is it possible to find God by reason?

[Lerxst]

An interesting speculation. The problem I find is that if God's influence is undistinguishable from "natural" events, God's existence is irrelevant.

I totally disagree. For example. Stephen Jay Gould used to like to make the point that if the 'film of evolution' was wound backwards and allowed to play out again over time, then in all likelihood we would never have evolved, and the current earth might possess nothing more intelligent than beetles.

I certainly have to agree with this, given the large number of happenstance mutations that occured during our development and which were part and parcel of our natural history.

So a god who fiddled with the quantum events in order to make sure we evolved is doing something that is certainly not 'irrelevant'. And he is influencing the world in such a way that is *in principle* undetectable, yet it is 100% physical, thanks to QM.

QED.

(Disclaimer for all the atheists who don't understand agnosticism: I'm not saying I think this happened, I'm saying it is a logical possibility.)

Epistemologically, this stance is agnostic so the answer to the topic would be, "No".

What, exactly was the question? I'm not following.

Sure.

I'll write it up and notify you when I post it.

As Tiassa's take on Anslem; That exists which is greater than can be imagined. I have no issue with this except there is no utility to the assertion. Once again the term "God" is rendered meaningless.

I find that god arguments tend to fall into one of two categories, either god is limited and is therefore not god or god is unlimited and thus irrelevant.

I don't understand how an unlimited god is irrelevant.

Personally when I speak of "god" I don't limit the concept to the traditional monotheistic version popular today, with the attributes of omni-*. I take it to include any possible finite being that could somehow have some kind of responsibility for our existence or exert some kind of power, or simply exist in a different plane. I know there is a semantic nightmare here, but I can still imagine a very limited kind of being as a god.

I tend towards pragmatism in such scenarios. Yes, my brain may be in a jar, but the assumption has no effect upon my experience. Thus the pragmatic assumption is that my experience is more or less congruent with reality. The alternative prohibits the foundation of any epistemological position... it's self-refuting.

But it might correspond to reality. The brain in a jar could come to the same conclusion as you, and it would be *wrong*. And that is what I am ultimately concerned about. As long as the brain understands that the pragmatic assumption is just that: pragmatic - no problem. But this is quite different from the brain saying "I KNOW that I am not a brain in a jar."

There is a distinction between the practical and the philosophical. I live my life practically as an atheist. But philosophically speaking I cannot defend atheism, only agnosticism.

 

[Godless]

lalala

Hey! we got us a choir boy!.

Stephen Jay Gould used to like to make the point that if the 'film of evolution' was wound backwards and allowed to play out again over time, then in all likelihood we would never have evolved, and the current earth might possess nothing more intelligent than beetles.

Stephen could be wrong. Because we evolved, we may still evolve, depending on enviorenmental factors, we perhaps may turn out different than what we look today, no one can predict what would happen. It happened we are here, it's not far fetched given the same sceneario in a different planet that the same outcome will ensue.

(Disclaimer for all the atheists who don't understand agnosticism: I'm not saying I think this happened, I'm saying it is a logical possibility.)

There's no way to explain the illogical (i.e.God) with any thing remotely logical. God the word with no identity, other than preconcieved notions made up by faithfull humans of a supreme deity is not logic, it's basically ignorance.

Godless

 

[Lerxst]

There's no way to explain the illogical (i.e.God) with any thing remotely logical.

There are some notions of god that are not necessarily illogical.

There is no reason to think that there are not truths beyond our meager capabilities of logic.

 

[Raithere]

So a god who fiddled with the quantum events in order to make sure we evolved is doing something that is certainly not 'irrelevant'. And he is influencing the world in such a way that is *in principle* undetectable, yet it is 100% physical, thanks to QM.

If its effect is indeterminable from background chance it can be removed from any practical consideration. Essentially, there is no effect. While logically I understand your argument we might also posit an infinite number of such undetectable influences. Why not also posit undetectable genies, pixies, and dragons that have influenced the world?

What, exactly was the question? I'm not following.

The thread title, "Is it possible to find God by reason?"

I don't understand how an unlimited god is irrelevant.

Because it necessarily remains undefined. One may simply replace the term "god" with "the universe", existence, or everything.

Personally when I speak of "god" I don't limit the concept to the traditional monotheistic version popular today, with the attributes of omni-*. I take it to include any possible finite being that could somehow have some kind of responsibility for our existence or exert some kind of power, or simply exist in a different plane. I know there is a semantic nightmare here, but I can still imagine a very limited kind of being as a god.

Certainly. But then it remains to provide argument or evidence that such a being exists. We might imagine any number of logically feasible beings, that is not the same as providing argument that they do indeed exist.

But it might correspond to reality. The brain in a jar could come to the same conclusion as you, and it would be *wrong*. And that is what I am ultimately concerned about. As long as the brain understands that the pragmatic assumption is just that: pragmatic - no problem. But this is quite different from the brain saying "I KNOW that I am not a brain in a jar."

The alternative is to know nothing, including not knowing that you don't know. It reduces to absurdity.

There is a distinction between the practical and the philosophical. I live my life practically as an atheist. But philosophically speaking I cannot defend atheism, only agnosticism.

Strong atheism is indefensible from an epistemological standpoint but I also have yet to find an argument for god that doesn't collapse or reduce to meaninglessness. Without a tenable argument for god one is simply left with no god as the default.

~Raithere

 

[Lerxst]

If its effect is indeterminable from background chance it can be removed from any practical consideration. Essentially, there is no effect. While logically I understand your argument we might also posit an infinite number of such undetectable influences. Why not also posit undetectable genies, pixies, and dragons that have influenced the world?
know. It reduces to absurdity.

Depends on what the background chance is, though. If this is the only universe/big bang that occured, and earth the only planet with life, the odds of sentient beings evolving might be low. It is not clear.

Another thing, pixies, dragons, etc. have a number of characteristics that would be manifest in the physical world and hence can be tested for. The degree to which some 'supernatural' thing has properties in the real world is the degree to which it can be tested by science.

I fully agree that the default position is to posit nothing - it is most economical. But that doesn't mean it is True.

The thread title, "Is it possible to find God by reason?"

Ok. BTW, my answer is, of course, "no."

Certainly. But then it remains to provide argument or evidence that such a being exists. We might imagine any number of logically feasible beings, that is not the same as providing argument that they do indeed exist.

I agree - I don't claim to have any evidence or argument that they *do* exist. It is a totally different question.

The alternative is to know nothing, including not knowing that you don't know. It reduces to absurdity.

I don't see that it is an either-or distinction. Here are conclusions that the brain in a jar (BIAJ) could draw:

1. "I am not a brain in a jar." Not only false, he has no way of knowing this.
2. "I am a brain in a jar." True, but again he has no way of demonstrating his claim is true.
3. "I might be a brain in a jar, but I don't know." True on both accounts, and the best of all options. Hence, a justification for philosophical skepticism.

Note that this does not mean that *all knowledge* is off-limits to the BIAJ. Hardly. The BIAJ still knows what his favorite color is, he still knows that he is aware of *something* and provided that the scientist is feeding him physically consistent inputs, he can even deduce physical laws that apply to the world of his senses. Knowledge is still possible because knowledge is contextual. Within the context of what the BIAJ is fed, he can have accurate and meaningful knowledge. But there is still a reality outside of the BIAJ that is off-limits to him, such as the color of scientist's cat sitting next to the jar. Or the fact that the cat is there at all. So we can make similar generalizations ourselves.

Strong atheism is indefensible from an epistemological standpoint but I also have yet to find an argument for god that doesn't collapse or reduce to meaninglessness. Without a tenable argument for god one is simply left with no god as the default.

I'll give you two *possibly* tenable arguments:

1. The Simulation Argument of Nick Bostrom. You can read more at www.simulation-argument.com. Basically this argument shows that there is a nonzero probability that we are all computer simulations. Either (1) humans will not survive long enough to develop the techology; (2) humans will not run such simulations for ethical (or other) reasons; or (3) we are most likely computer simulations. (Personally I'd also add another option (4), that such simulations are noever going to be feasible for physical reasons, but I don't know if this is true). And if (3) is correct, it then follows that there exists at least one plane of reality (that of the Simulators) "above" us, that we cannot be aware of (unless They choose to make us aware of it) which is every bit as real as the simulated environment we inhabit. Said Simulators could: hear and answer prayers, perform miracles, grant us afterlives (by running us on a different OS, so to speak, after death) and are the "creators" of our world. Although not omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, or even necessarily good, I would call such beings "god-like". The simulation argument is a very easy way to demonstrate just how a logical concept of god is possible, and how that god could interact with our 'world' in a meaningful way that in principle we cannot grasp.

There is *no way* you can know you are not living in such a simulation. And given Bostrom's argument, it is not as pie-in-the-sky as one could have argued before the advent of computing.

Simulated atheists in this worldview would hold opinions similar to those of these atheists on this board and they would be *dead wrong.* (Even more hilarious would be the simulated Objectivists that think they had certainty that their "world" was "all there is"! LOL.)

2. Some variant of the Omega Point Theory of Frank Tipler. See his book The Physics of Immortality. His science might be off, and he has been criticised by many, but let's just entertain the notion of it. In this scenario, there is no God now, but future humans will colonize the universe and essentially become God. They will unlock a method to resurrect humans and run their minds them on vast computing networks. Is this feasible? I have not a clue. I guess I highly doubt it. But I also think that our technology of the future, in say 500, 1000, 10,000 years or more, if we survive, will be beyond our current comprehension. If nothing else, it is a novel way to get to God that wold involve no supernatural considerations whatsoever, providing that there is a path for it in yet undiscovered physics.

 

[stretched]

Hi Lerxst,

Great discussion. When pondering over these issues I always get back to the notion I read somewhere in a book on QM. The notion is that given an infinite universe, WHATEVER we are capable of imagining, can, is or has occurred. I think the context was parallel universes.

 

[Sarkus]

Hi Lerxst,

Great discussion. When pondering over these issues I always get back to the notion I read somewhere in a book on QM. The notion is that given an infinite universe, WHATEVER we are capable of imagining, can, is or has occurred. I think the context was parallel universes.

But what about what we CAN'T imagine - due to the limitations of our minds and/or understanding?

 

[stretched]

Yep Sarkus, I think that would be the question. How do we imagine what we cannot imagine? Perhaps that is on the god level?

 

[Sarkus]

Without a tenable argument for god one is simply left with no god as the default.

I see two results: (i) no god, or (ii) meaningless/useless god.

Practically they are the same.
Logically they are equivalent.

But are they different, from a purely philosophical point of view?
Does it really matter?

 

[Lerxst]

I see two results: (i) no god, or (ii) meaningless/useless god.

Practically they are the same.
Logically they are equivalent.

But are they different, from a purely philosophical point of view?
Does it really matter?

In my example above I outlined a type of god that could exist and is not meaningless of useless.

Suppose God does absolutely nothing except provide for an afterlife. He would leave no evidence that he exists, and it would appear that the universe gets along fine without him. Yet he would not be meaningless or useless.

So while your positions (i) and (ii) are both possibilities that I take very seriously, I'd add a third one, namely (iii) we don't understand what God is and what his usefulness is, but that does not preclude his existence or his necessity.

What we hairless apes can or cannot cram into cubbyholes of our beloved logic does not dictate what is Real.

 

[Lerxst]

Hi Lerxst,

Great discussion. When pondering over these issues I always get back to the notion I read somewhere in a book on QM. The notion is that given an infinite universe, WHATEVER we are capable of imagining, can, is or has occurred. I think the context was parallel universes.

Thanks, stretched. I'm hoping this discussion will grow, rather than being dismissed out of hand (after all, if you entertain religious ideas you cannot be intelliegent, LOL).

Speaking of QM, are you familiar with idea of quantum immortality?

 

[Lerxst]

But what about what we CAN'T imagine - due to the limitations of our minds and/or understanding?

There is no reason to think that our minds are capable of discerning or even imagining all that is possible or all that actually is real. The amount of gray gloop in a skull is rather limited, no? And whether or not it actually exists, it is certainly conceivable that there could exist, in principle, minds that so completely overshadow our own that ours would be like termite brains in comparison. There may be entire realms of reason and cognition that we cannot understand anymore than an ant can understand Relativity. To suggest otherwise is the height of human folly and arrogance.

 

[Lerxst]

There's no way to explain the illogical (i.e.God) with any thing remotely logical. God the word with no identity, other than preconcieved notions made up by faithfull humans of a supreme deity is not logic, it's basically ignorance.

This is not true, I've provided an example of a logical, physical "god" a few posts above.

But even if we talk of the kind of God with no identity, just because you cannot find a place for it within human logic and reason doesn't mean it isn't real. The brain-in-a-jar would similarly have no way of showing that the scientist and his cat are real, but they are real. There is knowledge *fundamentally* unavailable to the brain-in-a-jar, and likewise there *may* be knowledge fundamentally unavailable to us. This does not invalidate the fact that much bona fide knowledge is still available to us, because knowledge is contextual.

Or to put it another way, I am not saying "It is not possible to know anything." I am saying "It is not possible to know certain things."

 

[qwerty mob]

Yeah, but if logical gods were actual they'd be (at least partially-) natural, therefore not entirely supernatural, and so, not the type of deity worshipped by monotheists (omnipotent creator-gods).

"All Gods are imaginary, mythological beings" and "Monotheists are atheists too, they just believe in one more God than I do"...

 

[Lerxst]

Yeah, but if logical gods were actual they'd be (at least partially-) natural, therefore not entirely supernatural, and so, not the type of deity worshipped by monotheists (omnipotent creator-gods).

Fine, I don't care whether or not such beings fit into some of our pre-conceived defintions or not. What I care about is demonstrating the possibility of realms and/or beings that *in principle* are unknowable to us. And I have done exactly that.

From the point of view of the simulated beings, however, the Simulators *ARE* supernatural - if the only world that the simulations can know is the simulated one, then that, and only that, is their natural world. The fact that something else exists above and beyond it is inaccessible to them (unless the simulators care to someday enlighten them). I would therefore say that the world of the Simulators is relatively supernatural to the simulations.

 

[Raithere]

Depends on what the background chance is, though. If this is the only universe/big bang that occured, and earth the only planet with life, the odds of sentient beings evolving might be low. It is not clear.

Actually, with only one occurrence to observe and no known boundary conditions there is no way to determine probability at all.

I agree - I don't claim to have any evidence or argument that they *do* exist. It is a totally different question.

That was longlostlady's question.

Note that this does not mean that *all knowledge* is off-limits to the BIAJ. Hardly.

I disagree. If we begin with the proposition that all experience may be false we have no point from which to infer or deduce anything at all, for even the experience of self may be untrue. Your memory could be artificial, invented only a moment ago. Your thoughts and identity might be implanted, even changing drastically moment to moment. Logic and reason, even the basic proposition of awareness must be called into question.

Knowledge is still possible because knowledge is contextual. Within the context of what the BIAJ is fed, he can have accurate and meaningful knowledge.

What if the context is false? What if there is no such thing as context, only chaos?

I'll give you two *possibly* tenable arguments:
...
Basically this argument shows that there is a nonzero probability that we are all computer simulations.
...
Some variant of the Omega Point Theory of Frank Tipler.

Here's the problem with all such propositions. There are, theoretically at least, an infinite number of variants. The probability of any single proposition or even any set of propositions is therefore essentially zero (more accurately, it is infinitesimally small). An argument that is logically feasible but otherwise purely conjectural merely removes it from the realm of impossibility but can make no claim towards its probability.

~Raithere

 

[Sarkus]

Here's the problem with all such propositions. There are, theoretically at least, an infinite number of variants. The probability of any single proposition or even any set of propositions is therefore essentially zero (more accurately, it is infinitesimally small). An argument that is logically feasible but otherwise purely conjectural merely removes it from the realm of impossibility but can make no claim towards its probability.

(Highlight is mine)

Actually, just to be more accurate - something that is infinitesimally small EQUALS zero.

Mathematical proof:
Let X = 0.99999... recurring = 1 - (1/infinity)
10 X = 9.99999.... recurring

10 X - X = 9 X = 9.999999.... - 0.999999.... = 9

9 X = 9

X = 1
X = 0.99999999.....

Thus 1-(1/infinity) = 1
Thus 1/infinity = ZERO


This is undeniable proof that the probability of a finite number of things happening from an infinite number of possibilities is ZERO.

Thus, conversely, anything that DOES happen must have had a finite chance of happening in the first instance.

Logically, an unknowable thing is one of an infinite number of unknowable things - and thus any finite number of those things can not logically exist.
The only thing that can thus be said is "THERE ARE UNKNOWABLES" - i.e. the entire set containing all infinite possibilities.
And that's that.

But then this is just logic.

 

[Lerxst]

Actually, with only one occurrence to observe and no known boundary conditions there is no way to determine probability at all.

Agreed. But it doesn't mean the probabilities don't exist in some sense. We just don't know them.

I disagree. If we begin with the proposition that all experience may be false we have no point from which to infer or deduce anything at all, for even the experience of self may be untrue. Your memory could be artificial, invented only a moment ago. Your thoughts and identity might be implanted, even changing drastically moment to moment. Logic and reason, even the basic proposition of awareness must be called into question.

What if the context is false? What if there is no such thing as context, only chaos?

It all depends on what we mean by an experience that is false. For example, the BIAJ may live in a simulation where there are two moons in the sky, because the scientist chose to create his "world" that way on a whim. In the scientist's world, there is just one moon. I would not say that the BIAJ's experience of two moons is "false" - he is certainly experiencing just that and in the context of his experience it is valid to say there are two moons. In this way, the existence of a 'super-reality' above ours does not negate that we can know things about our reality.

I think I understand what you are getting at in a sense, but I cannot see that it resolves anything.

Here, let me try a different tack:

It is physically plausible that the BIAJ could be constructed, in principle.

The BIAJ could spend years ruminating on these matters, just as we are doing now.

Let's suppose the BIAJ comes to your conclusion and decides that he must assume this 'primacy of experience' in order for his knowledge to have any meaning. He therefore rejects the notion that things are anything other than what they seem to be, etc., because this undercuts his entire basis on which he can know *anything.*

Now, even if we all agree that what the BIAJ did was the most reasonable thing to do, we are still left with the inescapable conclusion that he is WRONG. We sit in the lab, looking at the jar, and you know and I know that despite his most brilliant reasoning, he is *dead wrong* about the truth.

So I simply see all this as a roundabout way of showing that we can have an intelligent being that does what seems to be most reasonable, and that this will not lead him the the Truth but away from it.

And that is troubling, no?

Here's the problem with all such propositions. There are, theoretically at least, an infinite number of variants. The probability of any single proposition or even any set of propositions is therefore essentially zero (more accurately, it is infinitesimally small). An argument that is logically feasible but otherwise purely conjectural merely removes it from the realm of impossibility but can make no claim towards its probability.

A fair point, but the "naturalistic hypothesis" is just another of those infinite explanations and can be rejected on similar grounds. To me it is just another lottery tickey, so to speak. The only thing that recommends it relative to the others is that it is not cut by Occam's razor. Which is why I think it is a justifiable as the default position, but not necessarily the Truth. Occam's razor is not an arbiter of truth. The best we can say is "I don't know, but for practical reasons I will go with the simplest explanation."

BTW, Raithere, thanks for all the good discussion, I appreciate it.

 

[Raithere]

he is certainly experiencing just that and in the context of his experience it is valid to say there are two moons. In this way, the existence of a 'super-reality' above ours does not negate that we can know things about our reality.

This redefines reality to that which can be "known" through experience rather than that which is True. This leads me back to the simpler presumption that there is an external reality that can be known through the senses.

I think I understand what you are getting at in a sense, but I cannot see that it resolves anything.

It doesn't really. I just find that while it can't really be refuted logically the BIAJ proposition is untenable.

So I simply see all this as a roundabout way of showing that we can have an intelligent being that does what seems to be most reasonable, and that this will not lead him the Truth but away from it.

Conversely, he might propose what is completely illogical and move towards the truth.

Adding to the confusion, we might propose that the scientist experimenting with the BIAJ is herself a subject of a BIAJ experiment. So while subject 2 experiments with subject 1, deliberately providing him experiences contrary to her experience, she is, in fact providing him with truthful experiences.

But the question I have is that while subject 1's experience may be truthful in that it is congruent with the Truth, it is not correlative with the Truth, so can he be said to have Knowledge? To put it another way, must true knowledge be derived from the Truth or can it be realized falsely?

Another question that comes to mind is what essential difference is there between this scenario and the aforementioned God who exists in another "dimension" and provides experience through the creation of an actual MST continuum.

(With questions like these how can anyone not love philosophy? )

And that is troubling, no?

Somewhat. It forces us to reconsider definitions of Truth and Knowledge.

A fair point, but the "naturalistic hypothesis" is just another of those infinite explanations and can be rejected on similar grounds. To me it is just another lottery tickey, so to speak. The only thing that recommends it relative to the others is that it is not cut by Occam's razor. Which is why I think it is a justifiable as the default position, but not necessarily the Truth. Occam's razor is not an arbiter of truth. The best we can say is "I don't know, but for practical reasons I will go with the simplest explanation."

I concur.

BTW, Raithere, thanks for all the good discussion, I appreciate it.

Likewise.

 

[Lerxst]

I was thinking about a variation on this.

A scientist offers you lots of cash to undergo the following experiment:

1. You will be put to sleep.

2. As you sleep, one of two things will be done. Either: (a) you will be wired up in such a way that you will become an in situ Brain-in-a-jar (or if you like, you'll be temporarily connected to a Matrix); or (b) you will be put on a plane and sent to some remote location. Either option will be done is such a way that when you wake up, you will either be in (a) or (b).

3. The probability of (a) or (b) obtaining is unknown to you.

4. In either scenario, at some point a pleasant-faced man will step up to greet you. He is going to ask you if you are in a simulated world or not.

5. After a specified time, after you have gone to sleep one night, you'll be returned to your normal life.

So let's talk about step 4. What would you answer the man? I think, since you know what this game is about, you'll have to agree that "are you in a simulation or not?" is an undecidable proposition, for you.

For the scientist who is outside all this looking in, so to speak, the question is straightforward and easily answered.

It all seems to have a rather Godelian flavor, no? (I'm not trying to say that this somehow *is* an extension of the Incompleteness Theorem, merely that is is analogous) From within the system, it is is impossible to answer certain questions about the system. The proposition is undecidable. Only by stepping outside the system, into a larger one, can it be answered.

In Godel, Escher, Bach, Hofstadter makes an argument that perhaps we can never know if we are sane or insane, based on a Godelian analogy. I'm gonna have to re-read that, it seems very relevant to this discussion.