Rationality & Christianity: Mutually Exclusive?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I won't look into the details of Dawkins' specific argument, but your bit here is just weird. Even granting some arbitrary evaluation of complexity (you might be compounding with the infinite nature of ignorance), how do you evaluate the likelihood of creation (i.e. "Creation")? Should such a thing even have the property of likelihood? And in principle, why would "likelihood" be a linear function of "complexity"?

Yes, it's weird, or possibly Wyrd. The likelihood of anything is a function of the complexity of the outcome. Boil it down to it's most simple - if you roll a six-sided die the probability of getting a 6 is 1/6, roll two dice for two sixes and the probability is 1/36.

With me so far?

OK - so Pape referenced the "complex God" argument. The argument, which is fallacious, is that because God is complex he is unlikely and therefore it is less likely that he exists and decided to create the universe than that the universe simple came into being.

The reason the argument is fallacious is that, according to current best estimates in Science the universe is infinitely complex, that means that an infinite number of dice had to roll an infinite number of sixes for the Big Bang to go off and not be just a Little Pop that petered out. That means the likelihood of the universe coming into being as it is is infinitely unlikely, according to our best science.

Therefore the creation by God (complex or simple) is irrelevant to the probability of creation itself - it's already infinitely unlikely, so it can't be less likely.

Now - the caveat.

If Scientists subsequently discover that the universe is less than infinite then the probability of the creation of the universe becomes finite and therefore the above argument collapse. I don't think that's actually going to happen, though. I think the reason we conceived of "infinity" is that it is actually a property of the universe.

I'm afraid the difference between "few" and "many" is as vague as between "simple" and complex". What is the number which turns "few" into "many"? Like 5 - is it still few or is it already many?

They are not finite numbers, they are terms of comparison. A thing with two properties is complex next to a thing with one property but simple next to a thing with ten properties. The the case of the current discussion the quantities are infinite, so the only way to describe them is using terms of comparison like "simple" and "complex".

So it is a pure supposition that 2+2=4? I'd rather say that being itself very opaque/oblique metaphisycs/philosophy wants other sciences to look like that. Just not to feel that singled out.

That is, in fact, a supposition based on observation. Immanuel Kant wrote on this extensively, but the problem was best expressed by Erasmus when he said "Cognito Ergo Sum" which is "I think therefore I Am". The problem, you see, is that it's not possible to actually prove anything other than that you ARE thinking.

That's not to say that we should throw out mathematics and physics, far from it, but we should recognise that they are a theoretical system we use to explain the world rather than a universal truth contained within the world.

It seems like one must study philosophy not not discover something about the world, but to excel and to have fun. Are we talking of MTW yet, or is it still that pseudoscience?

Theoretical philosophy will not feed the hungry or heal the sick, but it has a practical use in restraining behaviour.

To go back to religion for a moment.

Suppose the Pope declared that all Black were inherently evil because God had shown him - non-Catholics would ignore him because they recognise his authority is grounded in the Christian System of thought and is not intrinsic to the universe - or you can't prove it is at any rate. Now suppose a biologist declared that all Black people were evil and presented Scientific evidence that conformed to the science of the day.

There are people today who, because of how they see "Science", might be tempted to accept that evidence but a philosopher understands that "Science" is a theoretical method based on a set of assumptions and that, therefore, there are multiple ways the biologist can be wrong even if his "Science" stands up.

The same can be applied to any proposition because all thought is grounded in metaphysics and therefore you can always kick out the theoretical legs. You don't have to obsess over that (I certainly don't) but you should be aware of it.

Don't take it as an offence or nitpicking - it is just professional interest. Is "dove" past tense of "dive"? And if it is, has this verb become an irregular one in modern English?

Both "dove" and "dived" are in use, though by most accounts "dived" is more common. "Dove" has mostly come up in modern English by analogy to the pattern seen in "strive - strove" and "drive - drove".

I had to sit and think about this. The tense of "dove" is the past or "perfect" sense whilst "dived" is the "plu-perfect". So In this case I said "dove" because that was what he did, he "dove" in. On the other hand I could have said, "after he dived into...". So Dived indicates something that happened and has finished, while Dove indicates something that may be ongoing.

Compare "Hung" and "Hanged". Pictures are "Hung" on the wall but men are "Hanged" and then cut down - but while they're on the gibbet they're being "Hung".

No they don't. Atheists, by definition, do not believe in God. There is no specifics under the definition as to what they *do* believe in. You are creating a straw man.

Atheists are not simply people "who do not believe in God" they are more correctly "People who believe God does not exist".

Atheism is a belief - it is not a neutral stance - the neutral stance is agnosticism. The confustion comes from historical use of language but it's still not philosophically correct.

Nope. Straw man again.

Demonstrate that the two propositions are not logically balanced - declaring Staw Man is itself a fallacy unless you can demonstrate it. Logic itself is not proven, it is merely presumed.

This is argumentum ad ignorantium. You can't argue that a proposition is true because it has not been declared false.

All scientific arguments are based on the proposition that a hypothesis may be presumed to be true until it is proved false. The scientific method constructs a hypothesis and then attempts to disprove it.

Your Christianity is interfering with your logic circuits.

I have provided arguments using logic, probability, the scientific method, and metaphysics.

My proposition is that the "logical" atheist's world-view is ultimately built on sand as insubstantial as the Christian's. I have gone to great pains to write out my argument as clearly as possible.

Now you either have to disprove it or concede, it's not sufficient for you just to object to my preamble and declare "straw man" because I've already written about two-thousand words supporting my point and addresses your objections before you actually replied. It's clearly not a straw man, it's all based on very well documented and valid philosophical arguments - most originally made by non-Christians.

That's not an appeal to authority, it's a reminder that I didn't imagine all this, I'm drawing on previous arguments between people with my view and people with yours. You can't just dismiss the entire history of a debate unless you can show it was all fallacious.