Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

[mican333]

Someone put it quite aptly: "If you can't show it, you don't know it".

The general idea is that, since it's in our interests to believe things which are true, then belief in claims which have not been demonstrated to be true is not rationally justified.

We operate on certain standards of evidence which have been demonstrably proven to be the most reliable method available to us currently when determining what is true or what to believe (to varying degrees of certainty, of course). Further, it has also been demonstrably proven that not applying or disregarding these standards leads to results which are incompatible with the truth.

Using faith instead of these standards, is one such example of a method that provides results which are demonstrably incompatible with the truth.

If our goal is to have as accurate an understanding of reality/truth as possible (by believing as many true things, and as few false things, as possible), then by definition we must apply the same proven standards to all claims when deciding what to believe in order for our belief/knowledge to be rationally justified.

Disregarding those standards in order to believe something which does not meet them is nothing more than special pleading and intellectual dishonesty.

Of course not applying that standard to the belief that God does not exist is also engaging in special pleading.

If we withhold judgment on whether X exists or does not exist until we see valid scientific evidence that support either conclusion, the only honest statement we can hold is that we don't know if X exists or not.

And if X is God, then agnosticism is the only logical choice.

[Belthazor]

Yes, it does indeed work through the form. So why don’t many people not feel and experience the Spirit in their life if it exists? This would solve so many problems and address so many questions … right? If we only could experience our existence (Spirit) instead of just existing as a bleep on the radar, there might be far less confusion about God's existence?

YES!!!



(that this isn't the case makes the Christian idea suspect. not proving it wrong to be sure, but grounds for honest skepticism.)

---------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 PM ----------

There actually is a good, logical reason for our lack of sensitivity to the experience of the divine in our life. We’re discussing that on the other thread.

That being the case, why is it not expressed more often?

I look forward to getting to it.

---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 PM ----------

And how are you reasonably sure the love you feel for your family/partner, friends is real? Does love leave ashes or do our loved ones somehow experience its invisible existence when we bleep off the radar?

"Love" is a mind state/emotion. It doesn't exist independent of a mind does it? Is it not a feeling and/or thought? When your mind can no longer experience it, it no longer exists...

[eye4magic]

That being the case, why is it not expressed more often?

One short answer to consider is that our senses are somewhat conditioned to our environment and our state of being (consciousness). So just as when our nose is clogged up from the effects of a cold, we can’t smell the garlic or the flowers. That doesn't mean those fragrances are not present. As far why can’t we more often experience the essence of existence ... we do have a certain amount of freedom to change (clear out clutter/unconform) our limited state of awareness and perception. The longer answer I will address in the other thread later this weekend.

"Love" is a mind state/emotion. It doesn't exist independent of a mind does it? Is it not a feeling and/or thought? When your mind can no longer experience it, it no longer exists...

We experience emotions through our feelings. We have no idea what happens to the love humans feel once we stop existing. All we know, using instruments that can only measure physical things, is that the matter that comprised our physical body is no longer a bleep on the radar of existence.

[Belthazor]

One short answer to consider is that our senses are

Limited in overall ability to perceive, at God's will.

---------- Post added at 05:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

One short answer to consider is that our senses are somewhat conditioned to our environment and our state of being (consciousness).

1. It would be natural to generally look to what you know affects your life more than what might affect your life. I think we agree here.
2. You seem to be saying consciousness is different than our soul. I think you said the mind and brain are separate. The mind basically being the soul and the brain kind of processing/receiving those thoughts (I may be thinking of MT or Squatch, my apologies if so)?.
Could you expand on this?

---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------

We experience emotions through our feelings. We have no idea what happens to the love humans feel once we stop existing.

Is there reason to think that a feeling or thought may exist independent of a mind?
When love fails (think divorce for instance), do the earlier thoughts of love still exist?

---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------

All we know, using instruments that can only measure physical things, is that the matter that comprised our physical body is no longer a bleep on the radar of existence.

1. Agreed, I know of no instrument that measures the non-physical.
2. The "matter" that was our body didn't bleep out of existence. Not trying to quibble over insignificant matters, but this needs clarification.

---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

The longer answer I will address in the other thread later this weekend.

I look forward to it. You are much calmer than most participants here on ODN
I'm guessing your motivation for being here is different than most people that are posting??

[Belthazor]

But the aliens in this scenario are the product of the same evolutionary forces that we are. Evolution (natural selection via environmental pressure and genetic mutation) isn't an Earth only process, it would be fundamental to the basic chemistry of our universe. Thus the aliens are just a part of this 'family' as we are.

Yet they are just NOT part of the evolution of life on Earth! Unless they and we were directly related, they would be observing Earth's evolution, not be a part of it, which kinda by definition makes them more objective than a participant (even if they evolved under similar "rules" as us).

---------- Post added at 06:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:58 PM ----------

I'd like to first, reground this point that regardless of the process or any of these points, we can't use the possibility of the asteroid not striking earth as a valid rebuttal of God's existence. That was the fundamental point you brought up and while I'm happy to move on to mitochondrial DNA, I want to lay that particular objection to bed.

Unless you are positing God made that asteroid some billions of years ago and then waited till the reign of dinosaurs to direct it toward Earth it does have implications?

If dino's hadn't (mostly) died off, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but God could still exist in this scenario. I believe we were discussing life evolving on Earth on this point, not as evidence that God doesn't exist?

[Belthazor]

I want to lay that particular objection to bed.

Still awake
(though not the objection you are thinking I think?...)



---------- Post added at 02:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:17 PM ----------

On to genetic lineages, I do remember us having a good discussion on the subject (though I don't recall where). I can't recall what your suggested rebuttal of mitochondrial Eve was or the basic point I was making that wandered onto the subject. The only other context I have was that we ended up talking a bit about speciation and definitions in biology. Given that we are fairly certain, given current genetic understanding, that all humans descended from a single female ancestor about 200,000 years ago I'm not sure how the link didn't support my point.

It was a lively part of our discussion!
I said if Adam and Eve were the first two human's ever, all other humans are a product of incest. You said that I (leaning toward materialism) believed that as well and provided a link.
This issue is, I believe your support stated something like (bad paraphrase):
"though this is a mitochondrial Eve to all living humans, this isn't to say she was the first human ever"

Two very different points to be sure.
MT tried to show inbreeding two humans/mammals won't have major genetic flaws, even after many generations, but didn't cut the mustard (nor ketchup/catsup and relish for that matter).
Also, could you support:
1. the genetic diversity we see today in humans could have originated from only two people
1a. since Adam and Eve would have the same DNA as she was made of Adam, not distinct from him, where would genetic diversity come from

---------- Post added at 02:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------

Again, I'm not stating my opinion here.

Why not? You give your opinion on everything else

Also, you believe the BB, so you do believe we can conceptually roll time backward and forward.

---------- Post added at 02:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 PM ----------

That depends greatly on the geometry of the universe. If the universe is, in fact, a sphere or something like it, with us on the outside of that sphere, by travelling another 15 billion light years you would just come back to your original spot.

Agreed on geometry.
Is there any reason to believe we can see all the edges of our universe (manifold thingy) or that it's a "sphere"?

---------- Post added at 02:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 PM ----------

Perhaps applying the same reasoning to a slightly different set of circumstances will help illustrate the issuse. Imagine I made the argument that we could go from a rational belief n zero gods to a rational belief in 1 with no underlying argument. I think I would be rightly pilloried for invoking an irrational claim. That is essentially what is being done here. We are adding other beings to the conclusion absent any rational reason to do so. Because an argument allows for a possible state does not make all possible states warranted or rational.

I don't see a rational reason to pick any number based on the KCA. You see 1 as virtually a given, I don't see reason to do that.

How is more than 1 "irrational"?
The KCA pretty much says "something sufficiently powerful" created the universe (manifold thingy) with no other conditions what that something might be.

You rule out ALL other possibilities based on what?

---------- Post added at 03:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 PM ----------

Could you elaborate why you think that that is the case? Where did I state that or why is it a logical inference from what I said?

My specific statement was:
[indent]We can find my initial review of why it requires an aphysical, atemporal, powerful intentful cause here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post486297

Note the bold above.
Must be atemporal with respect to our universe (manifold thingy).
You have not given a reason why the first cause necessarily has to be unaffected by time in any way. Telling me about entangled particles is just not like a conscious being thinking, making a decision, and then acting on that decision
Also, I don't think the KCA shows the first cause must necessarily exist after our universe was created, just before (or since you keep saying this cause is atemporal it didn't have to exist prior to the universe' creation, because affect one entangled particle and the other one "feels" it with no time passing...).

---------- Post added at 03:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:06 PM ----------

Yes. How did my response not cover that question? If what we mean by being doesn't require a temporal component, how would it be illogical for a being to "be said to exist or act absent a temporal component?"

You said it isn't required. We are exploring that possibility, cause it really makes no sense.

[Belthazor]

The original argument presented by me is in post 574 (http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post562974)

My specific statement was:

We can find my initial review of why it requires an aphysical, atemporal, powerful intentful cause here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post486297

To whit:

The first cause described above must by definition be [intentful], if it were a simple mechanical cause we cannot have a situation where the universe (the effect) does not exist while the cause does. The statement is If A then B for a mechanical cause/effect. You cannot by definition have A and not B.

This Cause must obviously be transcendent beyond space and time since it creates those dimensions.

This leaves the personal part of the conclusion. This logical necessity arises from the observation of effects within the universe that are, by logical necessity, not present within the First Cause. Only a sentient cause can produce an effect in a dimension it does not inhabit. IE a pencil that can only move on the X axis is not going to create a line along the Y axis.

By the way Scooter, Twit, God (first cause) could not have existed prior to T-0 cause there isn't a before,... per you, remember?...

[Squatch347]

Yet they are just NOT part of the evolution of life on Earth!... which kinda by definition makes them more objective than a participant (even if they evolved under similar "rules" as us).

This conclusion doesn't seem to follow. Why would them being part of a different instance of the same process make them more objective as to the process?

Unless you are positing God made that asteroid some billions of years ago and then waited till the reign of dinosaurs to direct it toward Earth it does have implications?

But how does the possiblity matter? Why are we considering an alternate state in which it didn't strike the Earth when we know that it did? God created a universe such that such an event actually occurred. That you and I can imagine a scenario where He created a universe that it didn't doesn't really have any material bearing on that fact.

It was a lively part of our discussion!
I said if Adam and Eve were the first two human's ever, all other humans are a product of incest. You said that I (leaning toward materialism) believed that as well and provided a link.
This issue is, I believe your support stated something like (bad paraphrase):
"though this is a mitochondrial Eve to all living humans, this isn't to say she was the first human ever"

Which is irrelevant. If all of humanity can trace it's lineage back to a single female, we are all the product of incest anyway. [I also recall that not being my only objection to the incest point].

1. the genetic diversity we see today in humans could have originated from only two people
1a. since Adam and Eve would have the same DNA as she was made of Adam, not distinct from him, where would genetic diversity come from

I'm not sure why that would be incumbant on me to support since the scientific consensus is that human beings did come from a single female. It would seem to be a problem for the peer-reviewed publications, and given that there doesn't seem to be a peer led objection, I think we can be confident it isn't an issue. I think this is an even firmer conclusion given the paper referenced discussed known and agreed rates of genetic drift.

Why would Adam and Eve have the same DNA? She is a woman after all, so her DNA should be, at least, somewhat different chromosonaly. The diversity's origin would depend a lot on the specifics of how God intervened. Was He using existing hominids that He breathed life into? Was he creating a de novo human from raw material? In either case, I don't see any issue with God altering DNA as part of the creative process. It would certainly seem an odd stumbling block for a being that can create human sentience, order quantum mechanics, and create life to not be able to alter DNA.

Also, you believe the BB, so you do believe we can conceptually roll time backward and forward.

Conceptually =/= in reality. Because we can imagine it going backwards does not mean we can imagine it going backwards and then replay it afresh. It simple means we can trace causality chains back.

Agreed on geometry.
Is there any reason to believe we can see all the edges of our universe (manifold thingy) or that it's a "sphere"?

The opposite in fact. [The sphere example was for illustrative purposes.] Rather (as WMAP showed), the universe is likely to be flat (or very nearly flat) and circular in shape. https://www.space.com/24309-shape-of-the-universe.html

Now of course, when we say "flat" here we don't mean it exactly in the way that we usually use it. The universe is still a three spatial dimensional object. Rather, what we are referring to is the curvature of the underlying spacetime that matter and energy exist in. This is where it gets a little technical. In Relativity gravity can warp or bend spacetime. Mass doesn't just affect other mass, it affects the underlying dimensions, bending them. The question is what shape were those dimensional sets in before mass affeced them? Did they bend back on themselves (sphere), continue on parrallel, diverge? The answer, we think, is that they are parrallel. Two particles moving parrallel to each other would, in fact, never get further apart or converge.

So what does this mean for your underlying point? That we need to distinguish between the observable universe and the global universe. The first is the "light cone" we live in (ie what ligh from where has reached Earth) and the second is the extant of the underlying dimensions. The light cone is what I think you initially brought up. There are parts of the universe not accessible to us in a sense. For example, the Andromeda galaxy as it existed in 1948, is not accessible to us. Light hasn't been able to travel from there to here in that time. Within the 13.8 billion light year observable universe, the further you go out the older the images you see to the edge, where you see matter and energy at its very earliest states.

So what would happen if you could magically travel 12 Billion light years out? You would see something very similar to what we see, a circle of about 13.8B light years, with earlier images as you got further away.

This has been a pretty fun digression, I haven't read about some of this stuff in a while. :-)

I don't see a rational reason to pick any number based on the KCA.

Occam's Razor, one is sufficient to elicit the effect and satisfies the law of parsimony.

If you came across a man with a bullet wound to the chest, would you assume dozens or hundreds of murderers?

Note the bold above.
Must be atemporal with respect to our universe (manifold thingy).

Ahh, I see the issue now, thanks. Atemporal doesn't mean that it can't interact with our time, only that it lacks a temporal component as one of its descriptive features. A as a prefix means "without" or "none" so an Asymptomatic patient lacks symptoms typical of a certain disease. In parrallel, an atemporal cause lacks a temporal component.

You said it isn't required. We are exploring that possibility, cause it really makes no sense.

What I pointed out is that the concept we have of being doesn't necessarily have a temporal component. Just like it doesn't necessarily have a gender, even if we commonly associate gender as a descriptive element of being.

I get that it is unintuitive because of our experience, but that doesn't mean it is an essential element of the concept. If we are to include it we need a better justification as to why.

By the way Scooter, Twit, God (first cause) could not have existed prior to T-0 cause there isn't a before,... per you, remember?...

:-) Ok, but I didn't say prior in that quote did I? And perhaps you'll remember that I also noted that prior means causally prior too, not just temporaly prior.

[Belthazor]

This conclusion doesn't seem to follow. Why would them being part of a different instance of the same process make them more objective as to the process?

You and I are contemporaries. I assume English (more accurately "American English") is both our first languages? Yet we struggle to get our ideas across effectively don't we? If I didn't know you better I might think you were purposefully "misunderstanding" what I am saying. However, we have talked quite a while now, and I don' think you would consciously do this, but being human maybe still on a subconscious level...???
I am going with:
I am not forwarding my ideas clearly enough, so:

Assuming aliens evolved from the same "processes" doesn't mean they would know it. If they did suspect it, they might be trying to confirm it. None of that really matters cuase they aren't a part of life's evolution on earth (unless they interfered with it. If they did interfere with it, then natural processes no longer apply!). If they were here to study life's evolution on earth, by definition means they don't already know
So they would see dino's mostly dying off and mammals "taking over". They would see these mammals evolve into humans (among vast others of courses) and then see how/when religion started (if they had enough time to watch thousands/millions of yrs of course).

Or maybe,
they would watch life evolve from a cell to vastly more complex life forms,.....and then humans "appeared" with no kind of explanation or connection to the already existing life (well, except for our DNA connection???...)...

---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 PM ----------

But how does the possiblity matter? Why are we considering an alternate state in which it didn't strike the Earth when we know that it did? God created a universe such that such an event actually occurred. That you and I can imagine a scenario where He created a universe that it didn't doesn't really have any material bearing on that fact.

Again sir, because if not for that particular event we would not be talking. Dino's or ? would be dominating earth instead of humans.
This is the evolution of life on earth.

---------- Post added at 07:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:18 PM ----------

I'm not sure why that would be incumbant on me to support since the scientific consensus is that human beings did come from a single female. It would seem to be a problem for the peer-reviewed publications, and given that there doesn't seem to be a peer led objection, I think we can be confident it isn't an issue. I think this is an even firmer conclusion given the paper referenced discussed known and agreed rates of genetic drift.

You provided one source that again I believe said NOT the first human ever, just related to all currently living homo sapiens. Hardly the claim you are making unless I grossly misunderstand "not the first human ever" which I remember your source stating.

Now, if you want to speculate that two humans can produce the genetic diversity we currently enjoy without support...um, ok...

There was no "first chicken nor egg". A beginning of life, sure. How it started ???. Maybe God, maybe not.