John Powell, what is the evidence?

[Jedidiah]

I wrote:


What if the "truth" is not truly "terrible" at all? What if converting from mormon to atheism was going from one error to another?

John Powell wrote:


Then I would expect there to be good evidence to that effect. Do you have any?

John, I am not sure that you really want to know just what the rational process was that brought me from agnostic to born again Christian. I understand this is not quite what you asked. But, since there are a number of folks here who assume that Christianity is less rational than atheism, I will give it a bit of a go without regard to your interest.

I gave up on solipsism late in grade school. Not only would acceptance of such a thought seem irrational to me, it would positively put an end to any attempt to understand anything. Mind you, at this age I was only playing with concepts. I had never heard of solipsism and considered it nothing more than a mind game. It was not until about 8th grade that I really began to try to put together a rational model of the universe.

My first question is, did the universe always exist or did it begin to exist at some point? Was there a beginning? In the public schools (at least my public school) in the 50s and 60s the “big bang” was not widely taught. I had heard of it, but I preferred the continuous formation model. The historical formation of the perceivable universe was uncomfortable for me. Many years later I learned that philosophical repugnance was not something unique to me in considering such an origin.

I get sidetracked, sorry. This question did lead me to understand that something did have to be self-existent. It is unreasonable in my opinion to state that from true nothing the universe would come. I believe every rational person will accept the idea that something is self-existent. I choose to accept the existence of some “super-universe” that somehow gave rise to ours. I did not know how, but that seemed better than enlisting God.

However, how is it more rational to believe in a self-existent meta-universe than to believe in a transcendent creator? My first evidence is simply that the universe exists. If it does then either a transcendent creator is the real actual beginner, or some unknown and unknowable meta-universe accidentally gave rise to our universe.

Enough for now. I like to deal with one thing at a time.

beeman

[John Powell]

BEEMAN:
John Powell, what is the evidence?


BEEMAN:
What if the "truth" is not truly "terrible" at all? What if converting from mormon to atheism was going from one error to another?

POWELL:
Then I would expect there to be good evidence to that effect. Do you have any?


BEEMAN:
John, I am not sure that you really want to know just what the rational process was that brought me from agnostic to born again Christian.


POWELL:
Sure.


BEEMAN:
I understand this is not quite what you asked. But, since there are a number of folks here who assume that Christianity is less rational than atheism, I will give it a bit of a go without regard to your interest.


POWELL:
Now, THAT'S something I'm interested in. Is it true that atheism is MORE rational than Christianity? I think so, but I'm not sure how to persuade Christians to believe it.


BEEMAN:
I gave up on solipsism late in grade school. Not only would acceptance of such a thought seem irrational to me, it would positively put an end to any attempt to understand anything.


POWELL:
What "seems" irrational isn't necessarily.

Would it have seemed rational to you late in grade school that if you were to travel near the speed of light to another galaxy and return that millions of years will have transpired on Earth while you will have aged little? Well?

Would it have seemed rational to you late in grade school that the faster you go the more massive, thinner, and sluggish you become as measured by others watching you fly by, but not by yourself, AND that you would measure THEM to be more massive, thinner, and sluggish?

Would it have seemed rational to you late in grade school that if two events are simultaneous to you they won't be simultaneous to others moving relative to you?

Well?


BEEMAN:
Mind you, at this age I was only playing with concepts. I had never heard of solipsism and considered it nothing more than a mind game.


POWELL:
Perhaps it is. Were you ever able to prove that you weren't living in what is now popularly called the Matrix?


BEEMAN:
It was not until about 8th grade that I really began to try to put together a rational model of the universe.

My first question is, did the universe always exist or did it begin to exist at some point? Was there a beginning? In the public schools (at least my public school) in the 50s and 60s the "big bang" was not widely taught. I had heard of it, but I preferred the continuous formation model. The historical formation of the perceivable universe was uncomfortable for me. Many years later I learned that philosophical repugnance was not something unique to me in considering such an origin.


POWELL:
Correspondence-to-reality truth is not dependent upon the "preferences" of rational beings.


BEEMAN:
I get sidetracked, sorry. This question did lead me to understand that something did have to be self-existent.


POWELL:
Who says?

If it is the case that nothing is self-existent then is it the case that nothing is self-existent?


BEEMAN:
It is unreasonable in my opinion to state that from true nothing the universe would come.


POWELL:
I have trouble thinking that way too. Maybe it's genetics.


BEEMAN:
I believe every rational person will accept the idea that something is self-existent.


POWELL:
My acceptance would not make it so. Maybe my hominid mind is UNABLE to rationally think outside of the box.


BEEMAN:
I choose to accept the existence of some "super-universe" that somehow gave rise to ours. I did not know how, but that seemed better than enlisting God.


POWELL:
Given the choices, I agree.


BEEMAN:
However, how is it more rational to believe in a self-existent meta-universe than to believe in a transcendent creator?


POWELL:
Occam's razor.

The meta-universe can be expected to consist of fewer features than a transcendent creator. The meta-universe might consist of only a few basic features like some kind of pseudo-space and pseudo-time and pseudo-energy and an attractive principle or something like that. The creator, on the other hand, might consist of body, parts, and passions or other complicated characteristics. The creator of the physical universe might be derivable FROM the meta-universe given enough pseudo-time.


BEEMAN:
My first evidence is simply that the universe exists.


POWELL:
Ok, I agree.


BEEMAN:
If it does then either a transcendent creator is the real actual beginner, or some unknown and unknowable meta-universe accidentally gave rise to our universe.


POWELL:
If it exists then either it is caused or uncaused. If it is caused then the cause was either a transcendent creator or something else.


BEEMAN:
Enough for now. I like to deal with one thing at a time.

beeman


POWELL:
Sounds good.

What if God were to make a grand appearance on Earth and admit that He's actually just a super powered alien who did not create the universe or the Earth, and as far as He can tell there is no transcendent creator, but He did interact with the ancient Israelites and Christians and performed occasional "miracles" since that time. Would you then accept that the universe was probably not caused by a transcendent creator?

John Powell

[Jedidiah]

John,


What "seems" irrational isn't necessarily.
Is this an argument for solipsism? :grin:



Would it have seemed rational to you late in grade school that if you were to travel near the speed of light to another galaxy and return that millions of years will have transpired on Earth while you will have aged little? Well?

Would it have seemed rational to you late in grade school that the faster you go the more massive, thinner, and sluggish you become as measured by others watching you fly by, but not by yourself, AND that you would measure THEM to be more massive, thinner, and sluggish?

Would it have seemed rational to you late in grade school that if two events are simultaneous to you they won't be simultaneous to others moving relative to you?
First of all, remember I invented the idea of solipsism myself. It seemed irrational in that once accepted there was no where else I (at that time) could go. Any sort of system model I could create would be untestable.

Specifically to answer your question . . .I don’t suppose I would have considered them rational without some sort of reason. By the time I learned about relativity I was able to comprehend the concept (mind you I never have dealt with the theory itself).



Correspondence-to-reality truth is not dependent upon the "preferences" of rational beings.
I heartily agree now. Then was a different story.

On the other hand in the days following relativity several theories were put forth with no more reason than that a beginning in the recent past was philosophically distasteful. So I was not alone in taking a flawed step here.



Who says?

If it is the case that nothing is self-existent then is it the case that nothing is self-existent?
Please explain this. If our universe came into existence, something had to exist before. If there is nothing uncaused, you have an infinite progression of causality. In which case the infinite progression is uncaused.




I have trouble thinking that way too. Maybe it's genetics.
And maybe it is simply good sense.



Occam's razor.
The meta-universe can be expected to consist of fewer features than a transcendent creator. The meta-universe might consist of only a few basic features like some kind of pseudo-space and pseudo-time and pseudo-energy and an attractive principle or something like that. The creator, on the other hand, might consist of body, parts, and passions or other complicated characteristics. The creator of the physical hniverseight bderiva8e FROMhe met8univer8 givennough pseudo-time. .
The meta-universe might and it might not. Your reasons are not very consistent. How have you decided what some unperceived meta-universe might be like? How are these “basic” qualities simpler than the “complicated characteristics” you have created for the this unperceived uncaused creator? And, given that Occam’s parsimonious razor is a guide to a preliminary evaluation, not a test for accuracy, why are you applying it to some unperceived something?



If it exists then either it is caused or uncaused. If it is caused then the cause was either a transcendent creator or something else.
An acceptable restatement.


What if God were to make a grand appearance on Earth and admit that He's actually just a super powered alien who did not create the universe or the Earth, and as far as He can tell there is no transcendent creator, but He did interact with the ancient Israelites and Christians and performed occasional "miracles" since that time. Would you then accept that the universe was probably not caused by a transcendent creator?

No.

beeman

[John Powell]

BEEMAN:
John,

POWELL:
What "seems" irrational isn't necessarily.

BEEMAN:
Is this an argument for solipsism? :grin:


POWELL:
Sure.


POWELL:
Would it have seemed rational to you late in grade school that if you were to travel near the speed of light to another galaxy and return that millions of years will have transpired on Earth while you will have aged little? Well?

Would it have seemed rational to you late in grade school that the faster you go the more massive, thinner, and sluggish you become as measured by others watching you fly by, but not by yourself, AND that you would measure THEM to be more massive, thinner, and sluggish?

Would it have seemed rational to you late in grade school that if two events are simultaneous to you they won't be simultaneous to others moving relative to you?

BEEMAN:
First of all, remember I invented the idea of solipsism myself. It seemed irrational in that once accepted there was no where else I (at that time) could go.


POWELL:
This sounds like an argument to wishful thinking. Because you want there to be more to existence than just yourself, therefore, there is. That's deductively fallacious, you know.


BEEMAN:
Any sort of system model I could create would be untestable.


POWELL:
If you can't test something using science then it does not have the reliability of a scientific claim.


BEEMAN:
Specifically to answer your question . . .I don’t suppose I would have considered them rational without some sort of reason. By the time I learned about relativity I was able to comprehend the concept (mind you I never have dealt with the theory itself).


POWELL:
So, you accept them as true because scientists claim they're true and you trust the scientists or because you understand why they are true or what?


POWELL:
Correspondence-to-reality truth is not dependent upon the "preferences" of rational beings.

BEEMAN:
I heartily agree now. Then was a different story.

On the other hand in the days following relativity several theories were put forth with no more reason than that a beginning in the recent past was philosophically distasteful. So I was not alone in taking a flawed step here.

POWELL:
Who says?

If it is the case that nothing is self-existent then is it the case that nothing is self-existent?


POWELL:
I don't think you answered the question, Beeman.

If it is the case that P then is it the case that P, where P = "nothing is self-existent"?


BEEMAN:
Please explain this. If our universe came into existence, something had to exist before.


POWELL:
Who says?

If it is the case that the universe came into existence without anything existing before then is it the case that the universe came into existence without anything existing before?


BEEMAN:
If there is nothing uncaused, you have an infinite progression of causality. In which case the infinite progression is uncaused.


POWELL:
Who says?

If it is the case that everything is caused but there is no uncaused infinite progression then is it the case that everything is caused but there is no uncaused infinite progression?


POWELL:
I have trouble thinking that way too. Maybe it's genetics.

BEEMAN:
And maybe it is simply good sense.


POWELL:
Maybe. What scientific experiment can we perform to test these ideas?


POWELL:
Occam's razor.

The meta-universe can be expected to consist of fewer features than a transcendent creator. The meta-universe might consist of only a few basic features like some kind of pseudo-space and pseudo-time and pseudo-energy and an attractive principle or something like that. The creator, on the other hand, might consist of body, parts, and passions or other complicated characteristics. The creator of the physical universe might be derivable FROM the meta-universe given enough pseudo-time.

BEEMAN:
The meta-universe might and it might not. Your reasons are not very consistent. How have you decided what some unperceived meta-universe might be like?


POWELL:
By analogy with the physical universe. What's not very consistent about my reasons?


BEEMAN:
How are these "basic" qualities simpler than the "complicated characteristics" you have created for the this unperceived uncaused creator?


POWELL:
Well, start telling me things about this transcendent creator of yours. Does He/She/It/They have body, parts, or passions? Does He have a mind? Is He omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent? Is He a trinitarian being?


BEEMAN:
And, given that Occam’s parsimonious razor is a guide to a preliminary evaluation, not a test for accuracy, why are you applying it to some unperceived something?


POWELL:
Occam's razor does NOT only apply in the preliminary stages of theory formation. If two explanations are equally accurate at explaining the available good data then you should pick the simpler explanation. Why would you do otherwise?


POWELL:
If it exists then either it is caused or uncaused. If it is caused then the cause was either a transcendent creator or something else.

BEEMAN:
An acceptable restatement.

POWELL:
What if God were to make a grand appearance on Earth and admit that He's actually just a super powered alien who did not create the universe or the Earth, and as far as He can tell there is no transcendent creator, but He did interact with the ancient Israelites and Christians and performed occasional "miracles" since that time. Would you then accept that the universe was probably not caused by a transcendent creator?

BEEMAN:
No.

beeman


POWELL:
Would you remain Christian, given that hypothetical?

John Powell

[Jedidiah]

JP,


This sounds like an argument to wishful thinking. Because you want there to be more to existence than just yourself, therefore, there is. That's deductively fallacious, you know.
Irrelevant. The point is if I am all there is, there is nothing I can learn from accepting that. Is reality limited to what is deductively accurate?



So, you accept them as true because scientists claim they're true and you trust the scientists or because you understand why they are true or what?
Mostly the former. I have only the vaguest understanding of relativity.



I don't think you answered the question, Beeman.
I failed to see it as a question, in spite of the “?”. It appears to have no point.



Who says?
I say.



If it is the case that everything is caused but there is no uncaused infinite progression then is it the case that everything is caused but there is no uncaused infinite progression?
Yes.



Maybe. What scientific experiment can we perform to test these ideas?
We take a bucket of true nothing and wait to see if the universe forms.



By analogy with the physical universe.
What makes you think that either a speculated meta-universe or a transcendent creator would be analogous to the physical universe? At this point in the discussion we know absolutely nothing about either.



Occam's razor does NOT only apply in the preliminary stages of theory formation. If two explanations are equally accurate at explaining the available good data then you should pick the simpler explanation. Why would you do otherwise?
I have not suggested that you should. However, all things being equal you would be inclined to accept the simpler. This principle does not offer any evidence, and in that sense is preliminary. It leads you to test the simpler option first.



Would you remain Christian, given that hypothetical?
This is a pointless “hypothetical” question. There is no advantage to be gained from answering either yes or no.

beeman

[John Powell]

POWELL:
This sounds like an argument to wishful thinking. Because you want there to be more to existence than just yourself, therefore, there is. That's deductively fallacious, you know.

BEEMAN:
Irrelevant. The point is if I am all there is, there is nothing I can learn from accepting that.


POWELL:
Maybe there isn't really anything else to know. The rest you just make up.


BEEMAN:
Is reality limited to what is deductively accurate?


POWELL:
I don't think so. Reality just is. Reality is not limited by what we might argue about it, deductively or otherwise.

If you don't care about deduction then do you have an inductive argument you wish to promote?


POWELL:
So, you accept them as true because scientists claim they're true and you trust the scientists or because you understand why they are true or what?

BEEMAN:
Mostly the former. I have only the vaguest understanding of relativity.


POWELL:
Ok.


POWELL:
I don't think you answered the question, Beeman.

BEEMAN:
I failed to see it as a question, in spite of the "?". It appears to have no point.


POWELL:
That's odd you would say that given that you answered a similarly formed question below.


POWELL:
Who says?

BEEMAN:
I say.


POWELL:
That's very important, but of course it's a deductively fallacious appeal to your own authority.


POWELL:
If it is the case that everything is caused but there is no uncaused infinite progression then is it the case that everything is caused but there is no uncaused infinite progression?

BEEMAN:
Yes.


POWELL:
You answered this one, Beeman, but not the others of similar form. Can I safely assume you think the others are also true?


POWELL:
Maybe. What scientific experiment can we perform to test these ideas?

BEEMAN:
We take a bucket of true nothing and wait to see if the universe forms.


POWELL:
Too bad. I guess we'll just have to rely more on philosophy to assist us in coming up with an acceptable answer.


POWELL:
By analogy with the physical universe.

BEEMAN:
What makes you think that either a speculated meta-universe or a transcendent creator would be analogous to the physical universe?


POWELL:
Because all things are related.

Why would you think the meta-universe was NOT AT ALL analogous to our own?


BEEMAN:
At this point in the discussion we know absolutely nothing about either.


POWELL:
At least we can think about them, imagine what they might be like.


POWELL:
Occam's razor does NOT only apply in the preliminary stages of theory formation. If two explanations are equally accurate at explaining the available good data then you should pick the simpler explanation. Why would you do otherwise?

BEEMAN:
I have not suggested that you should. However, all things being equal you would be inclined to accept the simpler. This principle does not offer any evidence, and in that sense is preliminary. It leads you to test the simpler option first.


POWELL:
It leads you to ADOPT the simpler explanation AFTER determing that they match the available good data equally accurately.


POWELL:
Would you remain Christian, given that hypothetical?

BEEMAN:
This is a pointless "hypothetical" question. There is no advantage to be gained from answering either yes or no.


POWELL:
It's not pointless to me.

If you refuse to answer my hypothetical questions then you will have unfairly hamstrung my efforts to have a rational conversation with you.

Do you consider this hypothetical question to be too personal?

John Powell

[Jedidiah]

jp


It leads you to ADOPT the simpler explanation AFTER determing that they match the available good data equally accurately.
No, if parsimony is the only difference between two explanations you would TEND to give greater credance to the simplest. But what would happen in practice is you would test further.



If you refuse to answer my hypothetical questions then you will have unfairly hamstrung my efforts to have a rational conversation with you.
I had not noticed any real evidence of “efforts to have a rational conversation” on your part. I am rather disappointed.



Do you consider this hypothetical question to be too personal?
No, it is too foolish. I do not have any data on which to base an answer. You have created a totally separate imaginary universe. Any answer I gave would have no bearing on any discussion of the real world.


It remains that since atheism requires something to exist beyond the universe we can perceive, it is in no way more rational than any supernatural explanation. There appears to be no more to discuss. To bad.

beeman

[John Powell]

POWELL:
It leads you to ADOPT the simpler explanation AFTER determing that they match the available good data equally accurately.

BEEMAN:
No, if parsimony is the only difference between two explanations you would TEND to give greater credance to the simplest. But what would happen in practice is you would test further.


POWELL:
And, Beeman, after you've tested them both FURTHER and continued to find that they are, to within the errors, equally accurate, which one should you PUBLISH as your "final" answer?


POWELL:
If you refuse to answer my hypothetical questions then you will have unfairly hamstrung my efforts to have a rational conversation with you.

BEEMAN:
I had not noticed any real evidence of “efforts to have a rational conversation” on your part. I am rather disappointed.


POWELL:
Perhaps you aren't as perceptive as you thought.


POWELL:
Do you consider this hypothetical question to be too personal?

BEEMAN:
No, it is too foolish.


POWELL:
One of the reasons humans are so successful, Beeman, is due to their ability to consider "what if" scenarios. When religious people try to shut off this valuable tool when it might be used to challenge their cherished beliefs then they insulate their beliefs from the scrutiny of their own critical minds. Perhaps that's what you want to do.


BEEMAN:
I do not have any data on which to base an answer.


POWELL:
Yes you do. You have the universe that exists and a mind able to consider how other universes might be.


BEEMAN:
You have created a totally separate imaginary universe. Any answer I gave would have no bearing on any discussion of the real world.


POWELL:
Maybe. Maybe not. It might be worthwhile to consider the philosophical possibilities.


BEEMAN:
It remains that since atheism requires something to exist beyond the universe we can perceive, it is in no way more rational than any supernatural explanation.


POWELL:
Haven't you been listening, Beeman? Where did I ever affirm that atheism REQUIRES something to exist beyond the universe we can perceive?

If it is the case that nothing exists beyond the universe then is it the case that nothing exists beyond the universe?

Apparently you would answer "yes" given how you answered a previous, similarly worded question, which would imply that you accept that it's logically possible that the universe is all there is. Understand?


BEEMAN:
There appears to be no more to discuss. To[o] bad.


POWELL:
That's up to you. If you do respond, please also reply to the parts of my previous message you skipped. Thanks

John Powell

[Gilgaron]

beeman:

No, it is too foolish. I do not have any data on which to base an answer. You have created a totally separate imaginary universe. Any answer I gave would have no bearing on any discussion of the real world.

beeman

Powell is using the Possible Worlds method of philosophical argument. It is one of the core methods for arguing, precisely because it does have great bearing on our own world so far as our abilities to construct valid logical arguments. You don't want to make arguments where the premises can be true while the conclusion is false. Possible Worlds helps you avoid that.

I hope you don't give up, I've found the dialog quite interesting so far.

[Jedidiah]

Gilgaron,


Powell is using the Possible Worlds method of philosophical argument.

No, he danced from one system to another. I am embarassed that I tried to take him seriously at all. I have read enough jp posts to know better.

beeman

[John Powell]

BEEMAN:
No, he danced from one system to another. I am embarassed that I tried to take him seriously at all. I have read enough jp posts to know better.


POWELL:
Argument by assertion. You asserted it, but provided no supporting evidence.

Poisoning the well. Your comments have the apparent purpose of discouraging readers from seriously considering my posts here and elsewhere without providing my arguments that are fallacious and the reasons why those arguments are fallacious.

John Powell

[Jedidiah]

Ignore my poisoning of the well.

beeman

[John Powell]

POWELL:
You're a good man, Beeman.

Let's talk again later if you feel the urge.

John Powell