Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why I don't think I will ever be a Theist

Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 6:19:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is not supposed to be a bashing on theism or something.
Now, I am not convinced by any arguments for it, but my position would be, I think, a lot weaker, if somehow an incompatibility between moral realism and atheism was demonstrated.
The point being, I do not axiomatically reject theism.

In what follows, I will treat theism as 'traditional' theism.

Anyway, in mathematics we sometimes have to prove existence and uniqueness. For example I might have to prove (i) that there is a solution and (ii) that it is the only one.

So in attempting to prove that there is exactly one thing that has F and G, I might show that some x has F and some y has G.
But I left out uniqueness. My proof is incomplete, as I did not show that x is in fact identical to y.

Similarly, if you attempt to proof the existence of God as, say, the absolute moral authority and creator of the universe, you can run a moral argument and a cosmological argument and your proof of theism will still be incomplete.
It has not been shown that x, the creator of the universe (via CA), is actually the very same thing as y, the moral authority (via MA).

Therefore, as long as uniqueness is missing, theism cannot be affirmed.

I think ontological arguments are among the weakest arguments for theism.
But they are actually the only one's (at least right now) that could show theism to be true.

If you think, there is a flaw in this reasoning, just let me know.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 6:50:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 6:19:57 PM, Fkkize wrote:
This is not supposed to be a bashing on theism or something.
Now, I am not convinced by any arguments for it, but my position would be, I think, a lot weaker, if somehow an incompatibility between moral realism and atheism was demonstrated.
The point being, I do not axiomatically reject theism.

In what follows, I will treat theism as 'traditional' theism.

Anyway, in mathematics we sometimes have to prove existence and uniqueness. For example I might have to prove (i) that there is a solution and (ii) that it is the only one.

So in attempting to prove that there is exactly one thing that has F and G, I might show that some x has F and some y has G.
But I left out uniqueness. My proof is incomplete, as I did not show that x is in fact identical to y.

Similarly, if you attempt to proof the existence of God as, say, the absolute moral authority and creator of the universe, you can run a moral argument and a cosmological argument and your proof of theism will still be incomplete.
It has not been shown that x, the creator of the universe (via CA), is actually the very same thing as y, the moral authority (via MA).

Therefore, as long as uniqueness is missing, theism cannot be affirmed.

I think ontological arguments are among the weakest arguments for theism.
But they are actually the only one's (at least right now) that could show theism to be true.

If you think, there is a flaw in this reasoning, just let me know.

Your thoughts are exactly the same as mine. It's kind of scary, you must be my twin or something. In my opinion the ontological argument is the only argument that's actually for the existence of God, since it tries to demonstrate the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person. Cosmological, fine tuning, and moral arguments don't show all three characteristics of God, so they are not really arguments for his existence.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 7:23:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 6:50:58 PM, Dookieman wrote:
Your thoughts are exactly the same as mine. It's kind of scary, you must be my twin or something. In my opinion the ontological argument is the only argument that's actually for the existence of God, since it tries to demonstrate the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person.
Indeed.

Cosmological, fine tuning, and moral arguments don't show all three characteristics of God, so they are not really arguments for his existence.
True and they don't properly establish a single attribute either (with perhaps the exception of the moral argument).
In showing some being to have the power to create the universe, I have not shown it to be allpowerful, just that it is, well, powerful enough to create a universe.

And although I don't advocate a "lack of belief"-atheism, I think the Presumption of Atheism naturally shifts the burden to the believer.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 8:43:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 6:19:57 PM, Fkkize wrote:
This is not supposed to be a bashing on theism or something.
Now, I am not convinced by any arguments for it, but my position would be, I think, a lot weaker, if somehow an incompatibility between moral realism and atheism was demonstrated.
The point being, I do not axiomatically reject theism.

In what follows, I will treat theism as 'traditional' theism.

Anyway, in mathematics we sometimes have to prove existence and uniqueness. For example I might have to prove (i) that there is a solution and (ii) that it is the only one.

So in attempting to prove that there is exactly one thing that has F and G, I might show that some x has F and some y has G.
But I left out uniqueness. My proof is incomplete, as I did not show that x is in fact identical to y.

Similarly, if you attempt to proof the existence of God as, say, the absolute moral authority and creator of the universe, you can run a moral argument and a cosmological argument and your proof of theism will still be incomplete.
It has not been shown that x, the creator of the universe (via CA), is actually the very same thing as y, the moral authority (via MA).

Therefore, as long as uniqueness is missing, theism cannot be affirmed.

I think ontological arguments are among the weakest arguments for theism.
But they are actually the only one's (at least right now) that could show theism to be true.

If you think, there is a flaw in this reasoning, just let me know.

Mixing mathematics, which is a branch of science, with philosophy, which is a branch of speculation, makes no sense.

As Bertrand Russell explained, science and philosophy and religion should always be kept separate.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 8:52:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 8:43:29 PM, riveroaks wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:19:57 PM, Fkkize wrote:
This is not supposed to be a bashing on theism or something.
Now, I am not convinced by any arguments for it, but my position would be, I think, a lot weaker, if somehow an incompatibility between moral realism and atheism was demonstrated.
The point being, I do not axiomatically reject theism.

In what follows, I will treat theism as 'traditional' theism.

Anyway, in mathematics we sometimes have to prove existence and uniqueness. For example I might have to prove (i) that there is a solution and (ii) that it is the only one.

So in attempting to prove that there is exactly one thing that has F and G, I might show that some x has F and some y has G.
But I left out uniqueness. My proof is incomplete, as I did not show that x is in fact identical to y.

Similarly, if you attempt to proof the existence of God as, say, the absolute moral authority and creator of the universe, you can run a moral argument and a cosmological argument and your proof of theism will still be incomplete.
It has not been shown that x, the creator of the universe (via CA), is actually the very same thing as y, the moral authority (via MA).

Therefore, as long as uniqueness is missing, theism cannot be affirmed.

I think ontological arguments are among the weakest arguments for theism.
But they are actually the only one's (at least right now) that could show theism to be true.

If you think, there is a flaw in this reasoning, just let me know.

Mixing mathematics, which is a branch of science, with philosophy, which is a branch of speculation,
Now that's a bit oversimplified.

makes no sense.
How does a philosopher not rely on logic? The example could be from a textbook on some quantified logic, which you need in virtually every argument philosophers put forward in the last century. Theists included.
On the contrary, it's hard to see how engaging in the search of wisdom without the tools of valid reasoning makes sense.

As Bertrand Russell explained, science and philosophy and religion should always be kept separate.
And almost every philosopher would disagree with him.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 11:20:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't know anything about Fkkize's atheism, so I'll talk about mine. Perhaps we have something in common, perhaps not.

I wouldn't argue that there are no good logical arguments for theism, but I'd be lying if I said that was why I am an atheist and likely to stay one.

There is a thread somewhere about 'what is the point of philosophy', but no-one has yet said the point of philosophy is to put a veneer of intellectual rationalisation over one's gut instincts, but I think that it definitely one of its main uses.

The reason I am an atheist has nothing to do with my rejection of ontological proofs of God's existence - I am an atheist because I think the idea of god and gods is silly. I am not sure why I think that - I suppose its the product of the way my brain is wired up and my life-experiences. In any case, I have thought about this a lot and definitely it's not that I think the idea of god is silly because the arguments for god are bad, but rather I think the arguments for god are bad because I think the idea of god is silly.

Of course I am not supposed to admit that. I am supposed to pretend my opinions and beliefs are firmly grounded in fact and logical argument, so I construct philosophical [ ;-) ] arguments which I can then post on threads like this, in the (futile!) hope people will think I reached my atheism on rational grounds, not because I think that theism 'is silly'.

Of course, this isn't restricted to my views on the god debate. My views on politics, animal rights, art, money yada yada all have very little to do with any conscious reasoning about them, although I can give a fairly convincing argument in support of my views if I have to! I am a socialist tree-hugger with artistic pretensions because I can't be anything else, not because I made a rational choice.

I don't think I am unique. If we were all as rational and 'Mr Spock'-ish as we pretend to be then debates here would be polite exchanges of information leading to the mutual adoption of the rational optimum position. But in reality 'debates' aren't about logic and 'the facts' but about fighting over gut-feeling, instinct, animal passions and our sense of self-worth. No wonder that things get heated sometimes.... no?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 11:56:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't really find this problem that troubling. Or, if it is, it's troubling for a lot more than just God.

Think about the reasoning used in, say, historical investigations. One may show that the letter was written by somebody P and that somebody Y was known for writing letters of that kind, but that doesn't show that P = Y. So, we can't (reasonably) conclude that P = Y (given other relevant facts), because one can't prove uniqueness?

And since most of (today's) theistic arguments aren't modeled off of deductive, mathematical proofs and more on probablistic, inductive, bayesian reasoning proving that God is the ONLY entity that statisfies those conditions isn't necessary - one only need to show that God is the BEST explanation or NO WORSE than the alternatives.

It's why also don't I find arguments like "well, the CA doesn't show that that creator cares about us and cares what we do and... (etc)" persuasive either. That wasn't the point of the arguments in the first place. That's like saying just I've shown that the march on Selma is evidence that MLK Jr existed, it doesn't also show that some other essential characteristic of his was possessed by him (like his oratory) . It doesn't, but that's not point.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 1:25:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 8:43:29 PM, riveroaks wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:19:57 PM, Fkkize wrote:
This is not supposed to be a bashing on theism or something.
Now, I am not convinced by any arguments for it, but my position would be, I think, a lot weaker, if somehow an incompatibility between moral realism and atheism was demonstrated.
The point being, I do not axiomatically reject theism.

In what follows, I will treat theism as 'traditional' theism.

Anyway, in mathematics we sometimes have to prove existence and uniqueness. For example I might have to prove (i) that there is a solution and (ii) that it is the only one.

So in attempting to prove that there is exactly one thing that has F and G, I might show that some x has F and some y has G.
But I left out uniqueness. My proof is incomplete, as I did not show that x is in fact identical to y.

Similarly, if you attempt to proof the existence of God as, say, the absolute moral authority and creator of the universe, you can run a moral argument and a cosmological argument and your proof of theism will still be incomplete.
It has not been shown that x, the creator of the universe (via CA), is actually the very same thing as y, the moral authority (via MA).

Therefore, as long as uniqueness is missing, theism cannot be affirmed.

I think ontological arguments are among the weakest arguments for theism.
But they are actually the only one's (at least right now) that could show theism to be true.

If you think, there is a flaw in this reasoning, just let me know.

Mixing mathematics, which is a branch of science, with philosophy, which is a branch of speculation, makes no sense.
Don't attempt to convey making sense to people who aren't capable of understanding "the sense". Math Is circular reasoning and this line of reasoning by FKKze is nothing more than circular arguments wrapped in personal opinion fallacies as you sort of alluded to. As you pointed out, its amazing people don't seem to understand mathematical logic is in no way equivalent to logic in language, ideas, philosophies, etc. Theism doesn't need uniqueness as a validation, people need validation to fall into their idea of uniqueness to reaffirm their preconceptions and self delusions.

As Bertrand Russell explained, science and philosophy and religion should always be kept separate.
And the "many philosophers would disagree" comment in regards to this is typical ad populum reasoning. To even consider responding to this with that train of thought exposes personal opinion, not logic. Doesn't mean Russel isn't conveying a personal opinion , but that doesn't justify acknowledging the contrary with anything more than a "I disagree with Russel" as being the only logical response, If of course you disagree. Who else disagrees is irrelevant if you're engaged in discussing a position.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 1:43:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 6:19:57 PM, Fkkize wrote:
This is not supposed to be a bashing on theism or something.
Now, I am not convinced by any arguments for it, but my position would be, I think, a lot weaker, if somehow an incompatibility between moral realism and atheism was demonstrated.
The point being, I do not axiomatically reject theism.

In what follows, I will treat theism as 'traditional' theism.

Anyway, in mathematics we sometimes have to prove existence and uniqueness. For example I might have to prove (i) that there is a solution and (ii) that it is the only one.

So in attempting to prove that there is exactly one thing that has F and G, I might show that some x has F and some y has G.
But I left out uniqueness. My proof is incomplete, as I did not show that x is in fact identical to y.

Similarly, if you attempt to proof the existence of God as, say, the absolute moral authority and creator of the universe, you can run a moral argument and a cosmological argument and your proof of theism will still be incomplete.
It has not been shown that x, the creator of the universe (via CA), is actually the very same thing as y, the moral authority (via MA).

Therefore, as long as uniqueness is missing, theism cannot be affirmed.

I think ontological arguments are among the weakest arguments for theism.
But they are actually the only one's (at least right now) that could show theism to be true.

If you think, there is a flaw in this reasoning, just let me know.

Ya well there's cosmological arguments that intend to prove all the traditional qualities of God, based on the very definition of God they prove.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 1:43:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 6:50:58 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:19:57 PM, Fkkize wrote:
This is not supposed to be a bashing on theism or something.
Now, I am not convinced by any arguments for it, but my position would be, I think, a lot weaker, if somehow an incompatibility between moral realism and atheism was demonstrated.
The point being, I do not axiomatically reject theism.

In what follows, I will treat theism as 'traditional' theism.

Anyway, in mathematics we sometimes have to prove existence and uniqueness. For example I might have to prove (i) that there is a solution and (ii) that it is the only one.

So in attempting to prove that there is exactly one thing that has F and G, I might show that some x has F and some y has G.
But I left out uniqueness. My proof is incomplete, as I did not show that x is in fact identical to y.

Similarly, if you attempt to proof the existence of God as, say, the absolute moral authority and creator of the universe, you can run a moral argument and a cosmological argument and your proof of theism will still be incomplete.
It has not been shown that x, the creator of the universe (via CA), is actually the very same thing as y, the moral authority (via MA).

Therefore, as long as uniqueness is missing, theism cannot be affirmed.

I think ontological arguments are among the weakest arguments for theism.
But they are actually the only one's (at least right now) that could show theism to be true.

If you think, there is a flaw in this reasoning, just let me know.


Your thoughts are exactly the same as mine. It's kind of scary, you must be my twin or something. In my opinion the ontological argument is the only argument that's actually for the existence of God, since it tries to demonstrate the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person. Cosmological, fine tuning, and moral arguments don't show all three characteristics of God, so they are not really arguments for his existence.

I thought you guys were just multis? :O
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Yonko
Posts: 227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 4:22:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 6:19:57 PM, Fkkize wrote:
This is not supposed to be a bashing on theism or something.
Now, I am not convinced by any arguments for it, but my position would be, I think, a lot weaker, if somehow an incompatibility between moral realism and atheism was demonstrated.
The point being, I do not axiomatically reject theism.

In what follows, I will treat theism as 'traditional' theism.

Anyway, in mathematics we sometimes have to prove existence and uniqueness. For example I might have to prove (i) that there is a solution and (ii) that it is the only one.

So in attempting to prove that there is exactly one thing that has F and G, I might show that some x has F and some y has G.
But I left out uniqueness. My proof is incomplete, as I did not show that x is in fact identical to y.

Similarly, if you attempt to proof the existence of God as, say, the absolute moral authority and creator of the universe, you can run a moral argument and a cosmological argument and your proof of theism will still be incomplete.
It has not been shown that x, the creator of the universe (via CA), is actually the very same thing as y, the moral authority (via MA).

Therefore, as long as uniqueness is missing, theism cannot be affirmed.

That's not a very good reason to reject theism lol. Are you seriously implying that, if all non-ontological arguments were sound, then it would entail some weird sort of polytheism instead of classical theism? Like, the simultaneous existence of a bunch of different entities necessitated by their respective arguments -- a creator deity, a moral law-maker, a transcendental author of logic, a grand fine-tuner, etc?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 9:14:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 4:22:58 AM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/13/2015 6:19:57 PM, Fkkize wrote:
This is not supposed to be a bashing on theism or something.
Now, I am not convinced by any arguments for it, but my position would be, I think, a lot weaker, if somehow an incompatibility between moral realism and atheism was demonstrated.
The point being, I do not axiomatically reject theism.

In what follows, I will treat theism as 'traditional' theism.

Anyway, in mathematics we sometimes have to prove existence and uniqueness. For example I might have to prove (i) that there is a solution and (ii) that it is the only one.

So in attempting to prove that there is exactly one thing that has F and G, I might show that some x has F and some y has G.
But I left out uniqueness. My proof is incomplete, as I did not show that x is in fact identical to y.

Similarly, if you attempt to proof the existence of God as, say, the absolute moral authority and creator of the universe, you can run a moral argument and a cosmological argument and your proof of theism will still be incomplete.
It has not been shown that x, the creator of the universe (via CA), is actually the very same thing as y, the moral authority (via MA).

Therefore, as long as uniqueness is missing, theism cannot be affirmed.

That's not a very good reason to reject theism lol.
It is not meant to be. It is an obstacle on the way to theism, not a speedway to atheism.

Are you seriously implying that, if all non-ontological arguments were sound, then it would entail some weird sort of polytheism instead of classical theism? Like, the simultaneous existence of a bunch of different entities necessitated by their respective arguments -- a creator deity, a moral law-maker, a transcendental author of logic, a grand fine-tuner, etc?
I have never talked about entailment. But yes, it is possible that all these arguments prove the existence of distinct entities, as uniqueness has not been established.
Ontological arguments aside, what makes you think these things originate from the same being?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 9:19:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 1:43:16 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
Ya well there's cosmological arguments that intend to prove all the traditional qualities of God, based on the very definition of God they prove.
If we are talking about God as in traditional theism, then I am not sure how a cosmological argument could establish perfect goodness.

I thought you guys were just multis? :O
What's that?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 9:20:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 9:28:42 PM, riveroaks wrote:
Lots and lots of verbosity so far.

You're the one who dodged my argument, made an assertion and quoted Russell in support lol
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 9:34:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 11:56:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I don't really find this problem that troubling. Or, if it is, it's troubling for a lot more than just God.

Think about the reasoning used in, say, historical investigations. One may show that the letter was written by somebody P and that somebody Y was known for writing letters of that kind, but that doesn't show that P = Y. So, we can't (reasonably) conclude that P = Y (given other relevant facts), because one can't prove uniqueness?
This is of course a reasonable inference. However, how do we know, in the case of theism, that, say, moral authorities are known to also be universe creators?

And since most of (today's) theistic arguments aren't modeled off of deductive, mathematical proofs and more on probablistic, inductive, bayesian reasoning proving that God is the ONLY entity that statisfies those conditions isn't necessary - one only need to show that God is the BEST explanation or NO WORSE than the alternatives.
Relative to theism vs atheism, yes. But theism vs polytheism? (Which is my primary concern)
On the face of it, it seems application of the law of parsimony is the only reason to prefer theism over polytheism.
But then again, there aren't any polytheists around to defend the multitute of gods.

It's why also don't I find arguments like "well, the CA doesn't show that that creator cares about us and cares what we do and... (etc)" persuasive either.
Which is of course not what I am trying to say here.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 9:51:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I get it. F doesn't think he will be a theist because even if there is a good argument for a creator to exist and a good argument for a 'source of morality' to exist, there would still be a need to prove that the creator and the moral source were the same thing and (preferably) singular.

I suppose the question arises just what properties must something possess to count as a god. Is it necessary to be both a universe creator and a moral source, or will just being one of them do? Is god possibly a committee?

Personally, I think the sole qualification for being called a god is the ability to smite unbelievers with well-aimed thunderbolts, or afflict adulterers with boils. I mean, if something can do that it wouldn't be sensible to antagonise it.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 10:06:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 9:51:23 AM, kp98 wrote:
I get it. F doesn't think he will be a theist because even if there is a good argument for a creator to exist and a good argument for a 'source of morality' to exist, there would still be a need to prove that the creator and the moral source were the same thing and (preferably) singular.
Exactly.

I suppose the question arises just what properties must something possess to count as a god. Is it necessary to be both a universe creator and a moral source, or will just being one of them do? Is god possibly a committee?
Since I am talking about traditional theism, the answer is unfortunately No to both.

Personally, I think the sole qualification for being called a god is the ability to smite unbelievers with well-aimed thunderbolts, or afflict adulterers with boils. I mean, if something can do that it wouldn't be sensible to antagonise it.
lol
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 10:19:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
On the face of it, it seems application of the law of parsimony is the only reason to prefer theism over polytheism.

That is a common mis-application of Occams razor. Occams razor properly refers to the number of assumptions in a hypothesis, not the number of objects.

Consider 'Creation was done by precisely one god' and 'Creation was done by an unspecifed number of gods'. 'Precisely one' is obviously a very tight constraint on the number of gods, which could be from 1 to just shy of infinity! Unless there is a positive reason to think there is precisely one god then it shouldn't be taken as the default - that is not what the principle of parsimonly is about.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 10:45:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 10:19:59 AM, kp98 wrote:
On the face of it, it seems application of the law of parsimony is the only reason to prefer theism over polytheism.

That is a common mis-application of Occams razor. Occams razor properly refers to the number of assumptions in a hypothesis, not the number of objects.

Consider 'Creation was done by precisely one god' and 'Creation was done by an unspecifed number of gods'. 'Precisely one' is obviously a very tight constraint on the number of gods, which could be from 1 to just shy of infinity! Unless there is a positive reason to think there is precisely one god then it shouldn't be taken as the default - that is not what the principle of parsimonly is about.

Occam is not the only one who had something to say about parsimony.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Yonko
Posts: 227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 2:43:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 9:14:19 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 4:22:58 AM, Yonko wrote:

Are you seriously implying that, if all non-ontological arguments were sound, then it would entail some weird sort of polytheism instead of classical theism? Like, the simultaneous existence of a bunch of different entities necessitated by their respective arguments -- a creator deity, a moral law-maker, a transcendental author of logic, a grand fine-tuner, etc?
I have never talked about entailment. But yes, it is possible that all these arguments prove the existence of distinct entities, as uniqueness has not been established.
Ontological arguments aside, what makes you think these things originate from the same being?

Principle or parsimony.
One all-powerful God who fulfills all those roles is simpler and has more expanatory power than a pantheon of gods.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 4:11:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 9:34:59 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/13/2015 11:56:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I don't really find this problem that troubling. Or, if it is, it's troubling for a lot more than just God.

Think about the reasoning used in, say, historical investigations. One may show that the letter was written by somebody P and that somebody Y was known for writing letters of that kind, but that doesn't show that P = Y. So, we can't (reasonably) conclude that P = Y (given other relevant facts), because one can't prove uniqueness?
This is of course a reasonable inference. However, how do we know, in the case of theism, that, say, moral authorities are known to also be universe creators?

And since most of (today's) theistic arguments aren't modeled off of deductive, mathematical proofs and more on probablistic, inductive, bayesian reasoning proving that God is the ONLY entity that statisfies those conditions isn't necessary - one only need to show that God is the BEST explanation or NO WORSE than the alternatives.
Relative to theism vs atheism, yes. But theism vs polytheism? (Which is my primary concern)
On the face of it, it seems application of the law of parsimony is the only reason to prefer theism over polytheism.
But then again, there aren't any polytheists around to defend the multitute of gods.


Swinburne has made a lot of arguments about the explanatory power of monotheism over polytheism.

I don't have his book with me so I'll just link to this (questionable) apologetics book. They give a barebones outline of his argument.

https://books.google.com...

It's why also don't I find arguments like "well, the CA doesn't show that that creator cares about us and cares what we do and... (etc)" persuasive either.
Which is of course not what I am trying to say here.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 4:39:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 4:11:17 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/14/2015 9:34:59 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/13/2015 11:56:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I don't really find this problem that troubling. Or, if it is, it's troubling for a lot more than just God.

Think about the reasoning used in, say, historical investigations. One may show that the letter was written by somebody P and that somebody Y was known for writing letters of that kind, but that doesn't show that P = Y. So, we can't (reasonably) conclude that P = Y (given other relevant facts), because one can't prove uniqueness?
This is of course a reasonable inference. However, how do we know, in the case of theism, that, say, moral authorities are known to also be universe creators?

And since most of (today's) theistic arguments aren't modeled off of deductive, mathematical proofs and more on probablistic, inductive, bayesian reasoning proving that God is the ONLY entity that statisfies those conditions isn't necessary - one only need to show that God is the BEST explanation or NO WORSE than the alternatives.
Relative to theism vs atheism, yes. But theism vs polytheism? (Which is my primary concern)
On the face of it, it seems application of the law of parsimony is the only reason to prefer theism over polytheism.
But then again, there aren't any polytheists around to defend the multitute of gods.


Swinburne has made a lot of arguments about the explanatory power of monotheism over polytheism.
Right. But I am not really familiar with them.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 4:45:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 2:43:51 PM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/14/2015 9:14:19 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 4:22:58 AM, Yonko wrote:

Are you seriously implying that, if all non-ontological arguments were sound, then it would entail some weird sort of polytheism instead of classical theism? Like, the simultaneous existence of a bunch of different entities necessitated by their respective arguments -- a creator deity, a moral law-maker, a transcendental author of logic, a grand fine-tuner, etc?
I have never talked about entailment. But yes, it is possible that all these arguments prove the existence of distinct entities, as uniqueness has not been established.
Ontological arguments aside, what makes you think these things originate from the same being?

Principle or parsimony.
One all-powerful God who fulfills all those roles is simpler and has more expanatory power than a pantheon of gods.
Yes, I mentioned parsimony elsewhere in this thread.
A belief can only transfer so much of it's justification to another one. As popculturepooka said, most arguments for the existence of God are inductive or abductive. So, at some point, although each step seems to plausibly follow from the last, there simply is no justification left.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Yonko
Posts: 227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 5:06:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 2:43:51 PM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/14/2015 9:14:19 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 4:22:58 AM, Yonko wrote:

Are you seriously implying that, if all non-ontological arguments were sound, then it would entail some weird sort of polytheism instead of classical theism? Like, the simultaneous existence of a bunch of different entities necessitated by their respective arguments -- a creator deity, a moral law-maker, a transcendental author of logic, a grand fine-tuner, etc?
I have never talked about entailment. But yes, it is possible that all these arguments prove the existence of distinct entities, as uniqueness has not been established.
Ontological arguments aside, what makes you think these things originate from the same being?

Principle of parsimony.
One all-powerful God who fulfills all those roles is simpler and has more expanatory power than a pantheon of gods.

Fix'd
Yonko
Posts: 227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 5:45:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 4:45:44 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 2:43:51 PM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/14/2015 9:14:19 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 4:22:58 AM, Yonko wrote:

Are you seriously implying that, if all non-ontological arguments were sound, then it would entail some weird sort of polytheism instead of classical theism? Like, the simultaneous existence of a bunch of different entities necessitated by their respective arguments -- a creator deity, a moral law-maker, a transcendental author of logic, a grand fine-tuner, etc?
I have never talked about entailment. But yes, it is possible that all these arguments prove the existence of distinct entities, as uniqueness has not been established.
Ontological arguments aside, what makes you think these things originate from the same being?

Principle of parsimony.
One all-powerful God who fulfills all those roles is simpler and has more expanatory power than a pantheon of gods.
Yes, I mentioned parsimony elsewhere in this thread.
A belief can only transfer so much of it's justification to another one. As popculturepooka said, most arguments for the existence of God are inductive or abductive. So, at some point, although each step seems to plausibly follow from the last, there simply is no justification left.

Huh? I thought they're deductive... that's what syllogisms are, no?
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 5:51:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Principle of parsimony.
One all-powerful God who fulfills all those roles is simpler and has more expanatory power than a pantheon of gods.

On a point of pedantry, the principle of parsimony (aka Occam's razor) is the guideline that given two or more theories that are otherwise equal, the one with fewer 'extra bits' is to be favoured. If monotheism has more explanatory power than polytheism then monotheism is to be preferred because it is a better, more explanatory theory not from the principle of parsimony.

So if Fk had said he favours monotheism because it explains the consistency of the universe better than polytheism that's ok. But he said "...it seems application of the law of parsimony is the only reason to prefer theism over polytheism.", the difference being only in the number of gods.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 6:37:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 5:45:11 PM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/14/2015 4:45:44 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 2:43:51 PM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/14/2015 9:14:19 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 4:22:58 AM, Yonko wrote:

Are you seriously implying that, if all non-ontological arguments were sound, then it would entail some weird sort of polytheism instead of classical theism? Like, the simultaneous existence of a bunch of different entities necessitated by their respective arguments -- a creator deity, a moral law-maker, a transcendental author of logic, a grand fine-tuner, etc?
I have never talked about entailment. But yes, it is possible that all these arguments prove the existence of distinct entities, as uniqueness has not been established.
Ontological arguments aside, what makes you think these things originate from the same being?

Principle of parsimony.
One all-powerful God who fulfills all those roles is simpler and has more expanatory power than a pantheon of gods.
Yes, I mentioned parsimony elsewhere in this thread.
A belief can only transfer so much of it's justification to another one. As popculturepooka said, most arguments for the existence of God are inductive or abductive. So, at some point, although each step seems to plausibly follow from the last, there simply is no justification left.

Huh? I thought they're deductive... that's what syllogisms are, no?

Arguments like the Kalam are deductively constructed, yes. Which does not mean that each premise is a truth of logic. You yourself talked about prima facie justification, in the context of the KCA.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Yonko
Posts: 227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 8:03:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 6:37:58 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 5:45:11 PM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/14/2015 4:45:44 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 2:43:51 PM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/14/2015 9:14:19 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 4:22:58 AM, Yonko wrote:

Are you seriously implying that, if all non-ontological arguments were sound, then it would entail some weird sort of polytheism instead of classical theism? Like, the simultaneous existence of a bunch of different entities necessitated by their respective arguments -- a creator deity, a moral law-maker, a transcendental author of logic, a grand fine-tuner, etc?
I have never talked about entailment. But yes, it is possible that all these arguments prove the existence of distinct entities, as uniqueness has not been established.
Ontological arguments aside, what makes you think these things originate from the same being?

Principle of parsimony.
One all-powerful God who fulfills all those roles is simpler and has more expanatory power than a pantheon of gods.
Yes, I mentioned parsimony elsewhere in this thread.
A belief can only transfer so much of it's justification to another one. As popculturepooka said, most arguments for the existence of God are inductive or abductive. So, at some point, although each step seems to plausibly follow from the last, there simply is no justification left.

Huh? I thought they're deductive... that's what syllogisms are, no?

Arguments like the Kalam are deductively constructed, yes. Which does not mean that each premise is a truth of logic. You yourself talked about prima facie justification, in the context of the KCA.

Ah, you meant that the arguments' premises are abductively/inductively justified... That is true, but I think you're encroaching on a different topic of discussion -- the actual persuasiveness of the arguments at hand. I agree that if each argument only shows a 51% chance of its respective entity existing, then the total probability of the traditional theistic God's existence is going to be quite small, but if every argument demonstrates a 99% likelihood, then the total probability is still going to be very high. Whether each argument's degree of certainty is closer to 51% or 99% is up for debate.

Just for lolz, let's think about this mathematically. Assuming that there are 4 major arguments at play here (KCA, FTA, MA, REA), then even an 85% probability for each will leave a total probability of 0.85^4 = 52%, which is enough to warrant belief. Some might argue that not all of those arguments are required to demonstrate the attributes of the traditional theistic God, thus reducing the necessary threshold of individual likelihood even further.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 8:12:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Whether each argument's degree of certainty is closer to 51% or 99% is up for debate.

I'd prefer a somewhat lower bottom bound that 51%, purely for debating purposes.