Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tronvillain · 03-31-2002, 12:29 AM

LinuxPup:

Quote:

Because unlike the tooth fairy, atheism, and santa claus, theism has objective data to back its case.

Actually Santa Claus and the tooth fairy have evidence that is nearly as good as that for theism. Of course, the naturalistic explanations of Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are better explanations than their actual existence, and the same appears to be true of theism.

tronvillain · 03-31-2002, 12:52 AM

It does follow from the Weak Anthropic Principles that we should not be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence. After all, given that we exist, the probability of observing features of the universe which are compatible with our existence is one.

When William Lane Craig says "We should be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence" he cannot expect to be taken seriously, given that it is logically impossible for us to observe anything else. He obviously means something else - perhaps something about the prior probability of a universe compatible with our existence, or something to that effect.

Pomp · 03-31-2002, 01:21 AM

LinuxPup,

Ok, I'll grant you that on extreme cases like fairies and dragons. I am often skeptical when people make claims, so I see where you're coming from, and I respect that.

Do you agree or disagree that an omnipotent immaterial person is at least as "extreme" a case as a fairy or a dragon? Do you agree or disagree that the burden of proof rests on the positive claimant even in non-extreme cases?

So where we go from here is: do we have evidence that substantiates the case for the existance of God?

So, are you conceding the burden of proof issue here, or am I misinterpreting you?

And here is where I say yes, we do. One great field of science which is showing immense examples of design is astronomy. The fine-tuning of the cosmological constant goes over 120 magnitutudes for example.

You might want to check out some of the innumerable threads here in which the Fine Tuning Argument is discussed, or else some of the articles in the II <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html" target="_blank">library</a>. I might note that, even if one were to accept that the Universe is designed, that does not imply that it was designed by the Xian god. Further evidence would have to be presented to demonstrate that the responsible party was, indeed, that god and not any other god, or even a vastly powerful natural designer.

I believe one astrophysicist put it this way: imagine aiming and shooting an arrow at a target one square-inch in area, only the target is 15 billion light years away.... now imagine hitting it dead on.

The common rejoinder to this comment is to note that we have no compelling reason to suspect that the Universe as it exists was the "target" of any metaphorical shot. It is at least equally possible that the "shot" was made blindly and the "bullseye" was painted around the arrow after it had hit the wall. The chances of any given number winning the lottery each week are infinitessimal, yet we do not infer that the game was fixed (designed) when one number does, indeed, win.

I recommend <a href="http://www.reasons.org," target="_blank">www.reasons.org,</a> as they provide a very plausable creation model.

I'll check it out, as I've never seen an actual creation model before. By model, I mean something resembling a scientific model, that makes testable claims that we can compare to reality. If it meets that standard, I'll be very impressed.

Edit: Do you have the link to the exact page where this model is presented?

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]

LinuxPup · 03-31-2002, 12:25 PM

Quote:

When William Lane Craig says "We should be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence" he cannot expect to be taken seriously, given that it is logically impossible for us to observe anything else.

This is why he related the argument to the 100 marksmen. If 100 marksmen fired and you weren't hit surely the following would be true:

5. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead,

and

6. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive.

Anyone would find it amazing that they're still alive after 100 trained marksmen fired and missed. So you can't just say "of course they missed, that's not surprising, because I'm still alive." If you're interested in the paper by Dr. William Lane Craig, you can find it here:
<a href="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/barrow.html" target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/barrow.html</a>

He goes into more depth then what I posted obviously.

Quote:

So, are you conceding the burden of proof issue here, or am I misinterpreting you?

I have said from the beginning that I have a burden of proof, what I have also said is that the atheist does also. No atheist has ever been able to give me evidence or proof that God does not exist, while the theist has.

Quote:

I might note that, even if one were to accept that the Universe is designed, that does not imply that it was designed by the Xian god.

One reason I believe the God that created the universe is the God of the Bible is because the Bible speaks of the beginning of space and time, the continuous expansion of the universe, and God's unchanging eternal nature, all of which are needed by the Big Bang. Mind you, this is only one reason.

Quote:

Edit: Do you have the link to the exact page where this model is presented?

The following site:
<a href="http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/testablecreationsummary.html" target="_blank">http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/testablecreationsummary.html</a>

is a *very* brief summary, but I recommend actually watching/listening to the scientists at Reasons to Believe actually give an indepth explanation to their creation model. You can check out the following page for more information:
<a href="http://www.reasons.org/resources/multimedia/tbn/2000archive.html" target="_blank">http://www.reasons.org/resources/multimedia/tbn/2000archive.html</a> <-- Check out the series "Testing the Creation Model"

The reason I respect Reasons to Believe, is that they offer a falsifiable testable creation model, and don't merely say "believe us". Dr. Ross did post-doctoral research on quasars at Caltech, and is very big on the scientific method.

Malaclypse the Younger · 03-31-2002, 12:47 PM

LinuxPup

Quote:

This is why he related the argument to the 100 marksmen.

When I see 100 separate noninteracting universes, all of which contain life, I will admit that this argument has some force.

Quote:

I have said from the beginning that I have a burden of proof, what I have also said is that the atheist does also. No atheist has ever been able to give me evidence or proof that God does not exist, while the theist has.

You are simply being perverse. You are simply ignoring the conventions of rhetoric.

Since I (as an atheist) simply do not care if you hold bizarre, absurd beliefs, I have no burden of proof, since I do not wish to change your beliefs. It is impossible to reason a man out of a position he did not reason himself into.

We nontheists did not invite you here. We did not come into your home and ask you to change your views. You came here, of your own volition.

Quote:

One reason I believe the God that created the universe is the God of the Bible is because the Bible speaks of the beginning of space and time, the continuous expansion of the universe, and God's unchanging eternal nature, all of which are needed by the Big Bang. Mind you, this is only one reason.

This is not a "reason", it is simple post hoc rationalization... i.e. horse manure. Do you evaluate the quality of your Linux manuals and source code according to these criteria? If so, I would be surprised that you would be able even to turn your computer on.

Quote:

The reason I respect Reasons to Believe, is that they offer a falsifiable testable creation model, and don't merely say "believe us". Dr. Ross did post-doctoral research on quasars at Caltech, and is very big on the scientific method.

Neither you nor Dr. Ross would recogize falsifiability or scientific method if it bit you in the ass.

Ah, I love argument from unsupported personal opinion.

Pomp · 03-31-2002, 12:54 PM

LinuxPup,

Thanks, I'll check out that link when I'm not on my way out the door.

Regarding the analogy of the 100 marksmen, again, it only holds water if we have some a priori reason to assume that they were aiming at you. Of course, in a case with actual marksmen, we know that they were aiming at you. In the case of the Universe, however, we have absolutely no reason to assume that it was "aiming" at us. It is at least equally possible that we are simply what it happened to hit or, more in line with your analogy, what the marksmen happened not to hit when they fired blindly into the darkness.

Edited because I remain unable to type.

Edited again for clarification.

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]

tronvillain · 03-31-2002, 01:01 PM

LinuxPup:

No, even in the the hundred marksmen example, you should not be surprised to observe that you are alive. Listen to yourself: it is not logically possible to for you to observe anything else. Now, you should be surprised that you are still alive, but the observation that you are still alive is not surprising in the least.

Wyrdsmyth · 04-01-2002, 05:54 AM

What do you calculate the odds of those hundred marksmen missing to be? One in a million? One in a billion?

Did you ever see Pulp Fiction, where Samuel L. Jackson's character has a religious experience because someone repeatedly missed him at close range with a pistol? He figured it was "impossible" for it just to be a coincidence, God must have intervened to cause a miracle and make the bullets miss him. I think that's pretty close to your analogy.

But, even if something is phenomenally unlikely, it doesn't logically follow that the explanation must then be "divine intervention." How do you make that leap?

If you win the lottery, you beat astronomical odds. Do you conclude the lottery must be fixed, or that "God wanted you to win"? What if you're struck by lightning? That also is astronomically unlikely -- does that mean God was mad at you, and struck you down?

Where do you draw the line? When does something become "unlikely" enough for you to conclude the explanation "must be God"? If you get in a traffic jam and miss a plane that later crashes, is that God intervening for you? If you find loose change in your couch, did God put it there? If your team wins the Super Bowl, is that because God is their biggest fan? Y'know, those were some pretty big spreads the Patriots covered...

Where does it stop? Every time we calculate the odds of something occurring are unlikely (how subjective), are we then justified in saying it's divine intervention?

Don't you see how subjective this practice is, in where the line is drawn? -- "Any event that has a calculated probability of 1 in 10 to the seventh power or less must have been caused by God" -- how arbitrary is that? And how could one possibly arrive at such a formulation? Why make it 10 to the seventh power, why not the sixth? Or the eighth? Don't be fooled by theologians throwing around a lot of math and statistics... They still need to answer this question. And none of them do, or can. Think about that.

[ April 01, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]

Jayhawker Soule · 04-01-2002, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LinuxPup:
Ok, I'll grant you that on extreme cases like fairies and dragons. I am often skeptical when people make claims,

Quote:

From Isaiah:

13:19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.

13:20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.

13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

13:22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-01-2002, 07:09 AM

The odds of your being hit by a pink truck driven by an albino Eskimo on the third Tuesday of April in Irkutsk are at an even higher degree of magnitutde than the one you claim is so remarkable.

What happens to your argument if you are hit by a pink truck driven by an albino Eskimo on the third Tuesday of April in Irkutsk?

I know you won't answer the question (or will attempt to answer with a question of your own), but try. I'll repeat it just to see if you have any integrity at all. What happens to your argument if you are hit by a pink truck driven by an albino Eskimo on the third Tuesday of April in Irkutsk?

Calculating the odds of something that has already occurred is utterly pointless and the worst form of argumentation, since it is nothing more than implication. Just like with the marksmen nonsense, it makes it seem as if you've made a point, when in actuality you have said nothing at all.

"Isn't that incredible?"
"No, not really."
"I think it is, and so does this other person, therefore you should think it is, too and join our cult! One of us! One of us! One of us!"

PLM. Pointless Lemming Mentality.

03-31-2002, 01:21 AM	#53
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	LinuxPup, Ok, I'll grant you that on extreme cases like fairies and dragons. I am often skeptical when people make claims, so I see where you're coming from, and I respect that. Do you agree or disagree that an omnipotent immaterial person is at least as "extreme" a case as a fairy or a dragon? Do you agree or disagree that the burden of proof rests on the positive claimant even in non-extreme cases? So where we go from here is: do we have evidence that substantiates the case for the existance of God? So, are you conceding the burden of proof issue here, or am I misinterpreting you? And here is where I say yes, we do. One great field of science which is showing immense examples of design is astronomy. The fine-tuning of the cosmological constant goes over 120 magnitutudes for example. You might want to check out some of the innumerable threads here in which the Fine Tuning Argument is discussed, or else some of the articles in the II <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html" target="_blank">library</a>. I might note that, even if one were to accept that the Universe is designed, that does not imply that it was designed by the Xian god. Further evidence would have to be presented to demonstrate that the responsible party was, indeed, that god and not any other god, or even a vastly powerful natural designer. I believe one astrophysicist put it this way: imagine aiming and shooting an arrow at a target one square-inch in area, only the target is 15 billion light years away.... now imagine hitting it dead on. The common rejoinder to this comment is to note that we have no compelling reason to suspect that the Universe as it exists was the "target" of any metaphorical shot. It is at least equally possible that the "shot" was made blindly and the "bullseye" was painted around the arrow after it had hit the wall. The chances of any given number winning the lottery each week are infinitessimal, yet we do not infer that the game was fixed (designed) when one number does, indeed, win. I recommend <a href="http://www.reasons.org," target="_blank">www.reasons.org,</a> as they provide a very plausable creation model. I'll check it out, as I've never seen an actual creation model before. By model, I mean something resembling a scientific model, that makes testable claims that we can compare to reality. If it meets that standard, I'll be very impressed. Edit: Do you have the link to the exact page where this model is presented? [ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

03-31-2002, 12:54 PM	#56
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	LinuxPup, Thanks, I'll check out that link when I'm not on my way out the door. Regarding the analogy of the 100 marksmen, again, it only holds water if we have some a priori reason to assume that they were aiming at you. Of course, in a case with actual marksmen, we know that they were aiming at you. In the case of the Universe, however, we have absolutely no reason to assume that it was "aiming" at us. It is at least equally possible that we are simply what it happened to hit or, more in line with your analogy, what the marksmen happened not to hit when they fired blindly into the darkness. Edited because I remain unable to type. Edited again for clarification. [ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ] [ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

04-01-2002, 05:54 AM	#58
Wyrdsmyth Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Sarver, PA, USA Posts: 920	What do you calculate the odds of those hundred marksmen missing to be? One in a million? One in a billion? Did you ever see Pulp Fiction, where Samuel L. Jackson's character has a religious experience because someone repeatedly missed him at close range with a pistol? He figured it was "impossible" for it just to be a coincidence, God must have intervened to cause a miracle and make the bullets miss him. I think that's pretty close to your analogy. But, even if something is phenomenally unlikely, it doesn't logically follow that the explanation must then be "divine intervention." How do you make that leap? If you win the lottery, you beat astronomical odds. Do you conclude the lottery must be fixed, or that "God wanted you to win"? What if you're struck by lightning? That also is astronomically unlikely -- does that mean God was mad at you, and struck you down? Where do you draw the line? When does something become "unlikely" enough for you to conclude the explanation "must be God"? If you get in a traffic jam and miss a plane that later crashes, is that God intervening for you? If you find loose change in your couch, did God put it there? If your team wins the Super Bowl, is that because God is their biggest fan? Y'know, those were some pretty big spreads the Patriots covered... Where does it stop? Every time we calculate the odds of something occurring are unlikely (how subjective), are we then justified in saying it's divine intervention? Don't you see how subjective this practice is, in where the line is drawn? -- "Any event that has a calculated probability of 1 in 10 to the seventh power or less must have been caused by God" -- how arbitrary is that? And how could one possibly arrive at such a formulation? Why make it 10 to the seventh power, why not the sixth? Or the eighth? Don't be fooled by theologians throwing around a lot of math and statistics... They still need to answer this question. And none of them do, or can. Think about that. [ April 01, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-31-2002, 12:52 AM	#52
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	It does follow from the Weak Anthropic Principles that we should not be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence. After all, given that we exist, the probability of observing features of the universe which are compatible with our existence is one. When William Lane Craig says "We should be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence" he cannot expect to be taken seriously, given that it is logically impossible for us to observe anything else. He obviously means something else - perhaps something about the prior probability of a universe compatible with our existence, or something to that effect.

03-31-2002, 01:01 PM	#57
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	LinuxPup: No, even in the the hundred marksmen example, you should not be surprised to observe that you are alive. Listen to yourself: it is not logically possible to for you to observe anything else. Now, you should be surprised that you are still alive, but the observation that you are still alive is not surprising in the least.

04-01-2002, 07:09 AM	#60
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	The odds of your being hit by a pink truck driven by an albino Eskimo on the third Tuesday of April in Irkutsk are at an even higher degree of magnitutde than the one you claim is so remarkable. What happens to your argument if you are hit by a pink truck driven by an albino Eskimo on the third Tuesday of April in Irkutsk? I know you won't answer the question (or will attempt to answer with a question of your own), but try. I'll repeat it just to see if you have any integrity at all. What happens to your argument if you are hit by a pink truck driven by an albino Eskimo on the third Tuesday of April in Irkutsk? Calculating the odds of something that has already occurred is utterly pointless and the worst form of argumentation, since it is nothing more than implication. Just like with the marksmen nonsense, it makes it seem as if you've made a point, when in actuality you have said nothing at all. "Isn't that incredible?" "No, not really." "I think it is, and so does this other person, therefore you should think it is, too and join our cult! One of us! One of us! One of us!" PLM. Pointless Lemming Mentality.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.