Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

nagirrac · 22-07-2013 4:36pm

Morbert wrote: »

nagirrac: What I mean is you are not applying the same standards to God as you are to the universe.

As for a simulated universe: It's not impossible, but there is no evidence for it.

There is less evidence for an objective reality universe. In fact the simulation hypothesis has not been falsified (which can be done if it can be shown that any law of physics is not computable), whereas the objective reality hypothesis has been falsified (Aspect, 1982). It is actually quite bizarre to me that the great majority of people, including many scientists, go about their lives believing in something (objective reality / physicalism) that has already been disproven.

If I accept the simulation theory to be the more correct choice between an objective reality model and a virtual reality model, then I am forced to accept that there is a simulator outside our observed reality. By definition I cannot know anything directly about the simulator. However, the simulation hypothesis is concerned with our observed reality, and presents a much simpler explanation for our observed reality than physicalism with all its varied paradoxes.

Why would you believe in something that is less likely and violates Occam's razor? In the context of modern physics a virtual reality is a far simpler explanation than objective reality.

nagirrac · 22-07-2013 4:52pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes. It is. As I said the vast atheist position appears to be that there is no argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer, much less so from you, to suggest there is a god.

If that is the case you have not been paying a blind bit of notice to anything I have posted and like some others on here are attacking a strawman.

If you consider the evidence in a non biased fashion, a virtual reality universe is far more likely and is a far simpler explanation for what we observe than an objective reality universe. All of the data is pointing to this but like the elephant in the room people refuse to consider it because it violates "common sense" (interestingly a concept you ridiculed yourself in a previous post).

Walk yourself through all the various baffling paradoxes that science has uncovered, and you will find that a virtual reality model accommodates all of them whereas an objective reality model cannot.

If you accept the likelihood of a virtual reality model over the disproven objective reality model, you have to consider God. It's really that simple.

Morbert · 22-07-2013 5:28pm

nagirrac wrote: »

There is less evidence for an objective reality universe. In fact the simulation hypothesis has not been falsified (which can be done if it can be shown that any law of physics is not computable), whereas the objective reality hypothesis has been falsified (Aspect, 1982). It is actually quite bizarre to me that the great majority of people, including many scientists, go about their lives believing in something (objective reality / physicalism) that has already been disproven.

If I accept the simulation theory to be the more correct choice between an objective reality model and a virtual reality model, then I am forced to accept that there is a simulator outside our observed reality. By definition I cannot know anything directly about the simulator. However, the simulation hypothesis is concerned with our observed reality, and presents a much simpler explanation for our observed reality than physicalism with all its varied paradoxes.

Why would you believe in something that is less likely and violates Occam's razor? In the context of modern physics a virtual reality is a far simpler explanation than objective reality.

You are tendering a false dichotomy. While physical theories are operational descriptions, and therefore are not strictly realist statements, it does not mean the universe is therefore a virtual reality. Instrumentalism, for example, would be a perfectly fine philosophical position to take, and indeed many scientists do.

nagirrac · 22-07-2013 6:05pm

Morbert wrote: »

You are tendering a false dichotomy. While physical theories are operational descriptions, and therefore are not strictly realist statements, it does not mean the universe is therefore a virtual reality. Instrumentalism, for example, would be a perfectly fine philosophical position to take, and indeed many scientists do.

Scientists take all kinds of philosophical positions and we could spend the rest of our lives arguing about their validity. There isn't even agreement among major philosophers of science on the subject, Popper for example rejected instrumentalism. Personally I see no issue whatsoever with scientists who keep their heads down and ignore the truth claims of theories, it is quite a sensible position to take.

Historically the debate has been between physicalism and dualism. In my view both should be rejected based on the data. Virtualism is actually a middle ground between these two, that there is only one reality and our observed reality is a subset of it. The false dichotomy I think would be asserting that either physicalism or dualism is correct.

It can of course be argued that what I am proposing is also a fallacy, the middle ground fallacy, but in reality every opinion stated is subject to some accusation of fallacy.

Morbert · 22-07-2013 7:50pm

nagirrac wrote: »

Scientists take all kinds of philosophical positions and we could spend the rest of our lives arguing about their validity. There isn't even agreement among major philosophers of science on the subject, Popper for example rejected instrumentalism. Personally I see no issue whatsoever with scientists who keep their heads down and ignore the truth claims of theories, it is quite a sensible position to take.

Historically the debate has been between physicalism and dualism. In my view both should be rejected based on the data. Virtualism is actually a middle ground between these two, that there is only one reality and our observed reality is a subset of it. The false dichotomy I think would be asserting that either physicalism or dualism is correct.

It can of course be argued that what I am proposing is also a fallacy, the middle ground fallacy, but in reality every opinion stated is subject to some accusation of fallacy.

Physicalism vs. dualism is a separate debate (and, I would argue, a true dichotomy).

The proposition that the universe as a simulation does not follow from our current understanding of physical laws. Even if it is assumed that the laws of physics can be understood in an information-based paradigm, it does not mean they are therefore a simulation. At most, it would mean you could say it is possible to simulate them precisely.

nagirrac · 22-07-2013 8:14pm

Morbert wrote: »

Physicalism vs. dualism is a separate debate (and, I would argue, a true dichotomy).

How is it a separate debate if we are debating the most likely nature of reality?

Correct me if I am wrong but a true dichotomy is where there is no overlap between the two models, that they are mutually exclusive. By my logic the objective reality model and the virtual reality model are mutually exclusive and therefore cannot be a false dichotomy.

Objective reality model: "Our observed reality is self contained and needs nothing other than itself to explain the model. In other words it exists in and of itself".

Virtual Reality model: "Our observed reality exists due to information processing beyond itself, upon which it depends". *

There is no overlap between these two, therefore it is not a false dichotomy.
In my opinion, there is a false dichotomy between physicalism and dualism in that objective reality is common to both. Dualism just adds that there is a separate mental or spiritual world, separate from our observed physical world.

* Definitions loosely taken from Brian Whitworth.

Morbert · 22-07-2013 8:31pm

nagirrac wrote: »

How is it a separate debate if we are debating the most likely nature of reality?

Correct me if I am wrong but a true dichotomy is where there is no overlap between the two models, that they are mutually exclusive. By my logic the objective reality model and the virtual reality model are mutually exclusive and therefore cannot be a false dichotomy.

Objective reality model: "Our observed reality is self contained and needs nothing other than itself to explain the model. In other words it exists in and of itself".

Virtual Reality model: "Our observed reality exists due to information processing beyond itself, upon which it depends". *

There is no overlap between these two, therefore it is not a false dichotomy.
In my opinion, there is a false dichotomy between physicalism and dualism in that objective reality is common to both. Dualism just adds that there is a separate mental or spiritual world, separate from our observed physical world.

* Definitions loosely taken from Brian Whitworth.

It is a false dichotomy because it is not a dichotomy. It is, at the very least, a trichotomy. For example

1) The observed universe is objectively real. (Direct scientific realism)

2) The observed universe is a simulation. (What you call virtualism, but would also fall under solipsism and possibly a few others)

3) The observed universe is a subjective representation of what is real. (Representational realism)

nagirrac · 22-07-2013 8:41pm

Morbert wrote: »

It is a false dichotomy because it is not a dichotomy. It is, at the very least, a trichotomy. For example

1) The observed universe is objectively real. (Direct scientific realism)

2) The observed universe is a simulation. (What you call virtualism, but would also fall under solipsism and possibly a few others)

3) The observed universe is a subjective representation of what is real. (Representational realism)

Fair enough, I see what you are saying now, we have been talking past each other. I incorrectly interpreted what you said as given the options of 1) or 2) they did not meet the logical requirements for a true dichotomy due to overlap.

Brian Shanahan · 22-07-2013 11:18pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why would a first cause need a cause?

Why is god a first cause? Also why posit a more complicated reason which explains less than current scientific theory (William of Ockham and all that jazz)?

Brian Shanahan · 22-07-2013 11:25pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Are you still mad because of I and others didn't accept your argument that there was no harm in religious faith?

We didn't just not accept it though, did we? We showed exactly how stupid and destructive the idea was.

But then of course "true believers" of all stripes (whether political, philosophical, scientific or religious) hate it when their worldview is deconstructed and shown to be false.

lmaopml · 22-07-2013 11:38pm

pml - best thread ever

Geomy · 22-07-2013 11:44pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

We didn't just not accept it though, did we? We showed exactly how stupid and destructive the idea was.

But then of course "true believers" of all stripes (whether political, philosophical, scientific or religious) hate it when their worldview is deconstructed and shown to be false.

Well if it's their world view how can it be false ?

Can you see through their eyes ?

Do their thinking ?

Oh the delusions of grandeur. ...

Zombrex · 22-07-2013 11:49pm

Geomy wrote: »

Well if it's their world view how can it be false ?
...
Oh the delusions of grandeur. ...

You really don't get irony, do you?

Geomy · 23-07-2013 12:00am

lmaopml wrote: »

pml - best thread ever

Some craic isn't it lol

The truth will come out in the end, mark my word's ;-)

Being a mystical kinda guy can be tough in these forums....

Im against some of the fire and brimstone fear factor, also can't stand the Christian stance on Gays and Bisexuality....
And all the Christian factions saying every other Christian church is wrong. ...
I like mysticism, spiritually,mindfulness and paganism.

I also can't understand the argument of, thats not enough evidence,that's not the right evidence, no you're wrong.

Science is as primitive as religion, and only mindfulness and metaphysics can fill in the gaps. ..

Geomy · 23-07-2013 12:04am

Zombrex wrote: »

You really don't get irony, do you?

I think we both have a problem with irony.

lmaopml · 23-07-2013 12:08am

The handbags on this thread are quite impressive at times. Never boring that's for sure...I've enjoyed Nagirrac and Morbert however...

More please!

I've just turned on signatures for the first time on boards too - everybody should do it, it's very insightful - and some of them are quite funny too imo. I'll have to think of a good one...lol...

Brian Shanahan · 23-07-2013 12:17am

Geomy wrote: »

Well if it's their world view how can it be false ?

Simple it doesn't have any relation to reality. Just like, for example, the IMF free-market ideologues telling us that austerity has improved the Irish economy, despite austerity being guaranteed to make a hurting ecomomy worse, or Seb Coe telling everybody that more people are doing sport in the UK because of the Olympics, despite there being vastly less facilities for sport, mainly because grants and budgets for sport were gutted permanently to pay for the Olympics.

In a similar vein, those who believe in an omnipotent god who gave humanity free will hold a false worldview.

Geomy · 23-07-2013 12:25am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Simple it doesn't have any relation to reality. Just like, for example, the IMF free-market ideologues telling us that austerity has improved the Irish economy, despite austerity being guaranteed to make a hurting ecomomy worse, or Seb Coe telling everybody that more people are doing sport in the UK because of the Olympics, despite there being vastly less facilities for sport, mainly because grants and budgets for sport were gutted permanently to pay for the Olympics.

In a similar vein, those who believe in an omnipotent god who gave humanity free will hold a false worldview.

I don't disagree with you, I think wires get crossed at times here.

If I offended anyone im sorry ill take it back, I had a weekend of debauchery so probably a bit high after it all....

I'll burn in hell.....

Zombrex · 23-07-2013 1:01am

Geomy wrote: »

I don't disagree with you, I think wires get crossed at times here.

If I offended anyone im sorry ill take it back, I had a weekend of debauchery so probably a bit high after it all....

I'll burn in hell.....

You don't disagree with him but just a few moments ago you were accusing him of having "delusions of grandeur"?

Geomy wrote: »

Science is as primitive as religion, and only mindfulness and metaphysics can fill in the gaps. ..

Yes because religion figured out how to make planes fly and invented the computer :rolleyes:

Geomy · 23-07-2013 1:15am

Zombrex wrote: »

You don't disagree with him but just a few moments ago you were accusing him of having "delusions of grandeur"?

Yes because religion figured out how to make planes fly and invented the computer :rolleyes:

You're such a biatch Zombrex ;-)

Good night darling X

nagirrac · 23-07-2013 1:50am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

In a similar vein, those who believe in an omnipotent god who gave humanity free will hold a false worldview.

Do you mean omniscience (all knowing) rather than omnipotent (all powerful), or maybe both? Either way, I've never understood why atheists have such difficulty understanding this concept, as it is quite simple logic and we have our own human parenting experience to draw on to understand it.

For the purpose of the exercise you have to assume God exists obviously, any old God will do, just assume he/she desires a bit of love in return for all his creation handiwork

Any parent can tell you the difference between knowing what a child will do and preventing them from doing it. Parents (or at least parents who are interested in parenting) often know or at least suspect what their children are going to do in a given situation, and will frequently let them go ahead, even though it may not be in the child's short term best interests. Its called learning, and when done in a safe environment it is very effective. Shouting "no" to a child has lesser impact as they will undoubtedly insist on learning the hard way anyway later when you're not looking.

Think about it like that, its a really simple concept. Remember the concept of God is supposed to be based on unconditional love, neither demanded nor anything expected in return. If man had no free will and was hardwired to love God, now what kind of love would that be?

By the way, how do you know what Ireland would look like without austerity after the collapse of the bubble economy? That "reality" might be a lot more painful. Austerity is generally not a cure for a recession, but Ireland given the banking collapse was facing much worse than a recession surely? What would a complete collapse of the financial system have looked like I wonder, banks closed, no ATMs, no welfare. Have you thought that through?

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-07-2013 7:29am

nagirrac wrote: »

If that is the case you have not been paying a blind bit of notice to anything I have posted

Not agreeing with you is not the same thing as not understanding you or as ignoring you. You have not provided a shred of even an iota of support for any idea that there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe. Nothing. Nadda. Squat. Zilch. Nichts.

Which would be, after all, the entire point of a "god" debate thread.

Finding a few scientific tit bits that people have made VR analogies to does not an argument make. The sole "support" you have for your little VR fantasy is "It makes more sense to me" and as I said already that is the worst "argument" out there.

nagirrac · 23-07-2013 8:01am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Finding a few scientific tit bits that people have made VR analogies to does not an argument make. The sole "support" you have for your little VR fantasy is "It makes more sense to me" and as I said already that is the worst "argument" out there.

Science is involved in finding the simplest hypothesis to explain our observations. If you actually did any research on the subject, you would know that the simulation hypothesis explains our observations in a much simpler fashion and is more consistent with the laws of physics than an objective reality hypothesis. If you were familiar with the cutting edge research in theoretical physics and cosmology you would know that there is a significant shift going on towards the conclusion that the universe at its fundamental level is based on digital information, something entirely consistent with a simulation.

It "makes sense to me" because it is the simplest scientific hypothesis to explain our observations. I find it quite ironic that angry atheists, who appeal to reason, fail to see the distinction between science and a belief in God which are completely separate subjects. Where did I say a simulated universe proved God? I said it forces one to consider God, as if our universe is a simulation there must be a simulator. It also forces one to consider a more advanced civilization in another universe, or any number of other explanations. What God / advanced civilization / whatever have in common is that if they exist outside our observed universe, we cannot observe them. That does not mean there are not perfectly rational logical reasons for people to believe God exists and created our observed universe for a reason.

If you wish to educate yourself on the digital universe / simulation topic, go on the QFXi website and read the literature from the world's leading physicists. As far as I can tell none of the scientists involved are religious, so they shouldn't upset you too much.

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-07-2013 8:13am

nagirrac wrote: »

Science is involved in finding the simplest hypothesis to explain our observations.

No. It is involved in tending towards the CORRECT hypotheses to explain our observations. There is no rule they have to be simple. In fact the data, hypotheses and theories coming out of many areas of science are anything but simple. They are complex, difficult to understand for the common joe, and often massively counter intuitive.

"Simplicity" would be _nice_ for sure and we would love to have simple and beautiful theories of everything. But it is not a requirement, a rule, or a specification.

If you have come up with a pet fantasy that makes it all simple and sensible in your head then thats nice. Really it is. But it does not an argument make. It is just you consoling yourself with things that do not tax you too much.

"It all makes sense to me that this is a VR therefore it must be a VR" is essentially all you are offering here. Color me entirely unconvinced.

nagirrac · 23-07-2013 8:57am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No. It is involved in tending towards the CORRECT hypotheses to explain our observations. There is no rule they have to be simple.

"It all makes sense to me that this is a VR therefore it must be a VR" is essentially all you are offering here. Color me entirely unconvinced.

You are muddling scientific hypothesis with scientific theory. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation that has yet to be tested. It fits with the existing observations but unlike a theory has yet to be rigorously tested. When there are competing hypotheses to explain the same observations, it is quite valid to use Occam's razor until such time as sufficient testing is done to develop a scientific theory. Then you can start talking about the relative correctness of a theory and how solid the theory is.

There is no solid theory of reality at present as objective reality has been falsified. What we have are various untested hypotheses. I honestly don't care whether you are convinced or not at this point. You clearly have done zero research in this area which is why you keep repeating the ad hominem that I have done no research, and I have not carefully considered the various hypotheses on the nature of our reality. Get up to speed and perhaps we can continue the discussion.

tommy2bad · 23-07-2013 9:28am

Zombrex wrote: »

That is an incredibly bad reason to believe something is true.
I didn't say that why I believe it's true, I said that's why I believe
There are a whole host of things that would be better if they were true. It would be better if I won the lottery. It would be better if I never had a car accident. It would be better if the Syrian war ended.

While I can certainly think it would be nice if all those things happened, it would be incredible foolish for me to believe they will simply because it is "worth believing" they will.
Again your not getting the difference between belief and knowledge.

What hope does God represent if he doesn't exist?

You can say that even if he doesn't exist people should still be nice to each other, people should still treat each other with respect etc. But then that is precisely the point, those are true independently to the existence of God.
No one said otherwise

Only because you say he does. You could have just as easily said Freddy Mercury represents all these things.

If God is not real and is just man made he represents nothing more than the limited thinking of a group of priests and warlords 4,000 years ago, the limited imagination of a bunch of humans.

Or to put it another way, if God doesn't exist you can really do better in what you decide to believe just to make the world better.

Oh come on! I should believe what you believe because you think it's better than 4000 years of tradishion and art and music and ritual.
I'm out.
You are not listening and not interested in an answer. You seem to be convinced that your point of view is the only one that can be right and proper.
Nice batting back and forth with you. We will cross swords again.

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-07-2013 10:55am

nagirrac wrote: »

You are muddling scientific hypothesis with scientific theory.

Quite the opposite in fact. I am keeping the two very much separate. You do not need to teach me my own field. I am well aware of the difference between hypothesis, theory and Theory both in science and in the vernacular.

What you are giving is a hypothesis... and unsubstantiated one... and backing it up with little more than essentially "It makes sense to me that we are in a VR... therefore we are in a VR". A position that is negated simply by me saying that it makes no sense to me therefore we are not in a VR.

Unless you want to argue that what makes sense to you trumps what makes sense to me.

Which returns us to square 1. Is there any actual substantiation for the idea there is a god (which is what this thread is about) or your idea that we are in a VR (which the thread is not about). Or is there not.

Thus far there is not, much less so from you.

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-07-2013 10:58am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Oh come on! I should believe what you believe because you think it's better than 4000 years of tradishion and art and music and ritual.

Having read many of that users posts I have to say the above would be a misrepresentation. He is likely NOT saying that his belief is better than 4000 years of tradition. He is more likely saying that if we are evaluating the actual truth claim of whether there is a god or not.... then 4000 years of tradition is entirely irrelevant and is little more than an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

This is, after all, a thread about the existence of a god. Not about the existence of traditions. And if we are to evaluate the claim there is a god and see what arguments, evidence, data, and reasoning there is to substantiate it then pointing out that many people have believed it for 1000s of years is less than relevant.

A claim X is either true... or it is not. It is either substantiated... or it is not. This is the fact, regardless of whether 1 person, 1 million people, or 10 trillion people have believed the claim X.

tommy2bad · 23-07-2013 11:10am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Having read many of that users posts I have to say the above would be a misrepresentation. He is likely NOT saying that his belief is better than 4000 years of tradition. He is more likely saying that if we are evaluating the actual truth claim of whether there is a god or not.... then 4000 years of tradition is entirely irrelevant and is little more than an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

This is, after all, a thread about the existence of a god. Not about the existence of traditions. And if we are to evaluate the claim there is a god and see what arguments, evidence, data, and reasoning there is to substantiate it then pointing out that many people have believed it for 1000s of years is less than relevant.

A claim X is either true... or it is not. It is either substantiated... or it is not. This is the fact, regardless of whether 1 person, 1 million people, or 10 trillion people have believed the claim X.

No, he asked me why do I believe, not why do I believe in God, that was ages ago and we had moved on. Or at least I thought we had.
The trouble is we cant agree on what believes means. I have repeatedly stated that I don't use believe as a synonym for know. Either do I use it when I mean best guess or I think.
As I said, no point continuing when that simple distinction is ignored.
The rest of the time I tend to agree with Zombrex, just on this we will have to agree to disagree.

Zombrex · 23-07-2013 11:13am

tommy2bad wrote: »

I didn't say that why I believe it's true, I said that's why I believe

So your reason for believing is independent to the reason you believe it is true? You don't believe because you think it is true, but for other reasons that are not related to the truth of the claim

I think that sums up the issue right here (I believe I'm going to win the lottery because it would be great for me to win the lottery not because I think I'm going to win the lottery)

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments