Atheism, theism and jelly beans

[James R]

Sarkus,

Thanks for that; it's useful. I'm not sure if Vociferous's objection is the same as yours. I guess we'll find out.

One thing, though. If the infinitely-regressive chain of causes is itself uncaused, it does not necessarily follow that an uncaused cause broke the chain at some point. The uncaused cause might refer to the chain as a whole, rather than to any single link in the chain.

It doesn't help with the God argument, though, because if we were to assert that God was the uncaused cause of an infinite chain of universes in an eternal multiverse, say, then there's no reason to prefer that assertion over the one that says the entire chain itself is the uncaused cause.

 

[Tiassa]

I don't see that there's anything there that's on topic or that I particularly need to address. It looks like an irrelevant personal attack, mostly.

Actually, it's pretty simple, James: You're dishonest.

And I pointed out↑ that dishonesty, including links—y'know, 'cause you trolled that point↑, last time.

Should we be surprised that you can't remember yourself from post to post? No, not really.

But think of it this way: You've got this floundering thread, and in terms of running circles around theists, you are, at least, running around in circles. And it's true I just don't think you should be struggling so much in dealing with Vociferous. But part of that, in turn, comes back to the point that maybe you're performing too much for the fourth wall, or maybe you really don't know because you don't pay attention. Part of it seems that you're trying to cram Vociferous into a neat little box, and another part that you actually don't understand enough about the religions you criticize to figure out what he's doing.

At first glance, you two are like a match made in heavenly futility, but for your part, James, it's worse than futile; the sum of your course is entrenchment.

Like, it would be one thing to remind that you're only driving problematic believers deeper into their entrenched faith, but that might not be useful to the moment, as reinforcing their beliefs—including fears about worldly opposition, disruption, and siege—could very well be what you're after. In which case, of course, then, sure, that's a super job you're doing, running in circles.

Remember, I'm one of those romantic fools of old, who at some point came to the perspective that religious behavior was causing harm, and there was a need to resist that harm. But since that's just not how it goes, what we find, on this occasion, is you, verging into religious zealotry—even making up gods and believers to look down upon and lecture sternly—and making yourself part of the larger problem. And that is what it is, sure, but, sure, what you do matters, at least, around here; and in the world outside our electronic windows the reality is that Christianists are out for women, transgender, and religious minorities in these United States, and even seeking apocalyptic warfare with Muslims abroad, so it's true, my judgment tends to appreciate something more useful than halfmasted religious agitation for the sake of self-gratification.

Still, even if you somehow thought you were on about something useful, puffery like, "If you'd read enough of my posts on such matters, then you'd be aware that I'm a pretty evidence-focused person when it comes to accepting the reality of things", just isn't.

And when it comes to accepting the reality of things, remember, please ... er ... oh. Right. Anyway, yeah, I've been around when you needed to rewrite the rules of the language, or redefine words, in order to cope with the "reality" of things. And, yes, some of that even ties into the posts I linked, so just let me know. I'm leaving certain direct quotes out of it for custom, but you did drag that discussion into public view, so, sure, why not. But, yes, if you would like me to quote you demanding, then pre-emptively refusing evidence, and then pretending some merit about doing so, I certainly can. And if you'd like the bit about redefining a word in order to cope with the reality of things, that's possible, too.

But, yeah, look: In fighting the good fight, or whatever non-futile, not-wrong thing you think you're on about, it doesn't help to puff up like that for the sake of polishing your own brass. Rather, it just makes for a cheap routine we've seen how many damn times, from how many damn poseurs, over the years?

Oh. Right.

Meanwhile, if you're running circles around him, it's because he's got you by the nose, and, come on, you stuck it out there, enough, it was like you were begging.

No, seriously, would you like me to demonstrate?

 

[Sarkus]

Thanks for that; it's useful. I'm not sure if Vociferous's objection is the same as yours. I guess we'll find out.

Of course.

One thing, though. If the infinitely-regressive chain of causes is itself uncaused, it does not necessarily follow that an uncaused cause broke the chain at some point. The uncaused cause might refer to the chain as a whole, rather than to any single link in the chain.

And thus you break from the infinite regress, contradicting the regress in the process. By that I mean the infinite regress is that for every effect there is a cause. So take any single link, or the entire chain if you will, as the effect. There is, per the infinite regress, a preceding cause. One can not therefore take the chain as a whole and say that it is uncaused, as this is contradictory to the regress. The chain as a whole, per the regress, has a cause.
Otherwise you are back to arbitrarily negating the infinite regress by inserting an uncaused cause. And one can do that at any link in the chain with equal confidence. Whether that uncaused cause was the direct/immediate cause of our universe, or whether there were a billion links between the uncaused origin and the causation of our universe, the origin is still uncaused.

So basically, as soon as you invoke an uncaused you have contradicted the infinite regress. Which is why it is a fallacious argument to negate the notion of an uncaused.
And if you continue along the infinite regression then you never reach the origin. Which is why it is a fallacious argument in understanding what that origin is, either in refuting or supporting another’s claim.

It doesn't help with the God argument, though, because if we were to assert that God was the uncaused cause of an infinite chain of universes in an eternal multiverse, say, then there's no reason to prefer that assertion over the one that says the entire chain itself is the uncaused cause.

Are you not making the a priori assumption that the two options are not equivalent?
But sure, if they are then there’s no reason to prefer the notion of God being the direct cause of our universe compared to God being the initial cause in a chain that led to our universe. Or to an infinite universes.
And we can use infinite regress to push back God one more step, asking what caused God, what caused whatever caused God etc... and ultimately we either contradict our own infinite regress to find a solution we can accept, or we leave convinced that there was never a beginning, that there was always something, and that something always changing.
But then who is to say that that is/was/will always be God or not?
Thus lies the fun of the infinite regress: it actually resolves nothing.

 

[James R]

Tiassa:

Actually, it's pretty simple, James: You're dishonest.

Err.. no.

But think of it this way: You've got this floundering thread, and in terms of running circles around theists, you are, at least, running around in circles.

It's not floundering. It's moving along just fine.

And it's true I just don't think you should be struggling so much in dealing with Vociferous. .... Part of it seems that you're trying to cram Vociferous into a neat little box, and another part that you actually don't understand enough about the religions you criticize to figure out what he's doing.

If you think you've got the low down on Vociferous and "what he's doing", wouldn't it be more productive for you to engage with him rather than with me? If you think he's got me running in circles and that he couldn't pull that trick on you, then why don't you show us all what you've got, by means of practical demonstration rather than mere assertion and complaint from the sidelines?

For my own part, I would not say that I am trying to cram Vociferous into a box at all. At the moment, I'm inviting him to share with me why he believes what he believes, by setting out the reasoning that led him to his beliefs. In other words, Tiassa, I'm more interested in learning about his position than I am in having another fight with somebody on the internet just for the sake of it.

Admittedly, I did wrongly assume at first that Vociferous was a Christian, then later that he was a deist, but in my own defence I was, at the time, trying to make reasonable deductions from things he had written. I was quite happy to be corrected by him regarding my misperceptions about his stance.

It sounds like you, Tiassa, believe that his is not being honest or not arguing in good faith. If that's your belief, then I think you should address your complaints directly to him, not to me. I've already been wrong about him twice, so I wouldn't presume to speak for him.

At first glance, you two are like a match made in heavenly futility, but for your part, James, it's worse than futile; the sum of your course is entrenchment.

Like, it would be one thing to remind that you're only driving problematic believers deeper into their entrenched faith, but that might not be useful to the moment, as reinforcing their beliefs—including fears about worldly opposition, disruption, and siege—could very well be what you're after. In which case, of course, then, sure, that's a super job you're doing, running in circles.

You're worried that my questioning theist regarding the core of their beliefs is likely to cause them to hunker down because they feel under threat? You might be right. Maybe some of them will do that, rather than think about what I'm saying.

What approach do you advocate to engaging with theists? Again, you could demonstrate by example rather than trying to set yourself up as a critical bystander all the time.

Remember, I'm one of those romantic fools of old, who at some point came to the perspective that religious behavior was causing harm, and there was a need to resist that harm. But since that's just not how it goes, what we find, on this occasion, is you, verging into religious zealotry—even making up gods and believers to look down upon and lecture sternly—and making yourself part of the larger problem.

I'm making up gods and believers? How so? Where?

This thread is not about the harms of religion. I don't think that topic has been mentioned anywhere in this thread. Certainly it is one that can be discussed. Start a new thread if you're interested.

And that is what it is, sure, but, sure, what you do matters, at least, around here; and in the world outside our electronic windows the reality is that Christianists are out for women, transgender, and religious minorities in these United States, and even seeking apocalyptic warfare with Muslims abroad, so it's true, my judgment tends to appreciate something more useful than halfmasted religious agitation for the sake of self-gratification.

Are you saying it's somehow my fault that some self-professed Christians are misogynist, transphobic, xenophobic, apocalyptic, warmongering and all those other bad things? How so?

If you're concerned about that stuff, again my suggestion is that you should take it up with them, not act like it's my fault.

But, yeah, look: In fighting the good fight, or whatever non-futile, not-wrong thing you think you're on about, it doesn't help to puff up like that for the sake of polishing your own brass.

So now your complaint is about what your perceive as my style of presentation, rather than the content of my arguments?

*Shrug*

I could make similar aesthetic complaints about your manner of posting. So what? Where's the value in that? It might make you feel better to get it off your chest, but it hardly advances any substantive argument.

Meanwhile, if you're running circles around him, it's because he's got you by the nose, and, come on, you stuck it out there, enough, it was like you were begging.

I happily plead guilty. I have, indeed, asked Vociferous to lead me by the nose in this instance, as you colorfully put it. I want to understand where he is coming from, so it seems useful to take a walk in his shoes, so to speak.

Nobody - least of all me - is preventing you from engaging with Vociferous on your own terms. Why do you spend your time criticising me instead?

 

[Vociferous]

I take it the argument you want to make is that God chose to create the universe.

Now it only remains for you to actually make an argument to that effect.

On another matter: you have no thoughts on anything else I wrote in my previous post to you? Just that one sentence? Maybe your focus is too narrow.

Like your choice to buy a car is the null hypothesis, unless you have any viable alternative to offer, I cannot see any other null hypothesis that does not rely on a fallacious infinite regress.
Since the rest relied on me finding your initial answer insufficient, and I didn't, it seemed superfluous.

]It sounds like you need to introduce a "something" before you're able to contextualise "nothing". Most people would say a "potential" is not "nothing", I think. But maybe I'm splitting hairs unnecessarily.

I'm happy, for now, to follow your definition to see where it leads you. I'm guessing it might turn out to be problematic at some later stage in your argument, but I'll take that as it comes.

The need to introduce a particular "something" only exists for specific examples of "nothing". We all know what "nothing" means, even in a generalized sense, applicable to any context. As such, the word has already been abstracted beyond specific contexts, e.g. "somethings".
An unrealized potential remains nothing. Wouldn't you agree?

Like I said, I think God exists as mono-, poly-, pan-, deist, etc. from different perspectives.

To me, that just sounds like God is whatever you need it to be to suit whatever you're trying to argue at the time. It's just one more thing that makes the god unfalsifiable.

Those are just different forms/manifestations of the same God, which possesses the traits of omniscience, omnipotence, etc.. These fundamental traits do not change.

Theism begets religion of one type or another. I think you'll have a hard time divorcing your theism from whatever other beliefs you have that follow from that theism; those would be your particular religion. But again, I don't think we need to quibble over these definitions too much. I agree with you that we don't need to discuss Christian apologetics here. You tell me you're not a Christian, so presumably they are irrelevant. That is, unless you share some of the religiously-inspired opinions of Christians for essentially the same reasons they give. I very much doubt that your own religious beliefs were formed in a vacuum.

So I've created my own religion, huh? News to me.

Can you please spell them out for me, to avoid us wasting time as the conversation progresses due to my misunderstanding? Thanks.

I would think that assuming an initial nothing would be fairly self-explanatory. I'm not sure what elaboration it might need.

If the universe, itself, is an uncaused cause, that makes it necessary (as opposed to contingent). Since you've already seemed to reject an argument for God based on it being a necessary being, making the same argument for the universe would seem to garner the same objection. I say it is an equal problem in both cases. Are you saying there's a double standard in which it is less of a problem in one case than the other?

No, I don't think one is less of a problem than the other.

Are you about to make some kind of Cosmological Argument for God here? If so, could we perhaps skip to the chase? You can tell me which version of that argument you approve of and we can continue the discussion from there.

No, because I freely admit that arguments from necessity are not compelling, for either God or the universe.

Have a I put an argument? I don't believe that I've made an argument that there is no God. All I have said is that you haven't yet persuaded me that there is one. You haven't persuaded me that an infinite regress is impossible or fallacious, either, but I don't think that's particularly important unless you need to rely on the fallacy of infinite regress as an essential pillar in developing your argument for God.

I don't rely on an infinite regress for God, but all your alternatives seem to. I'm not trying to persuade you. I'm only showing you how the alternatives don't persuade me.

Tell me why you think there was no choice. And what do you mean by "becoming"?

In philosophy, becoming is the possibility of change in a thing that has being, that exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becoming_(philosophy)​

I don't think God had a choice in being nor becoming, any more than you had a choice in being human or becoming conscious.

 

[Vociferous]

(cont...)

There's another thing you have not yet established to my satisfaction. Can you perhaps give a few examples of specific things you believe are not reducible to the natural world? I assume by that you mean there are things that have no natural causes (?). Although, that seems inconsistent with things you've told me before.

Until someone can show me indisputable evidence that things like consciousness are reducible to physiology, the null hypothesis would seem to be that the two are causally unrelated. That doesn't mean consciousness has no natural cause. It only means that scientific methodology may be a very narrow definition of natural causes. If there is a God, nothing it does can be otherwise than natural, as it defines what is natural in the first place.

When it comes to those things, I don't need to be convinced of a God at the start. Why don't you just start by showing me that communications, plans and goals are not reducible to the natural world? Right now, I'm not even sure what you mean when you make such a claim. Can you give me some examples? I think that being shown that there are things that aren't reducible to the natural world might help me to make progress towards accepting the God hypothesis.

The claim that communications, plans and goals ARE reducible to the natural world bears just as much onus. And it only seems to be justified by scientism, i.e. science of the gaps. I doubt I can hope to overcome such faith in science.

??
You're using the term "null hypothesis" in a way that doesn't make much sense to me. The null hypothesis is usually that there is no significant effect or correlation, or something along those lines. The notion that Judeo-Christian values come from God is a positive hypothesis, not a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis there would be the opposite: that Judeo-Christian values have nothing to do with God.

To be clear regarding that particular example, I think that Judeo-Christian people tend to refer to their God beliefs in order to justify their values. That doesn't necessarily mean that their God beliefs are true, in the sense of implying that a Judeo-Christian God actually exists.

That seems contrary to your own claim that "Theism begets religion of one type or another."
I also didn't say Judeo-Christian values came from God. I said the two notions are related. That would seem a noncontroversial claim. It seems fairly preposterous to claim that Judeo-Christian values have zero to do with any notion of a God, seeing as they are expressed solely in relation to a notion of God.

The null hypothesis is a statement of "no effect" or "no difference". Here, you would be the one claiming there is a difference between the two notions. While I am not making any claim of causation between the two.

Only if I believe it to be the truth.

Well, if you aren't/can't argue something you think is true, this is all some rhetorical game.

I agree. I'm not arguing for infinite regress here. I'm sorry if somewhere along the line you decided that I was making such an argument. I thought that you were going to show me why God exists. It sounds like you expect me to prove the opposite to you. But you're the one making the positive claim, not me. I'm not telling you your God isn't real. I'm only saying that you haven't convinced me yet.

Never claimed I could show you why God exists. I've been pretty open about there being a lack of compelling evidence.

The alternative to God is no God, for whatever reason. I'm not trying to disprove your God here. I don't even have all the details about what it is yet.

No, the alternative to one explanation for existence is another. By process of elimination, we can thus narrow the possibilities. But if you're satisfied throwing your hands up, that's your prerogative.

 

[Vociferous]

(cont...)

If existence is infinite, then there is no origin that requires an explanation. Granted, you can still ask the question "why is there something rather than nothing", but the question will no longer be tied to any particular notion of time.

If an infinite existence is used to avoid any origin, the onus of that argument then falls on evidence/argument for an infinite existence. IOW, it only seems to amount to avoidance. Since when was " why is there something rather than nothing" tied to any particular notion of time? I think we all agree that time didn't exist prior to the beginning of existence.

That sounds like a sort of long-winded way of saying that while a multiverse might account for our universe, that only bumps the problem back a step, so that we need to ask "what accounts for the multiverse?" I agree with that.

I think that for the sake of avoiding unnecessary complication, maybe we should restrict our discussion to looking for an origin of our universe. Our universe is, after all, the only thing we actually have any observational evidence for. I think I said before, I'll be content if you can establish that your God made our universe. For now, I'm not worried about whether God made a multiverse.

Only if you refrain from posing infinite regresses to do so.
I'm weighing all the alternative explanations. If you have nothing to put on the other side of the scale, you are only trying to remove things from the side with all the weight. That should tell you something.

I'll concede your point, for now. Let's say that if your God (or the Christian God, if you prefer) can account for one universe then it can equally account for a multiverse that our universe might be embedded in.

I'm not quite sure what you're looking for when you ask me for a "solid" argument for a multiverse making our universe. You're probably aware that scientific theories of multiverses and how they might create universes are in their infancy right now. Another way to say that is they are speculative. It follows that I have no proof - or even persuasive evidence - (a) that any multiverse exists, or (b) that our universe is part of one, or (c) that the multiverse was any sort of "cause" of the big bang that started our universe. I freely admit that. On the other hand, I am not aware of any proof or evidence or theoretical reason why a multiverse, if one exists, could not have been a reason for our universe. Are you?

Logical arguments against infinite regress.

But your claim is that you know that your God is the reason for not only our universe but all of existence. It only remains for you to show me your proof, or at least make a persuasive argument to that effect. Something obviously convinced you of the truth of that proposition.

Never claimed to have any proof, nor any persuasive or compelling argument. I've repeatedly been pretty open about that. You asked how I came to my conclusion, not if I could persuade you.

Sorry? The idea that our subjective experience arises solely from our physical brains is not a genuine alternative to the idea that there is a God and we all have immortal souls, or whatever? Why not?

No, I meant that a multiverse is not a genuine alternative, since you say you don't believe one exists. That being the case, I'm not sure you've offered any alternative origin at all. Subjective experience arising from physiology is an alternative to the origin of such experience. It's just no more compelling than any other.

What argument?

As far as I can tell, you've made a negative argument that goes like this:

The universe can't be an uncaused cause. [No reason given so far that would not also defeat God as the uncaused cause, as far as I can tell.]
The multiverse can't explain why there is something rather than nothing because infinite regress. [I still don't understand why infinite regress is necessarily "fallacious" as you claim.]

You have spent most of your time arguing that if I can't explain why there's something rather than nothing, then God. But you don't get your God by default. God isn't the null hypothesis.

You started advancing your own argument, but so far you've only got as far as trying to define "nothing". Maybe you should give me the rest of your argument for God and we'll see how you go with that.

The universe "just is" avoids the question of origin just as much as an infinite regress. It seems avoidance is the only counterargument you have against a God. The universe could be an uncaused cause, if that offered us any explanatory power whatsoever. But that only raises more questions than it answers, like "why something rather than nothing". Not parsimonious.

If Sarkus, I, and my SEP citation haven't cleared up your confusion about the problems of infinite regress, I really don't know what else to tell you. You hanging onto that sounds more and more like faith, except that you've disavowed the only real alternative you've offerred. Why continue to repeat that seemingly empty rhetoric?

I never said God was the null hypothesis. I simply prefer it to the alternatives.

Okay. Let's agree they've been debunked. I never relied on them in the first place; you introduced them into this conversation. What follows from their debunking?

As I said before, I'm quite happy to have the discussion about souls and the like separately from the one where you prove God is real, if that makes it easier. I think it might save us both some time and effort if we agree to park that argument until later. I'm assuming the existence of souls won't be a central plank of your proof of God, here. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

It looks to me that you've already agreed that we can have that discussion separately, so I don't need to ask again, I assume. I would appreciate a one-line answer to the question I've just asked you here, though, out of interest.

Again, why are you suddenly erecting the straw man that I've ever claimed I could "prove God is real"?

If human choices show no evidence of arising physiologically, that's just more weight in favor of some other explanation. Not itself crucial to a theistic argument, but weighing on that side of the scale.

God is bound by logic? That sort of thing? Okay, granted. That seems sensible. It would be hard for us to have any meaningful discussion about God if that were not true.

Yes, God is bound by logic. As with nature, if God exists, logic derives from God.