Theistic Reasoning

[bluegreenearth]

There are few things more intellectually dishonest than non-negotiable confidence in a theistic belief. Theists should, at the very least, be willing to acknowledge the possibility that they might be mistaken in their belief regardless of their level of confidence in it. So, if you are a confident theist, do the responsible thing and work with us to help you discover where any logical fallacies or other cognitive errors might exist in the reasoning process you are using justify your religious belief.

This isn't to presume that you haven't already performed this sort of critical analysis yourself or to imply that I or anyone else participating in the peer review process is your intellectual superior. To the contrary, if your reasoning process is demonstrably reliable or superior, then sharing it will do me and the other participants a great intellectual service. Alternatively, if any errors happen to be exposed in your reasoning process, you benefit from the opportunity to correct for those errors and it wouldn't mean your theistic belief is false. Therefore, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose from cooperating.

Now, if your theistic reasoning process is complex and nuanced, it won't be practical to post a lengthy dissertation on this thread. Instead, if possible, try to break-down your reasoning process into discreet components and permit us to evaluate it one step at a time.

Finally, despite my attempt to carefully word this OP in such a way to avoid or mitigate for potential misinterpretations, I'm fairly confident at least one theist is going to post an objection to something I wrote that was not deliberately intended. If you are that theist, please just ask for a clarification before submitting your objection or leveling accusations against me. Thank you.

[Divine Insight]

And since, in a previous post, you referred to a deistic entity as "imagined", isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to accuse me of jumping to conclusions?

Surely you aren't going to try to claim that you have any credible evidence for this deistic entity? That being the case how can you even call it anything other than an "imagined" hypothesis? Whether such an entity actually exists is irrelevant. At this point it's still amounts to nothing more than an imagined hypothesis. If it turns out to be a true hypothesis that will just be a matter of coincidental dumb luck right?

You're already working from a totally speculative premise that there was never a time when the universe was "nothingness".
I'm doing no such thing. Whether there was ever nothingness or not, the universe would have to be *capable* of creating itself from nothingness in order to be the cause of its own existence.

And your imagined deistic entity evades this problem how?

Why does your imagined deistic entity evade all these things you surmise to be true about a material world?

I don't see how this helps your argument. Where have you eliminated all possibilities other than a deistic entity?

I'm not suggesting here that anything other than materialism is ruled out. That's why I said "a deity, deistic *or otherwise*".

"or otherwise" sure leaves you a lot of breathing room for being wrong about deism.

A materialistic world is a world whose components are governed by material laws. But it's not about the elimination of a materialistic world; it's about the impossibility of such a world being entirely self-explanatory.

Are you including the laws of quantum mechanics in with that? And if not, why not?

Also, how can you claim to be worried about "self-explanatory" answers when proposing an answer that has no explanation at all.

Will your deistic entity have a self-explanatory answer? And if so, how in the world could you possibly even know this to be the case?

And if not, then where does this infinite regression end?

The bottom line as I see it is that you haven't solved anything or answered any questions. All you've done is propose the existence of yet another thing that you cannot explain.

If all they need for their theories to work is to assume as a premise that quantum fields have always existed, then they're the ones who are "working from a totally speculative premise that there was never a time when the universe was nothingness", as you accused me of above. So if that's a problem, you should take it up with them.

But they aren't claiming that this is the answer to the riddle of reality. All they are doing is offering it up as a mathematical solution. Mathematically we can describe a universe whose sum energy content is zero. That's a universe that's made of nothing. At least they have mathematics on their side.

Those cosmologists and physicists can't get a universe from nothing if quantum fields have always existed, because if quantum fields have always existed then there has never been nothing. They equivocate by changing the definition of the word "nothing". It's like saying that it's possible to stand in a room, put your hand up and touch the 50-foot-high ceiling without leaving the floor----all you need is a scaffold.

No, not at all. Their theory works out mathematically. The existence of gravity allows for material things to exist. When 'nothing exists' that includes the non-existence of gravity. So they actually have a sound mathematical theory. But even with that they don't go around claiming to have solved the problem. Because just like your imagined deistic deity they still cannot explain why gravity and energy can form in the first place, even if in equal amounts.

So while they are a lot closer to having a sound theory than you are, they still don't jump the gun until they have it all worked out. Which they may never do. But at least they are open to the idea that it may simply not be possible to know the true nature of reality.

And like Richard Feynman would say, "That's better than having answers that may indeed be wrong" No answer is better than having a wrong answer that you can't show to be true.

Straw man. I never said anything about quantum fields having conscious intelligence, and I fail to see how deism would require them to.

Why not? You're claiming that your deistic entity is the cause of everything else. How can you be so sure that quantum fields aren't all that exist. They would then be your deistic entity. Because thus far you have no more information about what your deistic entity might be. You're only argument thus far was that a material world supposedly can't explain itself. What about quantum fields? Would they need to explain themselves? And what about your imagined deistic entity? What if it turned out to be true and when you asked it, it confessed that it cannot explain it's own existence. What then? At that point your deistic entity would be in the same position as a material world.

These are deep problems. Have you ever stopped to think about how a "God" could possibly explain its own existence? That's a whale of a problem in its own right.

Such an entity wouldn't have to be more *physically* complex if it exists outside the physical. And this isn't a circular argument; again, it's a logical induction.

There is nothing logical about a non-physical entity even existing, much less having any level of complexity.

Everything you have proposed tosses logic right out the window.

If your proposed deistic entity did exist, it wouldn't be a logical entity. To the contrary it would necessarily need to defy logic to such a degree that all we could do is call it "magic".

Basically all you're doing is recognizing that our physical reality appears to defy logic as we know it. Therefore you conclude that some entity must exist that defies logic. The problem is that if this is indeed the case, then you could never give a sound logical argument for it. Yet apparently you seem to think that you can.

[William]

[Replying to post 73 by ]

Divine Insight: Many cosmologists and physicists have indeed proposed theories for how a physical universe can pop into existence from nothing and become the ultimate free lunch. And all they need for their theories to work is to assume as a premise that quantum fields have always existed.

So based on their arguments all that needs to exist on a primal level are quantum fields.

But you want to jump to deism which would require that these quantum fields also have some form of conscious intelligence. But why should that be the case?

William: A Creator Entity logically could exist 'in and of itself' as it is not logical to assume that just because a Creation requires a Creator, that a Creator requires a Creator, Ad infinitum.

Even assuming that the Universe has always existed, does not mean that it logically follows that it is not Sentient.

In which case, it could be argued that The Universe is a mindful creative Entity.

I think that is the heart of the conflict non-theists have. They - for an unspecified reason - can only accept the materialistic world-view as long as it does not involve the idea of a mindful Creator.

It seems to me to be an unnecessary requirement on the part of the non-theist materialist world view.

Why should it matter to them that the universe might be sentient, or be a creation of sentience, that they would spend their lives arguing against the notion?

These observations above, can of course be ignored, but to do so is evidence of a lack of intellectual honesty and reasoning - whether on the part of the theist or non-theist, makes no difference.

If a quantum field exists as an eternal thing, it still requires something to bring out the potential of it. Like a blob of clay remains an inert potential of being shaped into something until that which does the shaping, makes it so.

That is the intellectually honest answer. It is not simply "jumping to an unnecessary conclusion".

[Athetotheist]

I've been proceeding from Sagan's definition: "all that is or ever was or ever will be".

btw---Assuming that Sagan's definition is correct, whatever principle made it neccesary for the singularity to be timeless would itself have to be part of the cosmos.

If the phrase "all that is or ever was or ever will be" refers to the "cosmos," then doesn't that define the cosmos as having always existed?

It suggests that the cosmos has always existed, but whether that suggestion is correct or not is irrelevant. In either case, the cosmos can't logically be the source of its own existence. It's not about regression; it's about reduction.

[bluegreenearth]

In other words, I do not believe this former Christian, could honestly say, "I was convinced Christianity was true, but came to find, there are no facts, and evidence in support of what I was convinced of" which is exactly what some former Christians want to insist.

Is there a difference between facts about Christianity and facts in support of Christianity? Could the facts you've provided have possibly been perceived by those unbelievers as merely being about Christianity instead of in support of Christianity? Could that explain why those unbelievers claim there are no facts in support of Christianity?

This is certainly possible, but it is possible for all of us, no matter what we believe, and no matter how many times we may change our position. The only one who can really know if they may be guilty of such a thing, would be that particular person, which is why I never attempt to insinuate that this may be a possibility for someone else, when it could be me who is guilty, and the only one who can know, would be me, and, or that person.

If you remember the experiment about confirmation bias I explained in another thread some time ago (it involved various series of numbers complying with an unspecified rule), the experimenters were able to determine which of their test subjects were influenced by confirmation bias even though the test subjects were not aware of their confirmation bias. Is there a way we can reconcile your comment above with the results of that experiment?

However, I will point out that one can have a "confirmation bias" toward a belief, but this has no bearing upon whether that belief would be true, or false.

Agreed, but what does it mean for the reliability of the reasoning that was used to acquire the belief if it hadn't properly mitigated for the influence of confirmation bias? If the reasoning behind a belief is unreliable, how do we justify our confidence that the belief is true regardless of whether it is actually true?

First, it would have to be demonstrated, that there are "hidden logical fallacies"? But, even if there are, this would not mean there would not be "hidden logical fallacies" in the reasoning process of unbelievers.

If the unbeliever demonstrates where a logical fallacy exists in the theist's reasoning process but makes no counter-argument to suggest the theistic claim is false, then where would a hidden logical fallacy exist for the unbeliever? If the unbeliever proceeds to argue that a theistic claim is false, then it would certainly be possible for a logical fallacy to exist in the unbeliever's argument.

My point is, I do not simply assume, those opposed to my position must, and have to have some sort of " hidden logical fallacies" and or some sort of, "subconscious influences from confirmation bias in their reasoning process", because I am fully aware that it could in fact be me who is guilty of such things, so I am not here to help others think better, but rather here in order to help myself think better, and if for some unknown reason what I say helps others think better, then that would simply be a by-product, no matter if they end up agreeing with me or not.

As the OP explicitly states, "This isn't to presume that you haven't already performed this sort of critical analysis yourself or to imply that I or anyone else participating in the peer review process is your intellectual superior. To the contrary, if your reasoning process is demonstrably reliable or superior, then sharing it will do me and the other participants a great intellectual service." For the purposes of this thread, I do not presume those opposed to my position are making logically fallacious arguments or have been influenced by confirmation bias on the outset but have offered to cooperate in an investigation to determine if any such fallacies or biases can be identified in my interlocutor's reasoning process. I'm willing to grant the possibility that no fallacies or contaminating biases will be discovered during the investigation. However, we can't really know what will be found if we never actually conduct an investigation into the reasoning behind a belief.

This is really comical, and exactly what I am talking about. Here, you are assuming that I have, " hidden logical fallacies and/or influences from subconscious confirmation bias in my reasoning process"? How in the world did you determine this to be a fact? It may be a fact, that I very well MAY be guilty of these things. But it is certainly not a demonstrated FACT, that I AM GUILTY. And yet, you ask this question as if this would be a fact?

I can see how the wording of my question could be interpreted in the way you have done. Maybe it would have been more accurate if I had composed the question as follows:

What are you currently doing to mitigate for the possibility of logical fallacies and/or influences from subconscious confirmation bias in your reasoning process?

So then, why don't you tell me what you have done, to ensure that you are not in any way guilty of "confirmation bias"? If you claim you have done all you can to eliminate "confirmation bias" and go on to acknowledge that you could still be guilty, then what would be the purpose of even asking those opposed, what they have done, when even if they have done all they could possibly do, this still would not ensure they were free from, "confirmation bias"?

I don't recall claiming that there was no way anyone could mitigate for confirmation bias.
I'm only aware of one method that mitigates for the influence of confirmation bias; the scientific method. The scientific method may not always completely eliminate confirmation bias in a single experiment but the principle of falsification and its ability to self-correct serves as a mechanism for eventually exposing confirmation bias wherever it might have previously escaped detection.

The point is, I can only tell you what I do in order to ATTEMPT to "root out" this possibility. I cannot demonstrate that I have been successful. Can you demonstrate that you have been successful in "rooting out" this possibility in your own thinking? If so, then I would appreciate you sharing this with us, so that we can all "root out" this possibility in our thinking. If you cannot demonstrate that you have "rooted out" this possibility in your own thinking, then what would be the point in simply, and only pointing out the possibility in the thinking of others, when this could be a possibility that you face yourself?

There was a time when I thought the archaeological discovery of an ossuary with the enscription " " (Jesus son of Joseph) engraved on it was the nail in the coffin for Christianity (no pun intended). It was such a compelling find that the story was featured on the Discovery Channel. Initially, I was prepared to accept the claim without doing further research. However, being a true skeptic, I eventually went looking for evidence that could falsify the claim. Sure enough, it turns out that the names "Jesus" and "Joseph" were quite common during the 1st century and there is little chance the bones in that particular ossuary belonged to the Jesus character described in the Bible. So, it was my confirmation bias that influenced me to initially accept the claim was true when it was featured on the Discovery Channel.

[William]

[Replying to post 81]

Divine Insight: Surely you aren't going to try to claim that you have any credible evidence for this deistic entity? That being the case how can you even call it anything other than an "imagined" hypothesis? Whether such an entity actually exists is irrelevant. At this point it's still amounts to nothing more than an imagined hypothesis. If it turns out to be a true hypothesis that will just be a matter of coincidental dumb luck right?

William: As has been pointed out on other occasions, "imagination" may be one of the devices a Creator might use in order to convey in the human understanding, hints of Itself. To disregard that as a possibility, cannot be considered intellectual honesty.

Coincidence involving so-called 'dumb luck' should not be able to exist in a universe devoid of a mindful Creator. Language should not be able to be shown to be mathematically based. Math itself should not even exist as a device which can help us decipher the universe.

[bluegreenearth]

It suggests that the cosmos has always existed, but whether that suggestion is correct or not is irrelevant. In either case, the cosmos can't logically be the source of its own existence. It's not about regression; it's about reduction.

If the cosmos has always existed, then doesn't that make the point about it being the source of its own existence moot? If something has always existed, then wouldn't the term "source" have no meaning in that context because anything which has always existed would have no need for a source?

[William]

[Replying to post 86 by]

bluegreenearth: If the cosmos has always existed, then doesn't that make the point about it being the source of its own existence moot? If something has always existed, then wouldn't the term "source" have no meaning in that context because anything which has always existed would have no need for a source?

William: However, that which is within the universe which has not always existed, could meaningfully and necessarily refer to that as "Source".

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 70 by bluegreenearth]

To keep you from having to read the whole post, allow me to simply copy, and paste this section,

However, it is a fact that we have the claims made in the NT. It is a fact that the author of the two letters to Theophilus, addresses both of his letters to the same individual. It is a fact that this author begins to use the words "we", and "us" to describe the events of the travels of Paul, as if the author is there to actually witness the events he records. It is a fact that Paul mentions others as being with him on his journeys. It is a fact that Paul mentions the name of Luke as being with him on his journeys. It is a fact that that author of the two letters to Theophlius ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest for some 2 years. It is a fact that we have a letter from Paul which would clearly have been written while Paul would have been under arrest. It is a fact, that in this letter Paul just so happens to mention in passing, "only Luke is with me". It is a fact that the author of the two letters to Theophilus begins his second letter describing the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem. It is a fact that when the travels of Paul begins, this author begins to focus on what Paul was doing, and does not mention the Apostles in Jerusalem, until, or unless, Paul came back in contact with them again. It is a fact, that all of this would be evidence to support the fact that the author of the two letters to Theophilus, would have traveled with Paul, would have known the Apostles personally, and would have known the claims they were making from their very lips.

All of this would mean, that we have very good evidence to support the idea that, the author of the two letters to Theophilus, would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and would have had every opportunity to "investigate everything carefully from the beginning" just as he ensured Theophilus that he had done.

We have all these facts, and evidence, on top of a whole lot more, and all you have is, "it could have been". Great job!

In the end, there are indeed facts, and evidence to support Christianity, which is exactly why the "scholars" must put forth their opinion of the facts, and evidence, because if there were no facts, and evidence, there would be nothing to have an opinion about.

I'm going to list some additional facts below that you seem to have inadvertently missed in your analysis. Since these are considered facts in the same sense as you've described in your previous post, they are not in dispute and should either corroborate your belief, have no impact to your belief one way or the other, or provide a reliable reason to doubt your belief. Whether these fact are positive, negative, or neutral with regards to your belief will not be directly stated. Make of these facts what you will.

Fact = The earliest manuscripts of the two letters written for Theophilus are anonymous.

Fact = Despite their commonalities, there are significant incongruities between the two letter written for Theophilus and the authentic Pauline letters. Pauls character, his theology, and various events from his life are described differently in the letters to Theophilus than they are from Paul's own autobiographical accounts. They also depart from each other on important issues such as the Law, Pauls own apostleship, and Paul's association with the Jerusalem church.

Fact = Paul warned his followers to beware of false doctrines being spread by men masquerading as apostles of Christ.

Fact = The authentic Pauline letters are the earliest sources for the resurrection claim and predate all subsequent New Testament accounts by several decades.

Fact = The authentic Pauline letters do not describe what happened to the body of Jesus after he was killed except to indicate it was buried.

Fact = Rabbinic law specifies that criminals were to be buried in a common grave, not a tomb.

Fact = If the body of a criminal was initially placed in a tomb to comply with the Jewish preparations for Passover, it would have only been a temporary arrangement until the body could be reburied in a common grave as required by Rabbinic Law.

Fact = Paul uses the Greek word, -, to describe Jesus as appearing to him and the other apostles. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, when "-" is used in this type of context, it refers to a divine revelation where someone experiences a spiritual presence of Jesus without actually observing his natural body made of flesh and bone.

Fact = The 1st century Jewish concept of a resurrected body was that it was a physical body but more refined than the bulky flesh and bone natural body.

Fact = Paul asserts that a buried natural body made from bulky flesh and bones is perishable, and it is only the refined physical body which is resurrected.

Fact = Dehydration, heat exhaustion, heat stroke, physical exhaustion, led poisoning, malnutrition, sleep deprivation, and other medical conditions are known to trigger auditory and visual hallucinations in otherwise psychologically healthy people.

Fact = There are altered psychological states which can be brought about through intense and lengthy meditation or prayer sessions where practitioners, who are otherwise psychologically healthy people, regularly experience auditory and visual hallucinations.

Fact = Descriptions of personal experiences often becomes more and more embellished the more they are recounted from memory.

Fact = People often misremember personal experiences when they haven't thought about them in a while.

Fact = When appropriately primed and motivated by a prescribed religious expectation, subliminal message, or an emotional crisis brought about through a shared traumatic event, it is common for a group of like-minded and psychologically healthy people to experience a kind of hypnotic and highly suggestive trance state while engaged in lengthy and intense meditation or prayer sessions.

Fact = There exists a form of psychological manipulation where group pressure to achieve a desired personal experience commonly influences participants to exaggerate or fabricate their individual experiences in order to conform with the group's expectations.

[Divine Insight]

As has been pointed out on other occasions, "imagination" may be one of the devices a Creator might use in order to convey in the human understanding, hints of Itself. To disregard that as a possibility, cannot be considered intellectual honesty.

Please show where anyone has disregarded that as a "possibility".

Coincidence involving so-called 'dumb luck' should not be able to exist in a universe devoid of a mindful Creator.

Can't you support this opinion with anything more than hot air?

Language should not be able to be shown to be mathematically based.

Why not?

Math itself should not even exist as a device which can help us decipher the universe.

Why not?

Sounds like a bunch of random opinions to me.

You seem to be quick to make all these assertions but then go on to claim that a highly organized conscious mind should exist. Why should that be the case?

You're not even being consistent in your demands concerning what should or shouldn't exist.

[William]

[Replying to post 89 by ]

Divine Insight:Please show where anyone has disregarded that as a "possibility".

William: I did not mention anyone in particular disregarded it as a possibility.
Do you regard it as a possibility? If so, then that would be intellectual honesty, yes?