|
On February 19 2013 12:17 PassionFruit wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 12:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2013 11:58 PassionFruit wrote:On February 19 2013 11:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2013 11:47 PassionFruit wrote:
Pascal's Wager is actually legit on a mathematical level. If you take hell to be negative infinity, then it is in your benefit to believe in something so long as the possibility of that belief has a finite probability of being true. All the counters to alternative gods or a false dichotomy or etc... doesn't do anything because the possibility that the belief is true is still finite. It's a basic EV analysis where the gains are infinite and the losses are finite. Unless you're a pure atheist where belief in god is exactly 0%, you take the wager.
I haven't seen a good counter to this argument as of date even with all the crap on wiki and youtube or what not. But...fuck logic and belief. I'll live my life and if I end up burning in hell eternally, then I"ll burn in hell eternally. It is what it is. You're misconstruing belief in something with probability that it actually exists. The video I just posted covers that... if a deity existed, surely he wouldn't fall for your "Well I'll just cover my ass with a belief" argument, not to mention the fact that belief isn't even subject to the will. In other words, if I'm skeptical of a belief because it lacks evidence, I can't just *choose* to truly believe in it. I can pretend to believe in it, but I won't actually be a believer, because I know it's full of crap. The video also refutes how PW fails on several other levels. It's really not sound, even if you consider the probability of a deity existing to be any non-zero chance. Right. But how do you know whether your interpretation of belief is right or mine is right? Unless you can commune with god, no one does. So you see, unless you are 100% sure you are right and 100% sure I am wrong, Pascal's Wager holds. As long as there is still the slightest possibility that my interpretation of belief is true, then the probability is finite. It doesn't matter if it is .0000001, because compared with infinity any finite probability is essentially moot. You still take the wager. Edit: The problem is all with the concept of hell being negative infinity and heaven being positive infinity. You are just fucked on a mathematical level if you put that on one side of the equation while it is absent from the other. It's a problem rigged to taking the wager from the very start. Pascal was a tricky dude. If it wasn't the case that there were countless gods and religions and threats of hells and heavens that all contradict one another and must be mutually exclusive by definition, then Pascal's Wager would probably be okay. But it's not dichotomous between Christian God and No God. There are tons of other choices, which means that whatever arbitrary probability you choose for the existence of your specific deity is useless because you'll have to give the same number to every other god and religion, but they cancel each other out, etc. You don't need to interpret belief; you just need to recognize that multiple beliefs exist. Plus all the other reasons why PW doesn't work that are mentioned in the video. Nothing cancels out. The overriding assumption is that only one belief is true. Thus there is only one heaven and one hell and one right god. You either pick right or you pick wrong. So long as there are a finite number of choices, you must pick. It's simple mathematics. The only thing to focus upon is the finite nature of the probability that your choice is right or wrong. I'm not saying you should use PW to dictate your belief in god, but every single attempt I have seen to dismantle the argument fails. Because, once again, you are doomed to take the wager given the beginning parameters of the problem. I don't know how to counter the argument other than change the parameters. I don't know how that can be done, but at least I'm honest about it instead of appealing to some failing argument like a false dichotomy or multiple gods or something. I just say fuck Pascal's wager, and I'll live how I want to regardless of the very small likelihood that I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity. I'm honest about my irrationality.
You're completely ignoring the consequences of not wasting time with the wager, because that might not be how a deity wants you to act. Or the fact that there could surely be infinite possibilities. Maybe there exists a deity who doesn't want prayer or acknowledgement, or one that favors atheists or people who actually care about healthy skepticism rather than blind belief or guessing on a whim? Even if you guessed the right deity in an effort to cover your own ass, there's no guarantee you'd be saved by him simply because you guessed right. After all, he'd know your selfish reasons for blindly selecting him, and it had nothing to do with true belief (or whatever other nonsensical things he'd ask from you, according to his commandments or holy book). It's not as simple as picking and choosing and therefore being more right than someone who didn't pick and choose, because maybe the latter could be what a deity is looking for. There are other variables you need to consider which makes PW wrong.
|
On February 19 2013 12:19 radscorpion9 wrote:
I think its highly unlikely that if God exists he is that irrational.
This is what Clifford Geertz called "The relatively modest dogma that God is not mad."
|
Oh by the way, I just want to add that if there is a God that respects healthy skepticism, then he would by extension respect those who take Pascal's wager if they base their wager on reasoning about probability. Of course that reasoning may be wrong, but that God would still respect the person who uses their reason to the best of their ability, just like any atheist.
Edit: Well I don't know about dogma, but it is very modest indeed  . I feel so special now, I feel like I'm echoing someone important. *feels good*
|
On February 19 2013 12:19 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 12:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2013 12:14 radscorpion9 wrote:On February 19 2013 12:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2013 11:58 PassionFruit wrote:On February 19 2013 11:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2013 11:47 PassionFruit wrote:
Pascal's Wager is actually legit on a mathematical level. If you take hell to be negative infinity, then it is in your benefit to believe in something so long as the possibility of that belief has a finite probability of being true. All the counters to alternative gods or a false dichotomy or etc... doesn't do anything because the possibility that the belief is true is still finite. It's a basic EV analysis where the gains are infinite and the losses are finite. Unless you're a pure atheist where belief in god is exactly 0%, you take the wager.
I haven't seen a good counter to this argument as of date even with all the crap on wiki and youtube or what not. But...fuck logic and belief. I'll live my life and if I end up burning in hell eternally, then I"ll burn in hell eternally. It is what it is. You're misconstruing belief in something with probability that it actually exists. The video I just posted covers that... if a deity existed, surely he wouldn't fall for your "Well I'll just cover my ass with a belief" argument, not to mention the fact that belief isn't even subject to the will. In other words, if I'm skeptical of a belief because it lacks evidence, I can't just *choose* to truly believe in it. I can pretend to believe in it, but I won't actually be a believer, because I know it's full of crap. The video also refutes how PW fails on several other levels. It's really not sound, even if you consider the probability of a deity existing to be any non-zero chance. Right. But how do you know whether your interpretation of belief is right or mine is right? Unless you can commune with god, no one does. So you see, unless you are 100% sure you are right and 100% sure I am wrong, Pascal's Wager holds. As long as there is still the slightest possibility that my interpretation of belief is true, then the probability is finite. It doesn't matter if it is .0000001, because compared with infinity any finite probability is essentially moot. You still take the wager. Edit: The problem is all with the concept of hell being negative infinity and heaven being positive infinity. You are just fucked on a mathematical level if you put that on one side of the equation while it is absent from the other. It's a problem rigged to taking the wager from the very start. Pascal was a tricky dude. If it wasn't the case that there were countless gods and religions and threats of hells and heavens that all contradict one another and must be mutually exclusive by definition, then Pascal's Wager would probably be okay. But it's not dichotomous between Christian God and No God. There are tons of other choices, which means that whatever arbitrary probability you choose for the existence of your specific deity is useless because you'll have to give the same number to every other god and religion, but they cancel each other out, etc. You don't need to interpret belief; you just need to recognize that multiple beliefs exist. Plus all the other reasons why PW doesn't work that are mentioned in the video. How do you *know* they "cancel" out? Why not take a wager and pray to all of them, just in case they do accept you? And if we're assuming they wouldn't accept an atheist, why wouldn't you take a chance on one of them rather than none of them? Especially the Christian one - all you have to do is pray for 5 minutes before the end of your life. Even if it looks like you're "covering your ass", its still a possibility of eternal life over nothing! I think most Christians would argue that that is not the proper way to get into Heaven... although apparently there's plenty of argument in Christianity regarding that anyway. I was raised Catholic, and my family is Catholic, and I'm fairly certain they would not promote the idea that you could reject God your entire life and then pretend to love him for two minutes and everything would be fine. After all, an omniscient deity would know what you're up to  You're going to fool a god? Well sure, it seems unlikely. But there's still a *chance* isn't there? You can't just assume God won't accept you, you don't really know God's mind, if that entity exists. So why not take the chance at eternity over nothing? If it actually just takes 5 minutes? I mean the whole story of religion is ridiculous anyways. Why would he send his son to die if he has infinite power. So why all of a sudden praying just before you die is seen as ridiculous, or unacceptable by God when most of the story isn't logical? Maybe it is acceptable, and God works in truly mysterious ways
Since we're all creating completely arbitrary probabilities, and there are literally infinite ways to construct the idea of a deity (with all his powers and stories and all that fun stuff), I'm going to go ahead and posit that the chance that some random god you pray to will ignore your entire life and believe a Pascal's Wager prayer during the last five minutes of your existence- just so you can cover your ass and be with him- is equally probably to the chance that there exists another random god who cares about logically and religiously consistent people who aren't hypocrites in their ideals and beliefs and will grant them real access to a real heaven... so I'm going to go ahead and stay in line with the latter, because not only do I keep my self-respect as a skeptic, I also apparently have the same chance to go to a perfect afterlife as anyone else 
Anyways, this was fun I wish everyone a wonderful night
|
On February 19 2013 12:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 12:17 PassionFruit wrote:On February 19 2013 12:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2013 11:58 PassionFruit wrote:On February 19 2013 11:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2013 11:47 PassionFruit wrote:
Pascal's Wager is actually legit on a mathematical level. If you take hell to be negative infinity, then it is in your benefit to believe in something so long as the possibility of that belief has a finite probability of being true. All the counters to alternative gods or a false dichotomy or etc... doesn't do anything because the possibility that the belief is true is still finite. It's a basic EV analysis where the gains are infinite and the losses are finite. Unless you're a pure atheist where belief in god is exactly 0%, you take the wager.
I haven't seen a good counter to this argument as of date even with all the crap on wiki and youtube or what not. But...fuck logic and belief. I'll live my life and if I end up burning in hell eternally, then I"ll burn in hell eternally. It is what it is. You're misconstruing belief in something with probability that it actually exists. The video I just posted covers that... if a deity existed, surely he wouldn't fall for your "Well I'll just cover my ass with a belief" argument, not to mention the fact that belief isn't even subject to the will. In other words, if I'm skeptical of a belief because it lacks evidence, I can't just *choose* to truly believe in it. I can pretend to believe in it, but I won't actually be a believer, because I know it's full of crap. The video also refutes how PW fails on several other levels. It's really not sound, even if you consider the probability of a deity existing to be any non-zero chance. Right. But how do you know whether your interpretation of belief is right or mine is right? Unless you can commune with god, no one does. So you see, unless you are 100% sure you are right and 100% sure I am wrong, Pascal's Wager holds. As long as there is still the slightest possibility that my interpretation of belief is true, then the probability is finite. It doesn't matter if it is .0000001, because compared with infinity any finite probability is essentially moot. You still take the wager. Edit: The problem is all with the concept of hell being negative infinity and heaven being positive infinity. You are just fucked on a mathematical level if you put that on one side of the equation while it is absent from the other. It's a problem rigged to taking the wager from the very start. Pascal was a tricky dude. If it wasn't the case that there were countless gods and religions and threats of hells and heavens that all contradict one another and must be mutually exclusive by definition, then Pascal's Wager would probably be okay. But it's not dichotomous between Christian God and No God. There are tons of other choices, which means that whatever arbitrary probability you choose for the existence of your specific deity is useless because you'll have to give the same number to every other god and religion, but they cancel each other out, etc. You don't need to interpret belief; you just need to recognize that multiple beliefs exist. Plus all the other reasons why PW doesn't work that are mentioned in the video. Nothing cancels out. The overriding assumption is that only one belief is true. Thus there is only one heaven and one hell and one right god. You either pick right or you pick wrong. So long as there are a finite number of choices, you must pick. It's simple mathematics. The only thing to focus upon is the finite nature of the probability that your choice is right or wrong. I'm not saying you should use PW to dictate your belief in god, but every single attempt I have seen to dismantle the argument fails. Because, once again, you are doomed to take the wager given the beginning parameters of the problem. I don't know how to counter the argument other than change the parameters. I don't know how that can be done, but at least I'm honest about it instead of appealing to some failing argument like a false dichotomy or multiple gods or something. I just say fuck Pascal's wager, and I'll live how I want to regardless of the very small likelihood that I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity. I'm honest about my irrationality. You're completely ignoring the consequences of not wasting time with the wager, because that might not be how a deity wants you to act. Or the fact that there could surely be infinite possibilities. Maybe there exists a deity who doesn't want prayer or acknowledgement, or one that favors atheists or people who actually care about healthy skepticism rather than blind belief or guessing on a whim? Even if you guessed the right deity in an effort to cover your own ass, there's no guarantee you'd be saved by him simply because you guessed right. After all, he'd know your selfish reasons for blindly selecting him, and it had nothing to do with true belief (or whatever other nonsensical things he'd ask from you, according to his commandments or holy book). It's not as simple as picking and choosing and therefore being more right than someone who didn't pick and choose, because maybe the latter could be what a deity is looking for. There are other variables you need to consider which makes PW wrong.
You seem to ignore the key thing about this argument. Here's an analogy:
Imagine you're in a room where there are thousands of playing cards face down. Only one is the ace of spades. You get to choose only one card. If you get the ace of spades, you get unlimited happiness. If you get any other card, you get unlimited suffering.
There are two ways to lose, you don't play the game or you play the game and pick the wrong card.
There is only one way to win, you play the game and pick the right card.
So in the face of these odds what do you do to win? You must pick a card. Regardless of the insurmountable odds against you, you must choose because that is the only way to win (or not lose).
It's that simple really. If you begin with pascal's wager, there is no escape from the room. You can add more face down cards if you like (this is what you are essentially doing every time you attempt to refute the argument with a finite number of alternative possibilities), but in the end you have to choose. The only way to dismantle the argument is to find an exit to the room. But given the nature of the game (i.e., parameters of Pascal's Wager), there is no real means to do so. That is why every argument I have seen fail. They continue to argue about the number of cards on the table when the only real way out is to find a way to leave the room. No argument has really done this convincingly.
The only way to do it really is to essentially say that there are an infinite number of cards to choose from. Then the game becomes absurd an a contradiction mathematically. But this is not true given the limited (and finite) nature of our ability to conceive the alternatives. We cannot say there are an infinite number of alternatives because our conception will naturally limit it to a finite number. It will be a very large amount, but finite nonetheless.
Edit: Damn, the guy went to bed. Oh well, food for thought for anyone else.
|
OH noooo you missed my point. Because I think Pascal's wager IS consistent with reason and skepticism, like PassionFruit and I have been arguing (albeit not consistent religiously)! If there is a chance that such crazy, unforgiving gods exist then there you go - a chance at eternity. And if a rational God exists, then the assumption is that he will understand that you took Pascal's wager just in case there was an irrational God - which is a RATIONAL action! So you are being completely consistent, and he would respect you all the same.
Well anyway. Looks like the day is done. Glad we all had fun. These threads are way more entertaining than SC2 sometimes
|
On February 19 2013 12:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 11:58 PassionFruit wrote:On February 19 2013 11:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2013 11:47 PassionFruit wrote:
Pascal's Wager is actually legit on a mathematical level. If you take hell to be negative infinity, then it is in your benefit to believe in something so long as the possibility of that belief has a finite probability of being true. All the counters to alternative gods or a false dichotomy or etc... doesn't do anything because the possibility that the belief is true is still finite. It's a basic EV analysis where the gains are infinite and the losses are finite. Unless you're a pure atheist where belief in god is exactly 0%, you take the wager.
I haven't seen a good counter to this argument as of date even with all the crap on wiki and youtube or what not. But...fuck logic and belief. I'll live my life and if I end up burning in hell eternally, then I"ll burn in hell eternally. It is what it is. You're misconstruing belief in something with probability that it actually exists. The video I just posted covers that... if a deity existed, surely he wouldn't fall for your "Well I'll just cover my ass with a belief" argument, not to mention the fact that belief isn't even subject to the will. In other words, if I'm skeptical of a belief because it lacks evidence, I can't just *choose* to truly believe in it. I can pretend to believe in it, but I won't actually be a believer, because I know it's full of crap. The video also refutes how PW fails on several other levels. It's really not sound, even if you consider the probability of a deity existing to be any non-zero chance. Right. But how do you know whether your interpretation of belief is right or mine is right? Unless you can commune with god, no one does. So you see, unless you are 100% sure you are right and 100% sure I am wrong, Pascal's Wager holds. As long as there is still the slightest possibility that my interpretation of belief is true, then the probability is finite. It doesn't matter if it is .0000001, because compared with infinity any finite probability is essentially moot. You still take the wager. Edit: The problem is all with the concept of hell being negative infinity and heaven being positive infinity. You are just fucked on a mathematical level if you put that on one side of the equation while it is absent from the other. It's a problem rigged to taking the wager from the very start. Pascal was a tricky dude. If it wasn't the case that there were countless gods and religions and threats of hells and heavens that all contradict one another and must be mutually exclusive by definition, then Pascal's Wager would probably be okay. But it's not dichotomous between Christian God and No God. There are tons of other choices, which means that whatever arbitrary probability you choose for the existence of your specific deity is useless because you'll have to give the same number to every other god and religion, but they cancel each other out, etc. You don't need to interpret belief; you just need to recognize that multiple beliefs exist. Plus all the other reasons why PW doesn't work that are mentioned in the video (e.g. you can't just choose to believe in something that you don't believe in).
I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the more prevalent religions are more likely to be true than unestablished possibilities. Or that they're more likely to reciprocate favour.
If I was an Atheist, I'd research and pray to the God of each major religion that involves eternal consequences (or perhaps just God in general) until I either discovered the truth or threw up my hands in complete frustration.
|
On February 19 2013 13:05 LockeTazeline wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 12:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2013 11:58 PassionFruit wrote:On February 19 2013 11:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2013 11:47 PassionFruit wrote:
Pascal's Wager is actually legit on a mathematical level. If you take hell to be negative infinity, then it is in your benefit to believe in something so long as the possibility of that belief has a finite probability of being true. All the counters to alternative gods or a false dichotomy or etc... doesn't do anything because the possibility that the belief is true is still finite. It's a basic EV analysis where the gains are infinite and the losses are finite. Unless you're a pure atheist where belief in god is exactly 0%, you take the wager.
I haven't seen a good counter to this argument as of date even with all the crap on wiki and youtube or what not. But...fuck logic and belief. I'll live my life and if I end up burning in hell eternally, then I"ll burn in hell eternally. It is what it is. You're misconstruing belief in something with probability that it actually exists. The video I just posted covers that... if a deity existed, surely he wouldn't fall for your "Well I'll just cover my ass with a belief" argument, not to mention the fact that belief isn't even subject to the will. In other words, if I'm skeptical of a belief because it lacks evidence, I can't just *choose* to truly believe in it. I can pretend to believe in it, but I won't actually be a believer, because I know it's full of crap. The video also refutes how PW fails on several other levels. It's really not sound, even if you consider the probability of a deity existing to be any non-zero chance. Right. But how do you know whether your interpretation of belief is right or mine is right? Unless you can commune with god, no one does. So you see, unless you are 100% sure you are right and 100% sure I am wrong, Pascal's Wager holds. As long as there is still the slightest possibility that my interpretation of belief is true, then the probability is finite. It doesn't matter if it is .0000001, because compared with infinity any finite probability is essentially moot. You still take the wager. Edit: The problem is all with the concept of hell being negative infinity and heaven being positive infinity. You are just fucked on a mathematical level if you put that on one side of the equation while it is absent from the other. It's a problem rigged to taking the wager from the very start. Pascal was a tricky dude. If it wasn't the case that there were countless gods and religions and threats of hells and heavens that all contradict one another and must be mutually exclusive by definition, then Pascal's Wager would probably be okay. But it's not dichotomous between Christian God and No God. There are tons of other choices, which means that whatever arbitrary probability you choose for the existence of your specific deity is useless because you'll have to give the same number to every other god and religion, but they cancel each other out, etc. You don't need to interpret belief; you just need to recognize that multiple beliefs exist. Plus all the other reasons why PW doesn't work that are mentioned in the video (e.g. you can't just choose to believe in something that you don't believe in). I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the more prevalent religions are more likely to be true than unestablished possibilities. Or that they're more likely to reciprocate favour. If I was an Atheist, I'd research and pray to the God of each major religion that involves eternal consequences (or perhaps just God in general) until I either discovered the truth or threw up my hands in complete frustration.
It is a stretch, in fact it is completely false. Without any empirical evidence(which no religion has), all possibilities are equally likely to be true.
In fact, I'd argue some of the the major religions are worse than equal, as some espouse things we know aren't true (the earth is 6000 years old, for example).
|
I'm very troubled by this notion that you can construct a disjunction of possibilities and then assume that each of them is equally likely to be true, as the null hypothesis.
|
On February 19 2013 13:35 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm very troubled by this notion that you can construct a disjunction of possibilities and then assume that each of them is equally likely to be true, as the null hypothesis.
What is the alternative? Given no real evidence, then any possibility you can imagine (and those you cannot) are all just as likely.
Maybe there really is one god who wants you to believe some random shit that doesn't line up with the rest of the rules of the universe he/she/it created, and will screw you over if you don't believe said random crap, just to fuck with you.
Taken to this extreme, you could even argue that agnosticism might even be a choice (although maybe a less threatening choice), because there might be some deity that wants to screw over rational/indecisive people. Who knows. It its really just a gamble, but as been my point this entire time, it is really much worse than 50/50.
|
On February 19 2013 13:19 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 13:05 LockeTazeline wrote:On February 19 2013 12:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2013 11:58 PassionFruit wrote:On February 19 2013 11:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2013 11:47 PassionFruit wrote:
Pascal's Wager is actually legit on a mathematical level. If you take hell to be negative infinity, then it is in your benefit to believe in something so long as the possibility of that belief has a finite probability of being true. All the counters to alternative gods or a false dichotomy or etc... doesn't do anything because the possibility that the belief is true is still finite. It's a basic EV analysis where the gains are infinite and the losses are finite. Unless you're a pure atheist where belief in god is exactly 0%, you take the wager.
I haven't seen a good counter to this argument as of date even with all the crap on wiki and youtube or what not. But...fuck logic and belief. I'll live my life and if I end up burning in hell eternally, then I"ll burn in hell eternally. It is what it is. You're misconstruing belief in something with probability that it actually exists. The video I just posted covers that... if a deity existed, surely he wouldn't fall for your "Well I'll just cover my ass with a belief" argument, not to mention the fact that belief isn't even subject to the will. In other words, if I'm skeptical of a belief because it lacks evidence, I can't just *choose* to truly believe in it. I can pretend to believe in it, but I won't actually be a believer, because I know it's full of crap. The video also refutes how PW fails on several other levels. It's really not sound, even if you consider the probability of a deity existing to be any non-zero chance. Right. But how do you know whether your interpretation of belief is right or mine is right? Unless you can commune with god, no one does. So you see, unless you are 100% sure you are right and 100% sure I am wrong, Pascal's Wager holds. As long as there is still the slightest possibility that my interpretation of belief is true, then the probability is finite. It doesn't matter if it is .0000001, because compared with infinity any finite probability is essentially moot. You still take the wager. Edit: The problem is all with the concept of hell being negative infinity and heaven being positive infinity. You are just fucked on a mathematical level if you put that on one side of the equation while it is absent from the other. It's a problem rigged to taking the wager from the very start. Pascal was a tricky dude. If it wasn't the case that there were countless gods and religions and threats of hells and heavens that all contradict one another and must be mutually exclusive by definition, then Pascal's Wager would probably be okay. But it's not dichotomous between Christian God and No God. There are tons of other choices, which means that whatever arbitrary probability you choose for the existence of your specific deity is useless because you'll have to give the same number to every other god and religion, but they cancel each other out, etc. You don't need to interpret belief; you just need to recognize that multiple beliefs exist. Plus all the other reasons why PW doesn't work that are mentioned in the video (e.g. you can't just choose to believe in something that you don't believe in). I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the more prevalent religions are more likely to be true than unestablished possibilities. Or that they're more likely to reciprocate favour. If I was an Atheist, I'd research and pray to the God of each major religion that involves eternal consequences (or perhaps just God in general) until I either discovered the truth or threw up my hands in complete frustration. It is a stretch, in fact it is completely false. Without any empirical evidence(which no religion has), all possibilities are equally likely to be true. In fact, I'd argue some of the the major religions are worse than equal, as some espouse things we know aren't true (the earth is 6000 years old, for example).
Your second paragraph contradicts your first. We are considering an infinite amount of religions. With an infinite amount, every belief system imaginable is a possibility being considered.
So, for example, there is a possible belief system where if you believe that an almighty God who created everything exists AND that there is no such thing as gravity, then you go to Heaven. If not, you go to hell.
According to your first paragraph, this is equally likely to Christianity and any other religion. According to your second paragraph, this religion is less likely to be true.
|
On February 19 2013 13:41 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 13:35 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm very troubled by this notion that you can construct a disjunction of possibilities and then assume that each of them is equally likely to be true, as the null hypothesis. What is the alternative?
stop trying to think about everything in terms of probability, because it leads you to commit prima facie absurdities like constructing a disjunction of possibilities and then weighting each of them equally. If you don't know anything, just admit you don't know anything, don't try to construct an elaborate theory about your lack of knowledge.
|
On February 19 2013 13:42 LockeTazeline wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 13:19 HardlyNever wrote:On February 19 2013 13:05 LockeTazeline wrote:On February 19 2013 12:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2013 11:58 PassionFruit wrote:On February 19 2013 11:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2013 11:47 PassionFruit wrote:
Pascal's Wager is actually legit on a mathematical level. If you take hell to be negative infinity, then it is in your benefit to believe in something so long as the possibility of that belief has a finite probability of being true. All the counters to alternative gods or a false dichotomy or etc... doesn't do anything because the possibility that the belief is true is still finite. It's a basic EV analysis where the gains are infinite and the losses are finite. Unless you're a pure atheist where belief in god is exactly 0%, you take the wager.
I haven't seen a good counter to this argument as of date even with all the crap on wiki and youtube or what not. But...fuck logic and belief. I'll live my life and if I end up burning in hell eternally, then I"ll burn in hell eternally. It is what it is. You're misconstruing belief in something with probability that it actually exists. The video I just posted covers that... if a deity existed, surely he wouldn't fall for your "Well I'll just cover my ass with a belief" argument, not to mention the fact that belief isn't even subject to the will. In other words, if I'm skeptical of a belief because it lacks evidence, I can't just *choose* to truly believe in it. I can pretend to believe in it, but I won't actually be a believer, because I know it's full of crap. The video also refutes how PW fails on several other levels. It's really not sound, even if you consider the probability of a deity existing to be any non-zero chance. Right. But how do you know whether your interpretation of belief is right or mine is right? Unless you can commune with god, no one does. So you see, unless you are 100% sure you are right and 100% sure I am wrong, Pascal's Wager holds. As long as there is still the slightest possibility that my interpretation of belief is true, then the probability is finite. It doesn't matter if it is .0000001, because compared with infinity any finite probability is essentially moot. You still take the wager. Edit: The problem is all with the concept of hell being negative infinity and heaven being positive infinity. You are just fucked on a mathematical level if you put that on one side of the equation while it is absent from the other. It's a problem rigged to taking the wager from the very start. Pascal was a tricky dude. If it wasn't the case that there were countless gods and religions and threats of hells and heavens that all contradict one another and must be mutually exclusive by definition, then Pascal's Wager would probably be okay. But it's not dichotomous between Christian God and No God. There are tons of other choices, which means that whatever arbitrary probability you choose for the existence of your specific deity is useless because you'll have to give the same number to every other god and religion, but they cancel each other out, etc. You don't need to interpret belief; you just need to recognize that multiple beliefs exist. Plus all the other reasons why PW doesn't work that are mentioned in the video (e.g. you can't just choose to believe in something that you don't believe in). I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the more prevalent religions are more likely to be true than unestablished possibilities. Or that they're more likely to reciprocate favour. If I was an Atheist, I'd research and pray to the God of each major religion that involves eternal consequences (or perhaps just God in general) until I either discovered the truth or threw up my hands in complete frustration. It is a stretch, in fact it is completely false. Without any empirical evidence(which no religion has), all possibilities are equally likely to be true. In fact, I'd argue some of the the major religions are worse than equal, as some espouse things we know aren't true (the earth is 6000 years old, for example). Your second paragraph contradicts your first. We are considering an infinite amount of religions. With an infinite amount, every belief system imaginable is a possibility being considered. So, for example, there is a possible belief system where if you believe that an almighty God who created everything exists AND that there is no such thing as gravity, then you go to Heaven. If not, you go to hell. According to your first paragraph, this is equally likely to Christianity and any other religion. According to your second paragraph, this religion is less likely to be true.
You're right, and I correct myself on my next post. I would assume (but this is just a personal assumption) that if there were sort of creator/creators of the universe, observing and understanding the laws they created to govern said universe would be important to them, and any beings that do so might be rewarded.
Again, that is strictly a personal assumption, with no more evidence than any other religion (I'm not even convinced if it has any merit).
|
On February 19 2013 13:59 HardlyNever wrote:
I would assume (but this is just a personal assumption) that if there were sort of creator/creators of the universe, observing and understanding the laws they created to govern said universe would be important to them
You've just assumed away all forms of Gnosticism. Nice going!
|
On February 19 2013 13:43 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 13:41 HardlyNever wrote:On February 19 2013 13:35 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm very troubled by this notion that you can construct a disjunction of possibilities and then assume that each of them is equally likely to be true, as the null hypothesis. What is the alternative? stop trying to think about everything in terms of probability, because it leads you to commit prima facie absurdities like constructing a disjunction of possibilities and then weighting each of them equally. If you don't know anything, just admit you don't know anything, don't try to construct an elaborate theory about your lack of knowledge.
I've never claimed to know anything, and if anything I've stated sounds like I have any more proof or knowledge of any of this than anyone else, you've misread me, or I've made a serious typo somewhere.
It's getting late and I'm tired, but there is one more thing (at least) I want to add this tomorrow. However, my question still remains, what is the alternative to an infinite set of probabilities all being equally likely (in our state of no evidence)?
Edit: Also, please stop quoting me out of context. If you are going to quote, at least put everything in there that is relevant. That is how misunderstandings occur.
|
On February 19 2013 14:02 HardlyNever wrote:
However, my question still remains, what is the alternative to an infinite set of probabilities all being equally likely (in our state of no evidence)?
Admit you don't know anything, and go have a beer or smth. You can't construct any disjunction of possibilities unless you know SOMETHING. if you don't know ANYTHING, then the exercise is entirely futile from square one, and you can't help but end up knowing even less than nothing by the end of it.
On February 19 2013 14:02 HardlyNever wrote:
Edit: Also, please stop quoting me out of context. If you are going to quote, at least put everything in there that is relevant. That is how misunderstandings occur.
sorry, I wasn't aware that I was.
|
Canada14127 Posts
On February 19 2013 12:45 PassionFruit wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 12:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2013 12:17 PassionFruit wrote:On February 19 2013 12:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2013 11:58 PassionFruit wrote:On February 19 2013 11:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2013 11:47 PassionFruit wrote:
Pascal's Wager is actually legit on a mathematical level. If you take hell to be negative infinity, then it is in your benefit to believe in something so long as the possibility of that belief has a finite probability of being true. All the counters to alternative gods or a false dichotomy or etc... doesn't do anything because the possibility that the belief is true is still finite. It's a basic EV analysis where the gains are infinite and the losses are finite. Unless you're a pure atheist where belief in god is exactly 0%, you take the wager.
I haven't seen a good counter to this argument as of date even with all the crap on wiki and youtube or what not. But...fuck logic and belief. I'll live my life and if I end up burning in hell eternally, then I"ll burn in hell eternally. It is what it is. You're misconstruing belief in something with probability that it actually exists. The video I just posted covers that... if a deity existed, surely he wouldn't fall for your "Well I'll just cover my ass with a belief" argument, not to mention the fact that belief isn't even subject to the will. In other words, if I'm skeptical of a belief because it lacks evidence, I can't just *choose* to truly believe in it. I can pretend to believe in it, but I won't actually be a believer, because I know it's full of crap. The video also refutes how PW fails on several other levels. It's really not sound, even if you consider the probability of a deity existing to be any non-zero chance. Right. But how do you know whether your interpretation of belief is right or mine is right? Unless you can commune with god, no one does. So you see, unless you are 100% sure you are right and 100% sure I am wrong, Pascal's Wager holds. As long as there is still the slightest possibility that my interpretation of belief is true, then the probability is finite. It doesn't matter if it is .0000001, because compared with infinity any finite probability is essentially moot. You still take the wager. Edit: The problem is all with the concept of hell being negative infinity and heaven being positive infinity. You are just fucked on a mathematical level if you put that on one side of the equation while it is absent from the other. It's a problem rigged to taking the wager from the very start. Pascal was a tricky dude. If it wasn't the case that there were countless gods and religions and threats of hells and heavens that all contradict one another and must be mutually exclusive by definition, then Pascal's Wager would probably be okay. But it's not dichotomous between Christian God and No God. There are tons of other choices, which means that whatever arbitrary probability you choose for the existence of your specific deity is useless because you'll have to give the same number to every other god and religion, but they cancel each other out, etc. You don't need to interpret belief; you just need to recognize that multiple beliefs exist. Plus all the other reasons why PW doesn't work that are mentioned in the video. Nothing cancels out. The overriding assumption is that only one belief is true. Thus there is only one heaven and one hell and one right god. You either pick right or you pick wrong. So long as there are a finite number of choices, you must pick. It's simple mathematics. The only thing to focus upon is the finite nature of the probability that your choice is right or wrong. I'm not saying you should use PW to dictate your belief in god, but every single attempt I have seen to dismantle the argument fails. Because, once again, you are doomed to take the wager given the beginning parameters of the problem. I don't know how to counter the argument other than change the parameters. I don't know how that can be done, but at least I'm honest about it instead of appealing to some failing argument like a false dichotomy or multiple gods or something. I just say fuck Pascal's wager, and I'll live how I want to regardless of the very small likelihood that I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity. I'm honest about my irrationality. You're completely ignoring the consequences of not wasting time with the wager, because that might not be how a deity wants you to act. Or the fact that there could surely be infinite possibilities. Maybe there exists a deity who doesn't want prayer or acknowledgement, or one that favors atheists or people who actually care about healthy skepticism rather than blind belief or guessing on a whim? Even if you guessed the right deity in an effort to cover your own ass, there's no guarantee you'd be saved by him simply because you guessed right. After all, he'd know your selfish reasons for blindly selecting him, and it had nothing to do with true belief (or whatever other nonsensical things he'd ask from you, according to his commandments or holy book). It's not as simple as picking and choosing and therefore being more right than someone who didn't pick and choose, because maybe the latter could be what a deity is looking for. There are other variables you need to consider which makes PW wrong. You seem to ignore the key thing about this argument. Here's an analogy: Show nested quote +Imagine you're in a room where there are thousands of playing cards face down. Only one is the ace of spades. You get to choose only one card. If you get the ace of spades, you get unlimited happiness. If you get any other card, you get unlimited suffering.
There are two ways to lose, you don't play the game or you play the game and pick the wrong card.
There is only one way to win, you play the game and pick the right card.
So in the face of these odds what do you do to win? You must pick a card. Regardless of the insurmountable odds against you, you must choose because that is the only way to win (or not lose). It's that simple really. If you begin with pascal's wager, there is no escape from the room. You can add more face down cards if you like (this is what you are essentially doing every time you attempt to refute the argument with a finite number of alternative possibilities), but in the end you have to choose. The only way to dismantle the argument is to find an exit to the room. But given the nature of the game (i.e., parameters of Pascal's Wager), there is no real means to do so. That is why every argument I have seen fail. They continue to argue about the number of cards on the table when the only real way out is to find a way to leave the room. No argument has really done this convincingly. The only way to do it really is to essentially say that there are an infinite number of cards to choose from. Then the game becomes absurd an a contradiction mathematically. But this is not true given the limited (and finite) nature of our ability to conceive the alternatives. We cannot say there are an infinite number of alternatives because our conception will naturally limit it to a finite number. It will be a very large amount, but finite nonetheless. Edit: Damn, the guy went to bed. Oh well, food for thought for anyone else.
The locked room analogy fails because it assumes that every choice is mutually exclusive. It also arbitrarily defines leaving the room as a win, and staying in the room is a loss. It also creates an arbitrary rule in which a choice must be made (which is completely contrary to Agnosticism).
Edit: To be a little more clear, Pascal's Wager is not in any way a description of how religious belief must be, it's a crude and heavy-handed approach to define the world into an extremely narrow set of choices in order to push a personal agenda.
|
a choice must always be made
|
Take the Judeo-Christian mythology for example: God created the Earth in 7 days (days? Wtf how can there even be days without an Earth). He also happens to look like... uhh.. US! Really? The supreme creator of the universe just happens to look like a human (or more accurately, we look like he does).
While I have nothing I want to contribute to the argument at hand, having a period of time 24 hours long known as a day does not require an Earth. Also, the Bible, when it says that we are created in God's image, is generally accepted by theologians and Christians in general as speaking of our soul rather than our body; that is, having emotions and so on.
|
^what the hell is "an hour"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
