Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on August 23, 2010 at 1:22am

I don't know what would create a deist god. That doesn't matter, there's plenty of things about the cosmos we don't understand.
Nor am I saying that I believe in a deist God. But anyone who says that they know for sure that there couldn't have been one is pretending to know more than they actually do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on August 23, 2010 at 3:37am

The concept of a deist god leads to an infinite logical regress, which renders it impossible.

The Abrahamic god is logically impossible due to multiple mutually exclusive attributes.

Any god less than either of these two proposals (such as a powerful alien that has created a computer simulation which we inhabit, or a demigod with limited powers) would not meet the definition of a god.

In any of these cases, there is no reason to ascribe any positive probability to the existence of an entity proposed without evidence (such as the fictional character in the Bible).

The correct answer is that there is precisely zero probability of the existence of a god. Another way to say that is that there is a 100% probability that there is no god. Assigning some miniscule probability above zero is an act of unwarranted tentativity. Assigning any higher probability is infantile wishful thinking.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on August 23, 2010 at 4:56am

"The concept of a deist god leads to an infinite logical regress, which renders it impossible."

Not an infinite logical regress, just a single regress. Most of us believe that the universe has always existed. Alternatively you can imagine a deist God always existing.

I'm not saying that the second is more likely than the first (in fact it's not), but you can't rule it out, and your attempts to prove that you can is quite frankly taking too heavy a burden of proof.

"The Abrahamic god is logically impossible due to multiple mutually exclusive attributes."

Maybe. But since the attributes of the Abrahamic God have been defined so as to exclude logical contradiction, that's actually a non-issue to most believers.

"Assigning some miniscule probability above zero is an act of unwarranted tentativity. Assigning any higher probability is infantile wishful thinking."

The amount of knowledge you now pretend to have about the beginnings of the universe is staggering. Assigning a miniscule probability that the universe is not natural is not "infantile wishful thinking", it's intellectual honesty.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on August 23, 2010 at 4:44pm

If the universe has always existed, then there is no need to posit a creator. If everything needs a creator, then so does the creator. The deist position makes no logical sense.

Omnibenevolence, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience on the part of god are logically contradictory with the existence of evil.

I need make no assumptions about the origins or operation of the universe in order to assert that ascribing any positive probability of existence to a clearly fictional, imaginary being is ludicrous. Man made god, therefore it is nonsense to assert that god made man. That's a violation of causality, among other things. To think that man did not make god flies in the face of all the evidence.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by D R Hosie on August 23, 2010 at 8:40pm

Damn you're good, Spicer.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on August 23, 2010 at 10:39pm

"If the universe has always existed, then there is no need to posit a creator. If everything needs a creator, then so does the creator. The deist position makes no logical sense."

Please pay attention. I didn't see that there needs to be. I said that you can't rule out that there is.
This really is logic 101.
Your argument centers around the idea that because there is no need for something, we can immediately ascribe a probability zero to it. That's nonsense: saying you have 100% certainty is something is just another way of saying that no matter how much evidence the other way came along, you would never change your point. Which in turn means that your beliefs are not dependent on reality itself, they are dependent on you eternalising a certain set of beliefs and asserting them as an absolute truth which no future thought can possibly bulge. That's not rationality or skepticism, that's faith.

"Omnibenevolence, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience on the part of god are logically contradictory with the existence of evil."

As I said, theologians have carefully defined these attributes so as to exclude contradiction. For example, omnipotence is not to be as powerful as possibly imaginable, it is defined as being so powerful as is logically possible. That excludes logically contradictory feats like making a triangular square, or (according to believers) material words where there is no evil.
I can't say I find this very convincing, but tackling this whole argument and trying to block every exist simply isn't worth it. The problem of evil brings up far too many rabbitholes for believers to go down anyway.

"I need make no assumptions about the origins or operation of the universe in order to assert that ascribing any positive probability of existence to a clearly fictional, imaginary being is ludicrous. Man made god, therefore it is nonsense to assert that god made man. That's a violation of causality, among other things. To think that man did not make god flies in the face of all the evidence."

You think that divine beings are all man-made due to the evidence. The evidence suggests that. If we started getting mountains of evidence the other way, you would (should) change your mind to be in accordande with that evidence.
If you are not willing to say that a certain amount of evidence could conceivably convince you, then your beliefs are again not dependent on reality. So you simply cannot ascribe a 100% probability that man made god.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on August 23, 2010 at 11:18pm

OK, Matt. Let me rephrase that. If the universe has always existed, then it cannot, by definition, have been created, thus there cannot be, by definition, a creator. If the universe was created by a creator, then the question merely becomes what created the creator. As you point out, this really is logic 101. The deist position is either that the universe is god (in which case, it's just a synonym and not significant), or that there is an infinite regress, which is a logical failure to explain anything. (Claiming that the creator always existed is no more than special pleading, and if you're going to claim that then why not claim that the universe itself has always existed?)

As far as I can tell from my reading of theology, theologians have never carefully defined anything, and they certainly haven't managed to resolve the issue of theodicy, because it's a logical impossibility. You assert that theologians get around this by putting limits on omnipotence, omniscience, etc, (which I've never noticed them to do, and the common conception of god doesn't bother with such niceties) except that limiting the limitless is a logical impossibility; you do know what "omni-" means, right? The Abrahamic god (or its equivalents in other cultures) simply doesn't square with what we see in the world around us.

And it's not nonsense to assert that the logically impossible is logically impossible. As I said, if there were any evidence of superior beings, I would accept that as evidence of superior beings. A supreme being is logically impossible. A superior being isn't a god, even if some primitives might be convinced otherwise.

Granting the possibility of existence to the fictional is absurd on its face. I don't have to allow some miniscule possibility that I might be wrong about that. Frodo is not going to drop by my house for tea.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by D R Hosie on August 24, 2010 at 12:04am

Matt DVB, I should have warned you - Jason Spicer is as tight in his genre, as you are in yours.

You both possess incredible intellects and are valuable resourses for the rest of us.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on August 24, 2010 at 6:24am

Thanks D R Hosie. But don't worry, this is fun.

Jason, we're rapidly descending into the rabbithole of epistemology and the difference between the practical standpoint and the philosophical one.
From any practical perspective, I'm perfectly comfortable saying that I'm certain that I'm currently typing a response to you, that I'm not hallucinating, and that there's no such as a teapot in orbit around Jupiter. Each and every one of those ideas relies on large mountains of assumptions, and even with an inkling of common sense we can dismiss them. However, they are not logically impossible. There is a certain set of assumptions from which it would follow that I'm currently hallucinating. Or in the Matrix. Or that I'm a brain in a jar in orbit around Jupiter. The amount of suppositions makes it completely practically unfeasible (using my 'practical logic'). It's not logically contradictory however, and so I cannot say that I'm absolutely certain; for that to be true there must be no set of premises that could get me to the situation in question. And so I can't be 100% certain. Whether or not these assumptions are themselves supremely unlikely doesn't even factor into that.
I don't even see this as giving a "positive probability" to these outlandish scenarios, I see it as reminding myself that I can't be absolutely certain.

With that in mind, let's look at the core of our disagreement:

"(Claiming that the creator always existed is no more than special pleading, and if you're going to claim that then why not claim that the universe itself has always existed?)"

This rephrase of Carl Sagan points out exactly why we have a good practical reason (through practical logic) to dismiss the deist God: it's an unnecessary regress. But that doesn't provide us with a logical reason that it couldn't possibly be true; things that are unnecessary are not by definition untrue. I also have a good practical reason to think that the sound of hooves on my street comes from horses, but it could be a zebra; that this relies on more assumptions is peripherial to the point that it is logically possible and cannot be ruled out.
Similarly, yes, the deist God relies on more assumptions and yes, it is special pleading. But neither of those provides us with reasons why it couldn't possibly be true, it just provides us with reasons that it most likely isn't. You confuse Occam's Razor with proving a negative.

"You assert that theologians get around this by putting limits on omnipotence, omniscience, etc, (which I've never noticed them to do, and the common conception of god doesn't bother with such niceties) except that limiting the limitless is a logical impossibility; you do know what "omni-" means, right?"

Really? I see it all the time when I debate with apologists. It's a mainstream idea and is regularly used by guys like WL Craig, D'Souza, and by the saps they inspire. It's their way to get around the various paradoxes like "Can God create an unliftable rock?" or "Can God create a triangular square?". Their answer is that no, he cannot, but that this is not a flaw of omnipotence: it simply means that the questions are logically contradictory to begin with.
Which isn't unreasonable, I think. Asserting an amount of power that is logically contradictory is - as you point out - an immediate and obvious logical contradiction.

Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on August 25, 2010 at 2:33am

Matt, it's true that the special pleading case looks like a loophole that is not logically ruled out but merely unnecessary (though the god = universe dodge and the creator's creator regress are logically void). I believe, however, that the special pleading of a timeless creator is logically equivalent to a timeless universe, or at the least, empirically indistinguishable. And if god is just another name for the universe, then there's nothing that looks like a god.

And I don't think you're giving enough weight to the fictional nature of gods. We grant zero probability of existence to fictional beings because we know they're made up. The simple act of imagination required to invent a fictional being in no way confers any probability that they actually exist, so it's weird to claim any degree of uncertainty.

As to theologians capping the omni-ness of god where the various omni-tudes conflict, that doesn't really get them out of the logical jam of theodicy, unless they're claiming that it's logically impossible for god to be evil. That claim would be circular, at best.

Ultimately, my argument boils down to this: The deist god would be empirically undetectable, so it simply cancels out of the equation; if you can't distinguish it from the universe, then it's not really there. The god of the Bible is a mere assertion, which if true, would not only be empirically detectable, but everyday obvious and unavoidable. That it isn't rules out it's existence. That its attributes are an impossible bundle means we don't even need to bother looking. That it's clearly a work of human imagination means we should laugh at anybody who seriously proposes that we should look.

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on August 25, 2010 at 6:05am

"I believe, however, that the special pleading of a timeless creator is logically equivalent to a timeless universe, or at the least, empirically indistinguishable."

And I agree with that. Advocating a timeless creator is equivalent (and even inferior, in practical terms) to advocating a timeless universe. But you simply cannot logically get from the fact that an assumption is unnecessary to the fact that said assumption is absolutely certainly going to be false. It just means that there is no good reason for believing that the assumption is true.
In addition, it is far from certain that we live in a timeless universe to begin with, so IMO we'd do well to not claim absolute certainty about the subject.

"And I don't think you're giving enough weight to the fictional nature of gods. We grant zero probability of existence to fictional beings because we know they're made up."

But now you're saying with absolute certainty that they are made up.
I have various theist friends who gladly tell me that while there are obviously various different kinds of religions and that they were used for power and control, they still believe that these various religions are the flawed expressions by humans of this innate Truth that they all feel. So he would say that while yes, humans have been keen to imagine Gods for our entire time on this planet, the reason we do this is because we're getting in touch with this esoteric truth.
I can't say I find that explanation convincing (in fact I tell them to their face that they're choosing complex and unprovable explanations over much more simple ones), but at the very least I have to admit that it's at least possible, and that I could be convinced that this was true - IF they provided me with enough evidence.
Again, to say that I'm 100% certain that what they are saying is false and that nothing humans ever discovered could possibly change my mind, seems like the height of arrogance to me. It's a good practice to at the very least have a list of things that could potentially convince you; rather than asserting that you couldn't possibly be wrong.

It seems to me - and maybe this is just my completely erroneous amateur psychoanalysis at work here - that some feel that even the very act of granting the possibility that we're wrong and that more evidence could overturn our position, somehow undermines our position.
I think it's just the other way around: that makes the position more intellectually honest, and in line with the principles used in science and skepticism.

Kind regards,

Matt

Permalink Reply by Daniel on August 24, 2010 at 1:32am

It is my opinion that omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive as well, as omniscience implies a type of fatalism.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 40
• 41
• 42
• 43
• 44
• …
• 155
• Next ›
• Page