Friday, April 29, 2011

Crude versus the Infinite Multiverse Proponent - Strawman Version

IMP: ..And anyway, Crude, there are no compelling arguments for God's existence.
Crude: Sure there are. Plenty of 'em in fact.
IMP: I disagree.
Crude: Not really.
IMP: What?
Crude: You believe in an infinite number of universes, such that all physical possibilities are realized, right?
IMP: Yes.
Crude: Alright. So there's an infinite number of you, all throughout these universes.
IMP: Okay.
Crude: Well, plenty of you encountered these arguments and immediately found them compelling. So, no, you don't really disagree. You're just experiencing a kind of multiverse hiccup.
IMP: Plenty of me wouldn't find it compelling, though!
Crude: Sure, we're dealing with a lot of hiccups here.
IMP: And plenty of you don't find the arguments compelling!
Crude: Nah, I'm skeptical of the existence of multiple universes.
IMP: ... Anyway, they don't agree because of the force of the argument. It's just due to physical necessity.
Crude: Let's run with that. You're no different, of course.
IMP: Fine, if that's what it takes, then so be it. But the upshot is that I can still say there are no compelling arguments for God's existence.
Crude: Because compelling arguments do not exist on your view. All that compels are brute physics, ultimately aimed towards nothing in particular. There's an infinite number of yous drawing every possible conclusion in response to a wide variety of arguments. But you're telling me with confidence you know for certain whether or not an argument is compelling because, what... you're sure you're in the lucky universe where you're making a correct inference on this question?
IMP: That's not fair. All I can say is what I think the be true and try to give arguments to that effect.
Crude: And, what? Assume you're correct, despite having every reason to doubt you're correct?
IMP: Yes.
Crude: And I suppose all your other "you"s, including the ones who disagree with you, get that assumption too don't they?
IMP: ... Even if they did, it's a practical necessity. You can't go through life doubting everything you think.
Crude: Funny, I think you could go through life being skeptical of the claim that there are no compelling arguments for God.
IMP: But I should be skeptical that there ARE any compelling arguments for God too!
Crude: Granting your view of reality, perhaps. But that'd be one hell of a difference in your current attitude. Shifting from claiming there are no compelling arguments to claiming an inability to evaluate the question is a big shift. It's like going from saying there's no evidence for X, to admitting you wouldn't know evidence for X if it bit you on the ass.
IMP: ... Maybe I'll just regard what you say as a puzzle to figure out in the future, but in the meantime work with the assumption that my beliefs are right.
Crude: Gonna grant that sort of consideration to everyone else while you're at it?
IMP: ...
Crude: What I'm saying is, you have a metaphysic which mandates serious skepticism, and the only ways to improve it would be to impart directionality and finality to an infinite number of universes. And the more you do that, the more your view of reality will look like a creation rather than the happenstance, purposeless thing you need it to be. And really, stick with it if you want. But at least do me the favor of not talking about serious intellectual questions with me as long as you hold this view. It's a waste of time on your metaphysic, and only amusing for so long given mine.

3 comments:

Ilíon said...

"It's like going from saying there's no evidence for X, to admitting you wouldn't know evidence for X if it bit you on the ass."

I have, for time to time, demonstrated that the pseudo-atheists who assert that there is no evidence for God clearly have chosen to be unable to know/see the evidence, even if it bit them in the ass.

Crude said...

Well, the "evidence" thing is the most common schtick. Usually with the word redefined in such a way that they'd have to say there's no evidence there was a day before today, or no evidence that 2 + 2 = 4.

Ilíon said...

Exactly; it's all part of that fundamental intellectual dishonesty I'm always on about.

I like how you've put it here; I'll have to try to remember that.