Skip to main content

 ...The Argument for God from Psychophysical Harmony

(Part 1 of many)

Since I'm limiting myself to chunks of text between 500 and about 1,000 words, I know the full explanation of this argument will take a while. So I will try to take things one piece at a time until it is complete.

Statement of the Claim

The fact that our psychological (mental) experiences are harmonious with physical reality provides strong corroboration for the existence of a God of the type normally associated with Christianity.

Structure of the Argument

The argument compares a priori epistemic probabilities in a Bayesian structure in terms of how likely theism and atheism a priori (i.e, before experiments) would have predicted the result of the experiment on an epistemic basis. All the italicized terms will eventually be defined, either in this post or some later one. Then the Bayesian model of revising epistemic probabilities can be applied to see which option (atheism or theism) is more probable and by approximately how much.

If you believe that one side or the other is absolutely certain, no amount of Bayesian manipulation can alter that. But that means you are convinced that the other side is absolutely impossible, But to know that, you would either need to be able to show deductively that such is impossible or would have to know absolutely everything that can possibly be known. And considering that theism is the belief that there is at least one such being exists, it would make you a god, and therefore a theist.

Possibility and Impossibility

There are three types of possibility (and therefore the same three types of impossibility). The first is logical possibility, which deals with whether something violates a law of logic. "This car is both black and not-black" is a logical impossibility, because it violates the law of non-contradiction. "The moon is made of green cheese" is logically possible, even though it is false, because there is no law of logic violated by that statement. Statements that are logically possible have a definite truth value (they are either true or false), but we may not know what that value is.

The second is epistemic possibility. An epistemic possibility is something that could be true "for all we know". If we don't know, we can theoretically assign a credence value based on our own intuition of how likely (expressed as a number between 0 and 1, with 0 meaning no credence and 1 being complete credence) the statement is to be true. 

The third idea is metaphysical possibility. A metaphysical possibility is often associated with things that can legitimately take different values at different times, like the flip of a coin or the roll of a die. Such an event might be predictable if you know every variable involved (the position of the coin or die before the toss, the force and direction of the vector tossed, height above the surface, etc.), but no one has all that information. For this argument, we will not deal with metaphysical possibilities. We will focus on epistemic possibilities (and probabilities) but the arguments apply just as well if we are talking about the probability of a logical possibility being true. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

 ...Walking through Spell Design I would like to take this time to walk through the how the Torg Eternity spell design looks today with examples of how current spells would appear as "on the fly" designs with explanations of the entries. To recall, an "on the fly" spell design takes the important aspects of the spell and divides them among the four magic skills. Each one would then be put into a Dramatic Skill Resolution and played out. When doing deliberate spell design, the process is done in a controlled setting over time, so each step would have effectively unlimited attempts at them. But what a deliberate spell design wants to do is create a new spell to add to the caster's repertoire, and what it values is balancing the amount of time spent working on the design with the final Difficulty Number of the spell. So a casting effectively repeats all the steps into one casting action, so counts as a Multi-Action on the four skills using the main skill for that s...
Post a Comment
Read more
 ..."Looking At" vs. "Looking Along" C. S, Lewis wrote many things in an attempt to explain Christianity as he knew it. One such writing was an essay called. "Mediation in a Toolshed" for which  an excellent video  has been made. It highlights an imbalance in our thinking that has only gotten worse over time. The essay begins by noticing that while in a dark toolshed, a sunbeam had through a crack at the top of the door. He was able to see the beam, with dust floating in it, and it seemed to be the only thing there. But when he stepped into it, all that vanished and he saw outside the leaves, the sky, and the sun that had produced the beam.  The first observation was him looking at  the beam, while the second observation was him looking along  the beam. One gives an outside account, while the other gives the inside participatory account. Other examples he gave are the person falling in love vs. a scientist measuring the physical reactions of the lover, o...
Post a Comment
Read more
 ...Spell Trappings, Part 2 This post is the conclusion of Spell Trappings, which was published just before this. Prerequisite A spell that requires another spell or Clearance Level to learn qualifies for the trapping of Prerequisite, The difficulty of obtaining the prerequisite determines the degree of Difficulty Number reduction. Restriction Most spells can be cast over and over. When one Fireball  ends, another can begin. Spells that place limits on how often they can be cast qualify for the Restriction trapping. A Restriction's value in reducing the Difficulty Number is based on the amount of time that must pass between castings. Self In the original Torg, there was a trapping for Touch. In that version, an unarmed combat  or similar test needed to be made to transfer the spell effect to the target. Torg Eternity 's Aysle Sourcebook specifies that Touch spells do not actually need to touch the target; merely being close enough to touch the target is good enough. So in...
Post a Comment
Read more