Short, Original Protheistic Argument
Offline Somebody said my last post was too long and they didn't read it, so here's just an excerpt of my favorite part. It's an argument that I believe is pretty original, though I may be incorrect.
Here's the technical, psychobabble version, followed by a translation:
The principle of identity (that any given thing is itself and not something else entirely; this is fundamental to scientific inquiry) is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular one. For if the secularist wishes to inquire into the nature of the identity principle, he must use it even in his inquiry and thus he loses all objectivity from the start. However the religious may presuppose the principle of identity before all rational inquiry without contradicting himself; for he is already sure that there is something -- a divine something -- who freely chose to create the cosmos according to the principle of identity. Thus for the religious the identity principle is an objective reality which's origins can be traced to the nature of God, whereas for the secularist it is a subjective presupposition which's truth can only be ascertained pragmatically. The identity principle therefore is optimally compatible with the religious mindset over the secular one.
--TRANSLATION--
Let me ask you a question: Why should I believe that the computer I'm typing on is a computer? What if it's really a llama? How do I know that every time I go to hit a key, it won't turn into an apple just before I do? Well, an atheist would probably say, "'Cause nobody's ever seen a computer randomly change into something else." Well, that's true, but it doesn't really answer the question. There's a first time for everything. Why should my computer obey scientific laws instead of ignoring them? Then he's got no answer. But I do. I believe in a God who can make anything do anything; God said my computer isn't going to randomly change into something else; so it doesn't. My story makes sense, but the atheist's doesn't. I win.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
- Login to post comments
Oops... someone already answered the last post... you might just want to ignore this one and focus on that one. It's here.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
It looks like you're talking about the problem of induction, and trying to solve it by invoking God. Is that basically right?
Assuming it is: I don't know how invoking God solves the problem. God could solve it if he made the world conform to our understanding of it (e.g., he makes sure the computer isn't a llama because we don't think it's a llama), or if he made our understanding of the world conform infallibly to the world. If he was doing either of those, however, we would never see old explanatory paradigms overturned. We would still be using Aristotelian physics, for example. But since we do see old explanatory paradigms overturned every day, it's obvious that God doesn't intervene in either of those ways. So even if you believe in God, you still have to deal with the possibility that your computer is a llama.
~Ctrl Y
I'm dealing with the 'translation' because it's more humourous.
I'll take this from a Linguistic standpoint first. Your computer isn't a llama because the arbitrary yet agreed upon collection of sounds that mean llama does not refer to the arbitrary yet agreed upon collection of sounds that mean computer.
How do you know your computer won't become an apple? Computers and apples are not the same things. I'm sure we can all imagine your computer becoming an apple the next time you hit a key, but as per the observed laws of the universe that are necessary for the universe to be what we observe the universe as your computer cannot become an apple. Conceivably, of course, the easiest way for your computer to become an apple that is possible within this universe would be for us to agree to call your computer an apple and suddenly it will be an apple, albeit an apple very different from what else we call an apple. In fact, such a computer has existed and was called apple.
From a purely cosmological standpoint it is unnecessary for there to be a god that makes anything do anything. That just presupposes an entity responsible for the observed laws. You understand that the observed laws that govern the universe are not thinking, nor do they have purpose? They merely are and their being so is what constitutes the universe. Adding god is wholly unnecessary and solves no problem. The reason your computer doesn't randomly change into something else is because the universe is this universe. (Cue defense of deductive logic) You can't be one hundred percent sure of this, but you can approach that level of certainty so closely that it becomes fantastic to believe otherwise. In other words, some inductive logic is so strong that it is bogus to doubt the conclusions it draws. Will the sun rise tomorrow? I am quite certain that it will, and reasonably so, and I don't need to invoke god. You do not win, you falter badly.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I suggest reading this:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/why_the_problem_of_induction_really_isnt_a_problem_and_why_theists_dont_even_get_it_right
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Nothing says "uniformity of nature" like talking snakes, parting seas, virgin births and resurrections.
Realize if the Bible was never written and you told those stories people would think you were either high or insane (or both.)
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Rick Roll'd
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Why should my computer obey scientific laws instead of ignoring them? Then he's got no answer. But I do. I believe my penis can make anything do anything; my penis said my computer isn't going to randomly change into something else; so it doesn't. My story makes sense, but the your's doesn't. I win.
I think we can all agree now (if we didn't already. Hardy har har.) that your god's existence is just as likely as my penis being god. And if you're comfortable with that, more power to you.
Scientific illiteracy is reality illiteracy.
I don't care if I'm going to Hell, I will NOT worship your penis....
My laptop won't change into anything else because of scientific laws. Particles of which my laptop is made of are bound by specific laws.
But that doesn't mean it can't happen - if for some reason those laws have changed and the particles of my laptop rearranged themselves so they make up something else, then my laptop would change int o something else.
But as long as we seen the laws are constant in this universe, and we have no reason to believe that they are going to change, so in that case we have to assume that my laptop will stay as it is.