Question for atheists. . .

[HitchSlap]

Snakes don't talk in and of themselves. Not even in the Bible.

Snakes don’t always talk, but when they do, it’s Dos Equis!

 

[Bradskii]

I didn't make up inductive reasoning.

I didn't say that. I said you made up the term 'persuasive doubt'. Because a) it doesn't mean anything and b) no-one else has apparently thought to use it.

And you've used it more than once. It would help if you said 'actually, what I meant to say is...' rather than 'hey, here's a term I didn't make up!' Do you move goalposts for a living?

Can we agree to each answer simple questions when they arise? I've asked a few but I'm getting a lot of hat and no sign of cattle (with due reference to Hitch for that).

 

[PloverWing]

You mean inductive scrutiny, or. . .?

I mean deductive reasoning from premises I accept as true, with all the terms in the argument being well-defined.

I simply want to know where "persuasive doubt" ranks on the ladder of soundness and scrutiny.

Sorry, you lost me. What do you mean by "persuasive doubt"?

 

[HitchSlap]

I didn't say that. I said you made up the term 'persuasive doubt'. Because a) it doesn't mean anything and b) no-one else has apparently thought to use it.

And you've used it more than once. It would help if you said 'actually, what I meant to say is...' rather than 'hey, here's a term I didn't make up!' Do you move goalposts for a living?

Can we agree to each answer simple questions when they arise? I've asked a few but I'm getting a lot of hat and no sign of cattle (with due reference to Hitch for that).

Well, as atheists, we’re at a bit of a disadvantage, as his guy in the sky gives him the lion’s share of “objective honesty.” It’s a gift he’s even talking to us at all.

 

[Paulomycin]

I didn't say that. I said you made up the term 'persuasive doubt'. Because a) it doesn't mean anything and b) no-one else has apparently thought to use it.

You're not convinced, which means you're not persuaded. Because you force doubt. Pretty simple concept. Why hide it?

Am I not allowed to use adjectives?

 

[Paulomycin]

I mean deductive reasoning from premises I accept as true, with all the terms in the argument being well-defined.

So I'm reading this as the claim that you're the final judge as to what is true or not.

Sorry, you lost me. What do you mean by "persuasive doubt"?

I'm not allowed to use adjectives?

 

[PloverWing]

So I'm reading this as the claim that you're the final judge as to what is true or not.

If you prefer, I can say it as "deductive reasoning from premises widely accepted as true", or something similar. If I've proven that B logically follows from A, my confidence in B is only going to be as strong as my confidence in A. That's how deductive logic works, right? Are you trying to say something different?

I'm not allowed to use adjectives?

Of course you're allowed to use adjectives. You said:

I simply want to know where "persuasive doubt" ranks on the ladder of soundness and scrutiny.

I'm asking you to define your terms so that I can answer your question. When you say "persuasive doubt", do you mean the belief that an assertion is probably false?

 

[Paulomycin]

Sorry, you lost me. What do you mean by "persuasive doubt"?

I was summing up the following statement, "I do not know of any proofs of the existence of God that I accept as fully sound proofs, holding up to the same kind of scrutiny that we use in our everyday work as mathematicians and computer scientists."

"I accept" = persuasive

"scrutiny" = inductive scientific doubt

Therefore, "persuasive doubt." No?

 

[Paulomycin]

Well, as atheists, we’re at a bit of a disadvantage, as his guy in the sky gives him the lion’s share of “objective honesty.” It’s a gift he’s even talking to us at all.

I know, right? Besides, you have zero evidence of an objective standard of honesty. At most, I see atheists make contradictory appeals to subjective forms of objectivity.

 

[HitchSlap]

I know, right? Besides, you have zero evidence of an objective standard of honesty. At most, I see atheists make contradictory appeals to subjective forms of objectivity.

Word salad. Hit me up when you’re serving meat and potatoes, sonny.

 

[Paulomycin]

Word salad. Hit me up when you’re serving meat and potatoes, sonny.

^ This right here is an argument from personal incredulity. Just be honest for a change and admit that you can't account for an objective standard of honesty.

 

[PloverWing]

I was summing up the following statement, "I do not know of any proofs of the existence of God that I accept as fully sound proofs, holding up to the same kind of scrutiny that we use in our everyday work as mathematicians and computer scientists."

"I accept" = persuasive

"scrutiny" = inductive scientific doubt

Therefore, "persuasive doubt." No?

Okay, thanks, that helps.

When I speak of proofs, I'm thinking of deductive proofs, like the ones used in mathematics, not inductive reasoning as in the natural sciences. The proofs in St Thomas Aquinas' writing and Gödel's paper have a deductive form. Thus, the scrutiny is going to be the kind that's appropriate to a deductive proof: 1) Does it follow the rules of deductive logic? and 2) Are the premises true?

Inductive reasoning isn't really relevant to scrutiny #1, analyzing whether the proof follows the rules correctly. We have a set of rules we've agreed on for deduction, and we see whether the proof follows those rules.

Inductive or scientific reasoning might be relevant to scrutiny #2, discerning whether the premises are true. Simple observation of counterexamples might also be relevant. If one of the premises has the form "All Xs are Y", then the observation of a counterexample makes this an unacceptable premise.

So, returning to your question:

I simply want to know where "persuasive doubt" ranks on the ladder of soundness and scrutiny.

I'd say that if one scrutinizes an argument and finds it to be unsound, then persuasive doubt would follow as a consequence of that analysis. Doubt of the proof, note, not the theorem; it's always possible that there's a different, sound proof of the theorem.

 

[Paulomycin]

When I speak of proofs, I'm thinking of deductive proofs, like the ones used in mathematics, not inductive reasoning as in the natural sciences. The proofs in St Thomas Aquinas' writing and Gödel's paper have a deductive form. Thus, the scrutiny is going to be the kind that's appropriate to a deductive proof: 1) Does it follow the rules of deductive logic? and 2) Are the premises true?

Great. Then I agree.

 

[Paulomycin]

@PloverWing Great. So here's what I got:

RC Sproul's modified Thomist Argument from Causality:

Given that Big Bang Theory has falsified Steady State theory, the universe (nature) did have a cause from outside itself.

Thus, cause rationally supersedes nature. Or is simply known as "supernature."

To account for ultimate cause, the only options (via deductive elimination*) are as follows:

- Chance
- Intent
- A material cause.

^ The latter invokes an infinite regress, which is completely irrational. "Turtles All The Way Down" applies equally to cosmological claims as it does to theistic claims.

"Chance" is not a thing-in-itself. Voltaire argued that chance is a placeholder for "we don't know." You need material dice to actually roll them to begin with. Thus, chance is eliminated.

Thus, deductively speaking, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Conclusion: It was done intentionally on purpose.

*Meaning that, until you can actually bring a fourth option (or more), then all rational options have been cited.

 

[Paulomycin]

@PloverWing

Here's the other one. . .

Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason, Modus Ponens variant.

Short version:

P → Q, P infers Q

or

p→q
p
∴ q

p = universal logic
q = universal logician

Modus ponens is a basic first-order inference in propositional calculus (logic).

^ See, it's extraordinary evidence due to its extraordinary parsimony. Extraordinary evidence that's also compatible with Occam's Razor.

Meaning you only have two options.

1. Accept it for the proof it is.

2. Reject logic.

That's how the logic trap works.

Extended version:

This singular omnipotent being can be proven, given the following extended* axiom, "If logic, then logician." This is a Leibnizian axiom based on The Principle of Sufficient Reason: It can take several forms such as, "If reason, then reasoner." This can be illustrated in the following Modus Ponens:

If P, then Q
P, therefore Q

P = universal logic
Q = universal logician

Anyone who denies P leads to a pure misology. A pure misology is equivalent to pure absurdism, and a denial of logic altogether.

Therefore, if logic is universal, then the logician would be omnipotent by default, since "universal" by definition would extend outward to include the entire omni (the universe) itself.

The premises of the modus ponens are valid when you consider the old Platonism debate on whether math is invented or observed (discovered). Bivalent logic would favor "observed" through first-order algebra, as well as empirical observation.

Since one cannot doubt the premises without rejecting all deductive logical premises in general, then the premises is true and the proof is sound. Logic is math-based, and mathematical Platonism is rational.

Thus, the above Modus Ponens is rational. The proof is trivially parsimonious, and extraordinarily so at that. The point is that this is reducible to something of an axiomatic trap: Either one must accept the proof, or deny logic altogether.

Therefore, it is logically necessary that bivalent deductive logic of any kind is traceable to a logician that pre-exists all causal events.

If the universe is running on a bivalent formula akin to Claude Shannon's IT, then logic transcends spacetime/the universe (the omni). Therefore, it logically follows there is an "omni-potential" that preceded it. By the same axiom, the logician exists transcendent of the universe and also not dependent upon it, nor the laws thereof.

CONCLUSION: Welcome to Deism. =)

^ NOTE: However, this is not the classical Deism of the 18th century. An omnipotent being by definition has no limitations of form, and thus no need of movement (Aquinas).

ADDENDUM: Entirely outside the argument above, this form of Deism, when viewed exclusively through the binary laws of nature, just so happens to agree with the apostle Paul's argument from nature in Romans 1:18-20.

 

[Bradskii]

*Meaning that, until you can actually bring a fourth option (or more), then all rational options have been cited.

Some of your assumptions were wrong. But a fourth option is a cyclical universe. There's no infinite regress and the cause of the next one is this one. Etcetera.

And yes, it contradicts what we might define as 'common sense'. But then, so does a lot in science.

 

[Paulomycin]

Some of your assumptions were wrong.

And you're being vague. You're not answering why, nor explaining any of your sweeping dismissals.

But a fourth option is a cyclical universe. There's no infinite regress and the cause of the next one is this one. Etcetera.

I'm not as stupid as I look. You're merely kicking the can down the road of an infinite regress of cycles instead.

And yes, it contradicts what we might define as 'common sense'. But then, so does a lot in science.

“It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.”​

― Richard Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics
​

Currently, you have no experiment to point to. All you're doing is hanging on one purely speculative theory of theoretical physics on blind faith. I'm pretty sure if I leaned on you hard enough, you wouldn't even commit to it.

 

[PloverWing]

@Paulomycin : Thank you.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not as stupid as I look. You're merely kicking the can down the road of an infinite regress of cycles instead.

I'm not hanging on it. You asked for a fourth option. Don't shoot the messenger.

And there are problems with the proposal. As there are with all suggestions as to exactly how the universe started. But if you check out conformal cyclic cosmology (proposed by Sir Roger Penrose) and investigate some of the problems, you won't find anyone who says 'Hey, it can't be right because it means an infinite regress'. And that's because it doesn't.

If you want to say it doesn't work then you'll need to have a basic understanding of it and then put forward one of the problems that have been suggested. You won't get any arguments from me because it is waaaay over my pay grade and I'm not qualified to argue for it (but at the same time I'd suggest that you aren't qualified to argue against it either).

Again, saying 'infinite regress' is simply exhibiting a lack of knowledge of the proposal. And that's honestly not a criticism - to fully understand it you need to understand very high level physics.

But it is one of the many options available for 'how it all started'.

 

[Paulomycin]

I'm not hanging on it. You asked for a fourth option. Don't shoot the messenger.

It's a repackaged infinite regress. You just refuse to admit it.

And there are problems with the proposal.

And you're not listing any of these alleged problems at all.

As there are with all suggestions as to exactly how the universe started.

It's a deductive proof; not inductive.

But if you check out conformal cyclic cosmology (proposed by Sir Roger Penrose) and investigate some of the problems, you won't find anyone who says 'Hey, it can't be right because it means an infinite regress'. And that's because it doesn't.

You naively assume that someone would admit to such. Many scientists are perfectly okay with infinite regress, as long as it gets them away from God.

Again, saying 'infinite regress' is simply exhibiting a lack of knowledge of the proposal. And that's honestly not a criticism - to fully understand it you need to understand very high level physics.

And you need to demystify physics. If they can't explain it at a freshman level, then they don't know what they're talking about. This is also known as "blinding by science." First and foremost, these are human beings subject to the same faults that anyone else is. Physicists are not some holy untouchable priesthood.

But it is one of the many options available for 'how it all started'.

Yes. Many contradictory and indeterminate options. But you're okay with any ivory-tower speculation as long as it comes in a lab coat. Right?