Is it rational to be a theist?

[harvey1]

According to an atheist, there are few, if any, reasons to believe that God exists, and the God belief has been passed down from pre-scientific times in the guise of religion. The atheist often believes this in itself is good reason to reject the existence of God. The atheist might even say it is not rational to believe in God. Is it rational to be a theist?

[harvey1]

I believe it is just as irrational to be a theist.

Keep in mind, though, that theism is not just based on inference to the best explanation. Theists base their beliefs on their own religious experience as well as their own need to have meaning in their lives. In addition, there's moral arguments, intuitive arguments, ontological arguments, and transcendental arguments for God's existence.

Since atheism relies mainly on inference to the best explanation, it is much more vunerable to the charge that it is over inferencing based on unknown variables. The theist, by using a combination of arguments, is able to reason based on known and unknown variables, thereby assuring that the answer is as good as any other answer of things that humans tend to believe (e.g., that science gives a generally accurate view of the universe).

[QED]

Explain to me how it is known that we branch into a universe more complex than our own?

The universe at the big bang contained one force (the graviostrongelectroweak force), it was no larger than a planck length across, and it was expanding. That's about as simple as it gets. Now, you want to say it came from some universe infinitely bigger, infinitely older, and infinitely more structures than the one we observe today?

OK, you know the drill: take for example Lee Smolin's suggestion that universes like ours emerge from out of black holes in other universes. The antecedent universe does not have to be more complex in order to support a gravitational collapse -- for example the fine-tuning of the ratio between the strength of gravity and that of electromagnetism could have been alot less provident than the way it came out for our universe. Already we have a reduction in the demands -- and so this can go on, (evolution in reverse style) back to less complex origins.

But, that's all that they are, inferences. Can you use the same kind of inference to describe the picture hanging on the wall next to me? I'm much, much closer than this distant world where you claim to have knowledge, so please tell me what this picture looks like by your amazing gift of inference.

My amazing gift of inference was handed out to everyone at birth. It's the way that air-crash investigators report on the probable cause of disasters that take place at far greater distances than they are from the picture on your wall.

please tell me how causal ties connect one gook moment to the next. I think it is important since you are advocating a view that you think is correct, so you should be able to answer objections to it.

Sorry, I don't understand your request. I really couldn't follow al that gook stuff. If you've got the time to restate what it is you think I'm advocating and your objections to it I'll see what I can do. Thanks.

[Curious]

Is there a particular reason for the debate to focus on the point of universal origin? It seems that there appears to be a belief here that the validity of either belief hinges upon this point, in fact, it does not. Not all theists believe that God is the Universal creator, but the topic here is concerning the rationality of theistic belief rather than the rationality in belief that God is the Universal Creator.
For the physical universe to exist in it's present state there are undoubtedly physical causes. Both points of view encounter problems when asked to explain the origin of the prime cause. For God to originate though, it is only necessary for sentience to "evolve" or come about. This sentience does not require a sentient cause in the way that the physical universe is thought to require a physical cause. It is a fact that sentience is a characteristic brought about in the physical by the physical. Isn't it at least possible that a pre-universal energy configuration (as our brains are really just energy configurations) might attain a level of self awareness or sentience?

[QED]

Is there a particular reason for the debate to focus on the point of universal origin?

Well, it does seem to be the standard claim of the theist. Apart from you, I've yet to hear of anyone who believes in a god that did not start everything off.

For God to originate though, it is only necessary for sentience to "evolve" or come about. This sentience does not require a sentient cause in the way that the physical universe is thought to require a physical cause. It is a fact that sentience is a characteristic brought about in the physical by the physical.

Here you say that god could originate from the evolution of sentience that itself was not of a sentient cause, but a manifestation of the uncaused physical. OK, then what did he do? It comes over as a jury-rigged attempt to insert a puppet-god into a universe happily doing its own thing.

Isn't it at least possible that a pre-universal energy configuration (as our brains are really just energy configurations) might attain a level of self awareness or sentience?

Absolutely! How do you do, I'm very pleased to meet you.

[Curious]

Well, it does seem to be the standard claim of the theist. Apart from you, I've yet to hear of anyone who believes in a god that did not start everything off.

You must have led a very sheltered life. Many religions have and still do worship dieties who are not claimed to have started the universe personally. There is a great saying of a particular (Amazonian I think)tribe that "God is great but the forest is greater"

Here you say that god could originate from the evolution of sentience that itself was not of a sentient cause, but a manifestation of the uncaused physical. OK, then what did he do? It comes over as a jury-rigged attempt to insert a puppet-god into a universe happily doing its own thing.

I am not saying that it would necessarily be a puppet god. Sentience or self awareness might ultimately lead to the formation of self motivation and direction. The evidence, as far as we can tell, is far more supportive of energy always existing rather than from spontaneous existence. I find the argument of net energy equalling zero as an attempt to leave energy conservation intact far less attractive and far more complex than the argument of an eternal energy field. To accept the idea that we originate from a state that is physically impossible to replicate and is known to be non existent in the known universe by a method that contravenes the most fundamental laws of physics seems no more rational than believing in a creator God that started it all off personally. We KNOW energy is neither created nor destroyed. Why is it then that we must conclude that energy is created? What is the objection concerning an energy field that always existed. All things that are created must have a cause but energy is not created so requires no cause. Virtual particles show nothing regarding total system energy unless we can prove the universe is a closed system and are able to measure, on the fly, the total universal energy content exactly.
Answering your question in regard to what this sentience might do next, my original intention was to simply show that theistic belief could be shown to be no more irrational than atheistic belief and not to claim knowledge of how such an entity might think or act, but since you ask I will put forward one possible scenario. If I remember correctly it was Bernee who gave the great answer of omphaloskepsis (or contemplating his own navel). A self awareness would by definition contemplate itself. The contemplation of the centre and the circle. The only certainty any of us have is that of our own sentience, everything else is unprovable. Even those lucky enough to have lucid dreams regularly accept the "logic" of the dream state which frequently contradicts all rational logic and common sense. I myself have had dreams where my own identity is changed along with a lifetime of memories and acqaintances who I felt I had known for years.
Such an awareness that might exist also rids us of the necessity of actual physical creation, the only necessity being that of sentience. The thoughts that such an entity might have may be indistinguisable from physical reality or might even manifest as physical reality and without anything to measure against, might well be considered reality.
This hypothesis, while no doubt outlandish, overcomes the problem of cause and requires no further impetus to create a reality identical to ours. No "physical" laws are broken and it unearths no paradox.
How is the generally held atheistic origin superior in either logic or substance?

[harvey1]

OK, you know the drill: take for example Lee Smolin's suggestion that universes like ours emerge from out of black holes in other universes. The antecedent universe does not have to be more complex in order to support a gravitational collapse -- for example the fine-tuning of the ratio between the strength of gravity and that of electromagnetism could have been alot less provident than the way it came out for our universe. Already we have a reduction in the demands -- and so this can go on, (evolution in reverse style) back to less complex origins.

The big bang is a pretty simple state. How can things get much simpler than that? Any more simpler and it wouldn't be big enough or have enough bang. However, let's assume that it can be simpler, how much simpler? Simpler the further and further back we go into an infinite past? It seems that at some finite point in the past you arrive to where it couldn't be any simpler than that. Now, the question to ask is why did that particular process exist versus some other kind of process. If there is no reason, then what prevents Porky Pig from popping out and saying, "that's, that's all folks"? If there is a reason, then why does the universe conform to that reason? Is the universe responding to some kind of self-existing logic (God) that restricts its evolution? That would seem to be the right answer, don't you think?

My amazing gift of inference was handed out to everyone at birth. It's the way that air-crash investigators report on the probable cause of disasters that take place at far greater distances than they are from the picture on your wall.

But, since you cannot infer what the picture on my wall looks like, that would seem to suggest that you cannot infer much beyond your immediate surroundings. Why would you label a position as irrational if it states beliefs that are far, far beyond what you can confidently infer? You are labelling a belief as irrational even though you have no real knowledge about what lies far beyond your immediate surroundings.

Sorry, I don't understand your request. I really couldn't follow al that gook stuff. If you've got the time to restate what it is you think I'm advocating and your objections to it I'll see what I can do. Thanks.

Okay. Let's say you have just a one particle universe. The particle moves about in some kind of configuration space that would normally contain a metauniverse, but in this case only contains one particle. As the particle moves, it of course is at different locations. It is not at each location at each moment, so its motion is spread out over a period of time. The most basic increment of time (i.e., the shortest possible distance that a particle can move in the shortest possible increment of time) is either an infinitesimal unit of time or some finite length of time (i.e., indiscreet or discreet time units). We don't know if the shortest possible moment of time is infinitesimal or finite. If infinitesimal let's call this an IM (infinitesimal moment), and if finite let's call it a FM (finite moment).

There are an infinite number of IMs no matter how far the particle travels in the one-particle universe, and only a finite number of FMs no matter how far the particle travels. In either case, we can refer to those moments as IM1, IM2, IM3, ..., IMinf (ad infinitum); or, we can refer to them as FM1, FM2, FM3, ..., FMn. For finite moments there is some finite number of such moments, and for infinite moments there is no finite number, there's an infinite number. For both cases there is a "moment" that we can reference that is both preceded and followed by other moments.

This is key. What I want to know is what causes IM1 to become IM2 to IM3, etc. (or what causes FM1 to become FM2, etc.). If there is no causal interaction to the particle at any moment, then why does the particle persist? If the particle persists for no reason, then this would seem to say that there are no laws between IM1 to IM2 (or FM1 to FM2), since there is nothing that keeps the persistence going unabated (i.e., it just does that). If there are no laws, then that would suggest that the particle moves through space without reason.

This is the principle. You have no causal tie-in between one event to the next. There's just no reason to why persistence happens unless you advocate laws (God) that exist to make the persistence have a reason (e.g., conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, etc). And, in addition, in the case of animals and people, we can choose our actions and therefore we have reason for our actions. How can you explain this if the ultimate behavior of one moment to the next is due for no reason?

This would seem to rule out atheism to me. But, to get back to the topic, how can you claim that theism is irrational when in fact atheism is what looks irrational? It would seem that in the worst case scenario you would have to say that theism might be right for no other reason than to explain this problem for atheism.

[QED]

OK, you know the drill: take for example Lee Smolin's suggestion that universes like ours emerge from out of black holes in other universes. The antecedent universe does not have to be more complex in order to support a gravitational collapse -- for example the fine-tuning of the ratio between the strength of gravity and that of electromagnetism could have been alot less provident than the way it came out for our universe. Already we have a reduction in the demands -- and so this can go on, (evolution in reverse style) back to less complex origins.

The big bang is a pretty simple state. How can things get much simpler than that?

I don't regard the exquisitely fine-tuned constants as being all that 'simple' -- hence the theists claim that they indicate a requirement for a considerable degree of intelligence to bring them about. And I also appreciate the tantalizing fact that the universe exhibited it's lowest ever level of entropy right at its inception. Having been wound-up right at the start the spring has been unwinding ever since.

Any more simpler and it wouldn't be big enough or have enough bang.

Not necessarily, as you invite us to assume anyway:

However, let's assume that it can be simpler, how much simpler? Simpler the further and further back we go into an infinite past? It seems that at some finite point in the past you arrive to where it couldn't be any simpler than that. Now, the question to ask is why did that particular process exist versus some other kind of process. If there is no reason, then what prevents Porky Pig from popping out and saying, "that's, that's all folks"?

We are both looking for a naked fact with a minimal profile. Thus Tex Avery's creations are immediately disqualified along with everything else we would probably come across in our universe.

If there is a reason, then why does the universe conform to that reason? Is the universe responding to some kind of self-existing logic (God) that restricts its evolution? That would seem to be the right answer, don't you think?

And the explanation for your equation "self-existing logic=God" is what exactly? Without an acceptable explanation I could just as easily postulate that "physical laws=not God"

My amazing gift of inference was handed out to everyone at birth. It's the way that air-crash investigators report on the probable cause of disasters that take place at far greater distances than they are from the picture on your wall.

But, since you cannot infer what the picture on my wall looks like, that would seem to suggest that you cannot infer much beyond your immediate surroundings.

And where did the example of the air crash investigators inference go? Is it perhaps that you believe only the causes of air disasters can be inferred and nothing else? Or are you convinced that air-crash investigation is a complete sham?

Why would you label a position as irrational if it states beliefs that are far, far beyond what you can confidently infer? You are labelling a belief as irrational even though you have no real knowledge about what lies far beyond your immediate surroundings.

I can't quite follow what you're saying here... did you mean "rational" in that first sentence above? You seem to be all steamed-up over the question of inference. When you start arguing that we cannot have knowledge beyond that which lies in our immediate surroundings you sound as if you've been converted to some darker shade of religious fundamentalism. If you're going to pull another philosophers sword out of the stone and tell me that we are just brains in a vat or something, then I'll stop right here and go argue about the Book of Urantia with Bro Dave.

Sorry, I don't understand your request. I really couldn't follow al that gook stuff. If you've got the time to restate what it is you think I'm advocating and your objections to it I'll see what I can do. Thanks.

Okay. Let's say you have just a one particle universe. The particle moves about in some kind of configuration space that would normally contain a metauniverse, but in this case only contains one particle. As the particle moves, it of course is at different locations. It is not at each location at each moment, so its motion is spread out over a period of time. The most basic increment of time (i.e., the shortest possible distance that a particle can move in the shortest possible increment of time) is either an infinitesimal unit of time or some finite length of time (i.e., indiscreet or discreet time units). We don't know if the shortest possible moment of time is infinitesimal or finite. If infinitesimal let's call this an IM (infinitesimal moment), and if finite let's call it a FM (finite moment).

There are an infinite number of IMs no matter how far the particle travels in the one-particle universe, and only a finite number of FMs no matter how far the particle travels. In either case, we can refer to those moments as IM1, IM2, IM3, IMinf (ad infinitum); or, we can refer to them as FM1, FM2, FM3, ..., FMn. For finite moments there is some finite number of such moments, and for infinite moments there is no finite number, there's an infinite number. For both cases there is a "moment" that we can reference that is both preceded and followed by other moments.

This is key. What I want to know is what causes IM1 to become IM2 to IM3, etc. (or what causes FM1 to become FM2, etc.). If there is no causal interaction to the particle at any moment, then why does the particle persist? If the particle persists for no reason, then this would seem to say that there are no laws between IM1 to IM2 (or FM1 to FM2), since there is nothing that keeps the persitence going unabated (i.e., it just does that). If there are no laws, then that would suggest that the particle moves through space without reason.

This is the principle. You have no causal tie-in between one event to the next. There's just no reason to why persistence happens unless you advocate laws (God) that exist to make the persistence have a reason (e.g., conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, etc). And, in addition, in the case of animals and people, we can choose our actions and therefore we have reason for our actions. How can you explain this if the ultimate behavior of one moment to the next is due for no reason?

This boils down to yet another unsupported claim for "god=laws of physics" so I'll counter it with "laws of physics=no god" which is equally unsupported.

This would seem to rule out atheism to me. But, to get back to the topic, how can you claim that theism is irrational when in fact atheism is what looks irrational?

Well you asked if theism is irrational and I think it is. I think it's plain silly to personify homogenous, unswerving laws of physics. I think it's foolish to ignore the sort of past mistakes and misconceptions that led people to all manner of bizarre beliefs and rituals. We know the Sun will rise tomorrow and it will probably rain if the meteorology says so. We know that at the heart of quantum mechanics lies an element of pure randomness which bestows contingency beyond the control of any external agency... and as is customary, those are a just a random sampling of the many reasons feeding into my overall assesment process.

It would seem that in the worst case scenario you would have to say that theism might be right for no other reason than to explain this problem for atheism.

Well if you are going to resort to rhetoric, I'll resort to implication by association: you have on your side some of the most extraordinary thinkers who see nothing irrational in the belief of things like the "Lucifer Rebellion" (ask Bro Dave or angelic_spirit if you don't know what this is) and all manner of other fables penned throughout the ages by men of vivid imagination. From this perspective there is a huge history backing up the notion that theism is irrational and while every last word can no doubt be rationalized, it is clear that such beliefs are symptomatic of a particular irrational mindset.

[harvey1]

And the explanation for your equation "self-existing logic=God" is what exactly? Without an acceptable explanation I could just as easily postulate that "physical laws=not God"... This boils down to yet another unsupported claim for "god=laws of physics" so I'll counter it with "laws of physics=no god" which is equally unsupported.

I just don't see how you, as an atheist, can call something a "law" if it is not reducible or stateable in material terms. What does that mean from your perspective? Imagine if I said a few computers and some network gear necessitate what can be transmitted from my computer to your computer, but as our discussion progressed you found out that my idea of "a few computers and some network gear" didn't refer to anything physical. You'd be thinking what does that mean? What kind of structures could I be referring to when I use that phrase?

Similarly, when you say "laws of physics=no God," I have no idea what that means. When I say "God=laws of physics," I know what that means. I'm talking about propositions that define, instantiate, and govern the physical world. Those propositions have meaning as propositions much like language has meaning, or software has meaning. I know we've gone over the fact that software runs on computers, and language "runs" on material brains, but now you seem to accept the idea that propositions can exist independently of some hardware. I like the step you've taken, but I don't know why you would take that step, even as a possibility, and still call yourself an atheist.

How would a statement have meaning unless it was interpretable by a mind? Using your scenario, what would be able to "know" the difference between a statement (or law), e.g., the uncertainty principle, and another statement, e.g., Feynman's path integral? If these are just regularities of the physical world, then it's understandable. You're just saying the physical world behaves like that. But, when you say that laws exist and that's why the physical world behaves like that, I'm shocked that you don't associate that with a mind. It's like saying that there are books and libraries but there never were any people. That would be an unbelievable claim since without having people there's nothing to distinguish a book of written pages from a book with blank pages (or non-sense typed pages).

You have to explain that to me. You've lost me.

[ST88]

Keep in mind, though, that theism is not just based on inference to the best explanation. Theists base their beliefs on their own religious experience as well as their own need to have meaning in their lives. In addition, there's moral arguments, intuitive arguments, ontological arguments, and transcendental arguments for God's existence.

There are plenty of flaws in all of the above. Including personal religious experience, which is susceptible to all kinds of misinterpretations of brain chemistry & normal experience. Lacking the knowledge of how the brain works and how it can fool itself, one could assume that outside forces were at work. Hence, to be a theist is only as rational as the limited scope of h/h own experience.

The theist, by using a combination of arguments, is able to reason based on known and unknown variables, thereby assuring that the answer is as good as any other answer of things that humans tend to believe (e.g., that science gives a generally accurate view of the universe).

Pardon me, but this doesn't make any sense. You can't combine the two arguments to create a cohesive whole. In the objective realm, there is no "as good as". You're either right or you're wrong. This is very close to the Schroedinger's cat thing.

[QED]

I just don't see how you, as an atheist, can call something a "law" if it is not reducible or stateable in material terms. What does that mean from your perspective?

Similarly, when you say "laws of physics=no God," I have no idea what that means. When I say "God=laws of physics," I know what that means. I'm talking about propositions that define, instantiate, and govern the physical world.

I think you've become confused because you've not understood my proposition. The statement "laws of physics=no God" represents the argument that if everything boils down to a variety of random configurations of energy then there is no design or plan and thus just labelling energy or randomness as god is clearly not appropriate.

Those propositions have meaning as propositions much like language has meaning, or software has meaning. I know we've gone over the fact that software runs on computers, and language "runs" on material brains, but now you seem to accept the idea that propositions can exist independently of some hardware. I like the step you've taken, but I don't know why you would take that step, even as a possibility, and still call yourself an atheist.

Well I hope I've cleared that up in the statement I made above. At least something good has come of it: you have neatly summarized the essence of my argument for mind supervening on matter which I feel remains a firm logical requirement for all systems.

How would a statement have meaning unless it was interpretable by a mind?

This is not the first time you've asked a question such as this. Whenever I attempt to understand the meaning of the question I immediately run into difficulty. I can readily understand how beneficial it would be to your general argument for the existence of god if we were to conclude that mind is neccessary to interpret logic -- but the dots just don't join up. This, I think, is because your question does not make any sense. That is, I can't see any sense in it.

I don't mean to make you mad, but the words "statement", "meaning", "interpretable" and "mind" are all so loose that I simply can't get a strong enough grip of the question in order to answer it.

Using your scenario, what would be able to "know" the difference between a statement (or law), e.g., the uncertainty principle, and another statement, e.g., Feynman's path integral? If these are just regularities of the physical world, then it's understandable. You're just saying the physical world behaves like that. But, when you say that laws exist and that's why the physical world behaves like that, I'm shocked that you don't associate that with a mind. It's like saying that there are books and libraries but there never were any people. That would be an unbelievable claim since without having people there's nothing to distinguish a book of written pages from a book with blank pages (or non-sense typed pages).

You have to explain that to me. You've lost me.

Well by now I should have cleared things up for you. The random configurations of energy would be like random configurations of childrens building blocks which while being infinitely configurable nonetheless display regularities and laws through their natural structure. This of course leaves you to enquire of the nature of energy as a naked fact, but I dare you to hang your god label on it.