"Belief in God is not rational." (Discuss)

[Immanuel Can]

The standard metric I use for what constitutes evidence is the same one used in the scientific method : for something to be inter subjectively observed from as objective a position as possible. And then subject to the critical rigour of peer review by experts in that particular field.

You can, of course, choose any epistemological standard or test you prefer. Quite right. But in doing so, are you aware of how many aspects of life you cut out?

If you're consistent with that metric, you rule out everything that is not detectable by the senses of touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing, in the first place. There can be NO metaphysical stuff verified in the universe...not merely God, but also such things as values, meaning, self, perspective, aesthetics, and so on. In fact, do you notice that your standard of "no non-intersubjectively-observable stuff you cut out not only other people's reports of facts and experiences, but even your own? For you, like all of us can dream, hallucinate, misinterpret, misremember and so on. So is it really your position that even the deliverances of your own remembering cannot be believed by you?

And why would we trust "experts" if we cannot even trust our own understandings? But if we can trust "experts," who is more "expert" than one who has actually seen an event? Could a modern-day historian actually be more "expert" in the verification of a putative miracle than the historical eyewitnesses who were on hand? And would even review by a bunch of them correct for that? And how do you detect an "expert" without trusting the reports of other people? In fact, how would we even know what an "expert" is, had not some non-expert like our own parents or a teacher told us what he/she considered an "expert" to be?

And science...once it has selected and object or phenomenon for experimentation, it can rely on your method. However, we must ask how we even know what object is interesting enough to warrant science's attention. How did Newton know the mythical "apple" that fell on his head was interesting enough to warrant a theory? He did not do science to find out that...it was more like inspiration, intuition, or a flash of brilliance...and where did that come from? Not from science, but from some sort of undefined metaphysical insight of his. So even science begins with a moment of metaphysics.

And mathematics...it's rationally verifiable on its own terms, and it works well in application to the physical realm, but it is entirely metaphysical in both its concepts and its proofs. There is no physical thing as a "one" or a "two". They are just concepts...adjectival concepts, really...that refer to a property attributed to various things, but operable entirely within their own closed system rather than empirical reality.

I could go on...but I think you see the problems. Your epistemic standard really permits verification of very little, and even that only on inconsistent grounds. But as I say, you can choose your own metric: everybody has such a right. I just question its adequacy if you were to recommend it to anyone.

[surreptitious57]

The scientific method is actually perfect in principle. Because it is specifically designed to eliminate subjective bias. Although this cannot be guaranteed in actuality for scientists are only human and therefore imperfect by definition. So while perfection cannot be guaranteed that is
no reason not to strive for as less imperfection as possible. Which is a more practical goal for it is one that is actually achievable. There is no superior method with regard to observable phenomena. So for that reason it is the accepted standard for the objective investigation of them

Mathematics is an abstract discipline but is useful with regard to science and particularly physics for it is deductive by definition. This means
that its conclusions go from the general to the specific. Any mathematical equation is an example of deduction because the left hand side of
one is absolutely equal to the right hand side of it. This is because mathematics deals in proof and proof is absolute by default. The fact that
maths is abstract is completely irrelevant since what matters is that it is very reliable as a tool for understanding how the Universe functions

[Immanuel Can]

Surreptitious:

Did I criticize scientific method? I can't see that I did. I did, however question whether scientific method (or the partial version of it you gave) can be the ONLY way people can know things rationally.

Mathematics is an abstract discipline but is useful

Yes, as I said.

This is because mathematics deals in proof and proof is absolute by default.

Ah. But why is it "absolute"? It's because it's a self-contained system of abstractions, one that depends not on the empirical (i.e. the realm in which science operates) but rather in its own mathematical realm. Now, WHY such an abstract thing as mathematics works in the real world is an important question of metaphysics...but it is not the case that mathematics has to be verified by the empirical world...rather, we use it to estimate the empirical, not the other way around.

The fact that maths is abstract is completely irrelevant since what matters is that it is very reliable as a tool for understanding how the Universe functions.

Incorrect. That a self-contained system of abstractions is reliable in the empirical world is a matter for wonder, and an occasion in need of explanation. But none of mathematics' abstractions are verifiable on the terms you specified.

[attofishpi]

"Is belief in God rational?"

In a universe billions of years old and our "solar system" being in the order of 4.6 billion years i think one should not discount a theory that the technology of our species or another intelligent species, in the distant past, may have logically created a being that we now could consider akin to a God. If the technological singularity occurred aeons ago, which is very plausible at such a timescale, one should not discount a being in the form of an AI perhaps that could conjure our entire reality and judge who may reincarnate to make use of energy as entropy increases...God.

[surreptitious57]

That a self contained system of abstractions is reliable in the empirical world is a matter for wonder

Mathematics is unique in that it is the only abstract language humans use which is perfect by default
So the fact it cannot be compromised in any way suggests that it was discovered rather than created
It is impossible for humans to create anything perfect as it would be beyond their capability to do so

[Immanuel Can]

Mathematics is unique in that it is the only abstract language humans use which is perfect by default.

Yes, but we'd be best not to say by "default": rather, we should say it's because it is elegantly self-referential, and thus not tainted by chance or dependent on outside forces for its truth.

So the fact it cannot be compromised in any way suggests that it was discovered rather than created

Yes indeed. That does seem evident.

It is impossible for humans to create anything perfect as it would be beyond their capability to do so.

Yes. They could "discover" things about a pre-existing order, but could not thereby create that pre-existing order. Things would already have to "work" mathematically before we could ever discover mathematics. Maths would have to work because the world already had mathematical structure.

But WHY it does, and how such mathematical elegance could even be thought to emerge out of mere accident plus time, is one of the most powerful reasons against Atheist Materialism. Thence comes an initial rational argument in favour of the existence of God -- the first of many, actually.

[thedoc]

But WHY it does, and how such mathematical elegance could even be thought to emerge out of mere accident plus time, is one of the most powerful reasons against Atheist Materialism. Thence comes an initial rational argument in favor of the existence of God -- the first of many, actually.

Could you elaborate more on this point, I think I know where you are going, but I want to be clear.

[Immanuel Can]

Sure.

Order is not to be expected in a universe governed by chance plus time. Randomness should be the only "rule", the absence of rules. But our universe does behave in very mathematically predictable ways...abstract mathematical constructs accurately describe empirical situations, as surreptitious has argued. That confluence is not to be expected in a genuinely random universe.

Some scientific and rational accounting for this orderliness would seem to be...in order.

[surreptitious57]

The notion that God must exist if maths does is sound in logic as both are perceived to be perfect so one could arguably follow from the other
But this assumes that mathematics was created by God rather than discovered. And there is absolutely no evidence to support that hypothesis
And evidence is more important than logic here. And there are things that exist that are not materialistic by definition. And which invalidates
the notion of atheist materialism as such. Things which are not physical according to the standard definitions of what it means. Which is some
thing which has property or dimension and can be experienced by the five senses. Thoughts are not physical. Time is not physical. Dreams are
not physical. Yet they all exist. However having said that it is true that everything that is known to exist is either physical itself or dependent
upon the physical. The problem here is not that there are non physical things as such since that is logically impossible but that the definitions
of physical which I have used are too restrictive. And so thoughts and time and dreams are physical but just not as much as ordinary everyday objects. So it is on a spectrum with variations in subtlety rather than it all being the same. But that is still not any evidence for a God though

[Immanuel Can]

Surreptitious:

You're half right, I think.

But this assumes that mathematics was created by God rather than discovered.

That part is incorrect, and does not follow logically. Substitute the word "America" for "mathematics," and you'll see why right away. That at thing is "discovered" does not mean it was not created by God. In fact, were nothing pre-existing (i.e. created already by God) it could not be "discovered" at all.

it is true that everything that is known to exist is either physical itself or dependent upon the physical.

What's your evidence for that assumption?

The problem here is not that there are non physical things as such since that is logically impossible

Not at all. The belief that only physical things are real is pure assumption, and cannot be proved with reference to science...not because science is bad at these things, but because science, taking for granted as it does only the physical, is completely unequipped to talk about anything real that's non-physical, just as you've suggested...

Thoughts are not physical. Time is not physical. Dreams are not physical. Yet they all exist.

...though your list is too short, of course: there's a lot more non-physical stuff in this universe.

Without God, you simply have no reason for either a) the existence of anything non-physical, if such things do exist (we all act as though they do) and b) the observable, scientific orderliness of the physical universe.

[surreptitious57]

Something which is non physical cannot exist either logically or empirically. Because the very act of existence would render it
physical by default. In physics absolute nothing can exist at the quantum level for an infinitesimal period of time but does so
within a physical framework. And as such it has dimension which makes it physical by definition. For something to not exist
it has to not only not exist physically but not exist conceptually too. If you can think of it then it exists. So the only things
that are truly non physical are things that cannot even be imagined. Even here this is not entirely accurate since human
imagination is finite. And so it is possible things may exist that are actually incapable of even being perceived to exist
Of course if something does not exist then it cannot be a thing as such. That much is self evident but because of the
limitations of language though I have no choice but to describe it as such even if it makes no logical sense to do so

[ReliStuPhD]

Something which is non physical cannot exist either logically or empirically.

So Beethoven's Fifth Symphony does not exist? The same going for the meaning of the words "Something which is non physical cannot exist either logically or empirically?" (We're getting dangerously close to self-refutation.)

[thedoc]

Something which is non physical cannot exist either logically or empirically.

So Beethoven's Fifth Symphony does not exist? The same going for the meaning of the words "Something which is non physical cannot exist either logically or empirically?" (We're getting dangerously close to self-refutation.)

It does here,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzXoVo16pTg

[thedoc]

Sure.

Order is not to be expected in a universe governed by chance plus time. Randomness should be the only "rule", the absence of rules. But our universe does behave in very mathematically predictable ways...abstract mathematical constructs accurately describe empirical situations, as surreptitious has argued. That confluence is not to be expected in a genuinely random universe.

Some scientific and rational accounting for this orderliness would seem to be...in order.

In a genuinely random universe all would be uniform, an unbroken symmetry, where nothing of substance could exist. There would be no laws of nature that would make time, energy, and matter possible. Something ordered the universe so as to make everything that exists, possible.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, well said.