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.

[Athetotheist]

What might be lesser or greater is irrelevant. Your said criteria for requiring an explanation is existence. Therefore, the only way for your creative force to not require an explanation is for it to not exist.

Since invoking the universe to explain the universe is a circular fallacy, the only way for the universe not to require an explanation is for it not to exist. The only alternative is to apply causality to the universe, which requires the existence of something else to cause the universe to exist.

And so all you've done here is kick the can down the road a bit.

So, kick it back. Explain how to invoke the universe to account for the universe.

[Divine Insight]

So, kick it back. Explain how to invoke the universe to account for the universe.

I don't need to.

I'm not the one who is claiming the following two things:

1. There has to be an answer for the universe that pleases humans.

And

2. I have an answer, and the answer is that something else that has no explanation is the answer.

You are the one making those claims. The burden is on you to justify them logically.

Don't be asking me to kick your can back.

I'm not the one making claims. You are.

What is it with theists that they can't seem to understand who's making claims and who isn't?

[Athetotheist]

So, kick it back. Explain how to invoke the universe to account for the universe.

I don't need to.

I'm not the one who is claiming the following two things:

1. There has to be an answer for the universe that pleases humans.

And

2. I have an answer, and the answer is that something else that has no explanation is the answer.

You are the one making those claims. The burden is on you to justify them logically.

Don't be asking me to kick your can back.

I'm not the one making claims. You are.

What is it with theists that they can't seem to understand who's making claims and who isn't?

1. There has to be an answer for the universe.

2. Logically, it can't be the universe itself.

So what is it?

[bluegreenearth]

Bluegreen earth posted:

(quote) 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. (quote)

RESPONSE: OK Fair question.

Lets examine what I call the basic proof.

1. If anything exists, there must have always been something in existence. We can call this God, First Cause, etc. etc. It's only necessary that something always existed, or we have creation of something From nothing.

If something has always been in existence, do other things that subsequently exist naturally evolve from the material that comprises that something or are the other things deliberately created from nothing by that something?

[Divine Insight]

1. There has to be an answer for the universe.

An answer that satisfies who?

Why does the universe need to have an answer that satisfies you?

Just because you demand this doesn't make it so.

2. Logically, it can't be the universe itself.

Why not?

Do you know enough about the true nature of the universe that you can explain why it can't be the explanation for itself?

I'm sure you don't. Even science cannot say what the true nature of the universe is yet. So what makes you think that you have sufficient information to say?

All you're basically doing is acknowledging that you don't understand how the universe can possibly exist.

The problem is that your proposed solution doesn't solve the problem. You still wouldn't have an explanation for the thing you are proposing.

So what have you gained? Absolutely nothing. In the beginning you couldn't understand the universe. Now you can't understand the thing you are proposing to explain the universe.

You have done nothing more than convince yourself that a totally illogical exercise in futility somehow passes as being a logically sound argument.

Clearly it does not. Now you're just stuck with this imaginary thing that defies explanation.

Until you can explain how your imaginary thing can exist I certainly don't need to explain how the universe can exist.

[FarWanderer]

I agree we should not assume more than is necessary to explain what we observe, but that doesn't make Occam's razor anything more than a maxim that helps us avoid making erroneous assumptions. It's not some metaphysical law.

How are we to follow that maxim to the simplest explanations without assuming that nature would maintain the simplest conditions?

Tentatively. Like I said, it's not some metaphysical law. It is just a maxim, as in, a good general rule to live by.

When faced with an observation that you don't understand, you start with the simplest necessary explanation. As long as that works, good; go with that. If and when that doesn't work, the complexity necessary for the explanation rises to the next simplest explanation, and so on.

This is the best approach to operating in areas where we are trying to expand our knowledge. Science, basically. It has no application to metaphysics.

Reality will be as simple or complex as it wants to be, regardless of what sentiments you, or I, or even Mr. Occam might hold. I see no reason to expect a priori that reality will be minimally complex.

Then a transcendent agency can't be dismissed on the basis that it would be too complex (not that you're suggesting this, but some have).

That is correct. However, I don't think I have ever seen a person just out of the blue dismiss a transcendent agency on such a basis. Usually what happens is that someone argues that such an agency must exist because of the complexity of the world, and then their argument is rejected on the basis that they are trying to solve a "problem" of complexity with yet more complexity.

It's very closely analogous to how I reject your argument on the basis that you are trying to solve a "problem" of an unexplained universe with an unexplained something else.

You are begging the question.

I'm pointing out, as you yourself concede, that causality cannot be applied universally (if it were, nothing would be allowed to exist). But just because causality can't be applied to everything doesn't mean it can't be applied to anything. As far as I've seen, you haven't illustrated how invoking the universe to account for the universe can be done logically. So it's connvenient that....

I don't believe existence necessitates an explanation

Well yeah. I will "conveniently" avoid taking logically untenable positions, whether it's yours or that of the battered strawman who believes "the universe logically accounts for itself".

I might add as well, that the only reason you have provided for why the universe must necessarily be caused is that it exists. Hopefully by now you understand why that is insufficient.

[Athetotheist]

1. There has to be an answer for the universe.

An answer that satisfies who?

Why does the universe need to have an answer that satisfies you?

It's not about who the answer satisfies; it's about what the answer is.

2. Logically, it can't be the universe itself.

Why not?

Because it's circular logic. No matter how many times you ask that question, the answer isn't going to change.

Do you know enough about the true nature of the universe that you can explain why it can't be the explanation for itself?

Even though I have explained this----repeatedly----I don't have to explain why the universe can't be its own cause. You have to explain how it can be its own cause. That's the extraordinary claim on your part. You're trying to dismiss the necessity of a "magical" creative agent, but you have to make the universe magical to do so.

I'm sure you don't. Even science cannot say what the true nature of the universe is yet. So what makes you think that you have sufficient information to say?

You're invoking science to exempt the physical universe from causality? Even if you could reasonably hope that science would someday find out that the physical universe could somehow exist in such a way as to be the cause of its own existence, that hope is another fallacy: Appeal to the Future.

Until you can explain how your imaginary thing can exist I certainly don't need to explain how the universe can exist.

Until you can explain how a magical universe can exist as its own cause when my "imaginary" thing can't, you have no room to call my thing imaginary.

[Divine Insight]

Until you can explain how a magical universe can exist as its own cause when my "imaginary" thing can't, you have no room to call my thing imaginary.

Simple. To top your argument all I need to say is that the universe is magical. And then I'm done. At least we all know that my magical thing exists.

But in your case, all you've done is refuse to accept that the universe could be magical and instead you want to propose the existence of an imaginary magical thing for which there is no evidence.

Thus far everyone has been basically asking you to explain how it is that your imaged thing could be magical when you claim that the universe cannot be magical?

Why is your imagined magical thing exempt to your own demand that anything that exists cannot be explained by magic?

All you've done is proclaim that magic cannot explain the universe, but supposedly it's a perfectly fine explanation for your imaginary magical thing.

I guarantee you that if you took a course in logical reasoning your reasoning here would not be accepted as being sound reasoning.

You need to explain why it is that your proposed imagined entity can violate the very reasons that you claim you need to propose it in the first place.

You can argue till the cows some home, but if you can't explain how your imagined entity can exist, then you don't have an explanation for how the universe could exist.

The question really isn't, "How can the universe exist?". The real question is, "How can anything exist at all?". Until you can answer this second question for your proposed imagined entity you have no answer for the first question.

Your claim to have a logical explanation is already terribly flawed. And that's precisely what this thread is asking you to closely examine.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 166 by bluegreenearth]

Actually you say a whole lot of nothing, until the end. Your argument all along has been, if you have absence of belief, then you can have no logical errors in you thinking process, nor be guilty of confirmation bias.

The problem, which you acknowledge at the end is that, you very well can be guilty of both when you say,

If a logical fallacy or confirmation bias exists anywhere in my explanation for having an absence of belief in the resurrection claim, by all means, please expose it that I may make the appropriate corrections.

The point is, you cannot stick to the idea that it would not be possible to be guilty of such things simply holding to "absence of belief", but then go on to acknowledge, this may indeed be a possibility? In other words, if it is impossible for you to be guilty of such things, then this would be a claim, that can be demonstrated, and there would be no need in asking folks to demonstrate something that would be impossible.

What you are now correctly acknowledging is the fact that thinking is exactly what led you to the absence of belief, which you define as being an unbeliever, when before you argued that, "Nothing leads me to be an unbeliever".

Of course the whole point here is, if thinking is involved, and it was this thinking that led you to the conclusion you now have, (which is, having no reliable reason to compel belief one way or the other) then as you have acknowledged, there can be logical fallacies, and, or, confirmation bias in your thinking process.

The thing is, if you are simply suggesting that you have found no compelling reasons, then this is certainly fine, but you could still be guilty of both logical fallacies, and conformation bias in your thinking process. However, if you go on to say, "there are no compelling reasons to be found by anyone at all", then you are definitely making a claim, in which you own the burden of proof, and could be guilty of both, logical fallacies, and conformation bias in your thinking process.

So then, before we move on in this process, we seem to agree now, that it would be incorrect to proclaim that there can be no logical fallacies, or confirmation bias in the thinking process of those who have a lack of belief? Which means we have identified a logical fallacy, in your thinking process which "led you to the conclusion that it would be impossible for you to have logical fallacies, or confirmation bias to hold such a position", because the fact of the matter is, if there is thinking involved which leads one to their conclusions, then there can always be logical fallacies, and confirmation bias involved in the thinking, and we have found that the only way to avoid this, is to claim, "it was not thinking that led you to your conclusions".

[Divine Insight]

The point is, you cannot stick to the idea that it would not be possible to be guilty of such things simply holding to "absence of belief", but then go on to acknowledge, this may indeed be a possibility? In other words, if it is impossible for you to be guilty of such things, then this would be a claim, that can be demonstrated, and there would be no need in asking folks to demonstrate something that would be impossible.

I both asked and answered this question for myself.

It has to do with the theology itself that cannot be ignored.

The theology is not about condemning people to eternal damnation for the extremely petty mistake of having made logical errors in reasoning.

Therefore to suggest that someone could be in logical error for not believing in Christian theology doesn't hold water.

The theology is supposed to be about making willful moral choices and choosing to purposefully and knowingly reject a God that you are already convinced exists.

So by the time a theologian is down her in the mud trying to argue that someone might not believe in Christianity due to some logical error in reasoning they have already totally lost the very concepts their theology was supposed to be about in the first place.

So no. To rationally not believe in Christianity or the stories of the resurrection based on logically flawed reasoning cannot be an answer.

This fact cannot be ignored. You can't ignore what the theology is supposed to be all about in an effort to try to make excuses for why it's not rationally compelling.

Having made a logical error in reasoning is nowhere near the same thing as knowingly and willfully choosing to reject a God that you know that exists and refuse to obey him.

So these kinds of arguments are themselves already clearly logically flawed.

You can't use a blatantly obvious logically flawed argument to suggest that someone else may have made a subtle errors in reasoning to not believe in Christian theology.

The theology itself cannot be used to support that argument. In fact, the theology demands that such argument must necessarily be wrong.

I am so certain that Christian theology cannot be true that there is no longer any room for doubt.

I can be at least as certain that Christian theology is false as I can be that there is no rational solution to the square root of 2.

The likelihood that Christian theology could be true is no better than the likelihood that mathematicians will suddenly discover that they were wrong about the square root of 2.

It's simply not going to happen.

Christian theology doesn't even allow for someone to be damned for having simply made an error in logical reasoning. Christian theology is all about being convinced that the God exists and then knowingly and willfully refusing to bend to his will.

So trying to argue that someone might not believe in Christian theology due to an error in logical reasoning isn't even compatible with the theology.