Belief... or lack thereof

[Bradski]

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.

You are mixing up proofs, evidence, conjecture, proposals and philosophy. Let’s take this step by step.

I have heard all the arguments for God’s existence. I have found that the vast majority of them are not credible. That is my honest assessment and therefore I do not believe He exists. As I said, your problem is probably having too many arguments, all of which you say are true, but like the woman’s alibi failing when one claim is found to be false, if even one argument is considered to be false, then all the others are therefore put into doubt. It simply is not the case that you can say: ‘well, OK, forget that one, but the others are true.’ It’s all or nothing. You can’t pick and choose which bits you want to believe. ‘Well MY God didn’t do that but what He does do…’

However, that’s not comparable to science. As far as the multiverse goes, there are proposals. Do I think that this proposal is reasonable? Yes. So let’s move on to what it implies. Do I accept this implication? No, from arguments I’ve read, this other one seems more likely. Which leads on to other proposals and implications and you go wherever the most likely scenario takes you.

You cannot do that with theology. There is only one answer to theological questions. God. All proposals, all implications, all suggestions, all evidence, philosophical or empirical MUST lead to God. Science wanders off wherever the evidence leads and I am bound to follow.

So there are arguments for God which have been rejected by me as not being credible. But there are theories concerning the observable universe which we can examine and which tell us with almost 100% certainty that there is something outside of it. I mean, it’s not called the observable universe for nothing. The clue is in the name itself. There is an unobservable universe. And parts of the one are disappearing into the other as you read this.

Going back to the house analogy, there’s one that God made for us. But we can’t get to it. And now it’s retreated further so we can’t see it. Now it has literally disappeared. Kinda weird. But there’s more. It wan’t just one, or a few, or millions. There have been billions of these houses built that we never knew about. Now all gone forever. Built and destroyed before even this planet existed.

But there’s still more. There have been an infinity of these places built that we could never even see in the first place. In someone else’s observable universe. Not ours. Not ever. Literally impossible. Which leads to one inescapable fact: Whatever is out there was not made for us.

All that we have access to, all that we can have access to, compared to what has existed, does exist and will exist is effectively nothing. That bit is still enough for our purposes, but I’d like some suggestions as to what everything else (effectively everything there is) is for.

And even though you Yanks do make exceptionally good beers, I’ll have a glass of Pinot Grigio if you have one open.

 

[guanophore]

Which is one of awe, perhaps? ;)

Yes! That describes it well. So you can appreciate that a person may have an emotional connection to the possibility of multiverse?

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…

The double standard is not in the nature of the topic, but the fact that open mindedness exists in one case, in the absence of evidence, but not in the other.

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.

I have not read anything on this thread that indicates you have any such open mind. How is this open mind demonstrated?

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

You have a blog and a Twitter account.

Firstly, there is a lot of theoretical evidence. Not all evidence has to be empirical.

Are you kidding me??!

We are allowed to admit non-empirical evidence and theoretical evidence for a multiverse, but not for the existence of God? Talk about a double standard!

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.

First of all, there are ways to know things other than empiricism. Second, how is it allowed that one can “believe” or speculate something that is outside the observable universe as real, but this standard cannot be applied for the existence of God?

Secondly, no-one is asking you to believe in the concepts (again, plural) of multiverses…

This is not about asking you to believe in the concepts of Christianity, either, but about the double standard you practice about the possible existence of God.

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.

Understandibly so. It is an unnatural method by which to restrict one’s ways of knowing.

 

[Bradski]

We are allowed to admit non-empirical evidence and theoretical evidence for a multiverse, but not for the existence of God? Talk about a double standard!

First of all, there are ways to know things other than empiricism. Second, how is it allowed that one can “believe” or speculate something that is outside the observable universe as real, but this standard cannot be applied for the existence of God.

Who says you can’t offer non-empirical evidence for God? Did someone say that? Almost all of it is non-empirical. PR is even talking of the God of the Philosophers. Anselm, Aquinas, Leibnitz, you name them, they’ve all had a philosophical shot at an explanation.

If you propose something that suggests God then I’ll listen, think on it and decide if it’s credible. If it is, then we can move on. But once an argument fails, it all fails. Whereas in science, if something fails, we head off in another direction to find what we’re looking for. Fine tune the proposal. Look at other options. Balance the probabilities. Try a new set of numbers. Throw in another dimension. Use another model. Entertain other scenarios. Abandon the idea all together.

And we can know (not speculate) that there is something outside of the observable universe. Following on from that we can say…well, that’s about it as far as it affects me. Endlessly fascinating but serves no practical purpose. And never will.

But…if you want me to believe in God, then I have to give up sex unless I am married. I have to believe in an afterlife. I have to believe I have an eternal soul. No playing with myself. I have to believe in original sin. That there is a devil. That there is a hell. That the source of morality is God. That He sent His son to save us. That He created everything for us. That we are special. The list goes on.

It’s quite a package, isn’t it. And it all would affect me directly.

So if I want to propose a multiverse and I’m wrong, then big deal. It was nice discussing it. Look at what we learned along the way. And in any case, there are multiple options, I will undoubtedly have a preference just as others will and we can’t all be right.

But if you want to propose God, then it’s all or nothing. I have to believe all those things I listed above and more. Much more. I’m not allowed to cherry pick the God I’d like. There is only one. And all the arguments have to be valid. Because if there is a God, they will all be valid.

So multiverse? Well, I like this idea, but not that one. His proposal sounds better than hers. This type seems more likely than that one. These figures don’t sound right, so let’s use some others. I can pick and choose.

But God? I have to believe all that? No variations? No options? Well, OK. Then no God.

 

[PRmerger]

But…if you want me to believe in God, then I have to give up sex unless I am married. I have to believe in an afterlife. I have to believe I have an eternal soul. No playing with myself. I have to believe in original sin. That there is a devil. That there is a hell. That the source of morality is God. That He sent His son to save us. That He created everything for us. That we are special. The list goes on.

It’s quite a package, isn’t it. And it all would affect me directly.

Ah. So here it is. The reason why you won’t believe, even though you could, intellectually, embrace the existence of God.

You do realize that all things that you invest in require much of you, yes?

This is like you rejecting marriage with the love of your life because “then I have to give up sex with everyone else. I have to love no other woman in the same way. I have to give up room on my huge king bed. I have to share my morning quiet with someone else (and, oh, how I love the silence of the morning with just me and my java!). The list goes on. So, no, I’m not going to marry her because it asks way too much of me.”

And think what you would be missing if you hadn’t accepted “the list” of what is required when you say YES to marriage with your wife.

 

[PRmerger]

But God? I have to believe all that? No variations? No options? Well, OK. Then no God.

I think that any intellectually honest person MUST say: if it’s true, then I have to believe “all that”.

It’s a disingenuous position* to reject Fact A because it necessarily means Fact B, C and D, even though I believe Fact A might be actually true.

Incidentally, it’s not correct to say that there are “no variations” and “no options” when one embraces belief in the God of the Philosophers.

*The use of the phrases “intellectually honest” and “disingenuous position” are not to be taken personally. These are rhetorical only. I believe that Bradski to be an intellectually honest man.

 

[pocaracas]

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

Ermm… can I join you?

 

[pocaracas]

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.

Really? Less evidence?
Well, you certainly don’t have people dying for the notion of the multiverse… but that human willingness to die for a belief is no evidence for whatever is being believed in.

You don’t need to teach people, since their childhood, about the concept of the multiverse… there’s no dragging them to the temple where the notion of belief in the multiverse must be upheld… no bedtime recitation, no mealtime ritual…

That people come to accept the notion of the multiverse as viable seems to represent a far more challenging path, than standard childhood religious indoctrination.

 

[pocaracas]

What an odd response.

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

:whacky:

Sorry about that, I really had to go to sleep and didn’t want to leave that completely answered.
Let me try again.

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…

The God hypothesis requires the pre-existing consciousness.
The multiverse requires only some naturalistic mechanism… a repeatable, mathematically describable mechanism.

 

[eddie_too]

I find it irrational, the concept that human reason derives from a Creator who does not have the use of reason.

 

[pocaracas]

Yes! That describes it well. So you can appreciate that a person may have an emotional connection to the possibility of multiverse?

Not very similar to the one which is purported to be required for the God of Christianity… is it? Although, I’m sure that awe is included in it.

The double standard is not in the nature of the topic, but the fact that open mindedness exists in one case, in the absence of evidence, but not in the other.

May have to do with how both notions have been historically reached.
One is simply presented and then reasoning is usually built from that end-point, even if presented the other way around.
The other has been built from the ground-up, producing giants that let us stand on their shoulders.

I have not read anything on this thread that indicates you have any such open mind. How is this open mind demonstrated?

Besides PRmerger’s objection to my usage of the word “indoctrination”, have you seen me produce a negative reaction to the beliefs of people, here?
I’ve learned some things along this discussion. I hope I’ve shared some things that allowed you guys to learn something, too. This is what a forum is for - sharing information.
As you may have seen above, Bradski disagreed with me on something about the multiverse… we, atheists, don’t agree on all things… each has a different background which enables different perspectives on the subjects under discussion.

I honestly don’t expect a human to be able to convince me that a god exists… but I can’t say it can’t happen… and 'll be surprised if it does happen, even with my awareness of the potential for psychological pitfalls in decision making.

You have a blog and a Twitter account.

Indeed I do…
That blog doesn’t have my name in it…
But twitter… damn you Twitter! That thing… my name used to be private! OK, I haven’t used that thing in too long. Need to update some settings, apparently. Thanks for bringin it to my attention.

 

[pocaracas]

I find it irrational, the concept that human reason derives from a Creator who does not have the use of reason.

Irrational?.. interesting…
What is the problem with reason being built from the ground-up?
How does the song go?
“”
Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait…
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mystery,
That all started with the big bang (Bang)!
“”

Did the creator of Alzheimer’s Disease have any use for it?

 

[Bradski]

Ah. So here it is. The reason why you won’t believe, even though you could, intellectually, embrace the existence of God.

Well, allow me to take out the points re self-control. I shouldn’t have put those in as they detract from the point I was making. Which was that a belief in a God is just that. Go no further and one is a Deist.

Something created everything? Well, OK, that sounds kinda reasonable. We live in a Goldilocks universe – everything is just right for us? Well, that’s sounds OK (bear in mind I’m using these as examples). So…I guess I could believe in God. Yaaay, Bradski’s a Christian!

Well hang on, let’s back the truck up a little. Because now everyone who has a religion wants a piece of the action. And we’re back to the very reasonable argument that at best, only one of them has got it right and even then there is no guarantee that the one that comes closest to the pin has got it all right. It becomes like a fight between political parties to get your membership. Except that unless you believe every single policy that they put forward, you can’t be a member. You have to believe it ALL.

And yeah, I know it doesn’t work like that in practice. What actually happens is that you reach a point where you perhaps believe in God (or you are at that point by default due to parental, geographical or cultural reasons) and then you are given the rule book for whatever religion is relevant. And you can’t be a good Christian unless you tick those boxes. And then each denomination has a slightly different set of beliefs – different boxes to be ticked off. And you have to tick them all off or it’s no go.

So our Deist looks at each one in turn and as soon as he reaches something that is a requirement to believe which he, in all honesty, cannot, he says; ‘Thanks for your time. Nice to have met you. You have a nice day’. There’s no need to go any further. And eventually there’s no-one left to see.

I think that any intellectually honest person MUST say: if it’s true, then I have to believe “all that”.

You have it backwards. If you believe it is true, then it‘s a given that you believe ‘all that’. But if you don’t believe ‘all that’ (and you have to believe it all), then it’s not true. You have to go through the process of deciding if the evidence for each aspect of the whole thing is acceptable. The alternative would be for me to say that, yes, I will accept it as being true and will THEREFORE accept all the evidence. That would make me, in my view, intellectually dishonest.

Ermm… can I join you?

I’m quite partial to a Vinho Verde.

 

[Nixbits]

Sorry to keep going back to this part of the thread, but . . .

PRmerger:

You have direct, frequent, shared tangible contact with your spouse, yes? (If not married, just try to apply the parallel in the abstract).
Yet there is not a single marriage that doesn’t share rituals, outings, events, celebrations together.
Tangible contact with someone doesn’t negate the need for other “trappings”.

And yet I don’t need any formal set of rituals, or defined celebrations, or a trained intermediary, in order to have a relationship with my spouse. Which was my point and the one I think pocaracas was making. If I had a relationship with God like the one I have with my spouse, I would not need the rituals, doctrine and organisations of a religion.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry to keep going back to this part of the thread, but . . .

And yet I don’t need any formal set of rituals, or defined celebrations, or a trained intermediary, in order to have a relationship with my spouse.

Sorry, but you *do *have rituals, and defined celebrations.

No normal married relationship is without them.

And you do have intermediaries–your children. (Think in the abstract if you don’t have kids).

 

[PRmerger]

So, again, why argue against scientific proposals that on the face of it do nothing to remove God from the picture?

I object to associating “scientific proposals” with the topic of multiverse.

It’s not science at all that anyone is using to suggest that there may be a multiverse. There is no way to test the predictions of this “scientific proposal”, which is exactly how science determines whether the proposal is true or false.

That is, it’s an elaborate theory that isn’t falsifiable. It can’t be confirmed by experimentation.

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

I’m not sure I’m getting it.

The universe is a burnt down house because some of it is already gone and we can only see its remains through a photograph of what was (that is, the light of the burnt out star?)

And that means…?

 

[Bradski]

It’s not science at all that anyone is using to suggest that there may be a multiverse. There is no way to test the predictions of this “scientific proposal”, which is exactly how science determines whether the proposal is true or false.

That is, it’s an elaborate theory that isn’t falsifiable. It can’t be confirmed by experimentation.

Mmm. Not falsifiable. There are a few things like that.

And that it is not scientific is not correct. More than one universe would be the likely outcome if there was an inflationary period of expansion after the Big Bang. If there was an inflationary period, there would be gravity waves.

Find the gravity waves and it all but confirms inflation. And according to Alan Guth (who is the go-to guy for this type of theoretical physics:

“It’s hard to build models of inflation that don’t lead to a multiverse…” space.com/25100-multiverse-cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves.html

Proposing inflation was done using the science of theoretical physics. Determining that gravity waves would be produced was done the same way. Searching for them is a scientific enterprise. Modelling the outcome is a scientific exercise.

We may end up with the prevailing view that the multiverse is more likely than not (despite no empirical evidence). Which has no implication for a creator in any case. It’s like comparing evolution with abiogenesis. Two different things.

It doesn’t mean that there’s more stuff we can’t access. There is already an infinity of that anyway. Hence the non-accessible house question. Who on earth is it for? Because, as I said, it’s certainly not for us.

Creation, life, salvation, the whole story has a structure that would make sense. Everything is for a reason. Whether you believe it or not. At least, it did until fairly recently. Until we discovered that if God made everything, then only an infinitesimally small part of it has any purpose.

 

[Nixbits]

PRmerger:

And you do have intermediaries–your children. (Think in the abstract if you don’t have kids).

You mean that you cannot have a relationship with your spouse (if you have one) without going through your children (if you have any). How extraordinary!

Curious. Your idea of a relationship with a spouse appears to be very different to mine. If I want to speak with, share ideas with and spend time with my spouse, I don’t need anyone else’s help or any specified way of doing these things. I wonder how many others share your views.

 

[MPat]

Oh… you want a formal logical argument… bah… too much work…

It is not as much work, as you seem to think. And it would be pretty useful - as it would force you to think about the argument.

Also, you can save some time by “taking a day off” from answering in this thread, just as I did.

Of course, I suspect that the main problem is that you do not have an argument you could present in that way (that wouldn’t look very bad)… But that’s what this “exercise” is actually meant to detect…

even that one you presented seems faulty at first glance, although I seem to agree with the outcome.

Note to self: ask if I got the argument right before pointing out how bad it is, do not do so in parallel.

That is, yes, it is faulty - and I did say so (I was trying to reformulate your argument, after all).

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.

I have to say I can see no difference here… That “as much as” seems to be equivalent of “indistinguishable”…

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…

“It makes sense”? You have no actual stories, but just think they are not impossible? So, now evidence you made up is supposed to be “indistinguishable” from evidence that actually exists?

And are you also claiming that merely “suffering a penalty” is “indistinguishable” from actual martyrdom?

Sorry, but that looks rather unpersuasive and thus my point still stands - any martyrdom of any religion is an example of evidence easily distinguishable from evidence for imaginary friends.

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.

That would be equivocation. “Exists in the intellect” doesn’t count here, as it wasn’t meant to end up in the conclusion.

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.

I wonder how you define those “imaginary friends”, for I don’t think all those “figures invented by a mind” are going to fit into that group…

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.

I was trying to rewrite your argument, and that argument didn’t get to the actual conclusion you had to reach.

And that’s the problem. You do not have a good argument, and bad arguments put in such form end up looking very bad.

Which, of course, is why I am insisting you would present your arguments in such way.

So, yes, it makes sense that you would consider that some intuition was used…
You’re missing premises.

Um, it is an argument you gave, just reworded. Thus, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that you’re missing premises…?

Of course, all that doesn’t have to matter - just tell us what those missing premises are.

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?

You know, you have yet to explain what you mean by those “known, scientifically known, flaws in human psychology” and “psychology exploiting methodology”…

For now I guess that I managed to find out such claimed “features”:

1. 
   *]Teaching the kids.
   *]Use of authority that cannot be verified by the ones who end up believing.
   *]Reliance on good feelings.
   
   Reading or writing fits the first “feature”, but you do not reject them. Four examples from science (heliocentrism etc.) fit the second “feature”, but you do not reject them. And Catholicism doesn’t even care much about “good feelings”, even if there are religions (like Mormonism) that might.
   
   And then you try to give answers. You answer the first counterexample with claim that writing is useful - but how can it matter, if the objection was not “Religion is useless.”? You answer the second counterexample by claim that science experiments are repeatable - but how can it matter, if the objection talks only about things verifiable by the ones being persuaded? And you didn’t answer the point about “good feelings” at all.
   
   So, those are not features you are really objecting to. So, what are they?
   

   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.

   Repetition does not make things any more relevant.

 

[MPat]

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

And perhaps it has only evolved enough to get you to believe that it has “evolved enough”…?

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?

Are you sure it was intuition? It is easy to see some traces of an argument here (although it would mention evolution - and that’s a topic that is to be avoided)…

And, of course, hasty generalisation from a single example is also how such fads rise as well… Someone ate something and didn’t get sick. See? It also “works”! Why refuse something that “works”?

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

You were asking about just 2 (two). If you really want an answer, investigate them. If you do not want an answer, why are you asking?

But… if I can’t agree with step I, how can I keep going all the way to step V?

You can read without agreeing, if you are interested in the argument. Hopefully, you are doing that in this thread.

If I grant step I, then magic is possible, and blah, blah blah… puf God is possible, yes.

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

I hope you had fun.

Actual definition of a miracle by St. Thomas Aquinas (“Summa Theologica”, First Part, Question 105, Article 7 - newadvent.org/summa/1105.htm): “Wherefore those things which God does outside those causes which we know, are called miracles.”.

As you can see, it is not “magic done by a god”. And now - to spoil that fun a little… So, how do you define that “magic”, and how do you know it (and miracles) does not exist? After all, you seem to be so sure here…

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

No, in that case the most you could argue is that an idea (that does exist) has some consequences.

Here I thought the causality was a physics thing…

Yes, you did.

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?

Are you asking if a book is a possibility?

For that matter, why should I care if whatever you are really asking about is “a possibility”? What does that have to do with this discussion?

Indeed it won’t…

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?

You have already conceded that without logic there is nothing you can “reason out”.

Nobody dismisses the evidence. It is recorded.

I have no idea what you were trying to say here…

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

I have no idea what you were trying to say here…

 

[PRmerger]

You mean that you cannot have a relationship with your spouse (if you have one) without going through your children (if you have any). How extraordinary!

Fair enough.

But there’s no intermediary between us and Christ, so I’m not sure what you’re referencing?