Discussing the existence of God

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 19, 2016

Atheism, Philosophy, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Recently, our WJM offered:

Debunking The Old “There Is No Evidence of God” Canard

Atheists/physicalists often talk about “believing what the evidence dictates”, but fail to understand that “evidence” is an interpretation of facts. Facts don’t “lead” anywhere in and of themselves; they carry with them no conceptual framework that dictates how they “should” fit into any hypothesis or pattern. Even the language by which one describes a fact necessarily frames that fact in a certain conceptual framework that may be counterproductive. More.

I sometimes get lassoed into such discussions and have found three rules to help:

1. First, find out if the person is a pure naturalist atheist who believes that nature is all there is, everything just somehow happened, and our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. If so, get out of the discussion. It cannot, in principle, go anywhere. Among naturalists, all relationships are power relationships. They cannot, by definition, be idea relationships. Naturalists accept that and behave as if it were true; there is no use arguing with them about it.

2. Stay in the discussion if your conversation partner is a non-naturalist atheist, someone who knows that nature is not all there is.

Very well, world religions are divided on whether there is a God. Buddhists don’t believe that there is a God, in the Western sense; Hindu views on the subject seem hard to classify in Western terms. But we press on; we all accept that we can reason our way to some kind of understanding.

For one thing:

Naturalist: He who dies with the most toys wins (because he ceases to exist).

Buddhist/Hindu: He who dies with the most toys may have a lot to answer for in future lives. That is not a naturalist idea.

We now have a discussion among human beings rather than a squabble among animals over a carcass.

3. Ask, at some point, is there any evidence that would change a conversation partner’s mind.

If so, what type of evidence matters? Personal experience? Fine-tuning of the universe? Design in life?

Are arguments against the existence of God based implicitly on theology (= how could God, if he existed, allow such suffering)? Could they be answered by convincing counterarguments?

Now one can have a normal conversation, exploring different approaches. That’s a part of advanced civilization.

See also: Debunking The Old “There Is No Evidence of God” Canard

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

KF, Yes, I'm on board with that weak formulation of the PSR. And of course I agree that we can identify causes of certain events, such as a forest fire that was caused by lightning. At least under a naive understanding of causality. This doesn't imply that all events are caused, however.
Without the reality behind the concept of cause the very idea of laws of nature would make no sense: events would happen anywhere, anytime, with no intelligible reason or constraint.
Well, as we have discussed, there are events which appear to occur at random times, so are unpredictable in that sense. That doesn't mean all the laws of nature have to be tossed. It just means that these phenomena can only be described by statistical laws.
As a direct result, neither rationality nor responsibility would be possible; all would be a confused, unintelligible, unpredictable, uncontrollable chaos with nothing having a stable existence or identity.
If it does turn out that radioactive decay events are uncaused, it does not follow that we live in an unpredictable, uncontrollable chaos. In fact, you would really need sophisticated instruments to detect this "chaos".
Also, since it often comes up, yes: a necessary, ON/OFF enabling causal factor is a causal factor — if there is no fuel, the car cannot go because there is no energy source for the engine. Similarly, without an unstable nucleus or particle, there can be no radioactive decay and without a photon of sufficient energy, there can be no photo-electric emission of electrons: that is, contrary to a common error, quantum mechanical events or effects, strictly speaking, are not cause-less.
I think in our previous discussion, we talked about sufficient conditions for a particular atom to undergo beta decay in a specified time interval, and as far as I can tell, no one has provided such. I think I can make the problem even simpler: Suppose we have a 1-gram sample of C14. What are sufficient conditions for any atom in the sample to undergo beta decay at any time in the future?daveS_{June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

DS, I suggest that discussion begin with this weak form psr:
http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_suff_rzn a fourth key law of sound thought linked quite directly to the above is the principle of sufficient reason , which enfolds the principle of cause and effect. Schopenhauer in his Manuscript Remains, Vol. 4, notes that: [PSR, strong form:] "Of everything that is, it can be found why it is." [--> often objected to because of its powerful import] This, we may soften slightly into a weak form version that should be unobjectionable to reasonable thinkers . . . thus avoiding unnecessary side issues over the PSR, and will prove quite adequate for our purposes : [PSR, weak form:] Of any particular thing A that is [. . . or (ii) is possible, or even (iii) is impossible], we may ask, why it is [. . . or (ii') why it is possible, or (iii') why it is impossible], and we may expect -- or at least hope -- to find a reasonable answer. Of course, for any given case, X, we may simply directly proceed to ask why is X so, or why is X possible or why is X impossible, and seek a reasonable answer. So, the weak form as it stands is unobjectionable.
That is, this is a statement that, self evidently, as reasonable investigators, we may freely investigate. On investigation, we will see that being/non-being etc can be analysed:
The fire tetrahedron (an extension of the classic fire triangle you may have learned about in Boy Scouts or the like . . . ) is a helpful case to study briefly in order to amplify and draw out the surprising force of the sphinx-like riddle posed by the weak-form PSR: For a fire to begin or to continue, we need (1) fuel, (2) heat, (3) an oxidiser [usually oxygen] and (4) an un- interfered- with heat-generating chain reaction mechanism. (For, Halon fire extinguishers work by breaking up the chain reaction.) Each of the four factors is necessary for, and the set of four are jointly sufficient to begin and sustain a fire. We thus see four contributory factors, each of which is necessary [knock it out and you block or kill the fire], and together they are sufficient for the fire. A lighted match (HT: Gateway Care Training, UK) This may be studied by lighting a match. For instance, strike one, and let it half burn. Then, tilt the head up. Watch the flame fade out for want of an ON/OFF enabling factor, fuel. Similarly, if one pulls a second match and instead of wiping on the friction-strike strip, moves it rapidly through the air -- much lower friction -- it will not light for want of heat. If we were to try to strike a match in pure Nitrogen instead of air, it might flare at first (depending on what is in the head) but the main fuel, wood will not burn for want of a good oxidiser. And so forth. As a similar exercise, one may set a candle stub in a tray of water and light it. Then, put a jar over the candle, such that water can be drawn up into it. After a little while, the candle will go out for want of the oxidiser in air, Oxygen. (One should do the actual experiment, at least to the stage of making a match fade out. Many of us will have done this or the like in school. [And, as quantum phenomena are often posed as a great mysterious counter-example to the logic of our everyday world, we should note that a fire is doubly a quantum phenomenon. First, the rapid oxidation reaction, and second the emission of photons of light, which makes the process visible to us. Indeed, we should note how creators of fireworks add particular chemicals to the mix to get desired colours, and more seriously a spectroscope can allow us to learn much about a fire by revealing its spectrum. And, enabling causal factors such as those in the fire tetrahedron are pervasive in quantum processes, e.g. -- and yes this is trivial, but the trivial sometimes also makes a key point -- no unstable atom, no radioactive decay, and the like; cf. here for more.]) We thus see by definite and instructive example, the principle of cause and effect. That is, [d'] if something has a beginning or may cease from being -- or, generally it is contingent -- it has a cause. Common-sense rationality, decision-making and science alike are founded on this principle of right reason: if an event happens, why -- and, how? If something begins or ceases to exist, why and how? If something is sustained in existence, what factors contribute to, promote or constrain that effect or process, how? The answers to these questions are causes. Without the reality behind the concept of cause the very idea of laws of nature would make no sense: events would happen anywhere, anytime, with no intelligible reason or constraint. As a direct result, neither rationality nor responsibility would be possible; all would be a confused, unintelligible, unpredictable, uncontrollable chaos with nothing having a stable existence or identity. That is, this principle is directly linked to the identity cluster already outlined. Indeed, it can be noted that if something A is possible, its defining attributes must be coherent, unlike the contradictions between requisites of squarishness and circularity that render a square circle impossible: One and the same object cannot be circular and squarish in the same sense and place at the same time Also, since it often comes up, yes: a necessary, ON/OFF enabling causal factor is a causal factor -- if there is no fuel, the car cannot go because there is no energy source for the engine. Similarly, without an unstable nucleus or particle, there can be no radioactive decay and without a photon of sufficient energy, there can be no photo-electric emission of electrons: that is, contrary to a common error, quantum mechanical events or effects, strictly speaking, are not cause-less. (By the way, the concept of a miracle -- something out of the ordinary that is a sign that points to a cause beyond the natural order -- in fact depends on there being such a general order in the world. In an unintelligible chaos, there can be no extra-ordinary signposts, as nothing will be ordinary or regular!) However, there is a subtle facet to this, one that brings out the other side of the principle of sufficient reason. Namely, that there is a possible class of being that does not have a beginning, and cannot go out of existence; such necessary beings are self-sufficient, have no enabling, ON/OFF external necessary causal factors, and as such cannot be blocked from existing. And it is held that once there is a serious candidate to be such a necessary being, if the candidate is not contradictory in itself, it will be actual. [Such a thing is possible if it is not impossible . . . as a square circle is impossibly self contradictory as the necessary attributes for something to be squarish and those required for it to be circular stand in mutual contradiction.] Or, we could arrive at effectively the same point another way, one which brings out what it means to be a serious candidate to be a necessary being: If a thing does not exist it is either that it could, but just doesn't happen to exist, or that it cannot exist because it is a conceptual contradiction, such as square circles, or round triangles and so on. Therefore, if it does exist, it is either that it exists contingently or that it is not contingent but exists necessarily (that is it could not fail to exist without contradiction). [--> The truth reported in "2 + 3 = 5" is a simple case in point; it could not fail without self-contradiction.] These are the four most basic modes of being [--> possible vs impossible and contingent vs non-contingent] and cannot be denied . . . the four modes are the basic logical deductions about the nature of existence. That is, for a successful candidate necessary being: since there is no external ON/OFF enabling causal factor, a successful candidate necessary being will exist without a beginning, and cannot cease from existing as one cannot "switch off" a sustaining external factor. As a simple example the true proposition 2 + 3 = 5 and its constituent numbers are such necessary beings. To see that, try to imagine a world where, 2, 3, 5 and the operation of abstractly joining 2 and 3 to form 5 did not exist or can cease from existing, or where it is false that || + ||| --> |||||. Another possibility of course is that such a candidate being is impossible: it cannot be so as there is the sort of inescapable contradiction of defining attributes as is involved in being a proposed square circle. So, we have candidates to be necessary beings that may not be possible on pain of contradiction, or else that may not be impossible, equally on pain of contradiction. (Thus, the law of non-contradiction is inextricably entangled into possibility of being, and thence into cause and effect. Attempts to sever the two are wrong-headed and inevitably fail.) A flying spaghetti monster knitted doll, showing how this is used to mock the idea of God as necessary being (note the words on the chalk board) Of course, something like "a flying spaghetti monster" -- which would be built of components and depends on their particular arrangement to be what it would be, is not a serious candidate to be a necessary being. (NB: Such has been suggested in dismissive parody of the iconic creation of Adam that appears in Michelangelo's famous Sistine Chapel painting. God, of course is symbolised in that painting as an Old Man, the Ancient of Days, but that is just a representation. God is a serious -- nay, the most serious -- candidate to be a necessary being.) In addition, since matter as we know it (such as what goes into spaghetti and noodles as well as eye-stalks and eyes) is contingent, a necessary being will not be material. The likely candidates are: (a) numbers such as 2, (b) abstract, necessarily true propositions and (c) an eternal mind . . . often brought together by suggesting that (d) such abstract truths or entities are held in and eternally contemplated by such a mind.
KFkairosfocus_{June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

StephenB,
News, my experience is that the problem lies in the atheists’ inability (or unwillingless) to reason in the abstract. I think it is the result of having been badly educated, which is often worse than being uneducated. In many cases, the naturalists/materialists militate against the principle of sufficient reason and the law of non-contradiction, having been told by the academy that quantum mechanics has changed all that.
As an atheist, I'm fine with reasoning in the abstract, but of course if one starts with false premises, then one can't be sure of the truth of one's conclusions. And it's not clear to me that the PSR is true.daveS_{June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

News, my experience is that the problem lies in the atheists' inability (or unwillingless) to reason in the abstract. I think it is the result of having been badly educated, which is often worse than being uneducated. In many cases, the naturalists/materialists militate against the principle of sufficient reason and the law of non-contradiction, having been told by the academy that quantum mechanics has changed all that. They actually believe that science can abrogate or override the laws of thought, not knowing that the latter always takes logical precedence over the former. To me, it is less about arguing and more about providing remedial education. When I deal with these people, I find it necessary to go all the way back to the beginning and start over--and I mean all the way back. It's those irrational assumptions, I think, that do most of the damage. Evidence if useless for those who cannot (or will not) interpret it in a rational way.StephenB_{June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply