Freethought & Rationalism Archive

luvluv · 12-14-2002, 05:30 PM

Thomas Metcalf:

Quote:

I don't see how. It's a well-known fact that natural processes produce order and complexity all the time, and further, it's another non sequitur to conclude that whatever produced this order is supernatural. Again, it's simply not necessary.

I agree about order, but where have natural processes produced complexity? Still less, ordered complexity? I'm of the opinion that natural processes did not initiate life, only some of the speciation of that life.

As to the supernatural, well, only by the dictionary definition. Whatever it is that has always existed has always existed outside of nature and outside of the physical universe. It was present in the void.

Quote:

It's not parsimonious enough. Deism is simply unnecessary to explain what we observe.

If you take into account EVERYTHING we observe, then deism is by far the most parsimonious. If we include the existence of the mind, the perplexing fact that the universe is intelligible to creatures for whom the ability to understand the universe is not a biological advantage, the connundrum of existence, the anthropic coincidences, creation ex nihlo, etc, it is the one simple hypothesis which makes all these consistent. It is not falsifiable or testable, but that does not mean it is not true. Who decided that the ultimate truth must be something that we, as humans, can falsify?

Quote:

A century or two ago, we had no idea how natural processes could have produced complex life, but it's clear now that they did.

No it isn't. Unless you've gotten some information I haven't gotten. Do you mean who natural processes could have produced speciation?

Quote:

It's Argument from Ignorance to go from a question such as the above to the supposition, "Naturalism is false."

Well, that wasn't the argument in it's best form. Simply put the argument is that only intelligent beings devise systems of communication, transcription, coding, decoding, and implementation. DNA involve all of these communication devices, so DNA is the product of intelligence. Again, this does not establish the existence of a God, but it does seem to me to be reason to reject a purely naturalistic stance.

I think our main disagreement is over our criteria for belief. An argument can be, in my opinion, unsound formally, and yet still provide persuasive evidence. I know that the cosmological arguments and the teleological arguments are unsound as PROOFS, but the fact that they fail to meet this lofty standard does not stress me much as the existence of most things cannot be proven logically. Therefore I consider the arguments good evidence in support of the existence of God even if the evidence falls short of being "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Quote:

the theist must frame an argument that shows only a supernaturalistic process could produce DNA, or that some supernaturalistic process is the best explanation therefor.

Only if the theist were attempting to provide a proof. But if the theist is merely using these to build up a preponderence of evidence, he is as justified in drawing a Deistic conclusion as the atheist would be in drawing a naturalistic conclusion.

Quote:

We know that He cannot perform either of those actions, but His omnipotence would indicate that He can. It's an explicit contradiction.

Well, I imagine you know what I am going to say. God is limited to logical possibilities. It is a logical impossibility for omniscience to learn, so therefore God is no less omnipotent for not being able to learn. Similarly, it is logically impossible for omnibenevolence to do evil, so God is no less omnibenevolent for not doing evil.

If you say that God's omnipotence is not limited to logical possibilities, then you cannot say that He does not exist based on some perceived logical inconsistency. If He can do the logically impossible, then we cannot use logic to determine whether or not He exists.

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]

Vorkosigan · 12-14-2002, 05:38 PM

If you take into account EVERYTHING we observe, then deism is by far the most parsimonious. If we include the existence of the mind,

Already explained by evolution...

the perplexing fact that the universe is intelligible to creatures for whom the ability to understand the universe is not a biological advantage,

the ability to comprehend the world around us is fallout from many faculties that do provide "biological advantage." Do not make the error of concluding that all intellectual feats must be directly advantageous.

the connundrum of existence,

Existence has no conundrum. We are here because we evolved.

the anthropic coincidences,

There are no anthropic coincidences, Luv. These "coincidences" are inevitabilities, the result of selection processes acting under constraints. Of course everything in the universe conforms to its norms. How else could it be? No matter what its laws, any universe operating by selection processes under natural law will appear designed. You're like a fish looking at the ocean marveling how well it was designed for you. Actually, the reverse is true. The things in the universe were "designed" by natural processes to suit those natural processes.

BTW, I've searched. On this whole friggin' island, there is no copy of The World's Last Night. I have to order it from abroad. Non-Christian society, you know, only one university on the island has any Historical Jesus stuff, and that one is a private Christian one, and they don't lend it out. It'll be a while...

Vorkosigan

Living Dead Chipmunk · 12-14-2002, 08:14 PM

Quote:

To be a "strong" or "positive" atheist only requires that a person disbelieve in some gods, not in all gods. And there is good reason to disbelieve in some gods.

So since Christians disbelieve the greek gods, they're strong atheists too? They disbelieve SOME gods, not ALL gods. Which is all that's required of a strong or positive atheist.

[edit: And wouldn't such a definition make everyone in the world a strong atheist? Since Muslims disbelieve Vishnu, Hindus disbelieve Zoraster, Zorastorans disbelieve the Tao and Taoists disbelieve Allah.... is there any religion that doesn't disbelieve SOME (but not ALL) gods?]

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Living Dead Chipmunk ]

Thomas Metcalf · 12-14-2002, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Living Dead Chipmunk:

"So since Christians disbelieve the greek gods, they're strong atheists too? They disbelieve SOME gods, not ALL gods. Which is all that's required of a strong or positive atheist."

Sorry; I meant with respect to disbelief. Strong atheists must also be atheists in general.

12-14-2002, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by galiel:

...sounds an awful lot like the statement of a dogmatic believer, and I am sure that was not your intent.

You are correct in that that certainly was not my intent. If I were any less a dogmatic believer, I would be dead (and in the quote you give I did ask a question rather than merely making a declarative statement - hardly the MO of a dogmatist).

To clarify, I was basically asking why anyone would want to be a dogmatic atheist, when being a non-dogmatic atheist is all that is required? One gives up one's advantage in the debate entirely by being dogmatic (i.e., absolutist, or a 'strong' atheist).

In the rules of debate, the burden of proof is on the theist. If you say you can prove there is no god, you shift the burden unnecessarily on yourself, the atheist. Why would you wish to do that?

Plus, proving a negative is difficult to the point of impossiblity, especially for an abstraction like an invisible, immaterial god (as has been pointed out by others on this thread).

Do you follow my drift, or do I need to try a third time?

Thomas Metcalf · 12-14-2002, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by luvluv:

"I agree about order, but where have natural processes produced complexity?"

Snowflakes are the classic example.

"Whatever it is that has always existed has always existed outside of nature and outside of the physical universe."

And why must this be supernaturalistic?

"If we include the existence of the mind, the perplexing fact that the universe is intelligible to creatures for whom the ability to understand the universe is not a biological advantage, ..."

It isn't?

"Do you mean who natural processes could have produced speciation?"

Yes; I'm not talking about abiogenesis, for example.

"Simply put the argument is that only intelligent beings devise systems of communication, transcription, coding, decoding, and implementation."

But this is false if naturalism is true. There are good reasons to believe that a precursor to DNA could have arisen naturally. In terms of our experience, non-natural processes don't design systems as efficient and complex as DNA, and non-natural processes don't design the biological systems within humans.

"Therefore I consider the arguments good evidence in support of the existence of God even if the evidence falls short of being 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'"

The classic analogy here is that one hundred leaky buckets still don't hold water. I do not think the cosmological argument provides any support for theism whatsoever, because a mind is most certainly not required. That leaves the teleological arguments, but even then, no one's ever shown that something supernaturalistic would be required.

"It is a logical impossibility for omniscience to learn, so therefore God is no less omnipotent for not being able to learn. Similarly, it is logically impossible for omnibenevolence to do evil, so God is no less omnibenevolent for not doing evil."

This falls prey to the classic problems of McEar and McNothing. McEar is a being who can only scratch his ear; McNothing is a being who cannot do anything. It is a logical impossibility for only-being-able-to-scratch-one's-ear-hood to do anything other than scratch one's ear; it is a logical impossibility for complete impotence to do anything; therefore, it presents a problem neither for McEar's nor McNothing's omnipotence that they can't, say, tie their shoes.

Jayhawker Soule · 12-15-2002, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Metcalf:
Remember, I defined agnosticism in my post as "the position that one does not know whether any gods exist." By that definition, ...

OK. I define agnosticism as the belief that Seattle has the best pizza. By that definition, ...

Thomas Metcalf · 12-15-2002, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:

"OK. I define agnosticism as the belief that Seattle has the best pizza. By that definition, ..."

Read what I said in the rest of my post. For the purposes of that exchange, that was our definition of agnosticism. What's yours?

Thomas Metcalf · 12-15-2002, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Robert G. Ingersoll:

"In the rules of debate, the burden of proof is on the theist. If you say you can prove there is no god, you shift the burden unnecessarily on yourself, the atheist. Why would you wish to do that?"

I wouldn't call it shifting the burden of proof, because the proposition in question has changed. With an assertion that God does not exist, you are no longer debating whether "There is no good reason to be a theist," but rather, whether "There is good reason to believe God doesn't exist." And the burden of proof stays where it always has: on the positive claimant.

Now, as for why one would want to assert that. When one successfully undermines all the arguments for theism, the theist is still within her rights to say "Well, the evidence doesn't really go either way, so I'll just stick with theism." And the arguments for positive atheism show that no, the evidence actually goes a good deal of the way to disconfirming some gods.

To prove a negative is quite easy. One must only show that the denial of that negative leads to a contradiction (reductio ad absurdum), or that some conditional with that negative in the antecedent and a false proposition in the consequent is true.

Mad Kally · 12-15-2002, 12:26 PM

Is a Proof of the Non-Existence of a God Even Possible? <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/ipnegep.html" target="_blank"> From the Secular Web library.</a>

Quote:

Conclusion
In this paper, I have emphasized the possibility of disproving specific gods. I suspect that many people are under the false impression that the atheist is under some fictitious obligation to prove the non-existence of all possible gods in a single argument, in turn probably because many people conflate atheism with materialism.[21] I would be the first person to grant that there is probably not a single argument which proves the non-existence of all logically possible gods. But the existence of such an argument is not what the theism vs. atheism debate is all about. Rather, the issue is which, if any, logically possible gods exist. While some possible gods (e.g., the Greek Pantheon) do appear to be unfalsifiable, there does not appear to be any a priori reason why other possible gods cannot be disproved.

-Jeffery Jay Lowder (1998)

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

12-14-2002, 05:38 PM	#82
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	If you take into account EVERYTHING we observe, then deism is by far the most parsimonious. If we include the existence of the mind, Already explained by evolution... the perplexing fact that the universe is intelligible to creatures for whom the ability to understand the universe is not a biological advantage, the ability to comprehend the world around us is fallout from many faculties that do provide "biological advantage." Do not make the error of concluding that all intellectual feats must be directly advantageous. the connundrum of existence, Existence has no conundrum. We are here because we evolved. the anthropic coincidences, There are no anthropic coincidences, Luv. These "coincidences" are inevitabilities, the result of selection processes acting under constraints. Of course everything in the universe conforms to its norms. How else could it be? No matter what its laws, any universe operating by selection processes under natural law will appear designed. You're like a fish looking at the ocean marveling how well it was designed for you. Actually, the reverse is true. The things in the universe were "designed" by natural processes to suit those natural processes. BTW, I've searched. On this whole friggin' island, there is no copy of The World's Last Night. I have to order it from abroad. Non-Christian society, you know, only one university on the island has any Historical Jesus stuff, and that one is a private Christian one, and they don't lend it out. It'll be a while... Vorkosigan

12-14-2002, 08:55 PM	#84
Thomas Metcalf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 1,009	Originally posted by Living Dead Chipmunk: "So since Christians disbelieve the greek gods, they're strong atheists too? They disbelieve SOME gods, not ALL gods. Which is all that's required of a strong or positive atheist." Sorry; I meant with respect to disbelief. Strong atheists must also be atheists in general.

12-14-2002, 09:03 PM	#86
Thomas Metcalf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 1,009	Originally posted by luvluv: "I agree about order, but where have natural processes produced complexity?" Snowflakes are the classic example. "Whatever it is that has always existed has always existed outside of nature and outside of the physical universe." And why must this be supernaturalistic? "If we include the existence of the mind, the perplexing fact that the universe is intelligible to creatures for whom the ability to understand the universe is not a biological advantage, ..." It isn't? "Do you mean who natural processes could have produced speciation?" Yes; I'm not talking about abiogenesis, for example. "Simply put the argument is that only intelligent beings devise systems of communication, transcription, coding, decoding, and implementation." But this is false if naturalism is true. There are good reasons to believe that a precursor to DNA could have arisen naturally. In terms of our experience, non-natural processes don't design systems as efficient and complex as DNA, and non-natural processes don't design the biological systems within humans. "Therefore I consider the arguments good evidence in support of the existence of God even if the evidence falls short of being 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'" The classic analogy here is that one hundred leaky buckets still don't hold water. I do not think the cosmological argument provides any support for theism whatsoever, because a mind is most certainly not required. That leaves the teleological arguments, but even then, no one's ever shown that something supernaturalistic would be required. "It is a logical impossibility for omniscience to learn, so therefore God is no less omnipotent for not being able to learn. Similarly, it is logically impossible for omnibenevolence to do evil, so God is no less omnibenevolent for not doing evil." This falls prey to the classic problems of McEar and McNothing. McEar is a being who can only scratch his ear; McNothing is a being who cannot do anything. It is a logical impossibility for only-being-able-to-scratch-one's-ear-hood to do anything other than scratch one's ear; it is a logical impossibility for complete impotence to do anything; therefore, it presents a problem neither for McEar's nor McNothing's omnipotence that they can't, say, tie their shoes.

12-15-2002, 11:42 AM	#88
Thomas Metcalf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 1,009	Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt: "OK. I define agnosticism as the belief that Seattle has the best pizza. By that definition, ..." Read what I said in the rest of my post. For the purposes of that exchange, that was our definition of agnosticism. What's yours?

12-15-2002, 11:46 AM	#89
Thomas Metcalf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 1,009	Originally posted by Robert G. Ingersoll: "In the rules of debate, the burden of proof is on the theist. If you say you can prove there is no god, you shift the burden unnecessarily on yourself, the atheist. Why would you wish to do that?" I wouldn't call it shifting the burden of proof, because the proposition in question has changed. With an assertion that God does not exist, you are no longer debating whether "There is no good reason to be a theist," but rather, whether "There is good reason to believe God doesn't exist." And the burden of proof stays where it always has: on the positive claimant. Now, as for why one would want to assert that. When one successfully undermines all the arguments for theism, the theist is still within her rights to say "Well, the evidence doesn't really go either way, so I'll just stick with theism." And the arguments for positive atheism show that no, the evidence actually goes a good deal of the way to disconfirming some gods. To prove a negative is quite easy. One must only show that the denial of that negative leads to a contradiction (reductio ad absurdum), or that some conditional with that negative in the antecedent and a false proposition in the consequent is true.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.