Sunday, 06 November 2005
-
Joveia & Theism, part 3
THEISTIC BLOG REVIEW
For: Mr. Jargon
About: A friend of his’ 12 page blog concerning his personal justification for theism
Source: http://www.joveiaphilosopher.blogspot.com/
My mission: poke holes
Part: 3 of 15
“2.2. Argument 2: The Inductive Teleological Argument”
If your argument for justifying believing God exists hinges on an inductive one…that right there tells you that you don’t have a real relationship with this deity.“Inductive logic is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support the conclusion, but do not ensure it.”
I’m not saying no inductive logic should apply at all, there’d just have to be something better than that or there is no justification other than you just want it to be true. In other words, there shouldn’t be room for inductive atheistic arguments for you to have a serious relationship with deity. In my opinion, if theism doesn’t win, it loses.
“This first argument is stronger because it is harder to refute. However I will make a probabilistic argument to show that the universe is actually likely to be designed, not merely the case that one is justified in thinking so.”
“The universe is probably designed.” What kind of justification is that? “I probably have parents.” “They probably pay the bills.” “My girlfriend probably loves me.” The “certainty” of this that dovetails into doctrine and martyrdom is astounding. Like I said, these aren’t appropriate personal standards.
“This argument is deliberately geared to avoid the objection from physical necessity that I believe is the most efficacious argument against the fine-tuning principle. It is in the form of reductio ad absurdum of atheistic cosmology.”
Maybe if it was just physical necessity, but there is more possible context to it than that which supersedes Christian theism’s God, the Father, in my opinion if we absolutely have to pick between options.
”1. There is no god or inherent design or purpose in nature, existence is indifferent to humans”So far, so good enough.
”2. That we know of, there is no inherent reason why for our universe it is physically necessary that it supports life”But there is also no reason why it must not be able to support life. On the other hand, there is no inherent reason why the necessary being must be a complex divine mind…but that’s probably okay with you and other theologians…
“3. Life exists”
Cinnamon Life exists as well…and it is very, very good. ;)
”4. (3) is improbable under (1) and (2).”What exactly is the probability of a universe being able to support life again? Just a ballpark estimate will suffice.
”The reason why I have set up (2) is that one might always say that the laws of physics are physically necessary. If our laws are physically necessary it essentially means that given our universe, the laws cannot be other than the way they are. This does not, importantly, mean that any universe could not have different laws (otherwise we would not be talking about physical, but logical necessity) rather our particular universe must have the laws it does.”Wait, who in the world is arguing against teleological theistic arguments with physical necessity? The universe needs constants to be a certain way… “They need to be that way…how else could the universe, um…do that thing…um…that it set out to do…you know…stuff. I mean, it might do something else if it were setup in a different way…and the universe couldn’t have that…like it cares.”
”So given this, why the life in it? If the universe is all that there is or ever will be, and it is logically possible the laws could be different (in a different universe) why is it the case that our laws are supportive of the existence of life, faced with the overwhelming fact there is no inherent purpose or plan or likelihood of life at all in an impersonal cosmos? It all seems a bit improbable.”Well unless reality is about everything. It’s not improbable if every possible universe is. It is actually quite certain. There’s no plan…but then there’s no plan to make sure there isn’t anything resembling a plan either…or even a plan to make sure that something doesn’t counteract some plan to make there not be a plan!
”There are some possible answers to this argument. Firstly, there may be other universes as in the Lee Smolin hypothesis. I assume that there are in fact, not other worlds.”So the assumption of design is kudos which is outlandish with a no show designer, but other universes…even more preposterous since no ultimate designer would even be required.
“Also the Weak Anthropic Principle (Douglas Adam's famous 'puddle' objection) could force us to accept life as a 'brute fact' of our observation. I will purposefully sidestep these arguments for the moment.”
I will purposefully not sidestep it…so I can come to a completely different conclusion.
“he mimed a wonderfully funny imitation of a puddle of water, fitting itself snugly into a depression in the ground, the depression uncannily being exactly the same shape as the puddle.”
“But assuming my argument is correct then we can conclude that:”
Which is all anyone can really do, since this is not an argument at all, but just a belief that avoids rational objections…just because it’s a nice belief. It is an argument that you continue to believe it…but not much more.
”5. Life seems improbable under atheism”Life just is…if it ever was a matter of probability…it no longer is, just as every coin toss that came before is already decided. You might as well assess the probability of God creating humans and not Merdukalukians.
”Compared with:
6. Under theism, life is not in the least bit improbable”How would you know? Have you assessed the probability that maybe a deity wouldn’t want to create life?
”Clearly the comparison between (5) and (6) in the light of (3) shows theism is superior.”You have at least shown theism is superior in your mind.
”In any case, those are both my two arguments, and I will now commence with evaluating the objections to the argument to design.”To the extent that I have not brought these objections up as well, I will further defend them in subsequent posts…if they are worthy.
ARU
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
email
- sent 0
- like
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to WAR_ON_ERROR's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in WAR_ON_ERROR's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (4)
In other words, there shouldn’t be room for inductive atheistic arguments for you to have a serious relationship with deity. In my opinion, if theism doesn’t win, it loses.
Problem here is that deductive arguments are not needed for knowledge. Knowledge is simply justified true belief. If I can justify belief in God then I can know God exists.
“The universe is probably designed.” What kind of justification is that? “I probably have parents.” “They probably pay the bills.” “My girlfriend probably loves me.” The “certainty” of this that dovetails into doctrine and martyrdom is astounding. Like I said, these aren’t appropriate personal standards.
Aren't appropriate personal standards? To be consistent here you yourself would have to believe things that could only be deductively proven. Examine your beliefs. How many things can you be 100% sure are true? I doubt very many things you believe are true are 100% known to be true. So in fact, you are being inconsistent here, not me.
But there is also no reason why it must not be able to support life. On the other hand, there is no inherent reason why the necessary being must be a complex divine mind…but that’s probably okay with you and other theologians…
We can deduce if there is no logical inherent reason for life, plus the fact that there are many logically possible worlds where life would not exist, then obviously that would tend to produce the inductive conclusion life is improbable. In the words of Jon Stewart - the necessary being would be any being with the basic skill set to design an entire universe. Pick who you think that would be.
Wait, who in the world is arguing against teleological theistic arguments with physical necessity? The universe needs constants to be a certain way… “They need to be that way…how else could the universe, um…do that thing…um…that it set out to do…you know…stuff. I mean, it might do something else if it were setup in a different way…and the universe couldn’t have that…like it cares.”
Atheologians I respect.
I will purposefully not sidestep it…so I can come to a completely different conclusion.
Who are you trying to impress with this showy legerdemain? I address that later.
Which is all anyone can really do, since this is not an argument at all, but just a belief that avoids rational objections…just because it’s a nice belief. It is an argument that you continue to believe it…but not much more.
You're objections don't make the cut as a rebutting defeater I'm afraid.
In other words, there shouldn’t be room for inductive atheistic arguments for you to have a serious relationship with deity. In my opinion, if theism doesn’t win, it loses.
-Problem here is that deductive arguments are not needed for knowledge. Knowledge is simply justified true belief. If I can justify belief in God then I can know God exists.” My confession rests in the sentence you didn’t quote just before that one that I am an inductive reason-er. The problem of course is there are inductive atheistic arguments as well. “If I can justify unbelief in God, then I can know God doesn’t exist.” And if you put both statements side by side…it seems painfully obvious one is more likely to be true.
“The universe is probably designed.” What kind of justification is that? “I probably have parents.” “They probably pay the bills.” “My girlfriend probably loves me.” The “certainty” of this that dovetails into doctrine and martyrdom is astounding. Like I said, these aren’t appropriate personal standards.
-Aren't appropriate personal standards? To be consistent here you yourself would have to believe things that could only be deductively proven. Examine your beliefs. How many things can you be 100% sure are true? I doubt very many things you believe are true are 100% known to be true. So in fact, you are being inconsistent here, not me.” Like I said and you neglected to quote, I didn’t disown inductive logic. I just don’t think it’s appropriate when the arena is so wide for possibilities and our direct confrontational knowledge of lofty metaphysical ideas so negligible. And then to base a whole interpersonal lifestyle off of it…even more abhorrent, existentially. Entertaining ideas is one thing…but then to go off into a religion as though you know for sure is another.
”But there is also no reason why it must not be able to support life. On the other hand, there is no inherent reason why the necessary being must be a complex divine mind…but that’s probably okay with you and other theologians…
-We can deduce if there is no logical inherent reason for life, plus the fact that there are many logically possible worlds where life would not exist, then obviously that would tend to produce the inductive conclusion life is improbable. In the words of Jon Stewart - the necessary being would be any being with the basic skill set to design an entire universe. Pick who you think that would be.” I guess I can take Jon Stewart’s joke as seriously as I take these theistic arguments. There may not be just “many” possible worlds…there may be an infinite number…which would mean one suitable for life would most certainly exist. Ta da!
”Wait, who in the world is arguing against teleological theistic arguments with physical necessity? The universe needs constants to be a certain way… “They need to be that way…how else could the universe, um…do that thing…um…that it set out to do…you know…stuff. I mean, it might do something else if it were setup in a different way…and the universe couldn’t have that…like it cares.”
-Atheologians I respect.” One’s I don’t apparently. At least not for this.
”I will purposefully not sidestep it…so I can come to a completely different conclusion.
-Who are you trying to impress with this showy legerdemain? I address that later.” Fair enough…we can get into it later.
”Which is all anyone can really do, since this is not an argument at all, but just a belief that avoids rational objections…just because it’s a nice belief. It is an argument that you continue to believe it…but not much more.
-You're objections don't make the cut as a rebutting defeater I'm afraid.” Well, I’m not there yet either in my rebuttal and I think I can at least offer more logical alternatives that in comparison are far superior given what we do know. ARU
The central piece of information though, which qualifies either of our points of view as knowledge is - is there objectively a God? We can't know that apart from our justifications. That problem was first pointed out by Plato thousands of years ago in his description of the Forms. So it seems both our viewpoints are justified and apart from this justification we have no way of knowing. I think in sum, my justification is an acceptable one for the position I hold, and I am content with that.
I just don’t think it’s appropriate when the arena is so wide for possibilities and our direct confrontational knowledge of lofty metaphysical ideas so negligible. And then to base a whole interpersonal lifestyle off of it…even more abhorrent, existentially. Entertaining ideas is one thing…but then to go off into a religion as though you know for sure is another.
I have no problem with basing my beliefs on inductive knowledge. And of course there are more theistic arguments than this one.
There may not be just “many” possible worlds…there may be an infinite number…which would mean one suitable for life would most certainly exist. Ta da!
Well I attack that idea extensively in my post. The problem with that 'many worlds' interpretation is that it is actually just as parsimonious or less so than God (plus there is no evidence for multiple worlds). If that is your defense against the teleological argument you had better admit that there is nothing wrong with the theist drawing the inference of God - your explanation isn't simpler and hence better.
ARU-
I have a couple of interesting reads on MFHorn.