The Futility of Religion Debates

[Dre89]

What do you mean? I need you to elaborate.

First, I'll make a distinction between a metaphysical FC and the physical first cause.

The MFC is the most ontologically prior reality. Remember, metaphysical is different from 'non physical', it's just that most people who study mp are interested in the non physical, and believe that the first cause is non- physical (eg, God). But if you're an atheist, you'll believe the MFC and the PFC are the same thing, because you won't believe there is anything prior to the physical world.

You can also believe there is a MFC but no PFC. You could believe in an infinite regress, but believe it needed an MFC like a God to actuate it. This is where things like Krauss' arguments are incomplete, because they only establish a lack of a PFC, not an MFC.

When I say first cause, I mean the most ontologically prior reality. Normally, first cause only refers to a chronological first cause, in that it doesn't cover infinite regress theories. 'Most ontologically prior reality' covers both, because in an infinite regress theory (an atheist one, so basically one without a separate MFC) the most OPR is a combination of things such as time, space, energy, matter etc.

 

[AltF4]

What an absurd turn of phrase. Why would you use the term "First Cause" when you're neither referring to chronology nor causality? It's just a rephrasing of the question "What is the ultimate truth to the universe?". But in silly language that necessarily suggests a particular answer.

 

[Dre89]

What an absurd turn of phrase. Why would you use the term "First Cause" when you're neither referring to chronology nor causality? It's just a rephrasing of the question "What is the ultimate truth to the universe?". But in silly language that necessarily suggests a particular answer.

The 'ultimate truth' encompasses a lot of different questions, such as truths within the world, why the universe exists/was created etc.

'Ultimate reality' is only there to accomodate infinite regress theorists. It's still just a question specifically about what the most ontologically prior existence is.

The term 'first cause' is still appropriate because it is still first, and is still the cause of ontologically posterior existences. It's just that when you say 'first cause' people often assume you are talking about a chronological first cause in a finite chain of causality (which it does encompass).

 

[GofG]

Soz but this doesn't work for philosophy of religion. The main reason is like most people not educated in it, this only accounts for physical arguments.

A physical argument is based on science, or something particular in the world. An example is the intelligent design argument, if the world had no order whatsoever, that argument wouldn't hold.

Metaphysical arguments for God say that God is necessary for simply anything to exist. So it doesn't matter what exists, as long as something exists God is conditionally necessary, because only God could do it.

Both theists and atheists make positive metaphysical assumptions, none of which are addressed by you. I can explain some of them if you want.

And no, intelligent theists don't resort to claiming religion is non-falisfiable. You should read philosophy of religion before you make straw-mans like that.

You're obtuse. The metaphysical argument you laid out is simply a circular fallacious proof of the existence of God; if something like that were to be taken seriously by anyone...

I would like to hear some other metaphysical arguments made by theists and nontheists. I fail to see how they affect the simple and absolutely veracious bayesian way of determining what theory to select; religion is at its essence an origin theory, and if we are only talking about religion as a way of explaining the way that things are (which I was), then there is no reason it is outside of the realm of bayes' law.

e: sig

 

[Dre89]

What are you talking about?

I didn't even make an argument for God, so how on Earth could I have I made a circular fallacious proof of the existence of God?

I was describing the nature of metaphysical arguments. The point is that if the logic of a metaphysical argument is true, it doesn't matter what the specific of the existence is. But I didn't actually point out what the metaphysical arguments were.

Did you actually think I was saying that the metaphysical argument was "something exists. God is necessary for any existence. Therefore God existence"? Did you actually think metaphysics is that simple?

Don't insult my intelligence. Assuming that is like believing that someone who has clearly demonstrated that they have studied biology said that they believe that we evolved from chimpanzees. It's evident that anyone educated in biology wouldn't believe that.

I demonstrated that I've studied metaphysics. That doesn't make me right, but clearly someone who has studied metaphysics wouldn't make an argument as simplistic and stupid as you have accused me of.

 

[GofG]

I was not saying that you were proposing that as a serious argument. I pointed out that it was not a serious argument, and asked for more examples so that I might better understand what you mean.

 

[Dre89]

You're obtuse. The metaphysical argument you laid out is simply a circular fallacious proof of the existence of God; if something like that were to be taken seriously by anyone...

Here you call me obtuse, and criticise my argument. That suggests you took the argument seriously. You wouldn't call someone obtuse for an argument you haven't heard yet....


Firstly, you need to separate God and religion. I'm a theist, but I don't believe in any religion, do not believe in young Earth creationism (although many religions don't either) and I don't believe the universe was made for us. I also believe atheism is more logical than pretty much every other God theory apart from my own.

Religion is an empirical thing in the world, therefore it possibly is subject to Bayes theorem. Metaphysical arguments for God aren't though.

The problem is metaphysical arguments (at least the one I use) are rather long and complex, because they need to address the complete picture. For example, my honours thesis is basically my metaphysical argument for God, and it will be 30 000 words.

The reason why other theists' arguments don't need to be as long as because they have a probabilistic approach. They basically throw multiple arguments for God's existence, so that the probability of God's existence cumulates. They won't acknowledge it, but this is in fact what they are doing.

My argument, however, isn't probalistic. My argument is a single, complex and thourough argument that covers every assumption. For example, many Christians will try to show that God exists, but won't account for why/how the Trinity exists. Or they'll claim that God is metaphysically necessary, but then use a physical argument (like intelligent design), which may prove God's existence, but doesn't prove his metaphysical necessity at all.

The basic idea behind my argument is that I first show that there must be a metaphysical first cause (as opposed to a mp infinite regress). I then show that this first cause must be self-necessary (meaning it is self-sufficient has no reason for it's existence, has no purpose etc.)

Basically, from here I try to show that there is a very specific criteria for self-necessity.

I say that self-necessity entails that it can't be finite, contingent, can't have a specific etc. basically it can only have properties which we attribute to what is commonly referred to as God.

Even properties such as the will are explained. I explain that the will is necessary because the act of causation must be contingent, and it is contingent because if it has a will it freely chooses to create. The reason why the causation must be contingent is because if it was a necessary mechanic, then you'd be ascribing a form an objective to the most ontologically prior being, which I demonstrate can't have those.

That's not even the tip of the iceberg. The last paragraph is just one isolated example of my reasoning. The concept behind the argument is quite simple and sensible, it's just that the justification of every premise is rather technical and complex.

 

[GofG]

Here you call me obtuse, and criticise my argument. That suggests you took the argument seriously. You wouldn't call someone obtuse for an argument you haven't heard yet....

I apologize for misleading you.

Firstly, you need to separate God and religion. I'm a theist, but I don't believe in any religion, do not believe in young Earth creationism (although many religions don't either) and I don't believe the universe was made for us. I also believe atheism is more logical than pretty much every other God theory apart from my own.

I am talking purely about origin stories. The explanation of why the universe came to be the way that it is. The only way to get evidence which backs one origin story over another is if the two hypotheses predict different results to the same experiment, and then that experiment is ran.

Religion is an empirical thing in the world, therefore it possibly is subject to Bayes theorem. Metaphysical arguments for God aren't though.

Why aren't they? There are two possibilities:
a: Your theory, whatever its metaphysical nature, predicts in advance some experiential difference from the predictions of other theories. These predictions can be tested and either lend weight to or take weight from your theory.
b: Your theory, whatever its metaphysical nature, does not predict in advance some experiential difference from the predictions of other theories, in which case your theory is indistinguishable from those other theories. Unfortunately at this point our best bet is occam's razor, which somehow if your theory requires 30,000 words to describe, I doubt it'll make the cut.

The problem is metaphysical arguments (at least the one I use) are rather long and complex, because they need to address the complete picture. For example, my honours thesis is basically my metaphysical argument for God, and it will be 30 000 words.

You should begin describing it to me so that I might be able to actually argue against you, instead of having an unapproachable blackbox as my opponent.

The reason why other theists' arguments don't need to be as long as because they have a probabilistic approach. They basically throw multiple arguments for God's existence, so that the probability of God's existence cumulates. They won't acknowledge it, but this is in fact what they are doing.

My initial understanding is that your argument somehow proves, to the exclusion of all other hypotheses, itself true through some fundamental logical induction. Such an argument might have validity, i'd like to see it.

My argument, however, isn't probalistic. My argument is a single, complex and thourough argument that covers every assumption. For example, many Christians will try to show that God exists, but won't account for why/how the Trinity exists. Or they'll claim that God is metaphysically necessary, but then use a physical argument (like intelligent design), which may prove God's existence, but doesn't prove his metaphysical necessity at all.

What is the difference between being metaphysically necessary and being physically necessary? My knee-jerk response might be that a metaphysical necessity probably isn't very necessary. Feynman: "Philosophers often make vague statements about what has to be true. They forget that the only truth is the observational evidence, and all truth must come from that truth", or something to that effect.

The basic idea behind my argument is that I first show that there must be a metaphysical first cause (as opposed to a mp infinite regress). I then show that this first cause must be self-necessary (meaning it is self-sufficient has no reason for it's existence, has no purpose etc.)

Basically, from here I try to show that there is a very specific criteria for self-necessity.

I say that self-necessity entails that it can't be finite, contingent, can't have a specific etc. basically it can only have properties which we attribute to what is commonly referred to as God.

Even properties such as the will are explained. I explain that the will is necessary because the act of causation must be contingent, and it is contingent because if it has a will it freely chooses to create. The reason why the causation must be contingent is because if it was a necessary mechanic, then you'd be ascribing a form an objective to the most ontologically prior being, which I demonstrate can't have those.

The jump from a being either governed by newtonian determinism or quantum probability to a being with the ability to make conscious decisions is one I would like to hear.

That's not even the tip of the iceberg. The last paragraph is just one isolated example of my reasoning. The concept behind the argument is quite simple and sensible, it's just that the justification of every premise is rather technical and complex.

The question is, what new predictions can we make with your theory?

I hate to bring Carl Sagan's dragon into this, because you might be offended, but I can think of no clearer example as to the utility of occam's razor.

There is no difference between the theory "there is an invisible, inaudible, and otherwise undetectable dragon in my garage" and the theory "there is no dragon in my garage". They both make the same predictions, both predict the same outcome to experimental verification, and therefore are identical in content. The structure, however, is quite different. A simple Solomonoff induction shows that the structure of the 'no dragon' argument is much, much simpler than the structure of the 'undetectable dragon' argument. Since both theories predict the same results indefinitely, and there is no experiment which can distinguish between them, we use Solomonoff induction to decide which one we want to believe in.

This doesn't give us a 'right' answer. It very well be that there is an undetectable dragon in the garage, but we might as well cache a simpler theory in our minds.

Without knowing hardly anything about your theory, it sounds to me to be overly complicated and probably hard to distinguish from simpler theories. Prove me wrong.

e: sig

 

[Dre89]

I apologize for misleading you.



I am talking purely about origin stories. The explanation of why the universe came to be the way that it is. The only way to get evidence which backs one origin story over another is if the two hypotheses predict different results to the same experiment, and then that experiment is ran.

This only concerns the physical beginnings of the universe. Observable phenomena necessitates space and time. The question of the metaphysical first cause is prior to that. You can't find empirical evidence of something not within space and time (God), and you can't find empirical evidence of there being nothing existing outside of space and time (atheism).

Why aren't they? There are two possibilities:
a: Your theory, whatever its metaphysical nature, predicts in advance some experiential difference from the predictions of other theories. These predictions can be tested and either lend weight to or take weight from your theory.
b: Your theory, whatever its metaphysical nature, does not predict in advance some experiential difference from the predictions of other theories, in which case your theory is indistinguishable from those other theories. Unfortunately at this point our best bet is occam's razor, which somehow if your theory requires 30,000 words to describe, I doubt it'll make the cut.

Except this theory isn't attempting to explain physical beginnings (eg. big bang vs young Earth creationism vs. Hawking no boundary proposal). This theory is explaining the nature of the metaphysical first cause, or the most ontologically prior reality. Atheism does a similar thing- makes positive metaphysical assumptions (atheists just don't realise it) to suggest that the most ontologically prior reality is physical. By your logic, atheism is just as screwed as theism.

You should begin describing it to me so that I might be able to actually argue against you, instead of having an unapproachable blackbox as my opponent.

But I didn't come in here saying God exists. All I've done is clear up certain misconceptions, and explain that Bayes theorem doesn't apply to metaphysical arguments.

My initial understanding is that your argument somehow proves, to the exclusion of all other hypotheses, itself true through some fundamental logical induction. Such an argument might have validity, i'd like to see it.

See above.

What is the difference between being metaphysically necessary and being physically necessary? My knee-jerk response might be that a metaphysical necessity probably isn't very necessary. Feynman: "Philosophers often make vague statements about what has to be true. They forget that the only truth is the observational evidence, and all truth must come from that truth", or something to that effect.

Physical necessities are contigent necessities in the physical world. A child necessarily having parents is one example. It's contingent because humans didn't necessarily have to exist.

Mp necessity is the necessity of something that has to exist, or would exist in all worlds. So if I show that God is only viable first cause of the universe, then God is metaphysically necessary.

This is why I'm more meticulous with my arguments than other theists. Many theists will say God is mp necessary, but will give him traits such as the Trinity that aren't explained to be mp necessary. Every property I give God is mp necessary.

And don't listen to scientists opinions of philosophers. Whilst most ocnttemporary philosophers who discuss science will at least be somewhat scientifially informed, many scientists don't respect philosoph yas a discipline and speak of it with no education of it whatsoever.

The jump from a being either governed by newtonian determinism or quantum probability to a being with the ability to make conscious decisions is one I would like to hear.

Quantum probability, or any physics assumes the existence of at least space and time, and probably energy and matter. The question of mp first cause is prior to the existence of those.

The question is, what new predictions can we make with your theory?

I hate to bring Carl Sagan's dragon into this, because you might be offended, but I can think of no clearer example as to the utility of occam's razor.

There is no difference between the theory "there is an invisible, inaudible, and otherwise undetectable dragon in my garage" and the theory "there is no dragon in my garage". They both make the same predictions, both predict the same outcome to experimental verification, and therefore are identical in content. The structure, however, is quite different. A simple Solomonoff induction shows that the structure of the 'no dragon' argument is much, much simpler than the structure of the 'undetectable dragon' argument. Since both theories predict the same results indefinitely, and there is no experiment which can distinguish between them, we use Solomonoff induction to decide which one we want to believe in.

This doesn't give us a 'right' answer. It very well be that there is an undetectable dragon in the garage, but we might as well cache a simpler theory in our minds.

Without knowing hardly anything about your theory, it sounds to me to be overly complicated and probably hard to distinguish from simpler theories. Prove me wrong.

e: sig

The dragon example doesn't apply at all. I get this all the time, and it's a huge straw man.

We determine something to be rational to believe in if we either have experience of it, or we deem it necessary for something. We haven't experienced the dragon, and it's not necessary for anything.

Now we haven't experienced God, but I try to show he is necessary to cause the universe. I have reasons why my version of God can cause the universe, but a dragon cannot.

The dragon argument could not be more of a misunderstanding. The whole point of the argument for God as mp necessity is because dragons and other finite contingent beings could not be the first cause.

Ironically, the idea of the a dragon as the first cause is metaphysically much more similar to atheism than my personal theism. Metaphysically, the dragon hypothesis believes that a contingent being can exist self-necessarily, possibly co existing with other entities such as space and time. Remove the dragon aspect, and that's basically the mp of atheism.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I'm not particularly interested in dancing around the subject, I'd rather have people telling me thorough proofs of how God may exist. Saying anything other than that is superfluous until somehow predicated in the explanation of why God exists. Until then, I shall not be participating and assume that the thing doesn't exist to any of you.

Nonexistent until proven existent. I'll be waiting.

 

[Dre89]

I'm not particularly interested in dancing around the subject, I'd rather have people telling me thorough proofs of how God may exist. Saying anything other than that is superfluous until somehow predicated in the explanation of why God exists. Until then, I shall not be participating and assume that the thing doesn't exist to any of you.

Nonexistent until proven existent. I'll be waiting.

If you mean 'My mind won't change until I hear a good argument for God' then that's ok.

If you mean 'the burden of proof is on the theist' then I demonstrated that the Bop is equal on both sides due to both sides asserting positive metaphysical propositions.

Read my posts in this thread before you respond with 'atheism is a lack of belief due to a lack of evidence'. I've already addressed this and it's tiring constantly dealing with the same misinformed arguments again and again.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

If you mean 'My mind won't change until I hear a good argument for God' then that's ok.

If you mean 'the burden of proof is on the theist' then I demonstrated that the Bop is equal on both sides due to both sides asserting positive metaphysical propositions.

Read my posts in this thread before you respond with 'atheism is a lack of belief due to a lack of evidence'. I've already addressed this and it's tiring constantly dealing with the same misinformed arguments again and again.

I mean precisely what I said I mean. The topic is about the existence of God, and unless anyone has anything good to say about that instead of simply alluding to having some sort of proof to it, I will remain a spectator until the topic of the thread is realized.

 

[GofG]

This only concerns the physical beginnings of the universe. Observable phenomena necessitates space and time. The question of the metaphysical first cause is prior to that. You can't find empirical evidence of something not within space and time (God), and you can't find empirical evidence of there being nothing existing outside of space and time (atheism).

If you cannot find empirical evidence of something not within space and time, then it cannot possibly have an effect on the known universe. Just like the dragon, you can either have the theory of 'this thing exists, but has no effect on the universe' or you can have the theory of 'this thing does not exist'. These theories are indistinguishable, and Occam's Razor tells us that the latter is what we should believe (although you are free to believe the former, since it makes no difference).

Except this theory isn't attempting to explain physical beginnings (eg. big bang vs young Earth creationism vs. Hawking no boundary proposal). This theory is explaining the nature of the metaphysical first cause, or the most ontologically prior reality. Atheism does a similar thing- makes positive metaphysical assumptions (atheists just don't realise it) to suggest that the most ontologically prior reality is physical. By your logic, atheism is just as screwed as theism.

I have long believed that agnosticism is the acceptance of the fact that 'there is no god' is indistinguishable from 'there is a god who has no effect on the universe', and atheism is simply the application of occam's razor to discover that 'there is no god' requires fewer decibels of evidence to be selected over 'there is a god who has no effect', and as such is the preferred belief to hold.

I've never made any metaphysical arguments whatsoever and I believe that my beliefs are internally consistent.

But I didn't come in here saying God exists. All I've done is clear up certain misconceptions, and explain that Bayes theorem doesn't apply to metaphysical arguments.

You haven't explained this to my satisfaction. You aren't required to, but I will continue to disagree with you until you do.

Physical necessities are contigent necessities in the physical world. A child necessarily having parents is one example. It's contingent because humans didn't necessarily have to exist.

Mp necessity is the necessity of something that has to exist, or would exist in all worlds. So if I show that God is only viable first cause of the universe, then God is metaphysically necessary.

Can you demonstrate this?

This is why I'm more meticulous with my arguments than other theists. Many theists will say God is mp necessary, but will give him traits such as the Trinity that aren't explained to be mp necessary. Every property I give God is mp necessary.

...this seems a little god-of-the-gaps to me. You are defining God to be everything which is necessary for the universe to exist, but which is not explained outside of metaphysics?

And don't listen to scientists opinions of philosophers. Whilst most ocnttemporary philosophers who discuss science will at least be somewhat scientifially informed, many scientists don't respect philosoph yas a discipline and speak of it with no education of it whatsoever.

I do not respect philosophy as a discipline. To me, it is realm where sciences sit in before we find a way to empirically test them against different sciences.

Quantum probability, or any physics assumes the existence of at least space and time, and probably energy and matter. The question of mp first cause is prior to the existence of those.

You cannot say that something happened prior to the existence of time. Or maybe you can and I don't understand what you are saying.

The dragon example doesn't apply at all. I get this all the time, and it's a huge straw man.

We determine something to be rational to believe in if we either have experience of it, or we deem it necessary for something. We haven't experienced the dragon, and it's not necessary for anything.

What? I haven't spoken about necessity at all. I don't believe in the dragon because there is another theory, simpler, which explains the same experimental results. I determine something to be rational to believe in based on Bayes' Law and absolutely nothing else.

Now we haven't experienced God, but I try to show he is necessary to cause the universe. I have reasons why my version of God can cause the universe, but a dragon cannot.

The dragon argument could not be more of a misunderstanding. The whole point of the argument for God as mp necessity is because dragons and other finite contingent beings could not be the first cause.

I did not claim that the dragon was a first-cause, or anything of the sort. I will rephrase my entire point.

We are trying to explain the phenomenon of 'nothing out of the ordinary is happening in the garage'. We have two theories: 'there is a dragon which is undetectable by any means in the garage' and 'there is nothing in the garage'. Both of these theories make the same predictions, and are therefore indistinguishable in terms of evidence which can be brought about in favor of one and not the other. Solomonoff induction pretty clearly says we should favor belief in the 'nothing' theory over the 'invisible dragon' theory.

In this same way, your theory must make predictions about reality which can be verified and which are different from theories you are competing against in order to keep it from being indistinguishable from other theories.

Here's a better example of the lack of distinguishment: MWI-QM vs Collapse-QM.

In the multi-world interpretation of quantum mechanics, the wave-function doesn't collapse down to one solution upon observation; each different possibility generates an alternative reality and the experience gets lumped into essentially the blob of largest probability.

In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, an observation causes all amplitutes of the wave to collapse down into the same blob of largest probability.

All predictions made by the first model are exactly equal to all predictions made by the second model. They are absolutely indistinguishable. As such, while some scientists are still trying to find some way in which the two models might give different results so that they can test it, most scientists just ignore the problem because it doesn't affect them.

Both models are still well thought out and beautiful. They make my brain happy in that intellectual way. But actual work gets done by ignoring both of them.

Ironically, the idea of the a dragon as the first cause is metaphysically much more similar to atheism than my personal theism. Metaphysically, the dragon hypothesis believes that a contingent being can exist self-necessarily, possibly co existing with other entities such as space and time. Remove the dragon aspect, and that's basically the mp of atheism.

...little strawman here.

 

[Dre89]

I can't respond to everything right now, but I'll try to respond to the major things.

OR doesn't work here because atheism is just as metaphysically complex as theism, it's just empircally less complex. But atheism is a mp position, because you are saying a physical reality is the most ontologically prior reality, and mp deals with the most OPR.

By your logic, believing a child doesn't have parents, because it is less empirically complex than believing that it does would be viable. Even if it was, believing it doesn't have parents is making positive assumptions about its ontology (eg. Not being caused).

And saying nothing in the observable universe can affect it is like saying nothing outside a room exists or can affect the room, when the room was actually built by agents external to the room.

You're making mp assumptions without realising it. You believe that a contingent entity can be the most ontologically prior reality. You believe that a contingent entity can be self necessary, and you may believe that multiple contingent entities can co exist as the most OPR.

By simply believing God is not necessary, and by being agnostic or atheist, those are just a few metaphysical propositions you assume to be true.

You don't respect philosophy, yet ironically OR is a philosophical principle that came from a philosopher.

Also, the current surge in scientific thinking and subsequent hostility towards philosophy came from philosophy.

The view that science is superior to Phil and that only only science can conclude truths is called scientism or logical positivism, which actually a philosophy.

Any criticism of philosophy entails a philosohical argument as well.

 

[GofG]

I can't respond to everything right now, but I'll try to respond to the major things.

OR doesn't work here because atheism is just as metaphysically complex as theism, it's just empircally less complex. But atheism is a mp position, because you are saying a physical reality is the most ontologically prior reality, and mp deals with the most OPR.

By your logic, believing a child doesn't have parents, because it is less empirically complex than believing that it does would be viable. Even if it was, believing it doesn't have parents is making positive assumptions about its ontology (eg. Not being caused).

Every time you accuse me of strawmanning, I will point at this.

The two theories 'a child has parents' and 'a child does not have parents' are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER. I am talking about only theories which are absolutely indistinguishable from each other; I thought I made that pretty clear.

I'm ducking out. I wanted to get into the debate hall but i'm just done.

e: OR came from a philosopher. Solomonoff induction, which provides a way to turn the word 'simple' from a subjective feeling to an objective number, came from a scientist, and without it OR is nothing.

Also, I said a god which did not have an affect on the observable universe would be indistinguishable from the nonexistence of such a god. Are you suggesting that God has an observable effect on the universe? If he does, we can perform bayes' theorem calculations on the probability of his existence. I thought you said we couldn't?

Any criticism of philosophy entails a philosohical argument as well.

That sounds wrong to me

 

[ciaza]

GofG, as i pointed out in the DH social, you're really promising and evidently willing to put in effort to debate, and that might be the most important thing to get in (some believe as long as you're willing to debate you should be in). maybe if you disdain dre. so much debating someone else in the center stage or another thread might take your fancy?

these boards needs as much people as possible =)

 

[Theftz22]

GofG, I think that Dre is saying that god does have an observable effect on the universe, but you would need philosophical argumentation to draw out just what the effects are if he exists and if he does not exist. For example many theists maintain that if some necessary being didn't exist, nothing at all would exist. So the observable effect of god would be that anything exists at all. But you can't use Bayes' Theorem to determine that, you need to make some form of the contingency cosmological argument. And it seems any numbers you plug into the Theorem for these things are just going to be arbitrary. I mean, how can you calculate the probability of anything at all given god's existence and given god's non-existence? What some theists like to do is just give the philosophical argument and then say that therefore the existence of anything at all counts as evidence for god, without providing exact numbers. So the theist would just leave it at P(h|e&k) > P(h|k). In this way you can use Bayes' Theorem, but it requires philosophical argument to do so and even then it's not as if we're using precise values. For such an approach, see Richard Swinburne's The Existence of God.

 

[GofG]

it's pretty clear to me that dre understood about as much of what i was saying as i did of him. the difference is i asked for clarification and gave clarification; he did neither. if this is representative of this forum then I don't want to be here. not a parthian shot, just... eh.

e: having an effect on the universe isn't a philosophical issue. i'm talking about direct action. a physical influence on the probability distributions of the wave functions of the particles. (that is the only affect something can actually have on the universe. the abbreviation for 'doesn't have a physical effect on the universe' is 'does not exist'). it seems to me to be obvious that god-as-an-origin-story allows all of existence to be evidence for god just as much as any other x-as-an-origin-story does, which means that the probabilities balance back out to be the true evidence for the existence of x

 

[Dre89]

Doggs is pretty much correct about what I said.

And the thing is, saying 'if X doesn't have an observable effect on the universe, then there is no reason to believe X exists' already assumes multiple metaphysical propositions.

Your theory has metaphysical implications, the same way a creationist uses theology to argue that the world is 6000 years old. They're using theology to make empirical premises. It's a confusion of categories.


What you're doing is ascribing a physical entity the property of being the most ontologically prior reality. This property isn't observable in the physical universe, so you're guilty of you're own accusation.

 

[GofG]

i have no knowledge of metaphysics. i never took a course in it, i always tended to stay away from it as looking at it from afar gave me the same kneejerk reaction that looking at, say, 20th century psychology or economics did. I believe in things which can be tested through experimentation and actively disbelief things which can't. Is this a vice?

I am starting to understand that my context for belief and your context for belief are incompatible, and that you seem to have more information than I do, so please clarify what you mean in the style which I have used to clarify what I mean, through analogy and example. For instance, the "What you're doing is ascribing a physical entity the property of being the most ontologically prior reality" comment got to me. I do not remember doing this willfully at all, but I can see how I might have done this without realizing it. If you could explain exactly what I did which made this ascription (e: or point me to a better resource than wikipedia on learning about the specific branch of MP which deals with this), I might better understand your points.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Gofg makes a good point. It does not matter how much you dress up what you say, that is nice and all, but that makes one of the biggest mistakes of any debate: making assumptions. Making the least amount of assumptions creates the least amount of discrepancies (incredibly important even more so since we are online), allows less room for logical fallacies, and is more welcoming for others to participate and/or comment upon. The point is that saying terms and such could be quite gilded and do not promote corrections. The thread discussing the criteria for people entering the Proving Grounds clearly states that we do not need to know terms that philosophers have made up, let alone use them without explaining them. Not saying you are wrong precisely, but you are being counterproductive and potentially destructive in your choice of diction. This is why I rarely use "official" terms, and when I do I clarify, at least with some brevity. Not to mention that my first post here talked about the most understood and mundane things about murder and suicide, and yet I took the time to put it in such a syllogistic bare-bones laymen structure that anyone can interject and understand.

 

[GofG]

Errr... I would much sooner categorize my lack of understanding as a failing on my part to have not studied metaphysics and then involved myself in a debate which is clearly covered better by metaphysics than by anything I have studied.

If I were Dre I would point me at the most expensive metaphysics textbook I could.

 

[Orboknown]

Gofg makes a good point. It does not matter how much you dress up what you say, that is nice and all, but that makes one of the biggest mistakes of any debate: making assumptions. Making the least amount of assumptions creates the least amount of discrepancies (incredibly important even more so since we are online), allows less room for logical fallacies, and is more welcoming for others to participate and/or comment upon. The point is that saying terms and such could be quite gilded and do not promote corrections. The thread discussing the criteria for people entering the Proving Grounds clearly states that we do not need to know terms that philosophers have made up, let alone use them without explaining them. Not saying you are wrong precisely, but you are being counterproductive and potentially destructive in your choice of diction. This is why I rarely use "official" terms, and when I do I clarify, at least with some brevity. Not to mention that my first post here talked about the most understood and mundane things about murder and suicide, and yet I took the time to put it in such a syllogistic bare-bones laymen structure that anyone can interject and understand.

the thing is,dre uses those terms because they point out the argument he is trying to make. It is easier for him to say a five word phrase than a six paragraph essay to get his point across. we are on the internet, we can go look up the terms ourselves.
not trying to derail the thread;just offering my point about this.

 

[GofG]

Perusing the WP articles on metaphysics and ontology led me to have a tvtropes magnitude of tabs open, and I still see it as being pretty much utterly useless and entirely speculative in nature.

Is there an ounce of experimentation in this field of study?

 

[Orboknown]

cant copy/paste this so hoping this link sends you to where im at
http://books.google.com/books?id=_5...age&q=experimentation and metaphysics&f=false

 

[GofG]

I literally had a gag reflex to reading that.

'Thought experiment' is a misnomer, always has been, always will be. If we could sit around and generate logic models, prove they were isomorphic to reality, and then use them to learn new things about reality, then Plato would have figured out everything there was to know about the universe.

e: The problem is the second step. The way we go about proving a logic model to be isomorphic to reality is through scientific experimentation. I disbelieve there are things which can be 'proven' on paper and are isomorphic to reality but cannot be experimentally verified outside of the mind.

e2: the only logic model which we have had some success proving an isomorphic relationship to reality is mathematics. I suppose if you proved a different logic model isomorphic to mathematics, it would therefore also be proven isomorphic to reality.

 

[Orboknown]

this sorta ties to AltF4's concievability thread in the DH proper.
However, just because you dont believe in somethign doesnt mean it cant be so.
alright im done derailing this,ill wait for dre to answer/thread to go back on topic.

 

[GofG]

I would love to get the chance to post in that topic, then.

 

[Orboknown]

the thread is basically "if you can concieve something,then can it be made?"
i linked it as "if you can concieve the experiment, you can then test it"
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=315252
there^

 

[global-wolf]

I mean precisely what I said I mean. The topic is about the existence of God, and unless anyone has anything good to say about that instead of simply alluding to having some sort of proof to it, I will remain a spectator until the topic of the thread is realized.

The OP was more like me saying god debates are dumb.... And the insults in this thread support that pretty well imo. But to each their own.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

The OP was more like me saying god debates are dumb.... And the insults in this thread support that pretty well imo. But to each their own.

Yeah I saw that, but considering this is the Proving Grounds, trash talking the futility of these debates seems less intelligent then perhaps going against the notion and showing how God can be proved, which is even what people are talking about (well, alluding to, not actually saying anything with substance).

the thing is,dre uses those terms because they point out the argument he is trying to make. It is easier for him to say a five word phrase than a six paragraph essay to get his point across. we are on the internet, we can go look up the terms ourselves.
not trying to derail the thread;just offering my point about this.

Those terms my friend, would not take essays to explain, especially if you give the slightest hint to what they mean. If one cannot explain what he wants to say without these little terms then they do not know what they speak of, so I would imagine he has the possibility to reveal what he means. Unfortunately, another point against you, is that debates are not simple little things, especially if you want them done without tons of mistakes. Nothing should be said that will allow the opponent's mind to think that we mean anything but we do mean, which is a common occurrence, since many things have different semantics, could be a made-up term, it could be an official term but assumed not to be. The possibilities are endless. If we are going to dedicate a portion of this sight to intelligent debate, we need to do it seriously, and that is not by repeating terms, as nice as it is to have an understanding of them. Yes, you can look them up, but that becomes not only a hassle, but still leaves a window of error between what is in their mind and yours, it could even by an incorrect piece of information, it is discouraging to those who see it that do not understand the five different acronyms and terms they say, and also again creates an inconsistency with the purposes of these threads delineated from the sticky post describing these parts. Humans so commonly take things for granted, so we need to be checking so we can catch ourselves do that.

 

[Dre89]

Not to sound elitist, but the burden isn't necessarily on me to explain terminology of metaphysics, seeing that this is a metaphysical topic so knowledge of the basic terminology should be assumed.

If you were in a debate about evolution, you wouldn't be expected to explain every concept to your opponent. If they are in the thread debating with a sense of authority, they should be educated on what they're talking about.

It'd be different if I came into a non-philosophy debate and started throwing this terminology around.

Underdoggs22 usually understands what I'm saying, because he too is educated in philosophy.

That doesn't mean I'm not willing to define anything, but I shouldn't be criticised for not automatically defining something that should be common knowledge in this type of thread.

As for the lack of observational proof, most metaphysics doesn't deal with the observational world, so demanding observable world is silly. The whole point is that metaphysics is prior to the observable world. That's why a true mp argument for God, or argument against God doesn't care about what how the universe is. Things such as ethics, philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, and applied science do deal with the observable world and thus they often incorporate science or observation into their works.

As I've said before, atheism is a positive mp position. The question of God is the question of the most ontologically prior reality. Ontology is the study of being, so the OPR is basically the first being in existence.

Now by claiming that the philosophical God is not necessary, and therefore requiring empirical evidence of his existence, you are assuming multiple things.

You are assuming that the OPR could be contingent, meaning that the OPR could have had a form different to what it had (eg. if the OPR was hypothetically a horce, it didn't need to be one, it could have been an elephant). This means you assume it had a specific form.

You assume that a contingent being can be self-necessary. Self-necessity is to exist self-sufficiently, without any cause or any reason for existence.

You most likely assume that multiple entities can co exist as the OPR (space, time, energy and matter all co existing without requiring a cause).

You either believe that each one of those entities is self-necessary (eg. time can exist without energy, matter and space) or in coherent self-necessity ( eg. time needs space to exist, which needs energy etc.).

Note that this isn't physics. These questions about time, space etc. only come into play once you ascribe these entities the property of being the OPR, which is what you do when you're an atheist, because you believe the OPR is physical or natural.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Every debate pertaining to God has refrained from using anything without explanation, let alone many terms to begin with (William Lane Craig, Hitchens, Dawkins, etc.) It is NOT to be assumed, nothing in a debate should be assumed, that is a capital mistake. I find your reference to evolution and science to be rather poor considering it isn't parallel in any shape or form to discussing philosophy. Science absolutely REQUIRES terms, and is something absolutely objective in terms of what everything is called or does. Philosophy is tentative and relies more on logical steps. Not even close. Again, this may be a philosophic department of this website, the website as a whole is Smashboards, and thus unlikely to be something most people will have taken any college classes on. Even referring back to science, most people even have a typical understanding of it because we are forced to do it all throughout are schooling, philosophy being an option, not to mention only later in our schooling (which is a shame).

 

[GofG]

You said you would define things when asked.

As I've said before, atheism is a positive mp position.

What does this mean, in as technical language as you can put it?

The question of God is the question of the most ontologically prior reality. Ontology is the study of being, so the OPR is basically the first being in existence.

What does OPR stand for? Ontologically Prior Reality? I don't know. I will continue under the premise that OPR stands for Ontologically Prior Reality

Now by claiming that the philosophical God is not necessary, and therefore requiring empirical evidence of his existence, you are assuming multiple things.

You are assuming that the OPR could be contingent,

I assume that the OPR has the exact amount of contingency that our universe has.

meaning that the OPR could have had a form different to what it had (eg. if the OPR was hypothetically a horse, it didn't need to be one, it could have been an elephant). This means you assume it had a specific form.

I don't know what you are saying I'm assuming had a specific form, but I don't think I'm making any assumptions. I know that if the bigbang theory is true, then nothing which happened before the big bang is conceivable because spacetime had null values, which means no causality, and I therefore find it very difficult to think about the OPR, much less make assumptions about it. I sure as hell don't assume it had a specific form.

You assume that a contingent being can be self-necessary. Self-necessity is to exist self-sufficiently, without any cause or any reason for existence.

A contingent being would necessarily be self-necessary, unless we are using different definitions of 'contingent'. So yes, I do assume that.

You most likely assume that multiple entities can co exist as the OPR (space, time, energy and matter all co existing without requiring a cause).

Those four things are so interrelated, it is unlikely that they are not the same thing. And none of them existed pre-universe, or at least they existed in extremely strange nonintuitive quantities (like 2i+5, or null, or infinity, or something).

You either believe that each one of those entities is self-necessary (eg. time can exist without energy, matter and space) or in coherent self-necessity ( eg. time needs space to exist, which needs energy etc.).

...I think they require each other because they are four faces of the same coin...

Note that this isn't physics. These questions about time, space etc. only come into play once you ascribe these entities the property of being the OPR, which is what you do when you're an atheist, because you believe the OPR is physical or natural.

The OPR being physical or natural doesn't necessarily mean that it has anything to do with any concepts of reality which make any sense to us. At the quark level, for instance, matter/energy/time/space stops being real and everything becomes amplitude configurations (just like at the quantum level individual atoms stop being real); you don't even have to leave our universe('s timeperiod? the ontological present?) to find the point at which your understanding of physics seems to break down.

What exactly do you think I'm assuming?

You assume a lot. I am not an 1850's physicist. I am not a Scientific American subscriber. I am on the cutting edge of developments in physics. I sure as well would not make such a basic assumption as to assume that the OPR would be anything at all like the reality we enjoy today.

I would think that my belief in the absolute impossibility of acquiring knowledge about the OPR would rule out these assumptions you've made of me.

e: it is because the OPR is not natural, in that it did not behave by the same laws of physics which we are aware of, that I believe it is unknowable. And I'm still an atheist, in that i certainly do not believe that the OPR could be ascribed any version of the word 'conscious'.

e2: sig

 

[Dre89]

You said you would define things when asked.



What does this mean, in as technical language as you can put it?

It means you asserting claims in which a burden of proof is on you. For example, suppose a caveman has never left the cave he lives in. If he says that nothing exists outside of the cave, this is as equally positive a proposition as saying something outside it exists.

I've shown the mp assumptions you make. Having these without justification is equivalent to the cavemanassuming nothing exists outside the cave.

What does OPR stand for? Ontologically Prior Reality? I don't know. I will continue under the premise that OPR stands for Ontologically Prior Reality



I assume that the OPR has the exact amount of contingency that our universe has.

Positive mp assumption.

I don't know what you are saying I'm assuming had a specific form, but I don't think I'm making any assumptions. I know that if the bigbang theory is true, then nothing which happened before the big bang is conceivable because spacetime had null values, which means no causality, and I therefore find it very difficult to think about the OPR, much less make assumptions about it. I sure as hell don't assume it had a specific form.

You just admitted you assumed the OPR (yes it is the most ontologically prior reality) is contingent, so you can't say you don't make any assumptions. You also assume causality can't exist outside of space and time, which is not self-evident. It's only self evident that physical causality specifically cannot occur outside space and time.

A contingent being would necessarily be self-necessary, unless we are using different definitions of 'contingent'. So yes, I do assume that.

Any being apart from the OPR can't be self necessary. Contingent in this context means it has properties that may not exist in any other possible world. So basically, everything is contingent, unless you believe in a non-contingent OPR. The fact you believe the OPR is contingent and could have been different is a positive mp assumption.

Those four things are so interrelated, it is unlikely that they are not the same thing. And none of them existed pre-universe, or at least they existed in extremely strange nonintuitive quantities (like 2i+5, or null, or infinity, or something).



...I think they require each other because they are four faces of the same coin...

This is different from assuming that these entities, with their specific forms, can all just exist harmonously without any reason, and no explanation as to why they have the specific forms they do instead of any other form they could have (eg. time being infinite or curved, space having a difference shape/size etc.)

What I've just stated is what you're doing, and is a positive mp asusmption.

The OPR being physical or natural doesn't necessarily mean that it has anything to do with any concepts of reality which make any sense to us. At the quark level, for instance, matter/energy/time/space stops being real and everything becomes amplitude configurations (just like at the quantum level individual atoms stop being real); you don't even have to leave our universe('s timeperiod? the ontological present?) to find the point at which your understanding of physics seems to break down.

Anything already assuming the existence of space and time isn't relevant here.

What exactly do you think I'm assuming?

What I've showed you.

You assume a lot. I am not an 1850's physicist. I am not a Scientific American subscriber. I am on the cutting edge of developments in physics. I sure as well would not make such a basic assumption as to assume that the OPR would be anything at all like the reality we enjoy today.

How can I assume anything if I haven't even made any positive mp assumptions in this thread, and haven't argued for God?

Empirically, your OPR wouldn't be similar to beings experienced in the natural world, but metaphysically there is little difference. In fact metaphysically your OPR is far more similar to a unicorn being the OPR than God is.

I would think that my belief in the absolute impossibility of acquiring knowledge about the OPR would rule out these assumptions you've made of me.

I've already showed you what you assume.

e: it is because the OPR is not natural, in that it did not behave by the same laws of physics which we are aware of, that I believe it is unknowable. And I'm still an atheist, in that i certainly do not believe that the OPR could be ascribed any version of the word 'conscious'.

e2: sig

Except that metaphysically your OPR is very similar to beings in the observable universe, which is what constitutes your OPR is natural or physical.

 

[GOTM]

Theists have faith that a god exists, and atheists have faith that there is no god. There is no concrete evidence to support either side, and religion debates always boil down to the unshakable beliefs of the participants.

Holy (pun) crap is this wrong.

It is irrational to believe something unless there is evidence to support it. I make no assertion that there cannot be a god, but I see no rational reason to believe that there is one. I have the humility to say 'I don't know' when faced with questions to which I do not know the answers, and the curiosity to search for what the answers may be. I am not content to let the mistranslated and misinterpreted beliefs of bronze age shepherds shape my view of how the universe works.

Faith is the complete opposite of this position. Faith is believing something despite a lack of supporting evidence, or even in the face of evidence pointing to the opposite conclusion. Faith is inserting god every time you don't know the answer. Ultimately, faith is believing something because you want it to be true.

 

[GofG]

I googled ontologically prior reality and got... this thread.

My skepticism alarm went off.

I'm going to avoid you in the future, Dre.

 

[Nicholas1024]

@GOTM
You just completely misrepresented the concept of faith as I know it. First off, my beliefs in Christianity are not based purely on wanting it to be true, if you're willing to go back through the archives of the PG, I made a whole thread on historical evidence behind the new testament, which is more or less the foundation of why I believe what I believe. I'm sure there's atheists in this hall who would complain my reasoning is terrible and give some nice long CAPS LOCK explanations of how I'm such a huge idiot, but that's irrelevant, as it's a concrete example of how one can believe in God due to evidence.

Secondly, as far as faith goes, it's basically trusting God about a situation because of what He's done in the past, and believing He has a reason for letting the situation happen as it did. Sure, it's possible to have blind faith in a person for no good reason, but that's hardly faith as a virtue, that's just being stupid. (And if someone brings up "immoral acts" of God, I'm going to be very annoyed, we've already got that particular discussion going in another thread at the moment.)

 

[DerfMidWest]

I always viewed religion/faith as a fall back or a primitive science.
Religion provides an explanation for various questions about life (i.e. where we came from, where we go when we die, etc.). However, most religions were created a long time ago, when people did not have the scientific means to answer these questions.
Will we every be able to answer all the questions about the universe through science? Of course not.
However science provides a greater understanding of the universe and how it works.
I myself, am not able to believe in a deity of any kind. I've tried, but I'm just naturally an Atheist.

I have no problem with the idea of faith, and I except that some people do believe in it (although, I disagree).However, I dislike the idea of organized religion. Yes, it allows people to associate with those who share similar beliefs, but it also creates tension between separate religions and/or religious factions. Because of organized religion, you also see many people who are exploiting people's faith for personal gain. If you look back in history, and even in current day, many wars are over difference in religion. As an outsider, I look at things like this and am disgusted.

Some may argue that religion creates unity, however I think that this is only true within small communities, as a whole, religion divides people. Many people take religion so seriously and so personally that they will not except that other people think differently. Overall, I think it would be better to end organized religion rather than attempt to make everyone believe one thing. And it will certainly be impossible to convince everyone to be excepting of other religions, because if they believe other religions can exist, then that means that they accept their faith is not necessarily correct, and some people are not ok with that.

I think this pretty much sums up my view on the subject, and now I'd like to ask all of you a question:
How do you feel about religious influence on politics?
Religion has a heavy impact on politics all over the world.

EDIT: sorry that I left my signature on, I forgot to turn it off.

 

[GOTM]

I made a whole thread on historical evidence behind the new testament, which is more or less the foundation of why I believe what I believe.

But you're not a good source of evidence. I wouldn't trust my Math teacher to teach me how to spell, nor would I trust someone from Smashboards when they tell me there's hard evidence for the existence of God.

There are scientists who believe in God, but most of those same scientists do it blindly, on no evidence, just on gut. Note: most.

Secondly, as far as faith goes, it's basically trusting God about a situation because of what He's done in the past, and believing He has a reason for letting the situation happen as it did. Sure, it's possible to have blind faith in a person for no good reason, but that's hardly faith as a virtue, that's just being stupid. (And if someone brings up "immoral acts" of God, I'm going to be very annoyed, we've already got that particular discussion going in another thread at the moment.)

You're confusing "faith" and "belief". A belief is any conviction held. A faith is a subset of belief specifically a "belief without evidence or in contradiction to evidence". This is an important distinction.

It so happens that due to the impossibility of discounting things like simulation theory we can't ever be sure that we know anything, let alone something like how the universe is created. That doesn't mean that believing a bearded magical sky fairy did it is reasonable. Lack of knowledge about a topic is best answered with an "I don't know" or "I don't know for sure but the evidence points to X". The best answer isn't to guess that some being who's existence you can't prove willed it to happen.

I always viewed religion/faith as a fall back or a primitive science.
Religion provides an explanation for various questions about life (i.e. where we came from, where we go when we die, etc.). However, most religions were created a long time ago, when people did not have the scientific means to answer these questions.
Will we every be able to answer all the questions about the universe through science? Of course not.
However science provides a greater understanding of the universe and how it works.
I myself, am not able to believe in a deity of any kind. I've tried, but I'm just naturally an Atheist.

I have no problem with the idea of faith, and I except that some people do believe in it (although, I disagree).However, I dislike the idea of organized religion. Yes, it allows people to associate with those who share similar beliefs, but it also creates tension between separate religions and/or religious factions. Because of organized religion, you also see many people who are exploiting people's faith for personal gain. If you look back in history, and even in current day, many wars are over difference in religion. As an outsider, I look at things like this and am disgusted.

Some may argue that religion creates unity, however I think that this is only true within small communities, as a whole, religion divides people. Many people take religion so seriously and so personally that they will not except that other people think differently. Overall, I think it would be better to end organized religion rather than attempt to make everyone believe one thing. And it will certainly be impossible to convince everyone to be excepting of other religions, because if they believe other religions can exist, then that means that they accept their faith is not necessarily correct, and some people are not ok with that.

I think this pretty much sums up my view on the subject, and now I'd like to ask all of you a question:
How do you feel about religious influence on politics?
Religion has a heavy impact on politics all over the world.

EDIT: sorry that I left my signature on, I forgot to turn it off.

Two points.

1) Faith is fine, but when someone says they have it and then tell me what it means, and they are wrong, that's not fine. You are fine to have faith in whatever you choose. But if Nicholas1024 says there is evidence, well then guess what, he doesn't have faith anymore, he has evidence. And if he thinks that the source of evidence is correct, that's something that can be disproved. You can't disprove faith - no one can change someones mind if they believe in something irregardless of what is true or not.

2) Religion is terrible for civilization. It ******* our species more than any other thing that has ever existed. I agree with you here on all points.

To talk a little bit about this I will drag some Hitch in here. If you truly believe in God, Heaven & Hell, what religious preaches (just the good stuff obviously), then why don't you walk around like you have the greatest secret in the world? It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. You hold the key to living forever, but no one acts like it, do they?

Someone with true faith I feel wouldn't even be in this thread arguing it. There's no point. You have the golden egg. You're going to heaven and you "know" it. Why try and convince anyone otherwise?

Us atheists are trying to convince people otherwise b/c we believe religion and a firm belief in God halts progress of our society.