Conversations With Theists
by k3vin on Aug.21, 2008, under Atheism
In my experience most conversations with theists could abruptly end by asking a simple series of questions.
1. Do you want to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible?
2. How do you determine what is likely to be true or likely to be false?
3. How does your belief in god coincide with that your criteria for truth or likely truth?
4. How does your lack of belief in x coincide with that? x = anything crazy. ex: Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible pink unicorn, etc.
After honest answers to these questions a number of things can happen. All of which should give you a full understanding of their personal convictions and motivations.
- You realize that their answer to number 1 is wacky. If you don’t want to believe in true things then you’ll believe in anything.
- You realize that their answer to question 2 will allow for too much ‘junk’ and the answer to question 4 will most likely be “I don’t know.”
- You realize that their answer to question 3 doesn’t match up to their answer to question 2. They might give a special case for god.
- If at any point they ramble off scripture I start to nod off. These questions are about how you decide what to believe in. If you use the bible to describe that you have to justify this. Eventually it should boil down to WHY you believe the bible is true and the answers to this are very few: Faith, Fear (pascal’s wager), personal revelation, uncritical acceptance, and a couple more. The only one that I can sympathize with is personal experience.
I’ve been in many conversations that are rooted deep within scripture and I’ve started with this line of questions. The conversation ends. Quickly. We resolve the differences in thinking and we can both see the key differences in our thinking. That’s why we debate. That’s why we converse. That’s why conversations happen. To find where our views differ and explore the reasons behind them.
If you’re an atheist or agnostic tell me what you think of this tactic.
If you’re a theist please give me some rational answers to this! I have yet to find sensible answers…
August 25th, 2008 on 5:16 pm
Okay.
1. Do you want to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible?
Yes.
2. How do you determine what is likely to be true or likely to be false?
Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Truth can be determined by internal consistency (Is it logical?), experiential knowledge (Are the premises used in the logic true? Can they be verified by experiment or sense perception?), and the logical out-workings of alternative beliefs (Are other beliefs self-defeating? Are other beliefs unable to able to explain reality?).
3. How does your belief in god coincide with that your criteria for truth or likely truth?
God is the only possible explanation for what I find in reality (Arguments are summarized:
http://jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com/search/label/Nine%20Reasons%20Why%20Christianity%20is%20The%20Only%20True%20Religion
Please start at the bottom and work you way up.)
4. How does your lack of belief in x coincide with that? x = anything crazy. ex: Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible pink unicorn, etc.
The specific things you mention do not adequately explain reality.
JK
August 25th, 2008 on 7:50 pm
JK: Your answers to 1 and 2 I generally agree with. You have some pretty solid criteria and you actually demonstrate some of the principles of science in some of them. So let’s move on to the ones I don’t agree with…
3. I’m not sure if I’m completely against some people explaining unknown phenomena with the term ‘god.’ However, this ‘god’ needs to be able to be defined. If it isn’t then how can demonstrate that it’s true or untrue? How can we falsify it? And if you can’t define this god with more substance than more unknowns then how is this better than no answer at all? How is this better than “I don’t know?”
4. Woah, woah woah. You can’t explain reality with the Flying Spaghetti Monster?! It explains more than you might think. The FSM created this world. We are being touched by the noodley appendage this very moment. In fact, that’s what gravity is. His invisible noodle appendages hold each and every one of us to this earth. In fact, he does this at a very consistent rate to everything. They proved this scientifically. RAman.
Give this point up. You can make up something that sufficiently explains anything. That doesn’t cause it to be true. If a medieval peasant were to be brought to this current time he’d see technological advancements that he’d have no clue about. His only preconception for this kind of thing would be magic. Does that mean our technology is magic? If he saw a movie, he might think it was a window to another world (literally) and that everything happening in the movie was true.
August 25th, 2008 on 9:09 pm
“…this ‘god’ needs to be able to be defined… if you can’t define this god with more substance than more unknowns then how is this better than no answer at all? How is this better than “I don’t know?””
He is defined quite clearly from the arguments I use on my blog (jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com). The arguments (Cosmological, Teleological, Moral, and Transcendental) are conclusive in that they each prove a part of God’s nature, one of His ‘attributes.’
“…How can we falsify it?”
This is not hypothesis testing. This is metaphysics.
Besides, how do we falsify the statement that ‘only what is falsifiable can be proven?’ This concept is abstract, that is, not physical.
Usually people who ask that question turn out to think that ‘only what can be verified by the senses is true.” The problem with that is the sentence “only what can be verified by the senses is true” cannot be verified by the senses. It, too, is an abstract concept.
“…You can make up something that sufficiently explains anything. That doesn’t cause it to be true.”
You cannot make up something that explains the universe we find ourselves in that you do not define as God is defined. Once you define it that way, whatever name you call it, it is still God.
“…technological advancements …magic.”
What is the point of that, exactly? So we may find a scientific explanation for some things in the future. That does not explain the way things are now. The arguments for God’s existence I put forth reason directly from what we find now. The conclusions are inescapable. I can elaborate here if you want.
August 26th, 2008 on 10:10 am
I still don’t understand how god couldn’t be a placeholder for things we don’t know. Just because you cannot imagine another, more plausible, explanation for a phenomena doesn’t mean assigning ‘God’ to the cause is the answer or even AN answer.
“How do we falsify the statement that ‘only what is falsifiable can be proven?”
I’m not talking about proof. In reality, proof is something that only exists in mathematics (a system created by humans and where the presuppositions of which are generally accepted). I’m talking about evidence. I could claim that there’s a rock somewhere in space that causes storms on earth by an unknown force. The rock cannot be seen by any telescopes or any human inversion. I then claim that everyone must have faith in the rock and prey to it, for it will bring a good rainy season. Do you see how this claim is not falsifiable because it is formed in such a way that we cannot test it. Therefore, we can’t assume it’s true. It’s as simple as that.
I’ll add some more later… for now, I have to go.
August 26th, 2008 on 10:38 am
What seems to be the sum of your argument is a giant argument from ignorance. You define everything we don’t have good answers for as God. But the thing is, there’s no evidence for these things to be caused by one thing. For example, the cause for morality might be different than the cause for the universe existing. So, in that context, I don’t understand how “God did it” is any better than “I don’t know what did this.”
“I can elaborate here if you want.”
Please do… I’d also like a clearer definition for your view of god. I think that might help us come to some sort of understanding.
August 26th, 2008 on 3:43 pm
“I still don’t understand how god couldn’t be a placeholder for things we don’t know. Just because you cannot imagine another, more plausible, explanation for a phenomena doesn’t mean assigning ‘God’ to the cause is the answer or even AN answer.”
“What seems to be the sum of your argument is a giant argument from ignorance… in that context, I don’t understand how “God did it” is any better than “I don’t know what did this.”
There is no ignorance here. The arguments move directly from the things we find to the things that must be to explain what we find. The things we find in the universe we exist in must have God as their explanation. No other explanation could possibly be given.
“…Do you see how this claim is not falsifiable because it is formed in such a way that we cannot test it. Therefore, we can’t assume it’s true…”
God’s existence is proven by the things we find in our universe given the tests for truth I gave in my original comment. Since God’s existence is proven, why is there some need for it to be falsifiable? If a fact is shown to be true through proven propositions and logical reasoning, then that fact cannot be falsified by definition. That does not mean it is not true; it has been shown to be a fact.
You define everything we don’t have good answers for as God. But the thing is,
“…there’s no evidence for these things to be caused by one thing…”
The cosmological argument shows that there is a first cause that has always existed, exists outside the universe (and so is not bound by it), had the power to create the universe, and had the power to act or not to act without outside influence (a key faculty of personhood). This argument lays the basis for the idea that each argument refers to the same first cause because this first cause existed by itself at one time. It must therefore be the source of everything else.
All things must issue from this first cause, so the teleological argument shows that the first cause had to have intelligence and purpose (two more key faculties of personhood). The moral argument shows that the first cause must be good, and the transcendental argument shows that this first cause is the only explanation for the abstract, universal principles we find in the universe (laws of logic, laws of mathematics, etc.).
If you really want me to elaborate, I can start with the cosmological argument. Once that argument is demonstrated, then and only then will I move on to the others. Let me know.
JK
August 26th, 2008 on 5:16 pm
The cosmological grants god the power to create the universe and exempts itself from the question it was made to answer by classifying it outside of the universe (and so it wouldn’t have to follow the rules of this universe). What is the justification for this exemption? How does this actually solve the problem?
The way the cosmological goes, as I understand it, is as follows:
1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. If you follow the chain of events backwards through time, it cannot go back infinitely, so eventually you arrive at the first cause.
3. This cause must, itself, be uncaused.
4. But nothing can exist without a cause, except for God.
5. Therefore, God exists.
Great… except for the fact that “everything that exists must have a cause” is derived from the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics deals exclusively with mass and energy. Great. Oh wait, what about time and space? The universe is supposed to contain those attributes as well. Well…. we don’t know. That’s right. I said it. We don’t know. So if, by another action, space-time were created then your god would be limited. However, I admit that I cannot demonstrate that this god didn’t also *poof* space-time into existence as well. But this is far from proven.
Why, also, must this “uncaused cause” be god. Is it because you defined god as such? How do you know this god is all powerful and intelligent? What justification do you have to assume god wasn’t created? Isn’t it easier to assume that the universe always existed instead of claiming that an all powerful, intelligent, universe maker existed?
It seems kind of like explaining a rock on the ground by claiming that an ultra superior human race traveled back in time and created a giant rock factory to make THIS rock.
I do have a question though… Will we see God being used as an unknown constant in study with universe origin? (currently big bang) That would be pretty funny…
August 26th, 2008 on 6:06 pm
Kevin,
You miss the force of the cosmological argument, but at least your summary indicates you have studied it. I appreciate that.
I exist. I must exist in order to deny my own existence.
I was caused. There was a time when I came to be. This is evidenced by my own self-awareness and the empirical evidence that others came to be.
There must have been a cause of my existence. Something must have existed before me in order to bring about my existence.
If I trace back from the cause of my existence to the cause of the cause of my existence, and so on, I must arrive at something that never came to be. The chain of causes cannot go back as an infinite regress of finite causes because the regress would never have arrived at me. The end of a series that has no end cannot be reached. If the string of causes went back without end, the chain would never have caused me.
Note that causation here does not really depend on the First Law of Thermodynamics. It rests on an older theorem: ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing, nothing comes). Remember we are talking about causing to be.
This first cause must have always existed. The impossibility of moving through an infinite regress of finite (discrete) elements shows this. Everything that actually exists must have been brought about by something that has always existed. If space and time are actually entities, they are included.
This first cause must have the power to bring about everything else. This first cause must be able to cause itself to act to produce everything else. The first cause existed before everything else, so it had nothing else to cause it to act.
This first cause must always exist because it has the power of being in itself. Again, it existed before everything else, so nothing else could cause it to be.
So the argument has arrived at a being that has always existed. It cannot cease to exist because it existed outside everything that can cause it to cease to be. It’s being is not caused by anything. This is the notion of being eternal.
This being has the power to bring the universe into existence (what Christian theology has meant by omnipotence; it’s not the power to do anything but the power to anything to the creation that is possible), and has the power to cause itself to act (this is part of the foundation for personhood). I can also argue that this first cause must be
What if the universe has some element in it that has always existed? Then that element must have always existed and cannot cease to exist, has the power to bring the universe into existence, and has the power to cause itself to act. Now we are just arguing about the name of the first cause, not its nature. Christian Theology has always talked about God’s omnipresence, so the idea that He is everywhere in some sense is not new. In this sense, science may theoretically discover the first cause within our universe.
I have not employed science in the formation of this argument, but others like William Lane Craig have. They reason from the scientific evidence that time, space, and matter had a beginning. I choose not to because I do not think science has all of the answers about the beginning of the universe yet. I am holding out for the theory that reconciles General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. There was an article not to long ago in “Discover” magazine about one attempt to do this that is in progress. In the proposed equations, time dropped out. It may well be that time is just an abstraction after all (I think this, but I have not formulated a proof yet.). The scientific evidence is the place where I do what you just did and say: “We don’t know.”
This is my best shot at explaining the argument given my limited language skills (I am an engineer buy training and ‘by nature.’). It should at least be a conversation starter.
August 27th, 2008 on 8:42 pm
Just stumbling by…
For info’s sake, while I suppose I’m a theist, I’m not Christian, as I found the professed morality and sketchy history to be inconsistent.
1) Yes, I strive always to find that which is “true”, by the best definition I can arrive at, while understanding that complete truth is most likely beyond my comprehension.
2) Internal consistency, peer referenced exterior consistency, repeatability, so on.
3) I understand that we as finite human beings must take some things on faith. We have to start somewhere, to build our interpretation of the universe. I am psychotic (schizo-affective, not full out schizophrenic), and I am very very very aware that my senses and even my thoughts can be hijacked and lie to me. Therefore, I am constantly fact-checking everything I perceive, and I am constantly aware that anything, anything I perceive could be wrong. I have had experiences, repeatable, consistent and exteriorly verified experiences that have lead me to the conclusion that there is god(s). This is something that I have fact-checked as much as possible, and otherwise take on faith, in much the same way I must take on faith that the colour I perceive grass to be is green (when it’s not brown ;-)), that my boy smells better when he’s turned on, that my mother is biologically related to me (that I wasn’t mixed up in the hospital, or adopted and not told), and that I’m not actually in a pod somewhere being fed virtual sensory information (a theory that my dad discussed with me, long before the Matrix came out, that used to give me nightmares). I could be wrong, but I have to start somewhere to build an idea of “true”.
4) I haven’t met the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or pink unicorns. I have no active beliefs in these things, while having no active disbelief in them either. If evidence presents itself, I will re-evaluate my beliefs. Until then, it isn’t effecting my world, and thusly isn’t really worth my time thinking about, when I have to spend so much of my attention trying to figure out which voices I hear are actually there.
I find that scientific types take too much for granted the things THEY take on faith. How do you decide what is real? How do you fact-check your observations on reality, when the mind is such a fragile thing, and senses can and do lie, even in stable people, and the only thing you can remotely be sure of is that you probably exist?
As long as we all know where our cornerstones/baselines are, and that all our ideas on reality and the universe are just theories (of the scientific definition) that could be wrong, and are willing to re-evaluate in the face of evidence, I don’t think there’s anything else we can ask from people.
Flowers… @};-
Jasmin