theist in a foxhole

[Dalek Prime]

Perhaps if you had any knowledge on the subject, and could respond to the substance, I wouldn't have to be 'histrionic', as you say. It's what theists asked of atheists on the "do atheists read the primary sources" thread, and that's reasonable. So, why is it then unreasonable to ask the same of you? Or Arising. Or anyone else on this whole board who have not looked at one simple book, that they can begin to appreciate the subject, and argue from knowledge, agree or not. You want to discuss Dr. Suess' "The Cat in the Hat", or Marx, or Hegel intelligently? Read it/him first. Agreed?

Anyone? Have you read any of the books I've posted on the book forum, regarding antinatalism? Anyone here know the arguments? Then don't be dismissive of something you haven't read. Ignorance of a subject is just that; ignorance. Ignorance does not beget reasoned argument.

Look. I can't sit anyone down to study anything they are not interested in. Accepted. But I know, usually on the first or second post when someone has or hasn't. It's that obvious. And if they haven't, that's fine. But their opinion is made in ignorance, and thus worthy of dismissal on that premise alone.

###
Further, calling them histrionics: I'm not comparing you to a dog, but when the dog doesn't understand, what does the owner do? Shouts! ie. exaggerates his behaviour to drill the point in.

[Dalek Prime]

Double post.

[Immanuel Can]

Agnosticism doesn't preclude searching and discovering more. It's a platform to work from. Gotta stand somewhere, if only for the moment. A polar bear's ice flow in the sea of ideas.

No, true..."Agnostic" is okay as a description of "where I am right now." One may simply have no knowledge of a particular subject (after all, who knows everything?), or one may wish to have more knowledge but be baffled as to which way to turn. Those states of agnostic uncertainty are completely blameless, of course.

The problem only comes when better information is available, and only if the agnostic in question uses the phrase "I'm an agnostic" as a way of sidestepping any obligation to look into that better information further. And that does happen sometimes.

Ignorance is always excusable in those who genuinely could not know a thing; however, it's probably a character fault in those who could, and certainly a serious fault in those who could and yet will not, and those who even refuse the information in front of their eyes. (Note: Present company not to be confused with any of these in particular; I'm just sayin'. )

In any case, one thing for certain: we cannot know before all inquiry whether or not better information is indeed available. Only by inquiry can we know that.

[Dalek Prime]

Agreed.

I'd like to share a story with you, IC, if I may, which is unrelated (or is it)?

I believe I mentioned I grew up in a non-practicing, nominally Anglican household, somewhere on the forum. Point being, I did not have a lot of imagery in my background regarding Christianity, save what was in the world at large, which makes it more unusual.

Anyways, in 1995, after years of illness (constant nausea daily. I'm better now, btw) I took some pills to end things. I was treated in hospital, and not kept, as the doctors accepted the situation as I explained it. Shortly afterwards, I had a dream. Not a vision, just a dream. But it was very powerful. It was in two parts. The first part was in the marble lobby of an old hotel. Behind the counter was a large Chinese family who operated it. The grandmother came from behind the counter, offering me a bowl, in which rested what looked like an animal heart. It then switched over to a nighttime outdoor scene. In the distance on a grassy property was a tall, thin, white church. It was ablaze. And to my front right, approached a woman with a bundle, whom I recognized as Mary and her son. And she said to me, "Take heart". (Remember the first part? I didn't get it then, but the second part made me realize what the old Chinese woman was offering me; courage and succour.)

The upshot is that I found a High Anglican Church, recommended to me through a Jewish believer (born-again), a very good friend who stuck with me through good and bad, I might add, and lit three candles (no apparent reason for three, but less seemed inadequate), and gave thanks both in prayer, as well as in the church's book, for that offering, because I felt it needed to be done, period.

I have not been to a church since, the promise and deed having been fulfilled. But I have never, though thought of it, attempted to take my life again, for that dream.

I wanted to share this with you, IC, for no other reason than your kindness, and dedication to what you believe, and I wanted to tell it to someone who believes, aside from my friend. And, for whatever reason, I felt comfortable telling you (and RS, if he ever sees this). And now, my story is in writing.

May your God be with you.

[Immanuel Can]

I'd like to share a story with you, IC, if I may, which is unrelated (or is it)?

Astonishing. Well, thanks for sharing that.

The skeptical set may scoff at evidences of God's personal kindness or revelation to individuals, on the basis that they are not "evidences" to other people, and are not empirically or scientifically testable, even for the one who has such experiences. But why should we suppose that God, if indeed he is a relational and not merely impersonal Entity, would be obliged to provide exactly the same evidences to every person? Would it not seem at least just as likely that He would deal with us as individuals, or by means of both common evidences and private ones? And I see no rational grounds for supposing the first option and despising the latter two.

So while I see no reason to resist the idea that some dreams may be mere products of physiological disquiet, as Ebenezer Scrooge says so famously, "...a bit of beef, a block of mustard, a fragment in an underdone potato..." in one's digestion, I also see no reason to conclude they can only ever be that. Some dreams may indeed have other causes, and why not a conveying of the interest of the Supreme Being in one's welfare...assuming He exists, of course.

So often it comes back to that crucial issue...does He exist?

[Wyman]

Simple - you already agree with me that belief in no God is irrational.

Nope. You read me wrong. I don't agree with that. I said personal experience, if genuine, was "an" argument, not that it was the "only" argument. I would never say that.

Revelation is one of the primary ways we know the existence of God...but natural revelation and formal/logical arguments count too, as does genuine experiential evidence and historical evidence. The Cosmological Arguments, the Ontological Arguments, the Moral Argument, the Design Arguments, and the Historical Arguments do not rely at all on revelation, much less experience. But revelation is an amazingly good argument, one among many.

There's a whole bundle of proofs for the existence of God. But none of it is "irrational." Even the Argument from Revelation can be supported by empirical data, such as the rationality of the texts themselves, or the fulfillment of prophecies, or the rationality of arguments those texts advance.

So nothing about the evidence is so "simple" as you suggest. I do not concur, in point of fact.

A famous mathematician once said (something to the effect of): to a philosopher, a half an argument plus another half an argument equals a whole argument. To a mathematician, a half an argument plus a half an argument is no argument.

The arguments you cite are worthless unless they prove something. None of them do, any more than the atheists' arguments. If you say - well, they're not conclusive, but at least they're persuasive and when added up, they're very persuasive - you've gone from logic to rhetoric. And rhetoric in the guise of logic and argument is no better than, say, scare tactics - e.g. "if you don't believe, you'll spend eternity in hell!' In fact, those arguments may be worse, as they're dishonest, wearing a cloak of authority that is not deserved (just like, some would say, the literal cloaks and hats and collars of priests and popes used to assert their moral authority).

[Immanuel Can]

The arguments you cite are worthless unless they prove something.

They do. You're clearly unaware of what they are, but you could find out. And you'd see they do. There are some great videos on this, if you want a quick study.

None of them do, any more than the atheists' arguments.

Well, I don't think I or they are going to concede this. You're simply incorrect.

If you say - well, they're not conclusive, but at least they're persuasive and when added up, they're very persuasive - you've gone from logic to rhetoric.

Not so. Some of the arguments are probablilistic or empirical: and admittedly, these, like all of science, are never 100% indisputable, but ideally only very probably true. But some arguments are formal and logical, and these can be conclusive. Some of the arguments I have listed above (if you find out what they are) you will soon realize are deductive. But I cannot convince you of that, so long as you have no knowledge of the arguments...you'll have to be open-minded enough to look.

Are you?

[Wyman]

The arguments you cite are worthless unless they prove something.

They do. You're clearly unaware of what they are, but you could find out. And you'd see they do. There are some great videos on this, if you want a quick study.

None of them do, any more than the atheists' arguments.

Well, I don't think I or they are going to concede this. You're simply incorrect.

If you say - well, they're not conclusive, but at least they're persuasive and when added up, they're very persuasive - you've gone from logic to rhetoric.

Not so. Some of the arguments are probablilistic or empirical: and admittedly, these, like all of science, are never 100% indisputable, but ideally only very probably true. But some arguments are formal and logical, and these can be conclusive. Some of the arguments I have listed above (if you find out what they are) you will soon realize are deductive. But I cannot convince you of that, so long as you have no knowledge of the arguments...you'll have to be open-minded enough to look.

Are you?

We don't need to go to videos. I think one argument is that if there is no God, then there is no objective morality. I agree. That's no proof for the existence of God, that's a proof that there is no objective basis for a secular morality.

Descartes' proof, which I've always been told was based on Anselm's proof, is flawed. It says that we could not conceive of the idea of God in all His perfection without a source of that idea of perfection. That source cannot come from us, since we are imperfect, so God must exist. Pretty much everyone who's ever read it thinks it's ridiculous. It's just that back then, one could be burned alive for disagreeing with it. It's also widely assumed that Descartes put it in the Meditations to ward against accusations of blasphemy.

You are more than capable of presenting your own arguments and proofs, so have at it. I don't do assigned reading or viewing as I am very busy in that area already.

[Immanuel Can]

We don't need to go to videos.

Why not? I can get you up to speed on three major arguments in about 15 minutes of your time. Doesn't that seem a good investment?

I think one argument is that if there is no God, then there is no objective morality. I agree. That's no proof for the existence of God, that's a proof that there is no objective basis for a secular morality.

Good. I agree.

So now, do you think a thing called "morality" still exists? (I mean more than as an illusory phenomenon of human imagination or even collective imagination: I mean, as a real thing...objectively.)

Descartes' proof, which I've always been told was based on Anselm's proof, is flawed.

I don't cite Descartes. He's not my guy. I think he basically leaves us in total gnostic confusion. He's something different from Anselm anyway. We can leave him aside.

It says that we could not conceive of the idea of God in all His perfection without a source of that idea of perfection. That source cannot come from us, since we are imperfect, so God must exist. Pretty much everyone who's ever read it thinks it's ridiculous

.

You're speaking of the Ontological Argument here. Anselm's idea was but the first salvo. His work was picked up, and something much better was done with it much more recently, by Alvin Plantinga, a philosophical heavyweight by any reckoning. And he actually makes something quite excellent of it.

The reason people dismiss it is that they don't really understand it. They think it's asking them to believe in the imaginary, and they don't grasp the intricacies of the conceptual analysis involved. All that being said, I think the Cosmological Argument, the Design Argument and the Moral Argument (as you have said above) are far better, and much more accessible to the ordinary person.

You are more than capable of presenting your own arguments and proofs, so have at it. I don't do assigned reading or viewing as I am very busy in that area already.

I get that. But there are some arguments one just can't have without good information; and sometimes one can't have good information without research. I'm making this as easy for you as I can.

Fifteen minutes will put you in the game. How about it?

[Wyman]

Well, if those are the three, I'm up to speed. I said above that the Design argument carries a smidgen of weight with me. But only enough to keep me in the agnostic state of mind, not to sway me completely. Ad again, I don't call these proofs as that denigrates the 'proof.'

I never like the Cosmological Argument. The idea of a first cause makes as much sense as Zeno's arguments. They occurred at a time before we were comfortable with the idea of infinity or continuum. Zeno said that since the arrow had to travel an infinite number of intervals, it could never get to its target. Obviously, we know the argument to be false, it just took a great while to create a mathematical system that could adequately model continuous motion.

If the universe consists of a finite number of 'causes' then eventually we must get to the first. But there is nothing that could tell me whether there were a finite or infinite number of causes (or whether each causal 'event' could be broken into infinitely many causal pieces).

So, the premise is false - there may or may not be a finite number of discrete causes in the history of the universe.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, if those are the three, I'm up to speed. I said above that the Design argument carries a smidgen of weight with me. But only enough to keep me in the agnostic state of mind, not to sway me completely. Ad again, I don't call these proofs as that denigrates the 'proof.'

Can you then tell me something you DO regard as "proven"? I don't mean mere mathematics or formal logic, for those both take place within closed, non-empirical, formal systems: I mean a fact, a reality, a certainty -- something genuinely scientifically certain, as you see it.

I never like the Cosmological Argument. The idea of a first cause makes as much sense as Zeno's arguments. They occurred at a time before we were comfortable with the idea of infinity or continuum. Zeno said that since the arrow had to travel an infinite number of intervals, it could never get to its target. Obviously, we know the argument to be false, it just took a great while to create a mathematical system that could adequately model continuous motion.

Yeah, I know Xeno's paradox. But that's not relevant here, even by analogy. If anything, it might call into question the idea of an actual infinity. But our "comfort" with an idea is irrelevant to its justification. We might be comfortable with the idea of unicorns; but that won't give us any. To be "comfortable" in any profound sense would be to *understand* infinity: and that we most certainly cannot do. Absent that, to be "comfortable" is merely to be at ease with not thinking very deeply about the problem. And if we're that, then no credit to us.

Likewise, "I don't like..." says nothing. I might not like cancer. It won't disappear because of that. The question is, "Is it real?" not "Do I like that it's real?" But you can see that, I'm sure.

Science takes as foundational this axiom: that things don't happen without (sufficient) cause. Were that not so, science would never begin, and would never study anything...for there could be no necessity of any "why" things happen: they might well be happening capriciously, for no cause at all.

The Earth is a subject of scientific study. This is impossible, unless it has a cause. But the causal chain cannot be infinite, for several reasons. One is that entropy happens at a detectable, predictable rate, so we can see that the universe is not past-eternal. Not only that, but it is expanding, which also indicates an initial singularity. But the most important is that an actual regressive infinity of causes is absolutely impossible...and that on pure mathematical and rational grounds, not on opinion or speculation.

You wanted deductive and scientific proof: well, the Kalaam Cosmological Argument has it. So why now don't you "like" it? Can you be specific, or are you just expressing an ungrounded feeling about it?

If the universe consists of a finite number of 'causes' then eventually we must get to the first.

Bingo! And that's true for both Materialistic Naturalism and Theism equally. So the debate becomes, "What's the most plausible conception of a First Cause?" But the necessity of one is absolutely clear. Some "uncaused cause" had to start it all.

But there is nothing that could tell me whether there were a finite or infinite number of causes (or whether each causal 'event' could be broken into infinitely many causal pieces).
Yes, there is. Infinite causal chains are impossible. See David Hilbert's (the mathematician, not a theologian) work on that. He's demonstrated it mathematically and rationally.

Again, there's your proof.

So, the premise is false - there may or may not be a finite number of discrete causes in the history of the universe.

Incorrect. There cannot be an infinite chain of causes. That's just a "turtles all the way down" idea, one only credible if one does not really understand the problem. It's incoherent and mathematically impossible. See Hilbert.

[Wyman]

It's never a good sign in a discussion when one side constantly refers to outside authors and says - if only he were here, he could make you understand, or if only you understood what so and so says, you would agree with me. Just make your arguments in plain language.

Hilbert didn't prove anything about infinity, if you're talking about his hotel example. He was elucidating some of the properties of infinity that Cantor discovered. If nothing can be infinite, then how big is God, how powerful is He, how much knowledge does He possess?

Yes, we can understand infinity - at least in mathematics. I don't know that there are actual infinities, but you don't know that there are not. Hilbert certainly didn't prove the latter, or even attempt to.

Science speaks very little, if at all, about causes. Descriptions of science (especially by philosophers) tend to use words like 'cause.'

As for something I think of as proven, I'd take Einstein's set of assumptions and the theorems he deduced from them as a good example. But the system is still only as good as the assumptions. Your assumption that there is a one finite causal chain going back to the 'beginning' is not self-evident.

[Immanuel Can]

It's never a good sign in a discussion when one side constantly refers to outside authors...

In some cases, all it means is that there can be an explanation more intricate than can be handled in short posts. That should come as no surprise. But I'm pretty sure you'll see what I mean in the ensuing post.

Yes, we can understand infinity - at least in mathematics.

True only if by "understand" you mean "use as a theoretical construct." For example, we use pi even though no person ever has or ever will calculate pi, because it is infinite. Mathematicians do speak of "unreal numbers," values that serve within the self-referential condition of mathematics themselves, but which can have no empirical limits of calculation. That's routine. But it's also "unreal."

I don't know that there are actual infinities, but you don't know that there are not. Hilbert certainly didn't prove the latter, or even attempt to.

What he proved is that at the point of whatever infinity is, logic and science themselves break down, and we lose all ability to make any coherent empirical judgments. Impossible ideas, such as hotels that are infinitely empty and infinitely full at precisely the same time, become necessary. This undermines the very concepts themselves of "empty" and "full," so we can no longer speak intelligibly.

Material reality is linear and time-bound. It does not have the characteristics of infinity. I mentioned the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Entropy, which is probably THE most thoroughly-attested and predictable scientific law we have -- it shows linear decline, not infinite regress in the past. But you forgot to speak of that at all.

Science speaks very little, if at all, about causes. Descriptions of science (especially by philosophers) tend to use words like 'cause.'

It's not clear what you mean by this. Science doesn't "speak": scientists do. And they speak of practically nothing but cause-and-effect. They identify causes and posit effects, and that is fundamental to all scientific experimentation. If there are no causes-and-effects, there would be no science at all; so I can't sort out what you're trying to assert.

As for something I think of as proven, I'd take Einstein's set of assumptions and the theorems he deduced from them as a good example.

Eh? How does a "theorem" (or worse, an "assumption") suddenly turn into a fact? A "theorem" by definition, is a tentatively and provisionally advanced claim based on the available evidence, and lasts only as long as the available evidence does not increase. But as Kuhn argued, science moves forward in paradigms and undergoes "shifts" as more evidence becomes available. Even Geocentrism was a "theorem," and I'm pretty sure you're not standing on that one.

So what do you do with things like the EPR Paradox, that have come along since Einstein and indicated incompleteness in Special Relativity? Are you really absolutely certain (or do you consider it "proven," to use your wording) that science will end with Einstein in spite of such things as quantum entanglement? I'm certainly not.

But the system is still only as good as the assumptions.

Quite true.

Your assumption that there is a one finite causal chain going back to the 'beginning' is not self-evident.

Things aren't "self-evident" except within self-referential systems like maths. But it is evident that science itself will be impossible if it's not true, and we'll end up with no reliable predictions about phenomena at all. There is no coherent explanation on the assumption of an infinite universe, and the empirical data do not support that assumption.

What do I mean? Well, as an example, given the Law of Entropy, if the universe were infinitely old the entire thing would have gone into eternal heat-death long ago. How long ago? Actually an infinite amount of time ago. Even were the Law of Entropy operating at a 1/1,000, 000 the speed it is, or operating in a slower-faster, jerky-jerky way (which looks empirically untrue anyway), the same thing would be true: for infinite time, plus ANY decay would have put the universe into heat-death an infinite amount of time ago, were it infinitely old. So it can't be.

If the universe is not infinitely old, then it had a beginning, and we're back to the Kalaam Argument and shortly after, to the Argument from Design, since coherent physical order is only possible within a rule-bound system, and the existence of Laws rather than chaos invites the positing of an Intelligent Designer rather than mere accident. And that's a fact conceded by all sides: for the positing of things like Infinite Universes and String Theory is done even by its' major proponents on the hope they might allow escape from the Kalaam and the Design Argument.

Now, do you really suppose that without referring to the literature we're going to parse all that I have said above, and do it on this forum? Personally, I'm not very optimistic.

[Wyman]

Only if we stop flying from point to point with no direction. Let's start with the fact that a theorem is not the same as a theory.

[Immanuel Can]

Only if we stop flying from point to point with no direction. Let's start with the fact that a theorem is not the same as a theory.

Yes, agreed. Let's focus down.

Yes, you're correct. Theorem and theory are different. I misspoke. Let me be precise now.

I would say that science produces theories, and mathematics produces theorems.

Theorems can be demonstrated by an internally-coherent rational process of the type had only by things like mathematics and formal logic. In contrast, anything that depends on empirical observation (i.e. science) can only generate theories, not theorems, since the empirical depends on human agents perceiving and interpreting phenomena, which are contingent events (not, as in mathematics, necessary ones), and thus are subject to variables of circumstance.

Thus "proof" (of an absolute kind) comes only in mathematics and logic: never in science. Science is actually probabilistic.

Most people don't know that. They think science "proves" stuff in an absolute way.

Let's apply this now. You wrote:

As for something I think of as proven, I'd take Einstein's set of assumptions and the theorems he deduced from them as a good example.

If my distinction is correct, you're saying you believe Einstein's mathematics, but not his general science, is "proven." Correct?

Of course, that would not be a case of the sort I asked you about, for I asked for something non-mathematical and non-formal. Essentially, I meant "Can you tell me a scientific fact that can be said to be 'proven' by your definition of 'proof'?"

Since mathematics is a closed system, I don't think we're going to find any help for the God question INSIDE mathematics; but two aspects of it might help. Firstly, mathematical equations might support one or another view of cosmology, which might in turn contribute to an answer based on science; and secondly, the very existence of a mathematical coherence in the universe would be a powerful argument for Design: for why should we expect order from a system that, being said to be only a cosmic accident, really ought to be in complete chaos?