DISQUS

Truden,

I think I understand what you were trying to say, more or less, I just don't think you ever put it into a cogent argument. What you were saying was similar to what Deepak Chopra says about quantum consciousness, for example. I don't think it meets the standards of logic, let alone any standards of evidence.

{ There are to reasons for such answer:
1) You don’t want to answer my question.
2) You are really not that intelligent.

I think that you are intelligent. }

Truden, I'm asserting:

(3) There are massive non-sequiters in your argument and I cannot imagine what you assume to fill them with in order to make your argument coherent.

For example, here is one attempt to interpret your argument:

1. The wave-particle lacks observable stable state.
2. The wave-particle can be observed only as behavior. [but isn't everything observed this way?]
3. [Non-sequiter] Therefore, the wave-particle is not an entity. (from 1, 2)
4. Behavior without a source is an illusion/dream. [i see know reason to grant this premise at all. Also, you must distinguish between "without a source" and "without a known source"]
5. [Non-sequiter] Therefore, the wave-particle is an illusion/dream, as we discovered recently. (from 2, 4)
6. According to the ancient Jewish religion, God created the universe with words.
7. [Non-sequiter] Therefore, ancient Jewish religion claimed that some parts of the universe were an illusion/dream. (from 6)
8. Science discovered the wave-particle was an illusion/dream several millennia after religion predicted we would find an illusion/dream in the universe (from 5, 7, and the knowledge that the wave-particle function was discovered recently)
9. If a religion makes a vague claim that turns out to be somewhat true under a very different interpretation, no matter how many claims it has made that are totally false, this demonstrates some truth of the religion.
10. Therefore, there is some truth to Judaism (from 7, 8, 9)

I haven't tried to fix your argument to be logically valid, but I think there are obviously a lot of non-sequiters and false premises if this is a fair attempt to analyze your argument.

I don't start with the assumption that we should. I was wanted to make the world a better place, so I started looking around to see if there was such a thing as "better", and if so, what was better and what was worse?

I looked for a while and couldn't find any good arguments for moral realism, so I kinda gave up. I wrote a very short essay on this problem called The Moral Crisis. I started looking into other issues. Then, quite by surprise, I came across a theory of moral realism that actually made sense and made only true claims about what really exists.

That theory was desire utilitarianism, which I briefly introduce (but do not explain) in this two-minute video.

Yes, and logic and math arose in a pagan culture. Whoopty ding.

> You wouldn’t be using anything. You would simply be a robotic agent at the expense of your genes, environment, and natural selection. <

Yes. That is me. Because of my genes, environment, and experiences, I would "use social forces to affect people's behavior to try to make the world better."

{ upon what grounds would you define “better”? }

Morally better. This the topic of my book, how to literally and actually make the world a "better" place.

Re: Newton. We're in agreement. All I meant to clarify is that Newton's laws of motion are known to "work" on certain scales, but they are known to be literally incorrect. Einstein's equations are the ones that work both on human scales and intergalactic scales.

But you're right; not at quantum scales. This is a huge problem, and the driving force behind the search for a "theory of everything," that makes sense of or eliminates this discrepancy.

Truden,

You last post reads like the infamous Sokal paper. The way you structure arguments and meanings is gibberish to me. I don't speak that language - whether it's continental philosophy or postmodernism or whatever it is, I can't for the life of me fill in your massive non-sequiters with the assumed connective tissue.

{ Science has discovered uniform standards do not apply to all reality. Newton’s laws must exist side-by-side with quantum mechanics. }

Newton was superceded by Einstein. Einstein's equations are in conflict with quantum mechanics. Scientists do not think this is because there is literally a logical contradiction in nature, but because something is wrong with one of the two sets of theories. Everybody and their mother is currently scrambling to find out where. Whoever solves this problem is greater than Einstein and wins 10 Nobel prizes.

{ How can you get upset or frustrated with anyone when they are simply “determined” anyhow? }

Frustration is an emotional reaction, not a logical one. But even if I had no emotions I would still use social forces to affect people's behavior to try to make the world better.

{ If you consider the origins of modern science, you will see it is indebted to western religion and arose in Europe for a reason. Thus, the two, western religion and science, actually share some of the same basic assumptions and limitations. It would be great to open ourselves up to the wisdom of the east. Our science is already showing all of that stuff ain’t just superstition or antiquated philosophy. But I imagine we would disagree about that as well. }

Yeah, um, I'm not even going to go there. :) We've said enough.

Sorry, Truden, your theory is incoherent to me. There are so many non-sequiters and vague terms in what you've written above and on Facebook that I have no idea what you are saying. If you can define your terms and then help me out by putting your argument in standard form (P1, P2, P3, with no huge gaps in reasoning like above), then perhaps I will able to know what you are saying. Short of that, I have nothing to say.

But I know that might take a while to present your argument that way, so I will understand if you decline.

{ It is illogical to think that the ancient “atheists” who didn’t have clue about immortality and Spirit will invent them and attribute them to supreme entity.

The idea for “invented” God is absolutely shallow from logical and psychological perspective. }

Nikolay, in all fairness, I don't know anyone who agrees with you. Historians know that unexperienced things can be imagined. Psychologists know it. Neuroscientists know it. Philosophers of mind know it. Writers of fiction know it. Everyday people know it. What you're claiming is "impossible" is not just possible but commonplace. The human mind is fully capable of inventing new concepts.

{ The only reason we have God as a concept is because people had the capability to observe or experience such entity or state. }

No. We imagine things that do not exist all the time. We imagine things that are apart from our experience. Mankind's imagination has invented all kinds of things it has never experienced, from magical realms to reincarnated souls to gods of all different kinds to many other things. I have already explained exactly HOW a concept like "God" could be conceived of without actually perceiving God.

For example, I have never experienced something that is outside spacetime. However, I can imagine what that would be just by thinking of "not in spacetime." Likewise, I have never experienced something immortal but I can imagine immortality just by thinking of "not dying."

Everybody knows this. I don't know why you keep saying that this kind of imagination is impossible.

{ Different people from different parts of the world who had no connection between gave the same or similar explanation of God and it comes to our days as the concept we are discussing now. }

Conceptions of gods are extremely different. The mayans have a god of tattoos. Some religions have literally millions of gods. Others have just a few gods that are like wild teenagers with superpowers. Others have austere, supreme, abstract gods like Vahiguru. Others have deities so limited and subservient it barely make sense to call them "gods" to the Western mind raised on the Greatest Conceivable Being.

I think this is much better explained by the theory that humans have evolved a disposition toward assuming agency rather than by saying a single being revealed himself in thousands of different ways to different humans across many millenia just so they could be confused and fight wars over each other over whose god was better.

{ Do you know that in ancient time the scriptures about God were available only to the most rich and intelligent people.
Why would they invent the letters and preserve the knowledge about God?
They had everything in their life. }

Many different reasons. Why did Hubbard invent Scientology, or Joseph Smith invent Mormonism, or Mohammed invent Islam? Why did the cargo cults of the south pacific arise? Why did the hundreds of folk religions throughout siberian arise? Sometimes it is deliberate, for power and money. Most of the time, I imagine, it's just that scared people who have no idea how the world works suppose that there are invisible people controlling everything, and they can be appeased and controlled through sacrifices or prayers or weird rituals. The evolution of various religions is a well-studied topic and there are many answers as to why they are born and grow and spread and die.

{ Why would the most powerful people announce that there is even more powerful than them? }

Because it's quite possible they honestly assumed there WAS such a being. They didn't understand how hurricanes worked - surely it must be the work of a very powerful invisible person that must be appeased. Or else they invent the god and claim to be is medium, so they can exercise even greater control.

What is your awareness-wave theory? What does it propose? What testable predictions follow from it? How could it be falsified? What data bears on its truth or falsity?

Nikolay,

There are many theories of concept formation (it's a rather recent field), but I don't know of any which claim that we cannot imagine new entities outside our direct experience by way of abstraction, concept conjunction, etc. Does your theory that denies this ability have a name, so I can research it?

And/or, just because I'm having such a hard time even understanding you, would you put your argument in traditional form with clear language, please? For example:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Now that, I can follow. I cannot yet follow what you are trying to say.

Or, is there anyone else who has argued the same thing you have, so I can see what it looks like in their words?

Nikolay,

Suffice it to say I think you are wrong about psychology and about belief formation, and most psychologists and neuroscientists agree with me. The way you present your arguments is full of gaping non-sequiters, so I cannot follow your line of thought. I don't think further conversation between us will be fruitful.

{ And Tallis, as aforementioned, is one atheist who doesn’t want to jump to the conclusion we are determined and have no freedom. }

I don't "jump" to that conclusion, and determinism certainly has nothing to do with atheism. I'm a determinist because that's where the evidence points. But that's a whole 'nother debate!

{ So, for me, even a Buddhist atheist may very well know the way, the truth, and the life }

Hmmm. What about a non-Buddhist atheist? :)

And, do you call yourself a Christian?

{ I believe God must work through the material He is presented with by the evolutionary process. We won’t magically change the structure of our minds, but perhaps He can trigger them or fill a void, in a sense, that we permit to exist. You yourself couldn’t walk up to any person on this earth regardless of their culture and dialect and expect to be understood equally well by all of them. And if we were to draw a more accurate analogy for mystical experience, you would then represent a culture and dialect light years ahead of anyone you encountered. }

Interesting. So God either doesn't care that he is perceived accurately by people, or else he isn't powerful enough to make sure people see him in a consistent light? He created the universe but he can't make himself clear to humanity?

{ I love and seek to please God because I find Christ, who for me revealed God better than any text or mystical experience, amazing and inspiring and, perhaps foolishly, think he was vindicated historically. }

There are a million things I could say here, but I won't open yet another can of worms. We've both put quite a bit of time into this already.

I look forward to your final replies, whenever you have the time to draft them.

Thanks for this interesting discussion, Andrew. I hope we have both learned some things, and had our ideas challenged.

{ >> Our minds imagine things that don’t fit our experience. >>

That never happens.
It is scientifically and practically impossible. }

Oof. Seriously? I think it obviously does, all the time. Is there a name for your theory so I can look up how others have argued in favor of it? I can't imagine how you could assert this.

{ That’s why I asked you to make up imaginary entity without using perceptive knowledge.
You couldn’t. }

I did. Twice. I'll do it again:

Fen'jqui is a being of 138 sexes. Fen'jqui is not extended in space, does not experience events, and does not experience thoughts. Nevertheless, Fen'jqui is an agent. He timelessly emits a non-wave, non-particle radiation that cannot be perceived by any beings.

{ I see terms from our KNOWLEDGE, which I personally obtained in grade five and the “eternity” from the Bible.
Terms derived from our observational knowledge }

I have never observed or experienced eternity or any of the other things I used to describe my imaginary beings. What traits does your God have that are beyond our knowledge and experience in a way that "eternity" is not?

{ >> You are convinced that mankind cannot invent gods that are beyond our everyday experience. Yet the evidence is right before you >>

I see no evidence. }

I specifically referred to the evidence that mankind has created thousands of gods that do not conform to their earthly experience.

Does Nikolay's argument make sense to anyone here? Can anyone perhaps explain Nikolay's argument in different words so that I can understand why I should think it is at all persuasive?

Andrew,

Epic post! I'll try not to write a book-length response, but I probably will anyway.

{ But the observation of whatever the brain seems to be doing is not evidence about the experience itself. }

Again, we have lots of well-tested evidence about how these mystical experiences result directly from brain activity, but no evidence that they result from direct encounters with spiritual beings outside spacetime. To say that these things are caused by encounters with spiritual beings even after these discoveries of how the brain works is like saying, right after we discover how lightning works, that nevertheless it's still possible that Zeus produces the electron charges that result in lightning. Yes that's logically possible, but just as unjustified and unlikely as Zeus causing lightning.

{ God is not deliberately confusing people. God allows a certain semblance of freedom and creativity within this world that is out of his hands, so to speak. If everyone’s brain is different, how could people have the same exact mystical experience? }

But again, why the heck would God reveal himself to people in such different ways such that people found hundreds of contradictory religions based on their mystical experiences? If you've studied comparative religion you know that different religions have very different ethical systems, very different beliefs, very different ways of understanding the nature of religion and the transcendent. There are even atheistic religions. If God is the source of mystical experiences - not brain phenomena - then he is certainly the author of confusion and resultant calamity, as the Bible says.

Everyone's brain and experiences are different, which is why our mystical experiences are so different. Because they come from the brain. If God wanted to reveal himself in a consistent manner to people, he could easily do so. I could, and I don't even have superpowers.

{ I do not perceive God as all-powerful and the ultimate cause of all that occurs. }

Ah! Good to know. That certainly solves the problem of evil. But I still don't know why you would believe in God. Atheism solves the problem of evil just as well, as do many religions and a thousand possible worldviews.

{ You would like to think you are so uniform in how you apply standards to “everything”, but that is BS. None of us do. That is the myth of modernity. }

I can't be perfect. There's probably some belief in there somewhere that is inconsistent. But when I find it, I immediately seek to make it consistent - either by acknowledging that prior belief to be false, or letting some other beliefs that are conflicting with it go, or something else.

But I do, as best I can, apply uniform standards to everything. When someone shows me how I am not being uniform, I immediately seek to eliminate this bias. My experience is that when I show believers the massive double standards they apply to their religious beliefs, they shrug it off.

I have explained the double standards you are using to justify your God-belief. I have explained them very specifically and repeatedly. And you have just acknowledged this double standard and accepted it, saying it's okay to have a double standard because you have chosen to do as part of your "willful belief" - your faith. And you are correct. That's exactly what faith is. It is a choice to maintain the double standard. To allow your religious beliefs through epistemic loopholes but not anything else.

{ You may think you have plenty of reasons to discredit the early Jesus movement but I did not find your “rebuttal” persuasive, yet I am open to being persuaded. }

Oh, that's fine. I wouldn't be persuaded by my rebuttal either. We didn't talk much about the historicity of the resurrection and it's an extremely complex topic.

{ You claim an objectivity none of us can rightly ascertain. }

No, I claim to pursue objectivity and intellectual fairness and honesty at all times. When somebody points out my failing I immediately correct it. In contrast, when I point our your double standards you say, "Yes, I have a double standard, because that is what I have chosen as part of my willful belief in God."

{ Yes, even if we accept there is an eternal uncaused cause, that doesn’t mean it is a singular God with any human-like attributes. }

Or even any kind of god. It could be the eternaton. Or a math student in a higher dimension. Or a hitherto undiscovered universal law.

{ The one cosmic God was less a human discovery than a revelation, which, like prayer, is a two-way street. It requires our engagement, effort, and openness. }

Or so you assert. I could just as well claim that psychic powers are not a discovery but a revelation that requires engagement, effort, and openness. Do not be closed off to psychic powers!

{ I guess one day we’ll find out if this myth of progress will hold up }

Do you really think it's a myth that we know 1000x more stuff today than we did even 100 years ago, and it's because of science not religion?

{ And yet, like past scientific theories, they may not fully account for reality. They may be reductionistic. }

You say "reductionistic" like it's a bad thing. And yet, everything we discovered so far turns out to literally be reductionistic. To bet against reductionism is now going against the trend of evidence.

Of course our scientific theories do not fully account for reality. But they do an infinitely better job of it that unjustified religious theories.

{ The concept of natural laws governing everything has been proven false. }

That would be huge news. When was this proven false? I missed it.

{ There were mountains of experimental evidence for older theories that have since been discarded. But now we are supposed to be certain our controls are perfect and all variables have been accounted for? }

No, never. Scientists more than anyone else will scream against claims of certainty. What I've been saying all along is not that science is perfect, but that it is way better at gaining knowledge than personal mystical experiences or feelings or testimony. Pointing out flaws in science does nothing to increase the credibility of unsupported religious doctrines, any more than pointing out the flaws in science would increase the plausibility of astrology.

{ that it may or may not have had an intelligent casual agent, but that postulating an intelligence as a matter of interpretation and inference is quite reasonable. }

I don't think so, and I just gave 4 reasons why this inference is unfounded.

{ I thought Christians often perceive things such as the Word and wisdom as eternal. And if Jesus is undead, then that is convincing evidence for the Christian. That alone would do it. }

Yes, and other people perceive Vishnu, or psychic powers, or astrological effects. Assertions won't cut it. Give me arguments and evidence.

{ > And finally, (4) we have good evidence that something can come from nothing, but we have no evidence of eternally existing gods.

Here it is again: presenting a claim and statement as evidence in and of itself. }

No. I gave the example earlier that virtual particles pop into existence uncaused. That is my evidence.

{ It takes a leap of faith to believe science will explain everything, but I readily admit I make a leap of faith every single day and will continue to do so. :) }

No. I do not think science will one day explain everything. I merely assert that given it's unbroken track record of replacing unfounded magical explanations for things with thoroughly tested natural explanations, we have every reason to expect that trend to continue and no particular reason to think it will suddenly reverse itself.

So, I do not make a leap of faith. I merely go where the existing evidence is pointing.

You do make a leap of faith. That's dangerous. Faith as a method for knowing will lead you anywhere. If faith is your epistemic strategy, you can just as easily justify belief in God as you can justify belief in fairies, astrology, psychic powers, etc. Faith is not a reliable method of knowing, and somehow I think you must realize this, but just choose to apply your double standard anyway - for reasons I shall not speculate about.

Am I totally off-base? Have I misunderstood you?

Daniel,

Thanks for your thoughts. What parts of my theory, specifically, are problematic - and why? Mine is not a Kantian view.

Any problems with a naturalistic theory of cosmic origins are made doubly problematic by positing a theory of origins that relies on a dozen totally unsupportable newly posited entities and properties.

I wasn't saying that the Big Bang happened when the first virtual particle popped into existence out of nothing. I'm just saying that we already know certain things can pop into existence uncaused, whereas we have as yet no knowledge of eternally existing intelligent beings.

As for Nikolay's points I still have trouble understanding what he is saying, but in any case he is wrong to assert that the human brain cannot conceive of things beyond our experience, as I have repeatedly shown. And yes, the evolution of several concepts of god throughout multiple cultures has been well-documented around the world.

Nikolay,

Our minds imagine things that don't fit our experience. We do it all the time. We invent imaginary worlds, imaginary realms, imaginary rules and conditions. I have twice given you specific examples of how such ideas can arise without perceptual knowledge of them, you just don't like my answers. I think we're at a dead end.

You are convinced that mankind cannot invent gods that are beyond our everyday experience. Yet the evidence is right before you: we have done so, thousands of times! And we continue to do so today. The human brain can imagine.

Shane,

Great post. Let me do the point-by-point thing again.

{ I’d still like to know your educational and vocational background. You’ve definitely been involved in other intellectual pursuits of some sort. I assume you didn’t become a deep thinker only in the last 1.5 years. }

I always liked thinking but I wasn't any good at it until I discovered critical thinking about 1.5 years ago. Before that I basically knew how to fix a broken computer and a few undergrad courses in psychology and that's it.

{ wisdom, intelligence, morality, and “credit” ... }

These are certainly meaningful terms, but they do not have intrinsic value, no. (Many naturalists believe in intrinsic value - for example Peter Railton - but I'm not one of them!) But I don't see how theism helps impart intrinsic value, though. Adding a god can only add that some things are meaningful to God, not that they are intrinsically meaningful - i.e. that they would be just as meaningful without God.

{ I’m wondering why naturalists don’t just drop the moral nomenclature and use different terminology, as most people typically think of (and perhaps desire to think of?) morality as involving more than mere group pragmatics (namely, intrinsic value/worth).}

I'm very sympathetic to your reasoning. Labels don't matter. All facts about Pluto remain true when we stop calling it a "planet." Likewise, all the facts about reasons for action and the other things described by desire utilitarianism remain true if we stop calling it "morality."

But I don't think I've hijacked the term "morality" for something else. Instead, I think that subjectivists and non-cognitivists have done so. For example, when someone says "Murder is wrong," the non-cognitivist says, "What you really mean is, 'Murder... yuck!'" and the person has to respond, "Um, no, I mean murder is wrong."

Of course, the person may be incorrect about "murder is wrong", or even that there is any such fact about murder and wrongness, but let us not put words in people's mouths. :)

Why do I think I have not hijacked the term "morality"? Because moral terms, I think, have typically referred to objective moral facts, whether or not they are "intrinsic." Many cultures recognize that if the universe was very different then moral values would change - so, they are not intrinsic but they are objectively true or false about the universe we happen to live in. And desire utilitarianism does refer to objective moral facts, so there is no reason to not call it a theory about "morality".

But now, what if it is really is the case that the term morality has generally referred to objective reasons for action that have intrinsic value? In this case, I still think it's useful to keep using the term "morality", since we're still talking about objective reasons for action even though there is no such thing as intrinsic value. For example we kept using the term "atom" after we discovered it was not indivisible, and we kept using the term "malaria" after we discovered it had nothing to do with bad air.

This is similar to the debate over whether atheists should use the term "spiritual", since (most of us) don't believe in any spirits. I haven't decided which way to lean on this one. It seems that non-atheists have been using the term "spiritual" to mean something more than just contact with spirits for a couple centuries now, but I'm still not sure "spiritual" is the right word for atheists.

{ The “right act is not the one that fulfills the most desires,” and yet “the right act is the one that a person with [desires that tend to fulfill more and greater desires than they thwart] would perform”? }

Do you recall the example of the sadists found in my book? That was written specifically to illustrate the difference between these two statements.

{ (a) why (or perhaps in what sense) “everybody should have” these desires, (b) whether you tie any notion of intrinsic obligation to this, and, if so, (c) how you avoid tying the latter to any intrinsic value [not to mention (d) what you would make of such obligation given a deterministic metaphysic]. Do you merely appeal to species survival and its pragmatic facilitators at this point? And yet, not even these can be said to have intrinsic value (enter Camus on suicide), even if they do have the closest thing afforded us by naturalism. }

(a) In desire utilitarianism, "should" means "there are reasons for action that exist such that..." In fact, that's what all normative theories claim, it's just that they disagree on what types of reasons for action exist. Everybody "should" have certain desires because there are reasons for action that exist such that they should have those desires.

It just so happens that all reasons for action spring from desires, as explained in my book.

(b) No, no "intrinsic" obligation.

(c) I do not tie moral obligation to intrinsic value.

(d) Not sure what you're asking. Are you asking about the coherence of moral responsibility in a world without free will?

And no, species survival does not have intrinsic value.

{ Is the majority (and more intense) desire intrinsically better than that of the individual? Why should one consider the majority desire (and/or its intensity)? }

No. Intrinsic value doesn't exist. All I mean by "good" is that there is more reason for action to do that good thing than there is reason for action to not do it. Since all reasons for action come from desires, we measure the desires that exist. To do this, we measure both the number and the strength of those desires, just as to measure water we would measure the volume and density of it.

I do not appeal to enlightened self-interest.

{ "A right action is one that a person with good desires would perform. A wrong action is one
that a person with good desires would not perform. "

Are these statements meant to be more than definitional/analytic? }

I think these are the most sensible definitions of "right" and "wrong" given that (1) morality is about reasons for action, and (2) all reasons for action that exist are derived from desires. If morality is not about reasons for action, or if desires are not the only reasons for action that exist, then "right" and "wrong" would obviously carry a different meaning.

Andrew,

{ I would, furthermore, differentiate mystical experiences with the experiences of schizophrenics. If you want me to assume they are one and the same, I’m afraid I need some more positive evidence. }

How 'bout the fact that we have lots of evidence that these are both brain phenomena, and no evidence that they ascertain a reality outside the brain? How 'bout the fact that we can trigger mystical experiences in the schizophrenic and anyone by triggering the same part of the brain?

{ We are all under various constraints, including our respective environments, genes, and cultures, so we don’t all perceive God as Jesus, for instance. God has to work within our frame of reference. }

So your theory is that all mystical experiences are of the same god, but people perceive that god to be incredibly different? Sometimes god reveals himself and says, "Fly some planes into some buildings." Other times he just freaks people out with the feeling of flying around the universe. Other times he appears to them in the form of Krishna. Other times he appears to them as a Muslim or Christian angel. Other times he appears to them as Jesus. Other times he manifests himself as a demon just to freak people out. Seriously? That's your theology? That god is deliberately confusing everybody so they can fight religious wars and follow totally different moral systems based on their contradictory mystical experiences?

I admit that's - again - logically possible, but I think explaining these mystical experiences in terms of things we already have a great amount of neuroscientific and psychological evidence for works a lot better.

{ I disagree with your application of this evidence. }

How, specifically? Because you think it's a better explanation of the evidence to say that god manifests himself in radically different ways to people all around the world, starting thousands of different religions who think they are all worshiping different gods, so they can start wars with other tribes over whose god is better? You think that's a better application of the evidence than simply saying the brain is powerful simulation software and can be induced into mystical experiences simply by putting an electric stimulus onto a certain part of the brain?

( your own retreat of sorts and that damn near everything can be regarded as insufficient evidence for the probability of a non-atheistic universe. }

No. The difference between you and I is that I apply the same standards of evidence for everything. I require the same evidence of astrology as I do of Hinduism, Christianity, theism, deism, gravitation, atomism, psychics, and fairies. It just so happens that gravitation and atomism present good evidence when I ask them to, and the rest of those things (and a bajillion others) don't present any good evidence or reasons. They all give the same retreats to the "possible", the same justification by personal mystical experience, the same "I don't need evidence to justify this belief like I do for every other belief."

{ Since everything we observe scientifically has a cause, we are ultimately forced to consider the “first cause” given the current cosmological model }

Good. So now you've hinted at the cosmological argument. Let me explain why this doesn't work, either.

Everything we know of came from something else. So if we trace everything all the way back, where did the first thing come from?

It seems we have two options. Either some things have always existed, or else the very first thing popped into existence out of absolutely nothing.
But neither of those options make any sense to us. We’ve never seen something exist forever, and we’ve never seen something pop into existence out of nothing.

These thoughts make our poor little heads hurt. Apparently the Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago, but what was before that? Does the question even make sense, or is it like asking “What’s north of the North Pole?”

So we don’t understand the ultimate beginning. What can we do with this gap in our knowledge? Why, plug it up with “God,” of course!

One of the oldest Christian arguments is to say that the universe needs a cause, and God is that cause.

But if everything needs a cause, doesn’t God need a cause? Christians try to escape this problem by saying that God has always existed. But do we have any evidence of that? No. Christians simply define God as having always existed. But that’s no good. I might as well define King Zog as a being that has always existed, and therefore he must have caused the universe. Or I could define a new subatomic particle, an eternaton, as a particle that always existed. Therefore I know that the eternaton kicked off the Big Bang. Christians don’t allow anything to simply be defined as eternal without evidence, except for Yahweh. That’s special thinking.

Also, even if we knew there was an Uncaused Cause, how would we know it was Yahweh? Why not Allah or a divine committee or the everlasting eternaton?

Thirdly, given history it is much more likely we will find a natural explanation for the ultimate beginning than a supernatural one. Everything in the past that we didn't know how to explain (childbirth, crop failure, disease, lightning) has turned out to have a natural explanation once we had the tools to look at it closely enough. To say that this time the mystery is likely to be explained by magic is to bet against all past human experience. Not a good bet.

Scientists recently discovered another problem for the First Cause argument. To everyone’s complete surprise, certain tiny particles actually do pop into existence out of absolutely nothing. Constantly. (But don’t worry about overcrowding; they pop completely out of existence all the time, too.)

So, we actually have seen something pop into existence out of nothing.

Perhaps the Big Bang occurred in much the same way. We have tested, repeatable evidence of particles popping into existence out of nothing, but we have no evidence of an eternally existing God.

Trust me, this boggles my mind, too – but the evidence is there. Relativity and quantum mechanics also perplex us, but we come to accept them when they are verified by mountains of experimental evidence.

Summary:

The First Cause argument falls apart under common sense. It is another (1) argument from ignorance. Our ignorance about the origins of the universe says nothing about whether God exists. Aboriginal Australians didn’t have our biological understanding of human sex organs, so they thought the Bagadjimbiri brother gods made sex organs from some mushrooms before turning into snakes and leaving to live in the sky. (2) The First Cause argument is mired in special thinking: Christians will claim without evidence that God is eternal, but no other thing or god can be eternal without evidence. (3) It is more likely we will find a natural explanation for the ultimate beginning than a natural one. And finally, (4) we have good evidence that something can come from nothing, but we have no evidence of eternally existing gods.

Andrew,

{ Again, you only accept “postive evidence” in one way. If someone has a mystical experience that only he/she can know and is so convinced of its reality, like Mark for example, how does science simply deny that claim or even rule it out as “positive” evidence when we discuss belief? }

Mark's experience does count as evidence. So do the mystical experiences of millions of people from dozens of non-Christian religions. So do the mystical experiences of atheists. So do the mystical experiences of schizophrenics. The question is not whether Mark's experiences are evidence. The question is, "What are they evidence for?" To claim that Mark's experiences are evidence for and undead magical Jesus but that the mystical experiences of other religious people are not evidence for their deities is inconsistent. Frankly, I think a much better explanation is found in things we have already tested and are pretty certain to be true: that the brain is powerful simulation software and produces all kinds of mystical experiences of things that do not exist in people of all religious faiths. That is more consistent with all the evidence we have.

{ There must be more going on regarding claims about ultimate reality and belief in God/gods than straight forward “positive evidence” criterion. }

Do you realize that you use the exact same language to defend the possibility of your chosen god as do those who defend astrology, pseudoscientific self-help like The Secret, psychic powers, etc. It is always this retreat to the possible, this "science doesn't know everything," this "my personal experiences are valid evidence but contradicting personal experiences are not," - and never any positive evidence that weighs in favor of the given conclusion. Using your methods, damn near anything can be "defended" with equal success.

Andrew,

{ What I am saying is how can we be certain the controls that seem “proper” truly are and will stand the test of time? }

We can't. We can never be sure. All we know is that we keep getting rid of methods that give us less reliable results, and keep adding methods that give us more reliable results, and that is exactly why we trust science more than other methods of knowing. (Other than pure mathematical logic, of course.) Again, mere uncertainty is no positive justification for the efficacy of prayer any more than the uncertainty of science is any positive justification for the efficacy of astrology.

Google has only 23 results for "atomic indeterminacy". I wonder if it is an obscure and unpopular alternative to the phrase "quantum indeterminacy"?

{ So all this would make a scientific study complicated as far as I am concerned. }

Yup. It could be that prayer works but is very difficult to measure. It could also be that astrology works but is very difficult to measure, or that sacrifices to Ahura Mazda work but are very difficult to measure. Until we have positive evidence for the efficacy of prayer, it must sit on the same shelf as astrology and sacrifices to Ahura Mazda.

{ I will continue to... act as if I have something creative to enact in this world. }

Yes, I recommend this even though I don't think libertarian free will exists. :)

Nikolay,

Let me respond:

{ With the above you think that you answer my question about the soul concept. }

Yeah, WordPress keeps deleting whole sections of my comments. I don't know what it's doing.

{ I appreciate it as entertaining, sarcastic way to disagree with idea, which you don’t understand, but you fail to accomplish the task. You used “dimensions”, “subatomic particles” and “eternal” as properties for your imaginary entity. Those are well known from our perceptive knowledge. }

I agree that I don't understand your point, but I'm trying to play along...

Since when do we have perceptive knowledge of higher dimensions or eternality? Just take out the "subatomic particles" reference and there you go - you've got a deity that is not based in any perceptual knowledge at all.

{ It seems that you are not as clever as the ancients who “made up” God. }

What ancient God is composed of non-perceived elements? They all have the body parts of humans or animals, exaggerated in certain ways, etc.

The way that certain versions of the Christian, Muslim, and other gods became so abstract is to simply add "not" to perceived attributes. For example, one popular God could be defined in this way:

not extended in space
not bound by time
not having a beginning
not having an end
not limited in power
not limited in knowledge
not limited in goodness
etc.

It is not hard to imagine such beings that do not fit within our perceptual knowledge. But even if it was, what's the point of all this? What are you trying to argue for? Please present your conclusion, and then show how your conclusion follows from your premises.

Do you have any argument for the existence of a particular conception of God, or is your purpose something else?

{ Do you know how did the “implantation” happen? }

I don't know what you mean by implantation. Is there a standard English word used in the sciences for whatever phenomena you seek to name with "implantation"? If I know what you're talking about, then I can give you my thoughts, if I have any.

Andrew,

{ As for prayer, it would be interesting simply to debate what constitues “proper” controls. }

Indeed. For example, Byrd's study claiming positive therapeutic effects for intercessory prayer embarrassingly did not control for the very variable being measured, along with a host of other problems.

{ Maybe, like atomic indeterminacy, it is not testable like gravity or some other natural law. Maybe it would be perceived as random. We often just don’t know why certain people beat cancer and others do not. }

What is atomic indeterminacy? Anyway, if prayer is tested and the results appear random, that is a statistically insignificant result. That means the God hypothesis fails to live up to its predictions. If there is a statistically insignificant result for, say, a study on psychic powers, you can always say "Ah, but my psychic powers manifest themselves randomly!" But scientists move on, knowing you've got nothing to back up your claim. In fact, you claim failed.

{ How do we test the notion of free will? }

Like this.

{ This touches on determinism and features a prominent British atheist. It probably won’t bore. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Seg8kjc6Z84 }

I do enjoy foraTV!

Andrew,

I explained this to Sarah Lynne earlier:

The “God” hypothesis does make testable predictions about the natural world, and that is the domain of science.

For example, most conceptions of God entail the prediction that prayers to that specific God will be more effective than chance+placebo, and also more effective than prayers to other deities. It just so happens that whenever we test this prediction with proper controls, it turns out to be false, which discredits that conception of God.

Andrew,

{ How is it logically possible for something invisible to be pink? }

It's not. That why the IPU was invented to parody certain impossible conceptions of God, and why I apologized if I ever used the IPU in "logical possibility" analogies.

{ You don’t think biologists can rule out unicorns? I would think they certainly can. }

We might dismiss unicorns as extremely improbable given the total lack of evidence, but we cannot rule them out as logically impossible. Even physical impossibility is not the same as logical impossibility.

{ I simply do not think your rebuttals touch on my idea of God. You have not provided ample evidence to disprove the resurrection (you only attacked one interpretation of the resurrection anyhow), and you did not demonstrate how the highly unlikely scenario for complex life to have evolved in this universe rules out a greater intelligence. }

No, of course not. I only meant to show that your arguments for God's existence fail. As I've said again and again, the failure of your arguments does not make God logically impossible. It merely shows that you haven't given a good reason to believe in God. Likewise, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not logically impossible, but nobody has shown me a good reason to believe in him, either.

So, if you have a good argument for the existence of God, please present it. Or if you want me to argue for atheism, just ask: I'm happy to do so.

I'm not sure that God can be proved or disproved, just as the Flying Spaghetti Monster can be proved or disproved. But I think the burden of proof is mostly on the one making a positive claim. As an atheist, I don't really mean that I can prove that no gods exist. I merely claim that I've not been given any good reasons to think they exist. In the same way, I'm an a-unicornist not because I think I can prove that gods don't exist, but because I've never been given any good reason to think that they do exist.

As for the article you linked to, I think - along with the expert, Austin Cline, who runs About.com's atheism site - there is almost nothing true in the entire essay. For example:

"The atheist will counter that it is either eternal, or accidental."

False, and these options are not even on the same scale. Atheists may assert that the universe is eternal or spontaneously arose in the finite past, that it is accidental or necessary, etc.

"The atheist continually resorts to the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to modesty) when dealing with Deists or even theists. The appeal here is to science as an authority which cannot be challenged."

False. Atheists do not consider science an authority which cannot be challenged. Rather, science itself is the act of challenging everything we know, and the very methods of science are constantly challenged by philosophy.

"First of all, science makes no claims about God one way or another..."

False. If God is supposed to act in the natural world, that is a testable prediction. See Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis.

"Second, science for all its great accomplishments is still in the infant stage, there is much about nature it simply does not know"

True, but this does not imply that theology does have these answers.

I could on, but I've already bored myself reading that essay. :)

Mark,

{{ I eagerly await your thoughts on desire utilitarianism. }}

Oh, shall I post them here? I keep linking to my book. I suppose I could copy/paste from my book if you want - but it's a very short book anyway.