Belief... or lack thereof

[pocaracas]

Do you worry about that a lot?

Well… terrorism does work…
Portugal is mostly uninteresting for terrorists, but… you never know…
Remember Theo van Gogh.

 

[Bradski]

Wait…

Let me get your opinion on whether there is only one universe (although this sounds almost ridiculous, given the UNI in the word UNI-verse…but I will concede that it may be a misnomer) or multiverses–what is your belief on this issue?

You’ve asked for my opinion and my belief on this. My opinion is that, after reading a fair amount about it, it seems a viable proposition that ‘out there’ beyond what we can access, there may be more.

As to my belief, I don’t have one in this regard. There’s not enough information available for me to come to a conclusion.

But…and this is the zinger, there is absolutely no evidence that this is the first universe that has ever been. We simply cannot know. It is beyond knowledge. It can only be conjecture as to whether it is or it isn’t.

So if you say that God is omnipotent because He made the universe and God got it right the first time because…well, he’s omnipotent, then you have a circular argument. It is not logically valid.

 

[babylonfalling]

Well… terrorism does work…
Portugal is mostly uninteresting for terrorists, but… you never know…
Remember Theo van Gogh.

So you ARE worried about someone hunting you down and killing you?

 

[PRmerger]

You’ve asked for my opinion and my belief on this. My opinion is that, after reading a fair amount about it, it seems a viable proposition that ‘out there’ beyond what we can access, there may be more.

I would like you to cite some peer-reviewed, reproducible, empirical studies or data which provides evidence for this.

At least 4 studies, please.

 

[pocaracas]

So you ARE worried about someone hunting you down and killing you?

I am. Not a lot, but a little, yes.

 

[Bradski]

I would like you to cite some peer-reviewed, reproducible, empirical studies or data which provides evidence for this.

At least 4 studies, please.

Evidence that it’s a viable proposition? Good grief, just Google ‘multiverse’ and you’ll have more views for and against any variation on the theme than you could shake a stick at. None of them ‘proving’ or even ‘disproving’ the various concepts (there are more than one). Feel free to read about it and use use whatever arguments fit your current view.

But bear this in mind. We don’t know what ‘everything’ entails. We can only see part of it. As space is considered to be flat, it is also considered to be infinite. We can see stars at the edge of the observable universe at a distance of 40 billion light years. We can’t know what lies beyond.

But if you were near that star, you could see stars a further 40 billion light years away. Parts of the universe that will literally be forever hidden from us. And if you lived near one of those stars, you could see a further 40 billion light years. And that leap frogging, from one observable universe to the next, is infinite.

So if you consider ‘the universe’ to be everything we can possibly see, then we already have an infinite number of ‘observable universes’ already.

God built us a house. But we can never leave this single room. So how many rooms are there? Well, type 1 on the keyboard and then press the zero key and keep it there. For ever.

One planet would have done. Or one solar system. But you’d have to think about the waste. Maybe one small Galaxy. But you’d certainly consider it too large for its purposes. Countless galaxies and you begin to realise there’s something not right. Then billions more that we can’t access and you know something is wrong. And when you realise that that is just one observable universe and that there is an infinity of them…

 

[PRmerger]

Evidence that it’s a viable proposition? Good grief, just Google ‘multiverse’ and you’ll have more views for and against any variation on the theme than you could shake a stick at. None of them ‘proving’ or even ‘disproving’ the various concepts (there are more than one). Feel free to read about it and use use whatever arguments fit your current view.

But bear this in mind. We don’t know what ‘everything’ entails. We can only see part of it. As space is considered to be flat, it is also considered to be infinite. We can see stars at the edge of the observable universe at a distance of 40 billion light years. We can’t know what lies beyond.

But if you were near that star, you could see stars a further 40 billion light years away. Parts of the universe that will literally be forever hidden from us. And if you lived near one of those stars, you could see a further 40 billion light years. And that leap frogging, from one observable universe to the next, is infinite.

So if you consider ‘the universe’ to be everything we can possibly see, then we already have an infinite number of ‘observable universes’ already.

God built us a house. But we can never leave this single room. So how many rooms are there? Well, type 1 on the keyboard and then press the zero key and keep it there. For ever.

One planet would have done. Or one solar system. But you’d have to think about the waste. Maybe one small Galaxy. But you’d certainly consider it too large for its purposes. Countless galaxies and you begin to realise there’s something not right. Then billions more that we can’t access and you know something is wrong. And when you realise that that is just one observable universe and that there is an infinity of them…

Look, friend…think about this double standard you’re proposing here.

“I believe in the possibility of the multiverse without a single shred of evidence for it.”

“I don’t believe in God because there isn’t a single shred of evidence for it.”

 

[PRmerger]

Evidence that it’s a viable proposition? Good grief, just Google ‘multiverse’ and you’ll have more views for and against any variation on the theme than you could shake a stick at.

Let’s just take this and replace “multiverse” with God.

What say you to that?

Why don’t you say that God’s existence is a viable proposition–after all, you can Google “God’s existence” and you’ll have more views for and against any variation on the theme than you could shake a stick at.

I’m just asking for you to have the same standard here, Bradski.

 

[pocaracas]

Let’s just take this and replace “multiverse” with God.

What say you to that?

Why don’t you say that God’s existence is a viable proposition–after all, you can Google “God’s existence” and you’ll have more views for and against any variation on the theme than you could shake a stick at.

I’m just asking for you to have the same standard here, Bradski.

I don’t think Bradski is going to any multiverse church, nor meetings.
It’s a theory that may turn out to be true… may not. There’s no emotional connection to it. It has no bearing on his life, besides providing a notion for what lies beyond the observable Universe and an inferred non-conscious beginning to this Universe.
If there’s a non-conscious naturalistic, empirical cause for our Universe, then that same cause may have caused other similar Universes… countless times, and possibly still ongoing and to be going indefinitely.
But, as far as science is aware, we can’t know about that. So I’d imagine Bradski to be as agnostic about that notion as he is about God.

It’s ultimately a notion that can stand on its own merit, it’s logical, it’s in accordance with present-day astrophysics, quantum physics and all other physics… It posits no overly complex entity at the origin of those possibly infinite Universes, while considering some form of an unmoved mover… It is a true alternative to the God Hypothesis.

But it remains a hypothesis, an unverified possibility.
As long as there are, at least, two equally valid contenders to explain this beginning of the Universe, perhaps it’s best to remain agnostic, until one of them actually delivers. Of course, out of the two I mentioned, only one presents itself as potentially verifiable, so it makes sense that science should pursue that one. And, even if that one turns out a dud, it doesn’t make the unverifiable God hypothesis true by default… That one remains unverified.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I don’t think Bradski is going to any multiverse church, nor meetings.

I don’t think the concept Bradski is invoking matches the interpretation being applied. As qualified in his second message on the topic he is speaking about what we can observe. To state that there may be more than what we can observe acknowledges limitations in our sense, perceptions, and limitations on the devices we use to sense what we can’t. It neither asserts the presence of things beyond that reach nor marks them as impossible.

I think the concept (s) that R is referring to may be derived from other concepts that are also labeled as “multiverse” (among other things).

If one really ones peer reviewed material that our ability to observe is limited I could name a few papers. But I don’t think that is what is really desired here.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

 

[guanophore]

It is not logically valid.

It is no wonder you have so much trouble grasping spiritual realities. They exist above and beyond logic.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think Bradski is going to any multiverse church, nor meetings.
It’s a theory that may turn out to be true… may not. There’s no emotional connection to it.

I’m not sure this can be said. When I contemplate the existence of multiuniverse I have an emotional reaction…

Besides, PR is not asking for some sort of change in daily practice, just the elimination of a double standard. If one can have an open mind to the possiblity that there is another universe, with no evidence to support it, then one can be just as open minded to the possiblity that there is a God. One need not have an emotional connection regarding it, it is simply a mental attittude of open mindedness.

It has no bearing on his life, besides providing a notion for what lies beyond the observable Universe and an inferred non-conscious beginning to this Universe.

I suspect this is the crux of the matter for you, Poca. If you were to open your mind to the possibility that there might be a God, it would immediately have implications that would bear upon your life, so you cannot allow yourself to be open to it.

… it doesn’t make the unverifiable God hypothesis true by default… That one remains unverified.

Especially if one refuses to accept the evidence.

 

[MPat]

I thought you had just established those things are were happy with them… but ok, let’s look at them in detail, then:

You know, it is not really enough that “I am happy with them”. I’d like to probe a bit further. It would have been easier, had you answered in the form “I used logic here and intuition here.”, but I guess I’ll have to work with evidence I have…

That answer had implied that other known things rely on some physical process behind them, a physical process that has been shown time and again to be the cause of such thing.
Unless we adopt a solipsistic attitude, those other things can be said to be known, to be real… things like gravity, electricity, magnetics, etc…
Unlike what is available for any deity.
And what is available for any deity is pretty much indistinguishable from what is available for children’s imaginary friends.
Hence, the likelihood that such entities are real is practically as low as that of imaginary friends.

OK, so, if you wanted to present an argument, it would have been:

1. 
   *]Existence of God is supported by as much evidence, as existence of imaginary friends. (premise)
   *]Whatever has as much evidence as imaginary friends is as likely to be true as existence of imaginary friends. (premise)
   *]Imaginary friends are unlikely to exist. (premise)
   *]Existence of God is as likely as existence of imaginary friends. (from 1 and 2)
   *]God is unlikely to exist. (from 3 and 4)
   
   Now, of course, premise 1 is clearly false - any martyrdom and any miracle with any physical evidence could put evidence for God’s existence over that threshold. That alone should be enough to leave nothing of the argument.
   
   But I’d like to concentrate on the third premise. Are you really so timid that you cannot assert “Imaginary friends do not exist.”? You know, I did ask you why you didn’t reach the conclusion “God does not exist.” for a reason…
   
   Finally, the conclusion of the argument would only lead you to “Any religion is unlikely to be true.” not to “All religions combined are still unlikely to be true.” (equivalent to “Atheism is more likely to be true than all religions combined.”).
   
   Thus yes, I conclude that intuition did have a prominent place in reaching your conclusion. More prominent than I expected at first.
   

   But I was going further that the teacher and the student. I was telling you that those experiments have been done and can be done again, anytime, even if the student can’t perform them due to financial or temporal reasons… they can be done and yield the same results over and over again.
   This is, again, a fundamental difference between the sciences and what is presented by religion.

   It looks like the only relevant difference is that you intuitively trust science and mistrust religion. For “experiments that have been done and can be repeated again - but not in the way that is practical for those kids” are equivalent to “miracle claims or arguments that have been investigated and can be investigated again - but not in the way that is practical for those kids”. And yet, you want to dismiss the miracle claims or arguments without even looking. In that case consistency demands that you would dismiss experiments as well. And yet, you are not willing to do so.
   
   In fact, it looks like the problem really is use of intuition instead of logic. Thus you cannot retrace the same reasoning with science instead of religion. Try formulating an argument, with steps numbered (as I did several times). Then we’ll see.
   

   The thing is: it’s not the same reasoning. It’s a similar one, I grant you that, but there’s a difference at the level of the origin of the information that is being passed.
   Writing is, evidently, a human invention… one that is ever evolving, one that is required for us to communicate right now, as I write this and you read (and vice-versa)
   Deities, on the other hand, are passed on, but they don’t seem required for anything. Certainly, the belief does help some people in coping with life…but it doesn’t mean that the thing being believed in is real.

   Once again, you do not actually present that reasoning - and that leads to conclusion that yes, intuition was prominent in it.
   
   Of course, there are differences between religion and writing. But they are irrelevant to the argument.
   

   Again, the origin of information about any god should come before I acknowledge the content of that information.
   But that’s not how it’s presented. The order is, perhaps purposefully, switched. That seems to indicate some foul play… and the result is indistinguishable from a self-delusion, which only serves to reinforce the hint of foul play.
   
   This makes me suspicious of any god claims by humans, for they may have thus been induced in error… a self-perpetuating error…

   That does not explain the emphasis you give to avoiding self-delusion. Under normal conditions you just wouldn’t need any special precautions.
   
   Thus yes, it looks like prominence of intuition is likely to be the cause…
   

   I hope that was a bit more satisfactory… it seems you were missing some details, when you came to the conclusion that I only used intuition on those cases…
   Certainly, intuition must be there, somewhere… I’m only human, after all…

   Oh, I didn’t say you only used intuition. My hypothesis was that you used intuition in many places where I expected you to use logic, and that this mismatch is the cause of many troubles. It looks like this hypothesis has been confirmed.
   
   But, of course, you still use logic. It’s just that it happens less often, and you do mistrust the conclusions when they do not agree with intuition.

 

[MPat]

Your point that we humans apply intuition to most (if not all) of our activities and thoughts?
That is perhaps generally true, expect, maybe, in mathematical fields…

Not quite… My point was that trusting logic over intuition is not easy. It takes effort, habit, divine grace. (Yes, I know you will not agree with that “divine grace” part - but I do expect you to agree with the “effort” one.)

No, that’s not what I meant… sorry… I meant: proponents of both religions use logical arguments to arrive at their specific religion.
Some of the arguments are even very similar, like the cosmological ones. The prime mover, etc…

That might have something to do with the fact that religions are not that dissimilar either.

That is, if both Islam and Christianity claim that God exists, why shouldn’t they use the same arguments for that claim?

yep… looking at them all individually…

Yes, it takes far more work than just dismissing everything you disbelieve without any research and getting yourself to believe that it’s the smart thing to do. But if you’d try, you’d see that it is not as hard as you think.

This is the first time that I hear that “logical” can have several meanings… can you elaborate on that?

Sure. “X is logical” can mean “X is supported by logical arguments.”, “X is logically consistent.”, “X is not emotional or poetical.”. From what I know, Muslims claim that Islam is logical in the sense of being very “apparently consistent”. They are less likely to claim that Islam is easily derived by logical arguments (which is how you must have understood their claim), and it is almost impossible that they would claim Islam is not poetical.

Yep… I remember getting stuck on step II.

In fact, you haven’t made it past step I. But if you are truly interested in how Christianity is reached (as opposed to just wanting to find a pretext to dismiss cosmological arguments), you should read the whole outline.

Those will take some time to go through…

Once again, if you are truly interested in how Christianity is reached (as opposed to just wanting to find a pretext to dismiss cosmological arguments)…

Oh yeah… if magic is possible, anything is… even Mohamed’s cleaving of the moon.
Hmmm… if magic is possible, then… humans may, somehow, harness it, use it… advance… hmmm… interesting…

Nice try. First, “miracles” can only be done by God. That’s in the definition. Second, even “magic” in fiction doesn’t work that easily.

Also, let’s remember that you couldn’t agree that things that do not exist can’t do anything without reservation. Just imagine the possibilities: fairy godmother doesn’t even exist, but she can still turn a pumpkin to a carriage! Now that’s magic! Although, strangely enough, until now, the main applications of that seem to consist in dismissal of religions by non-existing arguments…

So you seem to be unaware of what a singularity is.
A singularity is some event that breaks the known laws of physics… mathematically, some quantity becomes infinite… and may break the known laws of logic themselves… causality is one of them.

First, causality of not a law of logic, but of metaphysics. Second, singularities break no laws. It’s just that in their case the approximations of laws of physics (not of logic and not of metaphysics) that we have prepared until now do not approximate the real laws of physics that well. It is not the first time - Newton’s laws also worked similarly in case of velocities close to speed of light.

So, Logic and Metaphysics are doing just fine for singularities.

Of course… this is a “may”… we humans don’t know how those things operate. Because of that, we best remain silent, while investigations move on… always aware that we may never come to know.

Is it better to provide an explanation arising from an argument that may not be applicable, or to wait until experiments tells us how things are?

It won’t be possible to find anything while rejecting logic. What do you expect? If logic can be rejected, F=mv there - it’s just that sometimes 2*2=5.

Faith in logic… if our logic remains applicable…

I see. You do not have that faith in logic. But in that case, isn’t the case that only way to persuade you consists in tricking your intuition the right way?

Certainly, actual experiments are necessary.
The repetition of them is also a must.
But must every single person repeat them? Or is it enough to be aware of the requirements for them, the materials involved, the physical principles, the order of actions and the results?
Do you want to remake Marie Curie’s experiments? It didn’t turn out very well for her… but were crucial for present-day medicine.

That ignores what you have to prove: that it is OK to dismiss the evidence that is not commonly used to persuade one that something is true.

Atheism is not a religion that purports to explain the world around us.
Science is… and yes, science still has some unknowns.

And yet, “some unknowns” counted as a point against Catholicism, but not as a point against science.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think Bradski is going to any multiverse church, nor meetings.

This is true.

But that’s an otiose statement and a nonsequitur, poca.

You still need to acknowledge why there’s a double standard that’s being espoused.

“I am open to the possibility of a multiverse, even if there’s not a single shred of empirical evidence for its existence. Heck, there’s not even a shred of theoretical evidence for its existence. But, hey, it’s possible for a multiverse to exist!”

AND

“I reject the idea of a God because there’s not a single shred of physical evidence for his existence. Now, there may be arguments for his existence, but I want empirical proof for it, otherwise, I say I won’t believe until there’s empirical proof!”

 

[PRmerger]

So I’d imagine Bradski to be as agnostic about that notion as he is about God.

Would that he were “**as **agnostic”.

But the double standard is glaring.

“I believe that a multiverse is possible, even without a single shred of evidence for its existence.”

AND

"I DON’T believe God’s existence is possible, because there’s not a single shred of evidence for his existence.

NOT the same at all, poca.

THIS, would be a fair and consistent outlook:

Either: “There is no evidence for the existence of the multiverse, therefore I don’t believe it exists until there is proof”.

OR

“I am open to the possibility of God’s existence. I have studied the arguments for and against, and there are many arguments which assert that God does exist, so I am willing to consider that it’s a viable proposition”.

 

[PRmerger]

No, that’s not what I meant… sorry… I meant: proponents of both religions use logical arguments to arrive at their specific religion.
Some of the arguments are even very similar, like the cosmological ones. The prime mover, etc…

Oh, yes, poca, they are indeed very similar.

And that’s why we, Muslims and Christians, ***have come to the same conclusion: *** there exists a Prime Move, based on cosmological arguments, the Kalaam argument, etc etc.

So this actually proves our position, no? Muslims and Christians USE THE SAME LOGIC, and COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION about the existence of A Creator.

Now, to be sure Muslims and Christians have different Christologies…but if you can offer what specific logical arguments Muslims use to deny Christological truths, perhaps we can chat.

 

[PRmerger]

I think the concept (s) that R is referring to may be derived from other concepts that are also labeled as “multiverse” (among other things).

Who is “R” here? Me?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Who is “R” here? Me?

Yep. In previous years your signature identified the significance of the ‘R’ in your user name. So I’ve many times have referred to you by this letter. If you would prefer I not do that let me know.

 

[PRmerger]

Yep. In previous years your signature identified the significance of the ‘R’ in your user name. So I’ve many times have referred to you by this letter. If you would prefer I not do that let me know.

I prefer PR or PRmerger.