Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

We Should Care About Your Personal Incredulity Why Now?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Prominent atheist John W. Loftus gives us an example of a common atheist argument from the size of the universe when he writes:

I think it’s [i.e., the vast size of the universe] even more damaging when it comes to an omnipotent God who supposedly created the universe for the specific purpose of gaining the affections of people on this lone planet of ours. If this is what he desired (for some irrational egotistical reason) he could have simply created us on a flat disk in a much smaller universe like the one the ancients believed existed.

This argument is a hot mess, a mishmash of factual errors,* self-serving assumptions and faulty logic.  But let us set most of that aside and focus on Loftus’ argument from personal incredulity.

The argument from personal incredulity takes the form of “I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false.”  Notice how Loftus exhibits this fallacy.  His argument boils down to the assertion that he cannot imagine why God, if he existed, would have created a large universe.  A large universe surely exists.  Therefore, God does not exist.

Here is the critical question that is left unanswered:  Why should the poverty of John Loftus’ imagination concerning God’s motivations matter to us?

The argument from personal incredulity is a species of the “argument from ignorance.”  Duco A. Schreuder writes:  “These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one’s understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality.”

Just so.  The limits of Loftus’ understanding about God’s motivations does not change what is true.  Indeed, if a God powerful enough to create such a vast universe exists, we can be certain that our understanding of him would be extremely limited.  Therefore, it is absurd to suggest that very limited understanding should be the foundation of an argument for his non-existence.

 

 

 

___________________________

*His assertion that the ancients had no conception of the scale of the universe, for example, is pure bunkum:  “The earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point.”  Ptolemy’s Almagest, Book I, Chapter 6.  See also, Psalm 8 (“When I consider thy heavens . . . What is man, that thou art mindful of him?”).

Comments
Mung @73
God loves all his children.
That's true, but what do you understand by "his children"? Check this out: John 1:1-5,9-14 (ESV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, yet the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own people did not receive Him. But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
By the way, God loves all humans, even those who are not His children. However, only His children will be with Him forever.Dionisio
November 25, 2017
November
11
Nov
25
25
2017
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT
@75 follow-up: KF, aren't you a priest of the High Priest? 1 Peter 2:9-10 (ESV)
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Commentary from the Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries:
Peter’s language in these verses, applying the Old Testament terms for Israel to the church, asserts the continuity between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church, representing them as the one people of God. But you. This marks a sharp contrast between the destiny of unbelievers (v. 8) and the status of the elect. The theme of God’s sovereign choice of both Christ and the church is prominent in this passage (vv. 6, 9). that you may proclaim. The election and calling of God’s people is not only for salvation but for service as well. All believers are called to bear joyful witness to the saving acts of God. not a people, but now you are God’s people. The Greek word translated “people” (laos) is used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, primarily for Israel. Continuing to apply to the church Old Testament texts dealing with Israel, Peter draws on the Septuagint of Hos. 1:6, 9, 10; and 2:23. In its original context, this is a prophecy about God’s embracing Israel after He had rejected her. Peter, like Paul (Rom. 9:25, 26), interprets the Hosea passages to include the reception of Gentiles into the people of God. God’s mercy extends to undeserving Jews and Gentiles alike, and there is essential continuity between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church.
Commentary from MacArthur Study Bible (NKJV):
a chosen generation. Peter uses OT concepts to emphasize the privileges of NT Christians (cf. Deut. 7:6–8). In strong contrast to the disobedient who are appointed by God to wrath (v. 8) the people of God. The ideas of this verse come from Hos. 1:6–10; 2:23. Cf. Rom. 9:23–26 where the reference is explicitly to the calling of a people made up of Jews and Gentiles.
Dionisio
November 25, 2017
November
11
Nov
25
25
2017
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT
Interesting conversation:
J-Mac @60:
kairosfocus, I’m sorry to ask but are you a priest? Or a former one?
kairosfocus @71:
J-Mac, No, in fact I am a lifelong Protestant. KF
Mung @73
God loves all his children.
Dionisio
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT
KF @69: That's a simple example of honesty. Thanks.Dionisio
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT
J-Mac, No, in fact I am a lifelong Protestant. KF
God loves all his children. :)Mung
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT
JDK, facts about the real world are generally accepted on an inductive basis. That is, investigations, observations etc that strictly support but do not necessitate the truth of their conclusions. For instance I missed the peculiarity of how Americans count "Presidents" above, and because Wikipedia uses a table I missed the double-count. That BTW, is a definitional stipulation but its relevance is a matter of observed, contingent fact. Deductions concerning contingent, factual matters generally bring to the table issues arrived at inductively which are open in many cases to disputes if people are sufficiently motivated to challenge premises as they reject conclusions. This then leads to onward disputes and the chain of warrant problem, thence our finitude, fallibility and -- too often, ill-will. KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT
J-Mac, No, in fact I am a lifelong Protestant. KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT
Mung, Yes, I believe so.daveS
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT
JAD, I stand corrected on the specific historical point. KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT
daveS
No induction, only deduction here.
You arrived at this conclusion via deduction?Mung
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
Right. Of course, the deduction includes a lot of propositions about the real world that are true, such as two discontinuous presidencies by the same person count as two, but two continuous presidencies count as one; and also lots of facts like George Washington was the first president, John Adams the 2nd, etc. You can't use deduction in a vacuum: you have to have propositions about the world being discussed that are accepted as true.jdk
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
No induction, only deduction here.daveS
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
My explanation: a U.S. President is not just President of the country but President of his (or her, if we ever get there) Presidency. If a President is defeated in an election that ends his Presidency. If he is re-elected that continues his Presidency. However, if he is defeated and runs again and defeats his successor, as was the case with Cleveland, he begins another or new Presidency. So one person can have two Presidencies and get counted twice as President. Theoretically Cleveland could have done it a third time (he lived till 1908.) Terms limits now limits Presidents two consecutive or non-consecutive terms. Nevertheless, what happened with Cleveland could happen again. Is the reasoning here an example of deductive or inductive logic?john_a_designer
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
JAD, I would say we are counting two sets: Presidents and men who have been president, then comparing the two counts. I don't see any place for probability in this question. My 2 cents, anyway.daveS
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
DaveS and JDK are correct but they didn’t answer my other questions. What kind of logic and reasoning are we using here? It appears that KF didn’t read the Wikipedia article very carefully. Here is a more official source. https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/Presidentsjohn_a_designer
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th president. The proposition is true, and can be checked with verified facts.jdk
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
JAD, It is correct that only 44 men have been president, but Trump is the 45th, at least according to the way these things are counted. Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th.daveS
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
kairosfocus, I'm sorry to ask but are you a priest? Or a former one?J-Mac
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
JDK, I gather some LDS folks speak in pretty much those terms; though I stand to be corrected. Historic, apostolic Christian theology is decisively shaped by the Bible, properly exegeted. This in turn pivots on the testimony of the 500 witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus and his view of the Hebraic scriptures that prophesied Messiah, specifically a suffering servant. There is no support in the relevant scriptures for such a view. Speculation down that line without actual evidence of such a race seems ill advised. We could speculate that one day we would be missionaries to the stars, as I recall coming up in some sci fi. Surviving Tulareen [?] Posleen (a fictional dragon-like race with a range of ability from subrational cannon-fodder to so-called god-kings) becoming Catholic Christians after a formal battle of champions, IIRC. The extradimensional beings discussed are discussed in terms of permanent loss of a first estate in the Scriptures, though I have seen Sci Fi that has angels going back to the side of Heaven . . . speculative stuff of dubious status. We could speculate on other things too, but without significant support from that frame of thought. My own inclination is that that which is truth will be true together, and if some thing X is well warranted as true then some thing Y which is inconsistent with X has a low plausibility of truth. KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
JAD, First, a factual check confirms a 45 count: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States Second, the proposition is self-contradictory. A set of discrete elements cannot have in the same sense and circumstances cardinality 44 and 45. However, if the ambiguity between President Elect and actual President is slipped in and the timeline is after Nov 8 '16 but before a certain moment Jan 20 was it 2017, we can have 44 serving and one elect. But that elect is not a President, as not sworn in. KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
KF @ #51 brings up some good points about reasoning and logic. It reminded me of a problem in logic that I recently ran across which can be presented very simply and concisely. What follows is my personal effort to present the problem. Consider the following position: Donald J. Trump is officially the 45th President of the United States. However, including Trump only 44 men have served as President. Is this proposition true or false? What kind of reasoning and logic would you use to prove that it is true or false? Can you assign probabilities to the proposition? Does it do you any good (other than one or zero) to say that it is probably false or vise/versa probably true? I am going to argue that the proposition is true. Do you agree with me? If you don’t, how would you prove me wrong?john_a_designer
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
Thanks, kf. Two further points: You write,
JDK, it is reasonable to entertain the possibility of other races on other planets and in other solar systems, ....
Good, but that doesn't answer my question. My question is it reasonable, from a Christian perspective, to entertain the possibility that God has engaged with some (perhaps a very large number) of those races, including offering the prospect of salvation, in ways similar to the ways he has engaged with us? Also, you write,
You asked and I responded on what the Judaeo-Christian scriptures say that may be relevant to the matter, which is where extra-dimensionality came in. KF
Just a side note: I looked back at my posts and I don't believe I asked about Judaeo-Christian scriptures. I'm assuming this discussion with me is about Christians who accept the current vastness and age of the universe.jdk
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
CR, your latest remarks lead me to again point out that ethical theism is a general worldview position that roots reality in the necessary and maximally great being we call God, it is not a matter of the theology or scriptural or oral traditions of any given religion or mere comparison of such religions or the like. KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
CR, perhaps Wiki on the modern understanding of induction may help as a 101:
Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.[1] Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as the derivation of general principles from specific observations, though some sources disagree with this usage.[2] The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it. In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from general statements to individual instances (for example, statistical syllogisms
Argument that supports. I do not like the "probability" language for various reasons, I would suggest the term, plausibility. I also hold that in this sense, abductive reasoning in the sense of inference to best supported explanation, is inductive. Induction being reasoning on more or less cogent support, not entailment. Truth, I take it -- echoing Ari -- is that which says of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not. KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
@JDK I'm trying to take that idea seriously, for the purpose of criticism. That means assuming that idea is true, in reality, and that all other accepted Christian views are also true, and that everything should conform to them. Specifically, I'm referring to a Christian view that Genesis reflects our modern day conception of the universe, as opposed to the Hebrew conception of the Universe. Or to rephrase, if there are no consequences for any Christian views, when taken individually or as a whole, then how can we possllty hope to find errors in them?critical rationalist
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
JDK, it is reasonable to entertain the possibility of other races on other planets and in other solar systems, and even in other sub-cosmi. Just, we should recognise that speculation is speculation and Science Fiction is just that, fiction. You asked and I responded on what the Judaeo-Christian scriptures say that may be relevant to the matter, which is where extra-dimensionality came in. KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
CR: First, this is not correct, as metaphysics [roughly, study of worldviews] is not reducible to epistemology:
theism is a specific case of foundationalism and justificationism. In theism, God is an authoritative source of knowledge. While empiricism was an improvement, it just exchanged one authoritative source, God, with another authoritative source, experience in the form of empirical observations.
Second, despite the many attempts to dismiss the idea of a finitely remote start-point for reasoning and warranting knowledge claims that is readily seen from the emergence of chains of warrant. They cannot go on forever, or we would get nowhere. We have finitely remote start points, which may be partly based on what we observe, partly on how we reason and seek coherence, partly what is self-evident, partly, what seems good to us. In short, there is an irreducible element of faith. Next, we cannot escape seeking truth at some level, as even the case you cited and demanded a response demonstrated. After this, Theism is not a system of blind appeal to the authority of God to ground knowledge etc. In relevant part, it answers, how do we get a world in light of the logic of being, and in light of our presence as rational and responsible significantly free creatures who are inevitably morally governed. Going on, justificationism is a term of derogation and dismissal, not a proper response. It is readily seen that we may err, and that error exists is self evidently, undeniably true, I showed this above in brief. Therefore, collectively, we need to provide reasonable warrant for what we hold to be true or right etc. An individual needs not warrant the whole panoply of knowledge, indeed, cannot. But collectively, we do need to give a reason for the views, hopes, expectations and policies we have. And, might and/or manipulation are not good enough for that. Such warrant is inevitably limited and finite, often beset with difficulties and more. This is why we collectively have a responsibility of comparative difficulties analysis. On, factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power (neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork). God can and in my experience does reveal truths that can be recognised as knowledge and can and does reveal himself in a personal relationship so that one may come to know and trust God. But that is utterly different from providing a reasonable answer on why one may fulfill intellectual duties to truth, reason etc and be a theist. Though, actual experience of God in relationship is personally decisive. And, for the Christian, part of that will be the witness of the 500 as recorded within 5 - 25 years and passed down to us in an unbroken chain regarding the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead, and the wider witness of the millions to the life transforming power of that risen Christ. That is specific to the Christian tradition and witness. We were not discussing that, I spoke above to generic ethical theism, which is a worldview and is assessed on those terms. That is why I took time to address necessary being and the need for a finitely remote world root. It would also be what we need a being at world root level that bridges the IS-OUGHT gap. After centuries of debates, the only serious candidate is the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our nature. As is predictable, you do not have another such candidate. Or, you would have long since provided it. Finally,l as for inductive reasoning, we all use it, starting with trusting the food we eat and the water we drink. Here is Locke's anticipation of the sort of views of our time that challenge that sort of thing, in his introduction to his essay on human understanding, section 5:
Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2 & 13, Ac 17, Jn 3:19 - 21, Eph 4:17 - 24, Isaiah 5:18 & 20 - 21, Jer. 2:13, Titus 2:11 - 14 etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.
And yes, Locke respected the insights in the Holy Bible. I repeat, we are inductive thinkers starting with what we trust to eat and drink and onward from there. Enough for now, KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
Hmmm, CR. I think maybe you are misunderstanding where I've coming from. I am certainly not asking questions that have anything to do with what the Bible says about the universe. Also, I know quite well that I am, as someone said above, engaging in theological speculations: I don't think there is any way we can know, ever, very much at all about whether life exists on other planets, especially in other galaxies. I'm just exploring the idea that if one accepts the Christian view about design and the relationship between God and human beings on earth, then it seem to me reasonable to accept, or at least entertain, the hypothesis that he has repeated that throughout the universe rather than having just engaged in this way with the earth. I am interested in what other have to say about this point.jdk
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
kf. I’m not talking at all about “extradimensional races”. I’m just talking about living creatures such as humans. Also, no matter what we may know about the scarcity of favorable planets, if one accepts that our planet is privileged for life due to God’s design, then obviously he could act similarly, however he implements design, in many other places.
You seem to want your cake and to eat it too. One one hand, when we point out that Genesis seems to point to the Hebrew conception of the universe, theists claim it actually reflects the vast scope of the entire universe, with those lights representing other suns like ours, etc. But, on the other hand, you now seem to suggest that it does not actually reflect that scope of the universe. Specifically, it there could have been other "earths" created in the universe around those very suns, in which God created other variations of "man". Why would the Bible described the creation of those suns without describing the creation of those other "earths" and other variations of "man"? "It's possible that God did X" is a conjecture, as there are an infinite number of explanations for what we observe. So, my question would be, how might we find an error in that conjecture?critical rationalist
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
@KF
Conjecture, and the correction of apparent errors and deficiencies, are the only processes at work. And just as the objective of science isn’t to find evidence that justifies theories as true or probable, so the objective of the methodology of science isn’t to find rules which, if followed, are guaranteed, or likely, to identify true theories as true. There can be no such rules.>>
2 –> This is a caricature of science, reflecting one reading of Popper et al. Science is much richer than this reductionist cardboard cut-out.
This isn’t reductionism. Criticism actually expands science, not constricts, since it is compatible even more ways of creating knowledge. This is much richer than some set of rules, even if they were possible. Nor is it the reflection of one reading of Popper. Are you suggesting this doesn’t reflect his Critical Rationalism? Are you saying Deutsch isn’t a Popperian?
A methodology is itself merely a (philosophical) theory – a convention, as Popper (1959) put it, actual or proposed – that has been conjectured to solve philosophical problems, and is subject to criticism for how well or badly it seems to do that.
3 –> Collapsing phil into sci, a category error. A methodological analysis of science stands or falls on its own merits as to factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power. Yes, it is a phil exercise but that is important as we need to understand strengths and limits of scientific methods.
Ideas in science and philosophy both start out as conjectures which are subject to criticism. What differentiates philosophy from science is that includes criticism in the form of empirical tests. This represents a unification of of the growth of knowledge in both science and philosophy.
Here is just about the most contentious piece of philosophy that Popper and Deutsch (or any Popperian/Critical Rationalist) proposes about how science works. It is poorly understood and the opposing world view is still the dominant philosophy of science even though it is false. The false idea – subscribed almost universally by scientists, philosophers and laymen alike is that science somehow provides a way of demonstrating that certain theories are true or close to true or probably true.
5 –> We do not need to go to Popper and his system and/or that of those who follow him to understand that inductive reasoning is inherently provisional and cannot guarantee truth. However, in many cases it involves facts that only a fool would question.
Inductive reasoning is not inherently provisional. That’s because the same observations can be explained in an infinite number of ways. IOW, we don’t actually use inductive reasoning because it’s impossible. No one has formulated a principle of induction that anyone can actually use, in practice. “Involving facts” is a vague statement. How are facts involved?
? And moreover that the more one gathers evidence for some theory T, then the more likely T is true.>>
7 –> Evidence from observation and especially successful, risky predictions may support confidence in the empirical reliability of a theory but I doubt that any serious thinker on science and its epistemology would calim that scientific theories are true or approximately true and are directly supported by evidence. They may be more or less reliable and trustworthy but are inherently provisional explanatory constructs.
So, then what role does induction play, if any? Is induction as a "methodology" probably true because it supposedly worked in the past? Yet, there are other explanations for the very same thing in question. Are you saying you provisionally accept inductivism? Have you provisionally accepted Foundationism, despite all of the criticism of it?critical rationalist
November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply