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.

[William]

[Replying to post 167]

bluegreenearth: This appears to be another example where a failure to properly communicate my point resulted in confusion and an misunderstanding. My comment was specific to circumstances where complaints were made about the emotional reactions of another person but out of context with respect to the argument being evaluated. In other words, it is valid to point out where an argument from emotion was used to try and persuade others to accept a proposed claim but not necessarily fair to criticize someone for expressing an emotional reaction to a perceived attack on their personal character (whether that is actually the case or not) or some other issue unrelated to the argument being evaluated.

William: And the above has exactly what to do with the initial comment you made about this, where you specifically quoted my post #149 ?

[William]

[Replying to post 177 ]


William: It has already been answered, but as usual the answer has not been acknowledged as the intellectually honest, logical thing that it is.

In the case of a magical thing existing - the universe in this case - the thing is 'magical' for existing and magical for having within it, awareness's which can acknowledge it as existing.

In the case of a Creator of that magical thing, it is not necessary or even logical to assume that because the one magical thing exists because of a Creator, that the Creator of the magical thing must also have been created.

One can and should leave room for the possibility that a Creator of this thing we call the universe, may well have been created by another Creator, and thus the mind can then ask "where does it end?" until logic kicks in and tells the mind that it must end with a Creator who had no Creator, and thus the magical is explained by something seemingly magical, yet logically sound.

Often when this is pointed out, the typical response is along the lines of;

"Then how do you know that the universe has not also existed eternally?"

In this way, the idea of a Creator can continually be argued against by those with their own materialistic non-negotiation bias. A bias that the OP attributes as contemptible only when coming from a theist position. Apparently such bias is 'okay' if it derives from non-theist positions.
The bias was mentioned by me in post #43 when I wrote;

• "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."

The evidence is incontrovertible. The ongoing creativity we know about and are involved within is without a doubt, intelligent. As such, if indeed the universe has always existed - in one form or another - this in itself does not mean that it is a mindless process, as the materialists continue to believe in.

So, if it does eventually prove to be the case that the universe has always existed as the magical thing that it is, this in itself does not mean that the universe itself is a mindless unthinking machine which just happens to somehow know how to unfold as it does. The coding has already been identified. It is practically everywhere. To treat it as materialistic accident is illogical and profoundly, intentionally, ignorant.

If this magical universe purposefully self creates, then it is its own Creator, and as such, has always existed as its own Creator...reinventing itself perpetually.

The clues are all there and are only missed when we decide to be swayed by our bias, whether that bias leans toward materialism or theistic religiosity is irrelevant.

A mindless process, it most obviously isn't.

But of course, we are free to believe whatever we each want to. As the OP points out - unfairly - a bias against theism whilst endorsing materialism, when the truth of the matter is, this nonnegotiable confidence in beliefs surrounding the facts, are rife in both camps.

So no - the belief (for that is what it is) that "We don't need to be agnostic with respect to materialism." is rubbish, and should be treated as the garbage that it is.

[marco]

One can and should leave room for the possibility that a Creator of this thing we call the universe, may well have been created by another Creator, and thus the mind can then ask "where does it end?" until logic kicks in and tells the mind that it must end with a Creator who had no Creator, and thus the magical is explained by something seemingly magical, yet logically sound.

I wonder how logic is "kicking in" when it assumes that there must be a beginning for a series. We can demonstrate that a series can go on infinitely, and have no beginning or end. If a number n was formed from being double its predecessor then there is no first or last member in the series.

The demand for a first cause or a being that was not created is an indication of the finite processes of which we are a part. Our logic does not do terribly well when faced with infinity. Mathematicians have discovered astonishing properties of infinite series that seem to defy logic. Perhaps the best answer is to say "I don't know." The primitive answer is to invent a judgmental God of infinite proportions. An honest, simple answer is to call the sun a god. It is probably a mistake to look at finite human processes and make conclusions about infinite processes. So perhaps we should not let human logic kick in.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 182 by marco]

So are you saying that not everything has to have a beginning? That even if we cannot explain it we should open our minds to the possibility of an uncaused infinite existence?

[William]

[Replying to post 182 by ]

marco: perhaps we should not let human logic kick in.

William: It appears the intention of the thread is contrary to this sentiment, marco.
I feel that in using my human logic within this "magical" universe, the likelihood we will discover the answer before I depart from it, leaves me logically having to keep the notion of more to come, in The Realm of Agnosticism.
What the "afterlife" might entail as far as experiencing goes is another matter entirely, which one will just have to deal with.
Same as with notions of what the nature of a Creator of this universe might "truly" be.

But the notion of a Creator and presently being within a creation is still very much on the table with the rest, including contrary notions, as far as any human science is concerned.

Otherwise, we would have been shown the evidence already.

How any bias might swing that evidence into nonnegotiable tangents, is much the much, and adds nothing to the something, either way.

marco: An honest, simple answer is to call the sun a god.

William: Ultimately, as much as the Sun and indeed the Earth and therefore the Solar System, and thus the Galaxy (if I left anything out, that is unintentional) are or is some sort of God-Creator, so too are we...at least in part thereof.

Not to digress, my point is, we don't even know for sure that it is not some awesome kind of simulator giving us the experience, and scientists certainly haven't shown that it isn't...so "open mind" remains in that logical position between materialism and religiosity.


Your idea of not allowing human logic kick in, leaves us all with what, exactly.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 182 by marco]

So are you saying that not everything has to have a beginning? That even if we cannot explain it we should open our minds to the possibility of an uncaused infinite existence?

<bolding mine>

In what circumstances (examining the physical world) do you think someone doing the opposite would be more useful?

[Athetotheist]

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.

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.

Well, I've argued that the universe cannot have created itself and that the existence of such a universe is evidence of a creator, but perhaps we don't need to go there....

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.

Don't assume that I haven't thought about the second question (I have), but you have no answer for the first question whether I can answer the second question or not......unless, as you propose, the universe is magical. I would have to concede that the second question is bigger and far more interesting than the first, and there does seem to be something we agree on: either way seems to require magic.

Maybe Sagan was onto something with his "saving a step" proposal, but didn't take it far enough. Maybe there are three instead of his original two:

1. If we conclude that we can't answer the question of where a creator came from, why not save a step and conclude that we can't answer the question of where the universe came from?

2. If we conclude that a creator has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?

....and....

3. If we conclude that a self-causing creator would be miraculous, why not save a step and conclude that a self-causing universe is miraculous?

[marco]

[Replying to post 182 by marco]

So are you saying that not everything has to have a beginning? That even if we cannot explain it we should open our minds to the possibility of an uncaused infinite existence?

I said it is possible to illustrate things that have no end and no beginning. The knots we tie ourselves in when we attempt to account for starts and finishes are mere indications of human limitations. Limited beings would perhaps wish to impose limits on all things. Rather than foolishly and presumptuously proposing some explanation for gods and men, I simply say I have no idea, and man at this moment has no idea either. In the meantime many will make do with the creation on a deity who breathed breath into mud and so made the first man. That explanation might be perfect for many; for me it is cruder than having the moon as a beautiful goddess. Man is not without artistry in building totems and temples to his gods.

[JehovahsWitness]

I said it is possible to illustrate things that have no end and no beginning.

So are you saying its impossible for such things to exist outside of an illustration?

[Divine Insight]

Maybe Sagan was onto something with his "saving a step" proposal, but didn't take it far enough. Maybe there are three instead of his original two:

1. If we conclude that we can't answer the question of where a creator came from, why not save a step and conclude that we can't answer the question of where the universe came from?

2. If we conclude that a creator has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?

....and....

3. If we conclude that a self-causing creator would be miraculous, why not save a step and conclude that a self-causing universe is miraculous?

I would imagine that Carl would indeed agree with all three of these.

The moment you bring deism into the picture you are automatically making totally unwarranted assumptions.

The very concept of deism is a concept of a conscious thinking entity. If not for this, then how would it be different from Taoism?

Taoism basically takes the position that "yes" something appears to be going on that we cannot explain. Things we cannot explain we tend to call 'magical" or "miraculous" or whatever other terms we can think of to describe things we can't explain.

The difference between Taoism and Deism is that Taoism is happy to stop with that conclusion. Something appears to be going on that we cannot explain.

But the desists when to then jump to the totally unwarranted conclusion that this must mean that there exists some conscious entity who is purposefully performing the magic.

I suggest that this actually stems from an extreme mistake. As soon as magic is said to have been performed most human instantly concluded that the most rational explanation is than a magician performed the magic. Therefore they think that it's reasonable to conclude that there must be a magician behind anything that appears to be magical.

The problem with this is that it's actually dead wrong. The reason it makes sense to call up on a magician as having performed magic in the real world is because this actually explains why no real magic was performed at all. Instead, worldly magicians are actually illusion artists who simply make it appear that something happened that supposedly can't happen. They then serve as an explanation for this because the ultimate explanation is that the magician didn't really perform any magic at all. All they did was create a false illusion.

So this is why a magician explains how magic is done in the real world. In short, the moment a magician is introduced as the explanation, all this really says is that there was never any actual magic performed at all. Instead it was just trickery. An illusion.

So that's why a worldly magician "explains" magic.

But deists have apparently forgotten this. So if they conclude that existence must be "magical" (i.e. unexplained), then there must be a magician behind it who is performing the magic and this then explains how the magic can occur.

But that's wrong. The existence of a magician to explain real magic doesn't work. That would be no explanation because a real magician who could perform real magic would himself be unexplained.

So that's basically the crux of why your argument for the existence of a magician doesn't stand up logically.

If you want to accept that the universe itself is magical (i.e. something we cannot explain), then there's no need to go further to claim that a magician must have done. To claim that a magician must have done it only means that you refuse to accept that magic can exist in the first place, so you need to have a magician who explains how the magic is done. But if there is a magician who can explain how the magic is done, then there wouldn't be any magic at all.

So it's a useless argument.

So yes, Carl Sagan's basic principle applies:

3. If we conclude that a self-causing creator would be miraculous, why not save a step and conclude that a self-causing universe is miraculous?

That's exactly right. Calling in a need for a magician to have performed the magic is an unnecessary step. In fact, it wouldn't even be magic if it required a magician to perform it.

So basically all you are saying is that you can't accept the idea of a magical universe, but you can accept the idea of a magical magician.

But why? What's gained by the extra step?