This is why I think God exists.

raah!

Zillah wrote: »

This is simply not the case. A study was done a few years ago where they created hypothetical universes by feeding variations of the physical constants into the model. What resulted were numerous alternate universes with all sorts of peculiar phenomena. The most exotic of which would have been dark stars...massive collections of matter that undergo fusion as we know it, but radiate no light. How cool is that? Suffice to say, to assert that our exact universe is the only one that could result in something self aware is naive at best.

I read about that study. I don't remember the exact things, but if I'm thinking of the same one, they varied certain things, and had a window in which big planets and elements can exist. Since these numbers can vary between + and - infinity then we could still argue that this is as fine as it can possibly be. If you put the number of livable universes over the number of possible universes ,which, if possible universes are determined by varying constants, the fineness of this tuning is infinite. It's zero, as a fraction.

This is, of course, disregarding the fact that any universe capable of being observed, by definition, has to be one capable of supporting life (or the equivalent). Stating that our universe has features that allow us to exist as though it were anyway relevant is a straight-up tautology.

But stating that the universe has such features is not.

I'm doing my best to track down the article where I read about the study but it was many years ago and the keywords on google are not exactly distinctive.

That would be great.

Note that the teleological implications of fine tuning are not connected to its validity.

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I did argue within one universe against one aspect of the fine tuning argument, about life forming, and then you mentioned another about the formation of atoms and complex elements etc so I took a different tack. Bear in mind that my argument does not require the existence of other universes, just that this is not the only universe in which it is possible for some kind of life to evolve. It just requires the possibility of other universes.

Ok, well I guess what I said about the set of constants relates to that then.

I still don't understand how fine tuning to benevolence is direct. If I was all powerful and benevolent I could have made the universe a hell of a lot better than it is today and I'm sure the people of Haiti and Pakistan would agree with me. If anything the universe shows nothing but indifference to our well being as far as I can see

The universe allows us to exist. I think this is better than not existing. There could be other forms of life, but there are not many. There are much more universes where life doesn't exist than where it does. Though I'll level with everyone right here, this business about constants varying over infinity, is something I said just there, because they are essentially just real numbers, and the set of real numbers is infinte. So if that's wrong for some reason then it's wrong.

It is a good point and very interesting, the difference between deistic fine tuning, and theistic fine tuning. In deistic fine tuning, omnipotence isn't a given, neither is "absolute benevolence", but that we exist suggests some degree of benevolence. Because for me, existing is better than not existing. And I guess this depends on your interpretation of the universe, I think it's more nice than not nice. Living on the streets scrounging for money is not as nice as some things, but it's nicer than never having had a chance to scrounge.

But you at least acknowledge that fine tuning to theism is not a direct link. So what kind of link is it? Bear in mind that I'm talking about believing that the thing that did the fine tuning did specific things, e.g. raised from the dead in Israel 2000 years ago, and didn't do others

All it does, as far as my reasoning leads me, is to say that it's not an impossibility. And once this is the case, theistic intervention is a possible explanation for nice things that happen to you, one of which is existing.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Ok, well I guess what I said about the set of constants relates to that then.

I missed that I think....

raah! wrote: »

The universe allows us to exist. I think this is better than not existing. There could be other forms of life, but there are not many. There are much more universes where life doesn't exist than where it does. Though I'll level with everyone right here, this business about constants varying over infinity, is something I said just there, because they are essentially just real numbers, and the set of real numbers is infinte. So if that's wrong for some reason then it's wrong.

It is a good point and very interesting, the difference between deistic fine tuning, and theistic fine tuning. In deistic fine tuning, omnipotence isn't a given, neither is "absolute benevolence", but that we exist suggests some degree of benevolence. Because for me, existing is better than not existing. And I guess this depends on your interpretation of the universe, I think it's more nice than not nice. Living on the streets scrounging for money is not as nice as some things, but it's nicer than never having had a chance to scrounge.

All it does, as far as my reasoning leads me, is to say that it's not an impossibility. And once this is the case, theistic intervention is a possible explanation for nice things that happen to you, one of which is existing.

your point there basically means that the universe is not as bad as it possibly could be in that it is possible for us to exist but you acknowledge that this shows at best some degree of benevolence. It doesn't indicate the kind of benevolence that would be expected from an all powerful benevolence though does it? That's why such a large amount of time and energy is spent (read wasted) in theism trying to explain all of the things that indicate either malevolence or at best indifference and trying to get everyone to focus on the good.

Honestly, trying to square reality with all its cruelties with the idea of an all powerful benevolence really is impossible to do without twisting yourself up in knots. The world makes a hell of a lot more sense once you realise that the universe doesn't actually care about us, that there is no reason why a good person got cancer and a bad person became a billionaire, they're just things that happened in an indifferent universe. I call it the sh!t happens philosophy :P

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I missed that I think....

I said it in response to zillah's post about the coputer simulations.

your point there basically means that the universe is not as bad as it possibly could be in that it is possible for us to exist but you acknowledge that this shows at best some degree of benevolence.

Yes, in the deistic system, we cannot know if this universe was the best one. I don't see why we would suppose that there can be better ones. There might be, but we don't know. That there is one we can live in suggests some degree, yes yes.

It doesn't indicate the kind of benevolence that would be expected from an all powerful benevolence though does it? That's why such a large amount of time and energy is spent (read wasted) in theism trying to explain all of the things that indicate either malevolence or at best indifference and trying to get everyone to focus on the good.

Well, if the benevolence is all powerful, then this is the universe intended. And if he's benevolent, then it's benevolent that this universe is here.

As I said, fine tuning doesn't directly imply theism, but it helps it out a bit, if you want to use it in that way. And in the context of theism, if you say the deistic fine tuner is a theistic one (obviously this is based on something else), then this is in fact the best of all possible worlds. Those other possible universes are not as good as this one because they weren't picked.

I do agree that that time is wasted, because if you think that something done by that all knowing omnipotent definer of good and bad is malevolent, then you are simply wrong.

Honestly, trying to square reality with all its cruelties with the idea of an all powerful benevolence really is impossible to do without twisting yourself up in knots. The world makes a hell of a lot more sense once you realise that the universe doesn't actually care about us, that there is no reason why a good person got cancer and a bad person became a billionaire, they're just things that happened in an indifferent universe. I call it the sh!t happens philosophy :P[/QUOTE]

use logic please

Dades wrote: »

This thread is becoming a nightmare and the OP is going to have tough going to find any posts actually relevant to his post.

As I trawl through this thread, that is what I am finding.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

I said it in response to zillah's post about the coputer simulations.

Yes, in the deistic system, we cannot know if this universe was the best one. I don't see why we would suppose that there can be better ones. There might be, but we don't know. That there is one we can live in suggests some degree, yes yes.

Well, if the benevolence is all powerful, then this is the universe intended. And if he's benevolent, then it's benevolent that this universe is here.

As I said, fine tuning doesn't directly imply theism, but it helps it out a bit, if you want to use it in that way. And in the context of theism, if you say the deistic fine tuner is a theistic one (obviously this is based on something else), then this is in fact the best of all possible worlds. Those other possible universes are not as good as this one because they weren't picked.

I do agree that that time is wasted, because if you think that something done by that all knowing omnipotent definer of good and bad is malevolent, then you are simply wrong.

You've kind of jumped the gun here with the line "if he's benevolent, then it's benevolent that this universe is here". What we are trying to determine here is if the thing that did the fine tuning is benevolent but the above post appears to be making the assumption that it is benevolent and then declaring that this universe is the best possible one based on that assumption.

So let's step back a minute from the assumption of benevolence. you say that existing is better than not existing and that this indicates benevolence. I say that (to pick one of a billion possible examples) no cancer is better than cancer and that this indicates either malevolence or indifference. How does one counter this response to the argument for benevolence in a way that does not simply assume benevolence and declare that anyone who says cancer isn't benevolent is wrong?

raah!

Well yes, as I said, I don't think fine tuning implies theism. Theism does however imply benevolent fine tuning. If one were to start at fine tuning, and go along to theism (with all the usual middle stuff like love etc, these are made less ridiculous in the light of fine tuning), one can then go back to reasons for the fine tuned universe.

So let's step back a minute from the assumption of benevolence. you say that existing is better than not existing and that this indicates benevolence. I say that (to pick one of a billion possible examples) no cancer is better than cancer and that this indicates either malevolence or indifference. How does one counter this response to the argument for benevolence in a way that does not simply assume benevolence and declare that anyone who says cancer isn't benevolent is wrong?

This is not necessarily a problem for the deistic conception in which the thing only had a choice of a few life creating constants. If it were constant, it could only pick the best, and the best might still have bad things.

The deistic conception also ceases to interfere, the universe is there and created. We can really only talk about the one thing that it did, which was create a universe, of a small little choice of universes (I'm only going along with this statement here), but he chose one with people and heavy elements. There is a problem in that we don't know how good these other universes were, we don't really have a standard of saying "cancer isn't nice", there might have been super cancer in those other universes. But I accept that whether or not creating the universe was a benevolent act is open to how you see the universe. However, an additional point is that, creating the universe, whether or not it was benevolent, gains teleological signifigance by being created. It was meant to be created.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Well yes, as I said, I don't think fine tuning implies theism. Theism does however imply benevolent fine tuning. If one were to start at fine tuning, and go along to theism (with all the usual middle stuff like love etc, these are made less ridiculous in the light of fine tuning), one can then go back to reasons for the fine tuned universe.

This is not necessarily a problem for the deistic conception in which the thing only had a choice of a few life creating constants. If it were constant, it could only pick the best, and the best might still have bad things.

The deistic conception also ceases to interfere, the universe is there and created. We can really only talk about the one thing that it did, which was create a universe, of a small little choice of universes (I'm only going along with this statement here), but he chose one with people and heavy elements. There is a problem in that we don't know how good these other universes were, we don't really have a standard of saying "cancer isn't nice", there might have been super cancer in those other universes. But I accept that whether or not creating the universe was a benevolent act is open to how you see the universe. However, an additional point is that, creating the universe, whether or not it was benevolent, gains teleological signifigance by being created. It was meant to be created.

Yes theism implies benevolance. That's actually stepping further along the path that I asked you to step back on. The logical order is benevolence implies theism. Once you get to theism you have a hell of a lot of attributes applied that go well beyond simply benevolence. I'm asking how you determine benevolence beyond simply assuming it.

Also, if the best still contains bad things then the creator is not all powerful. The good old Euthyphro dilemma. You say that we don't really have a standard to say "cancer isn't nice" but you said "existing is better than not existing". What standard did you use to make this judgement, other than an assuming benevolence when benevolence is the very thing we are attempting to determine?

candy-gal1

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Is it just for me then?!
Why would you not want that? just curious, as i would love it!!!

It sounds awful

MagicMarker wrote: »

I feel the same, I would rather be alive than dead. I think most would feel that way.

When you're dead though, you won't know it!

I'd be curious to see what the world looks like, but forever or even more than a couple centuries...? Yuck no thanks

Jakkass wrote: »

Says pragmatism and common sense. If you paint a painting. It is yours until it is sold. Indeed, if you found a nation, it is yours until you pass away, or change institutions and the like to allow broader leadership or indeed if someone usurps it.

One can dispute the ownership of a territory, its laws, or anything else, but ultimately if those laws are binding on you. They are binding on you.

If the dependent clauses are trying to kill me

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes theism implies benevolance. That's actually stepping further along the path that I asked you to step back on. The logical order is benevolence implies theism. Once you get to theism you have a hell of a lot of attributes applied that go well beyond simply benevolence. I'm asking how you determine benevolence beyond simply assuming it.

Well what I said with respect to theism and fine tuning, was that a fine tuned creation renders theistic things like "miracles" not ridiculous. It is things like these, and what most religions say that ensures benevolence. The assumption, which is obviously a big one in religions, is that those miracles are the ones to pick. Which is what you were referencing back there. Or those signs of benevolence, or signs of whatever.

Also, if the best still contains bad things then the creator is not all powerful.

This isn't generally a problem for deistic systems. And once the creator is all poweful, those bad things were intended and therefore not bad.

The good old Euthyphro dilemma. You say that we don't really have a standard to say "cancer isn't nice" but you said "existing is better than not existing". What standard did you use to make this judgement, other than an assuming benevolence when benevolence is the very thing we are attempting to determine?

Again, all my statement there is based on, is that I like existing. I think everyone likes existing to some extent. About cancer, some people opt for immediate euthanasia, some people keep slugging, some people choose to kill themselves in the face of an unpleasant existence, some people choose to stick it out, and some people choose to interprate it as pleasant. It would be very difficult however, to interpret it as meaningless in the light of a universe which was created for any reason. And I should have said it further back, only for some people are there implications of benevolence, but it's logically implicit that there is meaning in a fine tuned universe.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Well what I said with respect to theism and fine tuning, was that a fine tuned creation renders theistic things like "miracles" not ridiculous. It is things like these, and what most religions say that ensures benevolence. The assumption, which is obviously a big one in religions, is that those miracles are the ones to pick. Which is what you were referencing back there. Or those signs of benevolence, or signs of whatever.

I think you might have been getting at this point when you said "those miracles are the ones to pick" but anyway, you are correct to say that once you have got over the hump of a theistic creator that does indeed make things like miracles non-ridiculous. The problem is that even in a universe where miracles are non-ridiculous, the fact remains that >99% of supernatural claims are still false because they are mutually contradictory and I have never seen any way to decide which ones are true and which are false that amounted to any more than simply picking the ones you like or more commonly the ones you were raised to believe are true. So, still making the assumption of a fine tuner, how does one come to sift through the millions and millions of contradictory claims about the nature of the thing that did the fine tuning and decide which claims are true above all others?

raah! wrote: »

This isn't generally a problem for deistic systems. And once the creator is all poweful, those bad things were intended and therefore not bad.
Again, all my statement there is based on, is that I like existing. I think everyone likes existing to some extent. About cancer, some people opt for immediate euthanasia, some people keep slugging, some people choose to kill themselves in the face of an unpleasant existence, some people choose to stick it out, and some people choose to interprate it as pleasant. It would be very difficult however, to interpret it as meaningless in the light of a universe which was created for any reason. And I should have said it further back, only for some people are there implications of benevolence, but it's logically implicit that there is meaning in a fine tuned universe.

I am very specifically not talking about deistic systems. I am attempting to bridge the gap between deism and belief in a specific theistic god. You seem to be contradicting yourself where you say that you judge existing to be better than not existing because you like existing. You say that we have no standard by which to judge "cancer isn't nice" but you use the standard of "things you like" to judge existing to be better than not existing. Why can't I use this standard to judge that no cancer is better than cancer? Also I don't think you'll find anyone within the sane population who would interpret cancer as pleasant. We are trying to determine if the thing that fine tuned the universe is benevolent so how do we determine this without simply assuming it and declaring that anything that doesn't appear to be good still is good based on this assumption of benevolence?

The rest of your post is again arguing for fine tuning when I have asked you to begin with the assumption of fine tuning and explain how one gets from that to a specific belief system based on a specific deity so it's covered by the above

Nemi

Galvasean wrote: »

And that is why the burden of proof always lies with the person making the claim that something happened.
"Incredible claims call for incredible evidence."

Sorry to be a pedant, but I think you mean "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence".

I think the problem is that, more often, people try to back incredible claims with incredible evidence.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

All of science is built on this. We make a falsifiable proposition, we find evidence to support that proposition, and then the rest of the scientific community test the bejaysus out of it to find out if the proposition holds.

I think this is actually quite an idealised picture of science. Science is a human activity, with all the features of human organisation. Climategate exposed a little of that to the world.

use logic please wrote: »

As I trawl through this thread, that is what I am finding.

Can I try to shorten the way for you? I think your point was answered in this post

bnt wrote: »

The short answer to that: even if you assume some first cause, there's no reason to assume that it would have any of the qualities you associate with "God".

To my mind, this makes all the 'fine tuning' arguments pointless too. Let's say the universe was 'fine tuned' for life. That's still no proof that the 'fine tuning' was done by an omnipotent god. All you can derive from that by reason is that something may have existed with the ability to fine tune, but no more than that.

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think you might have been getting at this point when you said "those miracles are the ones to pick" but anyway, you are correct to say that once you have got over the hump of a theistic creator that does indeed make things like miracles non-ridiculous. The problem is that even in a universe where miracles are non-ridiculous, the fact remains that >99% of supernatural claims are still false because they are mutually contradictory and I have never seen any way to decide which ones are true and which are false that amounted to any more than simply picking the ones you like or more commonly the ones you were raised to believe are true. So, still making the assumption of a fine tuner, how does one come to sift through the millions and millions of contradictory claims about the nature of the thing that did the fine tuning and decide which claims are true above all others?

Well first I'll say that I don't think the majority of claims made by those many different religions are all that contradictory (specifically the big ones, those are the ones I know most about). But it's also necessary to say that miracles are not necessary for religious belief. As to how one sifts through claims about the nature of the fine tuner, that's theology pretty much. Some claims will contradict themselves others will not, different amounts of people will believe different things. This is a large area of study. And I know people on this forum don't like this, but I could really only tell you why I would pick my conception over others. I can't tell you how you can. Picking the one you like is a big part of it, but it must also be consistent with your pre-held beliefs.

I am very specifically not talking about deistic systems. I am attempting to bridge the gap between deism and belief in a specific theistic god. You seem to be contradicting yourself where you say that you judge existing to be better than not existing because you like existing. You say that we have no standard by which to judge "cancer isn't nice" but you use the standard of "things you like" to judge existing to be better than not existing.

I was merely trying to highlight the subjective nature of this benevolence. I interpreted your statement about floods and cancer to be an objective statement.

Why can't I use this standard to judge that no cancer is better than cancer? Also I don't think you'll find anyone within the sane population who would interpret cancer as pleasant.

Yes of course you can do that. At the same time, you could say cancer is unpleasant but still put there benevolently. That's why i mentioned degrees of benevolence, and a possible lack of omnipotence.

We are trying to determine if the thing that fine tuned the universe is benevolent so how do we determine this without simply assuming it and declaring that anything that doesn't appear to be good still is good based on this assumption of benevolence?

With the concept of a gradation of benevolence? The term is rather subjective as it stands, it means well meaning, there really is no way for us to determine this other than to infer from what is there. If we like it we will infer it was well meaning, if we don't we probably won't.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Well first I'll say that I don't think the majority of claims made by those many different religions are all that contradictory (specifically the big ones, those are the ones I know most about). But it's also necessary to say that miracles are not necessary for religious belief. As to how one sifts through claims about the nature of the fine tuner, that's theology pretty much. Some claims will contradict themselves others will not, different amounts of people will believe different things. This is a large area of study. And I know people on this forum don't like this, but I could really only tell you why I would pick my conception over others. I can't tell you how you can. Picking the one you like is a big part of it, but it must also be consistent with your pre-held beliefs.

So just to be clear, if we assume that the first cause and fine tuning arguments are valid that still only brings us possibly as far as deism and not anywhere near the beliefs that all of the people that have ever mentioned these arguments to me actually believe?

Also, why is picking the one you like a part of it at all? Surely what matters is what's true and not what you want to be true? The same goes for it being consistent with your pre-held beliefs. Who says these are correct?

raah! wrote: »

I was merely trying to highlight the subjective nature of this benevolence. I interpreted your statement about floods and cancer to be an objective statement.

Yes of course you can do that. At the same time, you could say cancer is unpleasant but still put there benevolently. That's why i mentioned degrees of benevolence, and a possible lack of omnipotence.

With the concept of a gradation of benevolence? The term is rather subjective as it stands, it means well meaning, there really is no way for us to determine this other than to infer from what is there. If we like it we will infer it was well meaning, if we don't we probably won't.

So essentially there is no way to determine if the thing that did the fine tuning is benevolent and some people simply assume it is and try to explain away all the things that don't fit with this assumption?

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So just to be clear, if we assume that the first cause and fine tuning arguments are valid that still only brings us possibly as far as deism and not anywhere near the beliefs that all of the people that have ever mentioned these arguments to me actually believe?

I think it brings you close enough to them. As deism is not too far from theism. I've outlined the sequence before. And regardless of whether or not they can make a connection, a connection can be made. As I've said it's not one pure logical strip from deism to theism. It's deism+other pre existing notions to theism.

Also, why is picking the one you like a part of it at all? Surely what matters is what's true and not what you want to be true? The same goes for it being consistent with your pre-held beliefs. Who says these are correct?

The people holding them say they are correct. Saying you like them is the same as saying that it agrees with your pre-existing beliefs, pretty much. Because it is possible for someone to change their pre-existing beliefs into what they like.

At the end of the day, any system can be reduced to absurdities via crafty application of skepticism. You say people accept science as the sole arbiter of truth because it is so good at verifying things. I say people accept it because it helps them eat more, sleep more, and have more sex.

So essentially there is no way to determine if the thing that did the fine tuning is benevolence and some people simply assume it is and try to explain away all the things that don't fit with this assumption?

Just going from fine tuning to benevolence without omnipotence is really quite simple. Fine tune-not omnipotent-good things there while there are also bad things. Now, nobody can measure the amount of good things in the world accurately against the number of bad things, well you could try, and people do try, and then they come up with notions of whether or not the universe is nice or not nice, but at the end of the day it depends on your inclination.

Just as much as a non-omnipotent account for a malevolent fine tuner can be made. The arguments are equivilent, but depend on one's interpretation of the universe. What is assumed (or perceived) is how nice the universe is. Your arguments have been based on pointing out bad things in the universe, the arguments of the other kind would point out good things. These are not assumptions about the Tuner, but how people perceive the world.

Now, running through all your arguments is the perceived strength of scientific materialism as a means of aquiring truth, this can be addressed in another thread if you like. The reason people say things like "you can't prove anything" in response to certain arguments from new atheists is that they act like they have proven all of their own statements, that they are perfectly internally consistent, but in reality have only applied their skepticism to religion.

And in my posts if you noticed, there is the underlying notion that scientific materialism is actually quite an extreme point of view, and that those who espouse it whilst championing themselves as upholders of logic and virtue do so because they don't understand it, and haven't expanded on it's implications properly.

caseyann

Sam vimes and raah again lol

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

I think it brings you close enough to them. As deism is not too far from theism. I've outlined the sequence before. And regardless of whether or not they can make a connection, a connection can be made. As I've said it's not one pure logical strip from deism to theism. It's deism+other pre existing notions to theism.

The people holding them say they are correct. Saying you like them is the same as saying that it agrees with your pre-existing beliefs, pretty much. Because it is possible for someone to change their pre-existing beliefs into what they like.

I'm afraid you haven't really outlined the sequence. We're still struggling to assign the label "benevolent" to the thing that fine tuned the universe, let alone "raised from the dead 2000 years ago". I'm still not seeing how one breaches the gap between deism and specific theism without simply assuming to be true that which you would like to be true

raah! wrote: »

At the end of the day, any system can be reduced to absurdities via crafty application of skepticism. You say people accept science as the sole arbiter of truth because it is so good at verifying things. I say people accept it because it helps them eat more, sleep more, and have more sex.

Helping me to eat more, sleep more and have more sex are three examples of science demonstrating its ability to produce reliable results.

raah! wrote: »

Just going from fine tuning to benevolence without omnipotence is really quite simple. Fine tune-not omnipotent-good things there while there are also bad things. Now, nobody can measure the amount of good things in the world accurately against the number of bad things, well you could try, and people do try, and then they come up with notions of whether or not the universe is nice or not nice, but at the end of the day it depends on your inclination.

Just as much as a non-omnipotent account for a malevolent fine tuner can be made. The arguments are equivilent, but depend on one's interpretation of the universe. What is assumed (or perceived) is how nice the universe is. Your arguments have been based on pointing out bad things in the universe, the arguments of the other kind would point out good things. These are not assumptions about the Tuner, but how people perceive the world.

The only explanations that make sense in this universe are:
1. A benevolent but non-omnipotent "fine tuner"
2. No fine tuner
3. An omnipotent but non-benevolent fine tuner.

you can argue all you want that we have no standard by which to judge "cancer isn't nice" but this makes the term benevolent completely meaningless, it's just a label that you assign to whatever a particular being decides to do. The word benevolent has a specific definition, you gave a good one yourself when you said "well meaning". A fine tuner that is omnipotent but still allows all of the suffering that exists in this universe cannot be well meaning, it just doesn't make any sense. This is why religious people have been puzzling for thousands of years over the problem of how suffering exists if god is both benevolent and all powerful. And they would stop puzzling over it the minute they considered the possibility that if there is a god, it cannot be both benevolent and omnipotent.

raah! wrote: »

Now, running through all your arguments is the perceived strength of scientific materialism as a means of aquiring truth, this can be addressed in another thread if you like. The reason people say things like "you can't prove anything" in response to certain arguments from new atheists is that they act like they have proven all of their own statements, that they are perfectly internally consistent, but in reality have only applied their skepticism to religion.

And in my posts if you noticed, there is the underlying notion that scientific materialism is actually quite an extreme point of view, and that those who espouse it whilst championing themselves as upholders of logic and virtue do so because they don't understand it, and haven't expanded on it's implications properly.

Well I haven't really said anything about scientific materialism but I'll say to you the same thing I say to everyone who comes in here to tell us all about the failings of scientific materialism before going on about how they know their beliefs are true even though they're totally different to the last guy who came in to tell us all about the failings of scientific materialism: once you go beyond science and into the realms normally occupied by religion there is no way to reliably tell truth from falsehood. There is a reason why there are 33,000 branches of christianity alone and one atomic theory: it's becauise science verifies things where the religious make things up and declare them to be true and people just go with whatever belief they like without ever being able to know if what they believe is even close to the truth

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm afraid you haven't really outlined the sequence. We're still struggling to assign the label "benevolent" to the thing that fine tuned the universe, let alone "raised from the dead 2000 years ago". I'm still not seeing how one breaches the gap between deism and specific theism without simply assuming to be true that which you would like to be true

Universe is tuned - Universe is nice - Tuner is benevolent

As to why people believe in their specific religions, I'm sure you've heard them give their own reasons. And in the light of a fine tuning deistic god, they are not massive leaps, but not directly derived. They are derived from those secondary reasons given to upgrade to theism. That god talked to them or something.

Helping me to eat more, sleep more and have more sex are three examples of science demonstrating its ability to produce reliable results.

There is no system which doesn't produce reliable results, people don't take things up unless they do something. Religion helps people be happy, or helps certain people control certain other people. The premises of each religion lead to conclusions, because these are metaphysical premises, the conclusions are much more solid than those of science. Science has so much space for progression because material things are far more c omplex than metaphysical absolutes.

The only explanations that make sense in this universe are:
1. A benevolent but non-omnipotent "fine tuner"
2. No fine tuner
3. An omnipotent but non-benevolent fine tuner.

I disagree that there are only three, but without going into it, number 3 is completely ridiculous here, for reasons I've already outlined.

you can argue all you want that we have no standard by which to judge "cancer isn't nice" but this makes the term benevolent completely meaningless, it's just a label that you assign to whatever a particular being decides to do. The word benevolent has a specific definition, you gave a good one yourself when you said "well meaning". A fine tuner that is omnipotent but still allows all of the suffering that exists in this universe cannot be well meaning, it just doesn't make any sense.

Well this can easily be resolved by saying "it meant well" or that "it think suffering is nice", that's what it means to mean well. We could come up with millions of solutions to this really, as long as we are not constrained by "a universe in which things suffer is a bad universe", or "for a deity to be well meaning the universe must be perfect"

This is why religious people have been puzzling for thousands of years over the problem of how suffering exists if god is both benevolent and all powerful. And they would stop puzzling over it the minute they considered the possibility that if there is a god, it cannot be both benevolent and omnipotent.

I've never seen this particular problem as insoluble. Particularly from a theistic point of view, and it is a contradictory statement for religious people who take their definition of good from God. If we can relate "doing good things for people" to "well meaning" which is fairly obvious, then there is no problem.

Well I haven't really said anything about scientific materialism but I'll say to you the same thing I say to everyone who comes in here to tell us all about the failings of scientific materialism before going on about how they know their beliefs are true even though they're totally different to the last guy who came in to tell us all about the failings of scientific materialism: once you go beyond science and into the realms normally occupied by religion there is no way to reliably tell truth from falsehood. There is a reason why there are 33,000 branches of christianity alone and one atomic theory: it's becauise science verifies things where the religious make things up and declare them to be true and people just go with whatever belief they like without ever being able to know if what they believe is even close to the truth

There is more than one atomic theory for one thing. The one that is accepted now is accepted becuase it can be used to make predictions, used for things like food etc.

We've been over things like logic also, that is how everyone validates everything. The reason there are so many branches of religion is that their axiomatic grounding is more complex than that of science. To say science is the only system which can verify things is wrong, and we were over that in the other thread.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Universe is tuned - Universe is nice - Tuner is benevolent

As to why people believe in their specific religions, I'm sure you've heard them give their own reasons. And in the light of a fine tuning deistic god, they are not massive leaps, but not directly derived. They are derived from those secondary reasons given to upgrade to theism. That god talked to them or something.

There is more than one atomic theory for one thing. The one that is accepted now is accepted becuase it can be used to make predictions, used for things like food etc.

We've been over things like logic also, that is how everyone validates everything. The reason there are so many branches of religion is that their axiomatic grounding is more complex than that of science. To say science is the only system which can verify things is wrong, and we were over that in the other thread.

There is no system which doesn't produce reliable results, people don't take things up unless they do something. Religion helps people be happy, or helps certain people control certain other people. The premises of each religion lead to conclusions, because these are metaphysical premises, the conclusions are much more solid than those of science. Science has so much space for progression because material things are far more c omplex than metaphysical absolutes.

Yes I've heard many people say they have had personal experience of god and no two of them have yet believed the same thing about god (or gods). If there is one god and it is possible to reliably tell the difference between an experience with this god and your mind playing tricks on you then most if not all people should come away from such experiences with at least nearly identical impressions of god and since god is supposed to be omnipotent I don't think it's a big leap to say they should be totally identical. This is quite clearly not what happens. How do you explain the vast differences in the different beliefs that people have about the supernatural if not that the methods used are at best almost totally unreliable? Saying that the axioms are more complex doesn't really explain anything (I'm not even sure what it means tbh). If the axioms are valid then they should all be the same, assuming that there is one god.

raah! wrote: »

I disagree that there are only three, but without going into it, number 3 is completely ridiculous here, for reasons I've already outlined.

Well this can easily be resolved by saying "it meant well" or that "it think suffering is nice", that's what it means to mean well. We could come up with millions of solutions to this really, as long as we are not constrained by "a universe in which things suffer is a bad universe", or "for a deity to be well meaning the universe must be perfect"

I've never seen this particular problem as insoluble. Particularly from a theistic point of view, and it is a contradictory statement for religious people who take their definition of good from God. If we can relate "doing good things for people" to "well meaning" which is fairly obvious, then there is no problem.

I really don't see why it should be ridiculous that an omnipotent being could not be benevolent. The only way you seem to be able to square the two is to completely redefine the word benevolent until it no longer means "well meaning" and instead means "whatever god does". You are still just assuming that god is benevolent and from this assumption deciding that every single thing he does is benevolent regardless of how much suffering it causes. The problem of how one determines that god is benevolent without simply assuming it remains unanswered.

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes I've heard many people say they have had personal experience of god and no two of them have yet believed the same thing about god (or gods). If there is one god and it is possible to reliably tell the difference between an experience with this god and your mind playing tricks on you then most if not all people should come away from such experiences with at least nearly identical impressions of god and since god is supposed to be omnipotent I don't think it's a big leap to say they should be totally identical. This is quite clearly not what happens. How do you explain the vast differences in the different beliefs that people have about the supernatural if not that the methods used are at best almost totally unreliable?

Well the way I see difference of experience is well captured in the hindu religion. One fellow wearing different hats. People describe the hats differently. Then again, this isn't an area that I have gone into much thought about.

Saying that the axioms are more complex doesn't really explain anything (I'm not even sure what it means tbh). If the axioms are valid then they should all be the same, assuming that there is one god.

Well taking christianity as an example, there's the bible. Which is massive, and can be interpreted differently. That's what I would call a complex axiom, though it's not exactly an axiom when viewed in light of pre-existing deity who put it there, but one might say it's validity is. Either way, it's complex.

I really don't see why it should be ridiculous that an omnipotent being could not be benevolent. The only way you seem to be able to square the two is to completely redefine the word benevolent until it no longer means "well meaning" and instead means "whatever god does". You are still just assuming that god is benevolent and from this assumption deciding that every single thing he does is benevolent regardless of how much suffering it causes. The problem of how one determines that god is benevolent without simply assuming it remains unanswered.

Yes sorry, i didn't quite understand number three there, I was stuck saying that christian apologetics are silly. Yes number three is a good point actually. I don't think you get from fine tuning to omnipotence though, all you get from fine tuning is fine tuning, and intentionality and all that. It gets very confusing to be arguing from different perspectives all the time

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Well the way I see difference of experience is well captured in the hindu religion. One fellow wearing different hats. People describe the hats differently. Then again, this isn't an area that I have gone into much thought about.

Well taking christianity as an example, there's the bible. Which is massive, and can be interpreted differently. That's what I would call a complex axiom, though it's not exactly an axiom when viewed in light of pre-existing deity who put it there, but one might say it's validity is. Either way, it's complex.

An awful lot of the world religions hold the position that only believers of that religion will be "saved" or whatever is associated with that religion, basically that good things happen to people who follow the faith and bad things to those who don't. If it's one guy wearing different hats doing all of this, surely he must be fcuking with our heads? Why else would he give every person he gives an experience to a different impression of his (or their) nature?

Does it not make an awful lot more sense to just say that most (if not all) of the people who think they've experienced god are simply wrong?

raah! wrote: »

Yes sorry, i didn't quite understand number three there, I was stuck saying that christian apologetics are silly. Yes number three is a good point actually. I don't think you get from fine tuning to omnipotence though, all you get from fine tuning is fine tuning, and intentionality and all that. It gets very confusing to be arguing from different perspectives all the time

Good, so we're agreed

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

An awful lot of the world religions hold the position that only believers of that religion will be "saved" or whatever is associated with that religion, basically that good things happen to people who follow the faith and bad things to those who don't. If it's one guy wearing different hats doing all of this, surely he must be fcuking with our heads? Why else would he give every person he gives an experience to a different impression of his (or their) nature?

Certain people being saved isn't really anything to do with the nature of the "exeperienced" deity. It's an extra tack on. And in this sense they are saying contradictory things, but I think they are fairly similar in general.

Does it not make an awful lot more sense to just say that most (if not all) of the people who think they've experienced god are simply wrong?

Heh, well it depends on one's previously existing beliefs. If you think the thing they are experiencing doesn't exist then of course it doesn't make sense. If you thikn it does exist, and that the different experience can be put down to different perception of the same thing, and those experiences are not massively different, when you read about them then saying they are just experiencing differently makes more sense.

Good, so we're agreed

Yes, on number 3 being a valid description of a possible scenario.:D

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Certain people being saved isn't really anything to do with the nature of the "exeperienced" deity. It's an extra tack on. And in this sense they are saying contradictory things, but I think they are fairly similar in general.

I wouldn't really call it an extra tack on so much as the fundamental belief of most world religions.

raah! wrote: »

Heh, well it depends on one's previously existing beliefs. If you think the thing they are experiencing doesn't exist then of course it doesn't make sense. If you thikn it does exist, and that the different experience can be put down to different perception of the same thing, and those experiences are not massively different, when you read about them then saying they are just experiencing differently makes more sense.

Well firstly I really don't think that you can just dismiss the differences here. Not all religions even include a god. The differences between world religions and even within christianity are not trivial.

My point here doesn't even need to assume that they thing they're experiencing doesn't exist, that is the conclusion that is drawn from the fact that no two experiences are the same. If no two experiences are the same of a being that's supposed to be omnipotent and therefore capable of giving everyone exactly the same experience then I find it highly unlikely that what's actually being experienced by all of them is a single omnipotent being. Why do you suppose a being who is capable of giving everyone exactly the same experience has given people experiences so different that their different interpretations have led huge levels of conflict and suffering throughout history?

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wouldn't really call it an extra tack on so much as the fundamental belief of most world religions.

So you think taht for christians the belief that non-christians are not saved is the fundamental belief for that religion? Funnily enough, if most of the world religions say that "following this religion saves you" then this is something they have in common. Hohohoahoha. That's just a bit of casuistry there. It's a tack on to the nature of the deity at least. It's the same as differently experienced experiences.

Well firstly I really don't think that you can just dismiss the differences here. Not all religions even include a god. The differences between world religions and even within christianity are not trivial.

There can be alot of similarities drawn between certain aspects of buddhism and the christian god, if that's what your hinting at. Many buddhists worship deities also. I'm not going to pretend to know about buddhists though, the junior cert was a long time ago.

My point here doesn't even need to assume that they thing they're experiencing doesn't exist, that is the conclusion that is drawn from the fact that no two experiences are the same.

Well I'm only arguing about this in the context of the differences between religions, I'm no expert on "religious experience", I asked mangaroosh some questions in his long thread but he left forever then.

But anyway, if those experiences lead to different religions, then we can say they have alot in common. In the accounts we can generally find similar points. Similar important points even. I would say they are similar in their kernal.

If no two experiences are the same of a being that's supposed to be omnipotent and therefore capable of giving everyone exactly the same experience then I find it highly unlikely that what's actually being experienced by all of them is a single omnipotent being. Why do you suppose a being who is capable of giving everyone exactly the same experience has given people experiences so different that their different interpretations have led huge levels of conflict and suffering throughout history?

Well if we focus on the christian god (since we are talking about an omnipotent theistic one, and since I am saying they are all the same), we could say that it was also very important that people have free will. That means they are free to interpret things in their own way. Free will ensures that it is their conception of the "experienced deity" rather than the. It is my opinion that free will is necessary for proper justification of beliefs, also. That's off topic though.

It could also be said that the experiences are the same but the interpretations are different. Well more appropriately, it's the same thing, being experienced differently, for me it makes more sense to account for this difference by referencing the differences in the people. Just as loads of people go look at mount everest, but their experiences are different, because they are different people.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

There can be alot of similarities drawn between certain aspects of buddhism and the christian god, if that's what your hinting at. Many buddhists worship deities also. I'm not going to pretend to know about buddhists though, the junior cert was a long time ago.

Well I'm only arguing about this in the context of the differences between religions, I'm no expert on "religious experience", I asked mangaroosh some questions in his long thread but he left forever then.

But anyway, if those experiences lead to different religions, then we can say they have alot in common. In the accounts we can generally find similar points. Similar important points even. I would say they are similar in their kernal

Well if we focus on the christian god (since we are talking about an omnipotent theistic one, and since I am saying they are all the same), we could say that it was also very important that people have free will. That means they are free to interpret things in their own way. Free will ensures that it is their conception of the "experienced deity" rather than the. It is my opinion that free will is necessary for proper justification of beliefs, also. That's off topic though.

It could also be said that the experiences are the same but the interpretations are different. Well more appropriately, it's the same thing, being experienced differently, for me it makes more sense to account for this difference by referencing the differences in the people. Just as loads of people go look at mount everest, but their experiences are different, because they are different people.

Ah the good old religious tactic of blaming everything on the followers. Free will, it explains everything apparently. You say that there is a similar kernal among religions and you are right to say that they are often (but not always) broadly similar but when dealing with an omnipotent being, "broadly similar" just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. If I tell someone my opinion on something and he then repeats this opinion to others but has not repeated it the way I said then that person has interpreted my opinion wrongly. And if there is one god and there are thousands of different interpretations of it then at most one of them is right. This is not a case where there is no right or wrong and each interpretation is valid. If there is one god there is one correct interpretation and thousands upon thousands of wrong ones. Explaining why this is with free will does not change the fact that all of these interpretations are wrong.

This is not comparable to someone's experience of climbing Everest. If one person said it made them feel elated and the other that it depressed them then both can be right but if one says that there is snow on the summit and the other that there isn't then one of them is wrong. In the same way, if one religious person says that god will save those who believe in Jesus and another that he will save those who believe in Allah then at least one of them is wrong and unlike the dichotomy of snow versus no snow, they could both be wrong. This is why such personal experience is unreliable; we can at best hope for "broadly similar" if we're lucky and this broad similarity can quite easily be accounted for by the fact that human beings share common values. If science considered something verified because the results were "broadly similar" then planes would fall out of the sky and nuclear reactors would explode. "Broadly similar" is useless, especially when dealing with a supposedly omnipotent being

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah the good old religious tactic of blaming everything on the followers. Free will, it explains everything apparently. You say that there is a similar kernal among religions and you are right to say that they are often (but not always) broadly similar but when dealing with an omnipotent being, "broadly similar" just doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

I think it explains those things I cited anyway.

If I tell someone my opinion on something and he then repeats this opinion to others but has not repeated it the way I said then that person has interpreted my opinion wrongly.

Not necessarily, there is more than one way to say something, there is more than one way to describe the truth.

And if there is one god and there are thousands of different interpretations of it then at most one of them is right.

This isn't true because of what you said up there being not true.

This is not a case where there is no right or wrong and each interpretation is valid. If there is one god there is one correct interpretation and thousands upon thousands of wrong ones.

Again I will reference the hindu religion, there are different incarnations of god, but these can be seen as the same thing. So one person has a religious experience and sees and elephant, another sees another hindu thing, but it's the same thing. That means they are all right.

Explaining why this is with free will does not change the fact that all of these interpretations are wrong.

Different does not mean wrong.

This is not comparable to someone's experience of climbing Everest. If one person said it made them feel elated and the other that it depressed them then both can be right but if one says that there is snow on the summit and the other that there isn't then one of them is wrong. In the same way, if one religious person says that god will save those who believe in Jesus and another that he will save those who believe in Allah then at least one of them is wrong and unlike the dichotomy of snow versus no snow, they could both be wrong.

Well if we take this example, they are both saying "if you don't believe in God you'll not be saved", but like the hindus they have different ideas of what god looks like. I think they are more similar thatn dissimilar.

It's also a bit silly because, it would be absurd to say that christianity and islam are only "broadly similar" (if broadly similar is to be interpreted as some sort of bad thing for some reason), they worship the same god.

This is why such personal experience is unreliable; we can at best hope for "broadly similar" if we're lucky and this broad similarity can quite easily be accounted for by the fact that human beings share common values. If science considered something verified because the results were "broadly similar" then planes would fall out of the sky and nuclear reactors would explode. "Broadly similar" is useless, especially when dealing with a supposedly omnipotent being

Well you seem to be criticising the terminology, I do remember saying "the same in their kernal", and you can switch to this if you'd like.

munsterdevil

raah! wrote: »

Universe is tuned - Universe is nice - Tuner is benevolent

Universe is nice, really? As far as we know in the whole vast universe this pale blue dot we live on is the only place that can support life as we know it.

If this tuner was so benevolent why didn't it make the whole of the universe "nice". Why go to the bother of creating such a massive thing like the universe when there is no way possible anyone on this planet will see even a fraction of it? Hypothetically, if there is alien life out there capable now, or in the future of space travel, the chances are the combined alien civilizations of the universe (ourselves included) wouldn't see a fraction of the universe either.

The estimated age of the universe is "roughly" 14 billion years, the age of the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years, and life originated after another few billion years. Why the long gaps in between, was this benevolent creator not powerful enough to do it all at once?

raah!

Those points are addressed in the thread.

munsterdevil

Could you tell me the page? The thread is massive at this stage...

raah!

Sorry, I just finished work there, I'm off to bed soon. Those things you were saying formed a major part of the conversation between myself and sam vimes.