Belief... or lack thereof

[PRmerger]

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.

So this is a viable option for Bradski to embrace: God exists

if he is truly using the above paradigm?

Yes?

 

[pocaracas]

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

Which is one of awe, perhaps?
But that one also comes from contemplating how big the known Universe is, let alone the unknown Universe, or the unknown universes.

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’s not a double standard… there’s a clear distinction between both arguments.
One requires a complex consciousness pre-existing over everything.
The other requires some unknown natural mechanism… perhaps quantum fluctuations, perhaps something else…

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.

I disagree… the crux is what I mentioned just above.
I already have my mind open to the possibility… it just doesn’t get much traction.

Especially if one refuses to accept the evidence.

Like the evidence of how you acquired my real name… and have yet neglected to share with me…

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not a double standard… there’s a clear distinction between both arguments.
One requires a complex consciousness pre-existing over everything.
The other requires some unknown natural mechanism… perhaps quantum fluctuations, perhaps something else…

Which one requires which?

 

[Bradski]

“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.”

I’m not sure who you are implying with that, but it’s not me.

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.

The evidence for a multiverse is appears to be logical, but not so the evidence for God. He is, in fact, the theory that proves everything so ultimately proves nothing. Why not just say: Whatever you say, Bradski…God did it.

In any case, let’s say you came across an island that had been devastated. Trees smashed, buildings washed away. That’s evidence that something happened (like the cosmic afterglow is evidence). We can conclude that it was a tsunami (the Big Bang). However, we have no evidence that we can check to see what caused it. We can make some proposals (earthquake, landslide, meteor, God), but theres no way to definately know).

However, knowing the reasons why it could have happened, we are in a position to say that, hang on, this isn’t a one off event. There must have been tsunamis that have happened previously. There have been, quite probably, many of them.

But where is the evidence! says PR. Well, we have none, but it’s certainly logical to assume it. Ah, no. If there’s no evidence then it didn’t happen, and even if it did, then God did it. So do you get both options? Because if you do, we have this:

‘It didn’t happen. You have no proof. There is no evidence. Sorry, there is? Are you sure? Well, in that case, it was God all along’.

Or, as you say:

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

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.

I’m going to disagree with you here, Poca (hey there’s two atheists in disagreement here…come and see!).

I’ve no problem in anyone suggesting that if there are such things as multiverses (and there are definitely multiple observable universes) then God did it. I think I know why PR and others argue against it, but it’s not logically necessary to do so (and yes, logic plays a part in this Guanophore, otherwise Christianity would be a house built on sand).

And there is an emotional content to it for me. If I can explain…

I’ve always been a bit of a science geek. From a very early age. And the size of the universe always held a fascination for me. I used to actively search for information and books (sci-fi as well as non fiction) that dealt with deep time. And it was one thing I remember from being a young Christian: What is it all for.

A lot of people would say: ‘Just look at the night sky…isn’t God magnificent’.And I used to think, from a very early age: ‘Good grief, you have no idea’. Not only couldn’t we access anything that we could see, most of it wan’t even there. It was light from long dead stars.

It was like God had said: ‘Look what I made for you…a nice house’. And then showed me a picture of a house that was in a place that I couldn’t get to and, by the way, the picture is just what it used to look like as it burnt down before I was born. Gee, thanks…

Heck, there’s not even a shred of theoretical evidence for its existence.

That’s not true. But why are you arguing against it anyway?

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”.

I have already stated that here is not enough evidence (not ‘no evidence’) for any multiverse for me to have a belief one way or the other. Your second statement is not logically necessary. Just because there are many argument does not mean that I have make it a viable proposition. What makes anything a viable proposition for me is not the number of the arguments but whether I accept them or not.

It’s like asking me to believe someone’s alibi. If she said she was at home reading a book then it would be difficult to contest. But if she said that she caught a bus into the city, had a drink in a particular bar, went to the cinema, had a meal, went to a nightclub and then took a cab home, then we only need to discount one aspect of her story to cast doubts on the remainder (the bar is closed for renovation, she can’t have gone there, so the whole story becomes unbelievable).

 

[PRmerger]

That’s not true. But why are you arguing against it anyway?

Well, mainly because I’m a skeptic by nature.

And there’s not a single shred of evidence for the existence of a multiverse…

so until there is, I say: I won’t believe.

Surely you don’t have a problem with that type of thinking, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure who you are implying with that, but it’s not me.

Absolutely, it is you.

You consider the multiverse’s existence a “viable proposition”, using only philosophical reasoning. “It’s possible, because we don’t know everything about the world”.

And yet you are of the opinion that God’s existence is NOT a “viable proposition”, because we use mainly philosophical reasoning to argue for God’s existence.

For some reason, “It’s possible because we don’t know everything about the world” doesn’t apply to the existence of God.

Only to the existence of multiverses.

I don’t understand the double standard.

#atheisticinconsistency

 

[PRmerger]

The evidence for a multiverse is appears to be logical, but not so the evidence for God.

I find this supremely logical: something cannot come from nothing.

As is this: whatever begins to exist needs an explanation.

But for some reason you reject the very, very logical argument and assert, “I need evidence, as in scientific, peer-reviewed, laboratory-reproducible results!”

which is…
ironically,

eminently ILLOGICAL.

Why demand material proof for the existence of an immaterial being?

 

[Bradski]

Well, mainly because I’m a skeptic by nature.

And there’s not a single shred of evidence for the existence of a multiverse…

so until there is, I say: I won’t believe.

Surely you don’t have a problem with that type of thinking, yes?

Firstly, there is a lot of theoretical evidence. Not all evidence has to be empirical. We can’t access anything outside the observable universe, so there is no empirical evidence that anything is there but we know it is. In that case you can say that you believe that there is something outside the observable universe.

Secondly, no-one is asking you to believe in the concepts (again, plural) of multiverses. I have already stated that there is insufficient evidence (of which I am aware and which I can understand) for me to state a belief one way or the other. So I am not arguing for the proposal. But you seem to be arguing against it.

Why? Is it the picture of the burnt out house? If God is omnipotent, what’s the purpose of giving us something that no longer exists, for which we have no evidence and which we couldn’t access anyway?

By the way, a sceptic has to be sceptical about everything. It’s not easy. In fact it’s a struggle to keep pushing it into the background. If you don’t, you end up being cynical.

 

[pocaracas]

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.

1. 
   Oh… you want a formal logical argument… bah… too much work… even that one you presented seems faulty at first glance, although I seem to agree with the outcome.
   
   I didn’t say that there is as much evidence for the existence of God as for an imaginary friend… I said
   1. The available evidence for any god is indistinguishable from what is available for imaginary friends.
   Martyrs fall square under this view. As some kids who have an imaginary friend, they are convinced that this friend is real - some can see him, some can interact with him, some can feel him.
   If they’re convinced of the reality of the god they believe in, then it makes sense that they will suffer the penalty for it… a penalty imposed, usually, by someone who doesn’t believe in that god, but rather some other.
   
   The third premise depends on how far you want to take the concept of “exists”. Any imagined entity certainly exists in the mind of the person imagining it. Darth Vader, Harry Potter and Tintin certainly exist in the public imagination, on film, in books.
   Also, there is the slight probability that such figures invented by a mind do indeed exist in our physical reality, specially, those we can’t immediately verify… Darth Vader - a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, not easy to point a telescope and peer into that time and place; Harry Potter - magic exists and a few humans can manipulate it and do their very best to keep other humans unaware of their existence; Tintin - a Belgian reporter from early 20th century, with a particular hairstyle - this guy didn’t exist.
   
   The conclusion, again, uses more information than the one presented in that simple logical arrangement… That’s why I’m not keen on doing that sort of thing… way too many premises and relationships among them… It would probably require writing a whole book on the subject.
   
   So, yes, it makes sense that you would consider that some intuition was used…
   You’re missing premises.
   

   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.

   I’d trust religion, if it wasn’t using a methodology that seems to exploit known, scientifically known, flaws in human psychology.
   Which psychology exploiting methodology is being used when you teach a kid about some scientific experiment, but are unable to perform it right there to show him how it works?
   

   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.

   Right…
   The argument is that there’s no difference between convincing someone of something that is physically verifiable (but they can’t do it, for whatever reason) and convincing someone of something that is not physically verifiable.
   
   I keep telling you that there is a difference - the verifiability, the independence of this verifiability from any human mind - but you think this is irrelevant.
   

   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…

   Under normal conditions, I have no one trying to convince me of the reality of any god. Thus, you’re right… under normal conditions, I need nothing of the sort.
   
   But, in here, talking to people like you, I need to keep it.
   [cont.d]

 

[pocaracas]

[cont.]

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.

Perhaps my intuition has evolved enough to keep me from easily believing anything.

There was a situation not long ago of a friend of mine who had been convinced, by a trustworthy friend of his, that eating the inside of a peach core every day would be beneficial, to him. My intuition must have kicked in, for I suspected it… it didn’t make sense that evolution would come to a seed with beneficial effects to some other animal, in the same environment… turns out, it’s a widely accepted notion, but it has no evidence whatsoever to support it. It’s another fad of “eat this that nobody else eats and prevent a series on incurable diseases!”.

See? It works. Why refuse something that works?

###################

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.)

Yes, I agree… it’s not intuitive.

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.

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.

Considering the potentially infinite religions out there… it’s way more work.
Infinite, for they are bound only by human imagination…

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.

Thanks. That makes sense.

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.

But… if I can’t agree with step I, how can I keep going all the way to step V?
If I grant step I, then magic is possible, and blah, blah blah… puf God is possible, yes.

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.

Ah… the definition. Miracle: magic done by a god. is that it?
Magic done by a human is a possibility, then, no?

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…

Things that exist only as notions can still do something… Martyrs is one example that springs to mind.

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.

Here I thought the causality was a physics thing…

Ah… I see you like to think that the singularities just represent some extreme state where our physics are just an approximation. “Good, Smithers, good…”
So, Krauss’ “Universe from Nothing” is a possibility, then?

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.

Indeed it won’t…

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?

I like logic… I’d like it to remain valid everywhere, every time, even out of the Universe.
If it does, then I have no problem having faith in it.
Let’s try to find out if it does, before we move on?
Or, considering the temporal horizon of such a discovery, maybe it’s better to keep both options present, and see how things can be reasoned out, while not compromising to any outcome?

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.

Nobody dismisses the evidence. It is recorded.

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

When the basic premise is itself an unknown… what did you expect?

 

[Bradski]

You consider the multiverse’s existence a “viable proposition”, using only philosophical reasoning. “It’s possible, because we don’t know everything about the world”.

And yet you are of the opinion that God’s existence is NOT a “viable proposition”, because we use mainly philosophical reasoning to argue for God’s existence.

Who said that we can only use philosophical arguments for a multiverse? I can’t recall seeing one. The proposal is based on theoretical science. Read about inflation. It’s widely accepted as the best basis for what we see today as it relates to what happened during the big bang.

And from that basis, there logically emerges the strong possibility of a multitude of universes. There then emerges some philosophical debate about what science actually is and what happens if we can’t actually experiment but the proposal is not philosophical.

Neither is it philosophical that here are an infinite number of observable universes. That’s based on testable theories.

And you don’t just use philosophical arguments for the existence of God. You maintain He interacts with us. That he created everything. That He sent His son here. That He performs miracles. That’s not philosophy.

So, again, why argue against scientific proposals that on the face of it do nothing to remove God from the picture? Do you think that the burnt down house analogy has got some merit?

 

[pocaracas]

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!”

I’d say that yes there is a shred of theoretical evidence that the multiverse is possible…
There are theoretical mechanisms for the appearance of matter from quantum effects on space-time itself… if matter can come from space-time, then the whole Universe may come from it. If this can happen at one location of space-time, and if space-time is infinite, then it can maybe happen at many (infinite) other locations.
Of course, this is based on the notion that beyond the Universe, space-time behaves as it does within the Universe… which is itself not proven.

#################

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”.

Is that what Bradski is telling you? That he doesn’t “believe God’s existence is possible”?
I don’t believe in the existence of God, but I think it is possible.
Just like I don’t believe the multiverse is real, but I think it’s possible.

####################

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.

I need to query a Muslim… or perhaps I can find it online, somewhere… just not now. I should already be asleep.

 

[pocaracas]

Which one requires which?

Mystery!
Going to bed… I’ll see how you and Bradski duke it out tomorrow.

 

[Bradski]

I need to query a Muslim…

I think you’d have to question anyone with a religion. I’m not aware of any belief systems that don’t have a creation story. It’s quite possibly the original (and shortest) philosophical debate around the camp fire.

Gee, look at all this stuff. Someone must have made it.
Yeah, a Creator!

 

[PRmerger]

By the way, a sceptic has to be sceptical about everything.

Well, I think there’s a healthy skepticism, which is what I embrace, and then there’s, what you correctly identify, cynicism.

I don’t think there’s anyone who knows me who would ever call me a cynic.

 

[PRmerger]

Firstly, there is a lot of theoretical evidence. Not all evidence has to be empirical. We can’t access anything outside the observable universe, so there is no empirical evidence that anything is there but we know it is. In that case you can say that you believe that there is something outside the observable universe.

Egg-zactly.

So why the double standard?

You reject the arguments of Believers, based on “theoretical evidence” for God’s existence saying “You have no proof that there is something outside the observable universe”.

And yet…

“I believe that there may be something (the multiverse) outside of the observable universe based on theoretical evidence”.

Would that you were consistent with this:

Either: There is no proof that there is something outside the observable universe, so I will not entertain the idea that there is a God or a multiverse until there is proof.

OR: It’s possible, given the fact that we can’t know everything about our universe, that it exists.

You assert the first one for God and the second one for multiverses.

Can’t do that, Bradski.

It demonstrates what I think has been your problem all along–your denial of God is more an act of the will rather than an act of reason or intellect. I really do think you could embrace, intellectually, the arguments for God’s existence.

But I don’t think you want to.

And if I were your real friend rather than just your virtual friend, I’d really want to explore this with you over some really good wine (ok, yeah, you could have your pint) and some deliciously unhealthy appetizers at a place like this:

http://www.coloradodecks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/417.jpg

 

[PRmerger]

Is that what Bradski is telling you? That he doesn’t “believe God’s existence is possible”?

He believes that God’s existence isn’t a viable proposition.

But the existence of the multiverse is.

But there is wayyyyy less evidence for the MV than there is for God.

So it’s curious indeed that an atheist would embrace the idea that the MV is a viable proposition.

 

[PRmerger]

And you don’t just use philosophical arguments for the existence of God.

Yes. That’s why I said we use* mainly* philosophical arguments.

You maintain He interacts with us. That he created everything. That He sent His son here. That He performs miracles. That’s not philosophy.

That’s actually getting ahead of the game. Discussing calculus, as it were, when you’re still not accepting that 2+2 =4.

Let’s just talk about the philosophical arguments for the existence of the God of the Philosophers.

Once you accept them, then we can discuss how we know he interacts with us, that his son came to earth, that our sins are forgiven, that we can have an intimate relationship with this God…

 

[PRmerger]

Do you think that the burnt down house analogy has got some merit?

Let me think some more about it.

 

[PRmerger]

Mystery!

What an odd response.

You propose the argument, then you don’t know which one you’re referencing?

:whacky: