of permutations and commutations extant, a veritable smorgasbord from which one can choose] as a likely explanation for the universe went out with the bath water. What remains today is the process of mopping up the loose ends resulting from millennia of superstitious theological scuttlebutt that insinuated itself as an alternative to the then prevailing pagan explanatory model of 'reality' and concomitant mindset. Since the emergence of the standard scientific model as we now understand it, it is today simply a question of whether we as a society obdurately persist a little while longer with a tired, trite, and flagging superstition-riven explanatory paradigm fast approaching its use-by date, if it hasn't already exceeded that timeframe, or we expedite the transition to an exponentially more robust and epistemically-grounded explanatory template on which to found our public policy decision making processes.
DeleteI think the societal trend towards enveloping a greater evidentiary and fact-based explanatory model is palpable.
Hmm, this is not the response of someone who humbly says, "I don't know." It is the response of someone who believes that an eternal physical brute fact exists and caused the universe to exist despite having no arguments or evidence to back this belief up.
DeleteYes I really would like to know how this universe I live in started. The only physical brute fact here is that, as yet, I don't know. But I'm pretty sure that the Christian jesus-god is not the explanation, because, well, only christians believe that malarkey. And even that god is not taken up by its closest cousins, Muslims and Jews. Indeed both absolutely reject the christian conjuration of a triune jesus-god creating the universe. Perhaps in another or parallel universe, where the total global population is christian, might one, just might, justifiably entertain that thought. But not in this universe, Keith. There are far too many people believing in all sorts of weird and wonderful gods creating the world, you god being just another one in the mix; and that would suggest picking the right one from the smorgasbord of gods on offer is very much a fool's errand and an irreconcilably problematic, non-epistemologically grounded one.
DeleteIt is not a contradiction to claim that I don't know how the universe started, and to simultaneously reject the silly idea of a jesus-god creating the universe. Its pretty clear that rejecting god propositions is particularly common in this universe. You, yourself, reject out of hand a multitude of creator god propositions as others reject your particular god proposition. No surprises there.
"Every religion thinks it is true. All religions cannot be true simultaneously, but they can all be false simultaneously." David Eller
Papa wrote: "But I'm pretty sure that the Christian jesus-god is not the explanation, because, well, only christians believe that malarkey."
DeleteIt's interesting that you take a lack of consensus about something to be an indication that something is false and yet didn't apply this faulty reasoning to your own atheistic beliefs. If everyone who has ever lived believed that married bachelors exist, would that make this belief true? No, of course not. Does the fact that there are people who deny that human caused climate change is real mean that science is wrong about this issue? No, not necessarily. The amount of people who believe that a proposition is true has no bearing on whether or not it is true. After all, there was once a majority of people who believed that the earth was flat.
Saying that there are too many gods to pick one is a cop-out. One can use reason to narrow the list down to the most likely candidate.
Who else then on this planet other than christians believe in christian malarkey? I would be very interested to know.
DeleteMy observation has nothing to do with lack of consensus. Indeed my tendency towards atheism is a clear indicator that lack of consensus does not figure in my decision making about supernatural superstition.
"Saying that there are too many gods to pick one is a cop-out. One can use reason to narrow the list down to the most likely candidate."
Oh Dear. I don't think even you know what you are talking about when you offer such silly nonsense. Christians narrow it down to jesus-god. Muslims narrow it down to Allah. Hindus narrow it down to Shiva as the most likely candidate. Obdurate stalemate every time. So, Keith, how would you suggest we go from there?