The Theist Position

[Gab123]

I don’t know why the Universe isn’t sufficient for some people. I find experiencing and knowing my part in the greater whole to be extremely satisfying, motivating and purposeful.

For a Catholic it’s ultimately about salvation and gaining eternal life. Sickness and death is only a matter of time—and there’s nothing pleasant or happy about the real suffering and death which awaits us all; yet even suffering has a purpose and itself is redemptive and prepares one for a happy death. Life is not about finding satisfactions or living unperturbed pleasant lives; it’s about preparing for how we are to spend eternity. The moment of truth comes down to salvation or damnation. If one dies in the state of grace the soul rises toward God; if the soul dies with unrepented mortal sin it sinks into the abyss sucked downward into a nightmare eternal existence without God the Source of Goodness.

I see zero evidence of something beyond, and my many years of trying to cultivate belief and a relationship with something I perceived no evidence of left me extremely unhappy, unfulfilled and much less productive than I am now.

The miracles of Christ witnessed by thousands were evidence; the miracle at Fatima was amazing; and there are plenty of people who experienced clinical death and experienced a glimpse of the other side. Interestingly, Pope John Paul II canonized St Faustina Kowalska, a cloistered Polish nun who had mystical visions of the afterlife which she described in her a Diary, illustrated in this short video:

 

[Bradskii]

Let’s note that this option hasn’t been investigated and rejected, it has been rejected right away. I wonder why…?

The clue is in the name: personal God. I have zero personal evidence. If you say that I should listen to Christians who say they have had a personal relationship, then I should treat all relious claims exactly the same.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Why not. It’s a simple, straightforward evolutionary process.

It’s the difficulty of ascertaining that our intelligence corresponds to reality. As C.S. Lewis formulated the argument (although it traces back to Aquinas), the cause-and-effect material process cannot produce the ground-and-consequent sequence of rational thought (explained briefly in Wikipedia).

There are ways around this: maybe through quantum physics if we think that some intelligent particle appeared randomly at some point without connection to the causal chain. That demands some enormous credulity, though, and is vulnerable to the argument from contingency. Another way is Thomas Nagel’s idea that intelligence did not emerge but is always attached to (and dependent upon) matter/energy, so everything is intelligent, even a rock. He calls it “panpsychism”; but I think it’s basically a kind of pantheism. And finally there is solipsism, which is that there is no reality for our mind to correspond to.

Intelligence doesn’t exist in itself. There are no intelligent particles that go to make up intelligent atoms which make intelligent molecules etc. Similarly, there are no particles which are ‘wet’, nor are there molecules of hydrogen and oxygen which are wet. But water is. It is an emergent property. One which is not necessarily contained in the part but which emerges in the whole.

A single person and a nation are two entirely different entities. But the one emerges from the other.

If you start with a basic form of life - another argument for another thread - then given enough time and a fair wind, consciousness will evolve. And hence intelligence. It appears to me to be a natural step in the process in the development of life.

 

[Bradskii]

Okay then I suggest the following order:

Theist Position:
I do believe in the non-existence of God
I do not believe in the non-existence of paradoxes
Therefore God hypothetically exists
Hybrid Pascals Wager by which hypothetically eternal hellfire is on the table

How do you counter?

Hybrid Pascal Wager simply says it is absolutely foolish to gamble no matter the odds when you stand to lose absolutely. FYI

Sorry friend, but I am having a great deal of trouble unpacking your argument.

The miracles of Christ witnessed by thousands were evidence…

Any corroborating evidence?

 

[Neithan]

The argument addresses exactly that idea: that intelligence is some emergent property of a material cause-and-effect process, and demonstrates how that cannot logically be the case. Cause and effect is non-rational, and you can’t get rational inferences from simple cause-and-effect, because they would simply be an extension of that process. If intelligence is based on cause and effect physics, it’s no more rational than anything else. Either it does not come from a material process, or it’s an illusion. I think the trend among philosophers with these sorts of mind-body problems is to either accept a kind of dualism (Thomas Nagel) or eliminative materialism (Daniel Dennett).

 

[Bradskii]

The argument addresses exactly that idea: that intelligence is some emergent property of a material cause-and-effect process, and demonstrates how that cannot logically be the case. Cause and effect is non-rational, and you can’t get rational inferences from simple cause-and-effect, because they would simply be an extension of that process. If intelligence is based on cause and effect physics, it’s no more rational than anything else. Either it does not come from a material process, or it’s an illusion. I think the trend among philosophers with these sorts of mind-body problems is to either accept a kind of dualism (Thomas Nagel) or eliminative materialism (Daniel Dennett).

True materialism (we are just bags of chemicals - and I think that term has been used already in this thread) is never presented as a positive argument. It’s just a straw man for those who believe in a soul/dualism.

And it’s not a simple cause and effect situation. Joining two hydrogen atoms to an oxygen does not ‘cause’ that molecule to be wet. It’s a property that water has when you have enough molecules but which individual molecules of H2O do not have.

If we agree that a brain exhibits processes which we can describe as being signs of intelligence, it does not mean we can work back down the chain of events which give rise to that intelligence and describe each individual process as being intelligent. A neuron is just a simple cell comprising inanimate material. Literally our ‘bag of chemicals’. But enough of them arranged in a particular way gives rise to intelligence. It emerges.

Believing that intelligence as a whole must be made up of elements which are in themselves intelligent is a fallacy of division.

 

[Calliope]

I had a near death experience about 30 years ago. It was nothing personal.

 

[o_mlly]

Intelligence doesn’t exist in itself. There are no intelligent particles that go to make up intelligent atoms which make intelligent molecules etc. Similarly, there are no particles which are ‘wet’, nor are there molecules of hydrogen and oxygen which are wet. But water is. It is an emergent property. One which is not necessarily contained in the part but which emerges in the whole.

The comparison of the properties of intelligence and wetness confuses extrinsic and dispositional properties with intrinsic and categorical properties. Wetness, an extrinsic and dispositional property to H2O, (and all materials) is transitional and dependent on the accidents of environment, i.e., temperature and pressure. Intelligence, an intrinsic and categorical property only of living creatures, is independent of the accidents of environment.

Intelligence, defined as the property to hold and process information, exists in every living creature and does not exist in any non-living creature. This is important. Science depends upon a determined universe, that is, all effects have causes. Claiming intelligence just emerged as an effect from non-living being as a property in all living beings begs this crucial question.

 

[LionHeart]

Intelligence, defined as the property to hold and process information, exists in every living creature and does not exist in any non-living creature.

Watson, in Jeopardy?

 

[Gab123]

Not everyone experiences NDEs, though everyone will experience death, and the judgment follows. The incredible reality that the universe even exists is incomprehensible. Haunting, demonic possession, damned souls and evil are just as real as angelic beings, salvation, holiness and eternal life. Just like the cause of time and matter is outside of time and matter itself, so too, The cause of nature is outside of and above nature itself, in theological terms, supernatural

 

[catholicray]

Sorry friend, but I am having a great deal of trouble unpacking your argument.

Think of it like a game of chess:
It’s also helpful to picture a closed box by which you are pondering whether or not God is in the box.

The Theist Position
I do not believe in the non-existence of God
Allocation of belief:
99.9% God Exists 0.1% God does not exist

The Atheist Position
I do not believe in the existence of God
Allocation of belief:
99.9% God Does not exist 0.1% God exists

Here we may debate but because of the starting position on both sides no evidence is necessarily required because a claim has not been made.

The Theist Position
I do not believe in the non existence of paradoxes (contradictions)
Utilizes the principle of explosion

The Atheist Position
I do not believe in the existence of paradoxes (contradictions)
Utilizes the Law of non contradiction

Here we may debate but because of the starting position on both sides no evidence is necessarily required because a claim has not been made.

Theist Position
Definition: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Atheist Position
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence

Again we can debate but it boils down to whether or not we have negative evidence that really shows that God (considering the definition given) can not possibly be in the box. Here I am taking the absolute stance on the definition so each part of the definition is a paradox.

Theist Position:
God hypothetically exists and God hypothetically does not exist.

Atheist Position:
Now I’m going to correct you here but you can correct me if I’m wrong.

God (given the definition) hypothetically does not exist and God hypothetically does exist.

 

[catholicray]

Now we both arrive at the Hybrid Pascal’s wager. We both have not ruled out the other parties position yet.

In Pascals original wager the emphasis was on the gain. Basically he said you should gamble based on the gain of heaven. I hold that this is true but I’ll show you why in the Hybrid model.

Hybrid Pascals Wager
Here’s the gamble:
You choose whether or not you believe God exists. The choice is yours.
Atheist position
Odds:
99.999% ad infinitum Eternal Hellfire is not the consequence for not believing in God
0.111% ad infinitum Eternal hellfire is the consequence for not believing in God

Win: nothing
Lose: eternal hellfire (absolute loss)

When I am talking about winning I’m saying what do you gain if you gamble that God does not exist and it turns out he does not exist.

When I am talking about losing I am saying what can you possibly lose if you gamble that God does not exist and it turns out he does exist. (everything)

So you have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

These are in fact the best odds because you do have a claim of a God who promises Eternal Hellfire if you do not Love Him. You can not ever come to love something you do not believe exists.

We can debate forever but bottom line is that hypothetically eternal hellfire is on the table.

Ultimately I am saying only the fool gambles when the possibility of absolute loss is on the table.

Let’s sum up then:

Theist Position
I do not believe in the non-existence of God
I do not believe in the non-existence of paradoxes
(Principle of explosion)
Definition: “”
Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence
Therefore God hypothetically exists and God hypothetically does not exist
Hybrid Pascals Wager (or inverse Pascal’s wager)

Atheist Position
I do not believe in the existence of God
I do not believe in the existence of paradoxes
(Law of non contradiction)
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence
Therefore God hypothetically exists and God hypothetically does not exist
Hybrid Pascals Wager (or inverse Pascal’s wager)

 

[catholicray]

One last note to test the hellfire “claim”. It doesn’t have to start as a claim.

Theist position
I do not believe “”
Hypothetically hellfire does exist and hypothetically hellfire does not exist

Atheist position
“”

So ultimately Pascal’s wager is applicable to both of us.

 

[o_mlly]

Watson, in Jeopardy?

Particular:
David Ferrucci → Watson.

General:
intelligent designer → all intelligent things.

 

[LionHeart]

Particular:
David Ferrucci -> Watson.

General:
intelligent designer -> all intelligent things.

From the particular there is no path to the general.

Also you changed the goalposts. Your proposition was that intelligence is information retention and information processing - which is definitely true. Then you assumed that only “living” beings are able to do such processing - which is false.

Moreover, the continued existence of the designers of Watson is not necessary for Watson’s continued intelligence.

 

[o_mlly]

From the particular there is no path to the general.

Induction infers from the particular to the general. All science is inductive.

Also you changed the goalposts. Your proposition was that intelligence is information retention and information processing - which is definitely true. Then you assumed that only “living” beings are able to do such processing - which is false.

No. Ferrucci is a living being. Without Ferrucci there is no Watson. Watson is a tool – very sophisticated but no more categorically than a hand-held calculator.

Moreover, the continued existence of the designers of Watson is not necessary for Watson’s continued intelligence.

Not relevant. I made no claim that the intelligent designer continues.

 

[LionHeart]

Induction infers from the particular to the general. All science is inductive.

Yes, but the step from the particular to the general is not automatic. It needs to be explained, step by step.

No. Ferrucci is a living being. Without Ferrucci there is no Watson. Watson is a tool – very sophisticated but no more categorically than a hand-held calculator.

Someone else would have built Watson. (By the way, Watson was built by a large team.) If you don’t see the substantial, qualitative difference between Watson and a hand-held calculator, it is a waste of time to talk to you.

Watson is intelligent, according to the definition you proposed, and I accepted. Much more intelligent than the best, most knowledgeable human players, much more intelligent than its designers.

 

[MPat]

I only feel compelled to investigate things that I recognize as possibly having important consequences for me. I do personally believe the existence or non existence of a deity has potentially important consequences, therefore I chose to investigate it.

Sounds fine for now.

Are you asking for examples because you yourself are unfamiliar with history or do you doubt the statement?

So far I am not entirely sure what that statement really is. And I am trying to find that out.

For example, it might be that you include Jews martyred in Old Testament times as “others”. That’s one of ploys I wanted to rule out by pointing out that Judaism is not sufficiently different.

I also want to find out if your statement is supported by some investigation, or merely by “Well, there had to be some, right?”.

It would also be nice to get you to contrast the examples on “Christian” and “Pagan” sides. Like examples of miracles, which you also claimed for other religions.

I felt it sufficient to take the statements that monotheists themselves gave to me concerning their faith. I saw no reason to doubt them and go out an investigate as to whether or not they were being capricious and misrepresenting a faith some of them claimed they would die for.

No one was misrepresenting anything. But it does not mean that you understood those beliefs fully and accurately.

As I said, “Pagan gods do not exist.” can mean two different things. It can mean that Pagan gods are not “true gods”, that they are not to be worshipped, are not to be offered sacrifices. In that sense this claim is very true.

It could also mean that every Pagan god is a fictional character. And that is false: some of them are real humans, like Roman or Japanese emperors.

Catholics are usually interested in the first meaning, that’s what your acquaintances were really saying to you. But the atheist argument in question needs the second meaning. After all, an atheist is not claiming that God exists, but is not to be worshipped.

The clue is in the name: personal God. I have zero personal evidence.

You were talking about “default”, “We do not know.”. That’s supposed to be before you have a look at evidence. At that point you do not know what evidence will be available.

If you say that I should listen to Christians who say they have had a personal relationship, then I should treat all relious claims exactly the same.

And are we supposed to be scared of that?

At this point “I don’t know.” is very acceptable - provided that it is honest and humble. When you start the sequence that might as well have its limit in “I reject personal God, because it is inconceivable that He wouldn’t have sought an audience with Me, and I haven’t received Him yet.”, it is far less acceptable.

 

[o_mlly]

Yes, but the step from the particular to the general is not automatic. It needs to be explained, step by step.

No one wrote that the particular to the general is automatic. What does that supposed to mean anyway? Silly.

What you did write was:

From the particular there is no path to the general.

And that claim is patently false.

Someone else would have built Watson.

So what? The point is that no one w/o intelligence could build Watson.

If you don’t see the substantial, qualitative difference between Watson and a hand-held calculator, it is a waste of time to talk to you.

And if you don’t see that there is no categorical difference between Watson and a TI6400 then it’s a waste of my time.

Watson is intelligent, according to the definition you proposed, and I accepted. Much more intelligent than the best, most knowledgeable human players, much more intelligent than its designers.

Absent an intelligent being to operate Watson, the tool is just a bunch of servers. But you may have stumbled onto the truth more than you think.

Watson has in all of its billions of switches just 2 things: digital data, digital instructions specifying the manipulation of that data. Sound familiar? Every living thing has at its cellular level digital data (DNA) and the instructions specifying how to manipulate that data (mRNA). One significant difference between Watson and all living things is Watson cannot make more switches or repair the ones that burn out. That is because Watson is not alive. Watson’s intelligence is aptly called artificial as in man-made as opposed to natural.

 

[LionHeart]

One significant difference between Watson and all living things is Watson cannot make more switches or repair the ones that burn out. That is because Watson is not alive.

It has nothing to do with intelligence. And that is the point, according to your definition. Intelligence is manipulating information. The differentiation between “natural” and artificial" is not relevant. Case closed.