Hypothetical: If we assume God does not exist, is theism unreasonable?

[Walter]

You say that I can go ahead if I want, Aluneth.

But I don’t want if I’m proceeding from a false assumption about you. I could be mistaken.
I suggested those Bible passages on the assumption that you are a theist of some stripe. Which, given the nature of your queries seemed like a reasonable assumption. But still an assumption, since you haven’t publicly declared your hand.

There’s a large asymmetry between us in terms of what we can know about each other. You can know more about me than I can about you because of what I’ve written in other threads. So, you probably know that I’m an atheist and sceptic. All I have to go on about you is the paucity of information in this thread. You could be a theist. It’s possible that you are a theist and I’ve assumed that you are.

So how about this?
I’ll go ahead with those Bible passages if you equalise the asymmetry between and publicly declare whether you are a theist or not. That way I’ll know if I’ve been proceeding on a false assumption about you - or not.

Deal?

[Walter]

I’m sorry Aluneth but you are making a false equivalence here.

The inflationary model which is the currently accepted paradigm in cosmology makes a generic prediction that other, separate universes exist far beyond the limits of our observable universe. So the basis for a belief in their existence is mathematics, particle physics, quantum mechanics and general relativity. From these well established fields of science we logically infer the existence of a multiverse, even if we cannot directly observe it.

Also, indirect evidence of the multiverse’s existence would be forthcoming if B-mode oscillations were discovered in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

Finally, the Inflaton energy field, which is theorised to have caused inflation is a scalar energy field.

The Higgs Boson, which was discovered in 2012, is a particle that makes up a scalar energy field. So, rather than the Inflaton being entirely theoretical we now know that scalar energy fields do exist in nature. This puts the inflationary model on an entirely new footing. It’s no longer just theory. Such things do exist.

So, do you see how you were making a false comparison by equating the multiverse with the notion that a mind created the universe?

The concept of a multiverse is supported by all of the things I’ve described above. Whereas, by your own admission, there is NOTHING to support the concept that a mind created the universe. Except faith, of course.

These two things are hardly equivalent and so your argument fails.

Walter.

[Aluneth]

I wrote on my profile that I’m a theist when I registered

[Sheldon]

@Aluneth

For your information, consciousness itself has not been empirically measured.

FYI I never claimed that, so that’s a straw man.

@Aluneth

It’s not about theism versus atheism

Another claim I have not made, hmm.

@Aluneth

The only thing we can empirically measure, at best, is whether the brain is still active.

Indeed, and in every instance when it ceases to function consciousness literally disappears, and we also never see human consciousness in the absence of a functioning human brain. So if anyone is implying human consciousness exists or can exist independently of a functioning human brain, then they would need to support the claim with sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence, so far they have failed to do so.

@Aluneth

We cannot actively and empirically measure a “lack of subjective experience/qualia.”

As I have now explained at least 3 times, to assert anything is true because we lack contrary evidence or explanation, is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, given you have predicated the thread on asking whether a hypothetical belief is rational, I’d have thought the implication of using a known common logical fallacy were obvious, so state explicitly what your point is when you assert that “We cannot actively and empirically measure a lack of subjective experience/qualia”, or it gets a so what?

FYI, it is also a fact we can’t measure invisible unicorns, if that suggests the idea is believable, than rationality is definitely not involved.

@Aluneth

that does not necessarily mean the person has no subjective experience; that conclusion is also an inference.

It’s also a straw man, as I made no such claim, my claims were not inferences nor assumptions, they were factual observations that we “only observe human consciousness in conjunction with a functioning human brain, and that in every single case when that brain ceases to function, we no longer observe the consciousness that accompanied it as before. Though not conclusive, both fact are objective evidence to support the idea that human consciousness is an emergent property of the human brain.

Now, what objective evidence can you demonstrate that human consciousness can exist without a functioning human brain, or survive the death of that brain in any meaningful way?

@Aluneth

However, that does not necessarily mean the person has no subjective experience; that conclusion is also an inference.

No indeed, but you would need to demonstrate something beyond unevidenced conjecture before I’d believe they could. I also made no such inference, and I’ve told you this several times now, so repeating it is starting to seem dishonest.

You also keep ignoring my response to your thread OP question, why is that?

@Aluneth

What publicly available direct empirical evidence do I have that a mind created the universe? None.

How about you provide the best you think you have at least?

@Aluneth

What direct empirical evidence do atheists have for the multiverse,

Why is that directed atheists? Atheism is (only) the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.

@Aluneth

What direct empirical evidence do atheists have that a non‑mind created the universe, and can we empirically verify the absence of a mind?

Argumentum ad ignoratiam fallacy, and a straw man fallacy, do you see how these fallacies are piling up, and what they suggest for whether your belief is rational?

@Aluneth

Do not claim that most atheists merely lack belief.

That is the definition of atheism. What an atheist does or does not believe does not change what atheism means.

@Aluneth

they claim theists are irrational

Hasty generalisation fallacy, but please demonstrate your findings and research and how many atheists you polled to get that gem. Your mask is slipping I think.

@Aluneth

and hold definite views about what constitutes rational belief.

It’s in any dictionary, I quoted the definition for you at the start, you ignored it.

@Aluneth

I didn’t want to “introduce or explain why belief in God is true or not true in reality.”

Then it is not possible to assess the rationality of the belief, as has also been explained several times. Thus you appear to not be debating in good faith.

[Walter]

But the asymmetry I mentioned still exists. You still know far more about me than do about you.

Would you like to rebalance that by telling me more about your religious beliefs? Seeing as there’s such a wide spectrum of religious belief knowing more about yours would help me target what I have to say about those Bible passages.

So would you please be so kind as to help me out here?

Thanks,

Walter.

[Walter]

Do not claim that most atheists merely lack belief. Many make positive claims: they claim theists are irrational, argue for the low probability of God’s existence, and hold definite views about what constitutes rational belief.

Was it not you who introduced the question of what constituted a rational belief into this thread?

The answer to that question seems to be that theistic beliefs are irrational.

But if you didn’t agree with how we arrived at this answer you’ve had ample opportunity to question how we did this. You could have challenged us at any point along the way. Or if you’d like to do so now, then please have at it.

We welcome such discussion.

Thank you,

Walter.

[Aluneth]

Imagine reality not as a clockwork machine that was wound up once and left to tick on its own, but as a living, a breathing piece of music that is being composed right this very second.

That’s how I see God. He is a vast, sentient mind, extremely powerful and deeply benevolent, who didn’t just kick start the universe billions of years ago and walk away. Instead, he is the active, moment by moment reason that anything exists at all.

Here’s one interesting part: nothing happens automatically. When you hold a ball out and let go, it doesn’t fall because of some blind, mechanical force called “gravity” that forces it down. In fact, at every single nanosecond, every tiny, unfathomably small slice of time, God is actively making a fresh choice. He decides, in that instant, whether the ball continues its path downward, hovers, or shoots straight up toward the ceiling. He doesn’t have to make it fall; he does it because he wills it to happen that way, over and over again. If he ever stopped choosing for all of reality and simply walked away, then that ball, along with every other thing that exists, would vanish instantly into nothingness.

This makes God the ultimate “ground of being.” He isn’t just one more thing inside the universe; he is the very reason there is a “here” or a “now” at all. He sustains everything from the tiniest speck to the vastest galaxy purely out of his own free will. He is not bound by any rulebook, duty, or outside force. He does exactly what he wants, when he wants, and what he wants, ultimately, is goodness.

So, what about the laws of physics? You know, the equations we learned in school? Those aren’t bulletproof laws that God has to obey. Rather, they are our best human attempts to describe God’s consistent “habits.” Scientists are basically keeping a detailed diary of how God usually chooses to act. We notice that he reliably makes apples fall and planets orbit, so we write down the pattern and call it physics. But it’s a pattern of behavior, not a cage. We humans, for instance, decided to give the label “gravity” to one of what we think are God’s habits, simply because that particular pattern stood out to us as the most obvious example of his regular choices.

One of the most beautiful part, is the proximity of it all. Because he sustains our very minds, he is closer to us than even our own breath!! He can hear every word we speak out loud, and he can just as clearly hear the quiet thoughts that run through our minds. There is no hidden corner of our consciousness where he isn’t present. And because he is benevolent, he isn’t just a passive listener. He actively communicates with us, for example he sometimes does it through a sudden clarity of thought, a gut feeling, a timely coincidence, or a deep sense of peace. And sometimes, more directly, we can hear his voice itself, or see one of his representations, or catch a glimpse of how he has chosen to appear to us in that moment. When we connect to him in prayer, he is right there, able to help or guide us.

So, that’s how I see God, I don’t see the universe as a cold and empty space ruled by math or impersonal forces. Rather, I see a good mind who created it all and tries to help us out actively. I really really enjoyed so much writing this description, I hope things are clearer for you now.

[Walter]

That’s nice.

So does the Bible come into your belief system at all?

After all, there’s not much point us discussing the relationship between evidence and faith in a Biblical setting if you don’t place any store in the book.

For the sake of full declaration and transparency I used to be a born again evangelical Christian.

So are you any kind of Bible-believing Christian?

[Aluneth]

I personally don’t call myself “Christian,” but I don’t mind if other people want to call me that. Yes, I have already read and am aware of the existence of the collection of 73 books of this tradition. I don’t take most of it literally (or not just literally); I am not paranoid about historicity either. But yeah, there can be a lot to learn for those who want. The New Testament in particular is in my opinion even more important and accurate than the Old One.

I don’t see scripture as mandatory for the average Joe; before the printing press most people couldn’t have scripture on their desk at home.

Again, a reminder: I don’t go to Church.

[Walter]

Then there’s not much point in us discussing those Bible passages, Aluneth.

If you’re not a Christian, that is.

Thanks,

Walter.

[Walter]

Yes, thank you for making things clearer.

But what you write prompts me to ask, how do you know all of this?

That is, by what method did you arrive at these conclusions?

Thanks,

Walter.

[Aluneth]

Hmm, it could still be worth discussing, there are decent odds I’ve already come upon them.

[Old_man_shouts_at_cl]

@Aluneth

I personally don’t call myself “Christian,

Then can you clearly explain why you capitalise the word “God” when your description of your preferred deity would be “a god” or “my preferred god” or even “my preferred deity”. In English usage God refers to the Judeo-christian tradition.

Then you further commit the sin of describing your preferred god thing as a sexual male as in “He”. Not a scrap of description in your paragraphs would justify ascribing a biological sex to your preferred deity.

That’s just two things I noted in your posts. I shall await your reasoning

[Aluneth]

Because God objectively exists. It’s just grammatical gender for convenience; it’s the same reason why, say, French people gender a table with feminine grammatical gender. It’s not “preferred God,” or a mere preference: he objectively exists. I never talked about maleness or femaleness.

[Walter]

That’s not the point.

If you aren’t a Bible-believing Christian then what that book says doesn’t really apply to you. It’s a question of defining the territory in which the discussion take place. If I were talking at a Bible-believing Christian then, because I was once one, the territory would be clearly defined. But since you aren’t, any conclusions I draw from those passages would not necessarily apply to you. Thus, I’d be spending a lot of time and exerting a lot of effort on something that may or may not have an impact on your thinking.

Quite frankly I’d rather not do all of the necessary work for so dubious an outcome.

Thank you,

Walter.

[Walter]

@Aluneth

What publicly available direct empirical evidence do I have that a mind created the universe? None.

Hmmm… I’m having trouble squaring your claim that God objectively exists with what you wrote earlier, Aluneth.

Perhaps you could explain how something can objectively exist and yet have no empirical evidence for its existence?

[Old_man_shouts_at_cl]

@Aluneth

I never talked about maleness or femaleness.

By using the gender marker “he” that is exactly what you did. Same as the capitalisation of “God”.
The correct form would be “it” or “it’s” .

A lot of posters on this site exhibit “woolly/vague thinking” which does trip them up when making points about their personal version of a deity.
Fortunately there are a few on these forums who correct these faults when they manifest themselves.

[Aluneth]

No publicly available direct empirical evidence: you can’t put God under a spectrometer or see “God” directly through a telescope. Whether the public square has directly measured God or not is irrelevant to his existence. If there’s no public proof that I have a stone in my pocket, my stone doesn’t cease to exist; the same applies here, whether there’s direct public proof of God or not is irrelevant to his objective existence.

[Aluneth]

“It” is kind of dehumanizing. Singular “They” feels clunky. Only saying “God” without a pronoun can feel repetitive at times. I capitalize his name out of convention and because we like to capitalize the names of persons and important things.

[Old_man_shouts_at_cl]

On specifics you will have to learn to be more accurate. Your particular deity of choice is that, it is genderless so an It, …you see in the first sentence I didn’t have to use god at all or a gender.

Get a thesaurus, otherwise as you found with Walter and myself, lazy thinking leads to confusion.

You personal deity help you if Sheldon chooses to weigh in on sloppiness. It will not be pretty.

Have a great day.