|
On February 19 2013 15:38 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 15:32 FunkyLich wrote:
Once you reach the your personal revelation that "X or not X" is a tautology, we can continue this conversation.
Hmm... "christianity or not christianity" is not a tautology, I don't think. edit: "X or not X" is only a tautology when you have the axiom of the excluded middle. Is it evident that this holds here?
Christianity: conjunction of propositions one must believe to go to heaven. Think of it as a variable.
|
On February 19 2013 15:18 PassionFruit wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 15:06 BoxingKangaroo wrote:On February 19 2013 14:43 PassionFruit wrote:On February 19 2013 14:12 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 19 2013 12:45 PassionFruit wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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. sigh...I submit on the record. My prior posts are sufficient to outline my view on this subject. I would most gladly accept being convinced otherwise, but all you see are the same defective arguments over and over and over... Alright, I'll take a shot, You say: 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. If I'm reading your analogy correctly, a card = a deity. Now I can conceive of a deity which would let you into heaven if you worship the number 1. Similarly I can conceive of a deity that would let you in if you worship 2. Repeat for all integers means you get an infinite number of cards, and therefore your mathematical contradiction. There is no limit to our ability to conceive of alternatives. To put it in a crude way, cardinality is the problem. And I would assume the infinity of heaven and hell would be the greatest of them all. Edit: But I guess my analogy isn't entirely accurate, but it still properly illustrates the defect in most people's reasoning in getting away from Pascal's wager. And that's really all I intended anyway.
Of course you can assume that, but at that point your applying mathematical concepts to metaphysical concepts well outside of their proper use and definition. You may as well call heaven 'irrational'. My point being, that your attempt to justify the Wager purely on mathematical grounds fails here.
|
On February 19 2013 15:40 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 15:39 PassionFruit wrote:On February 19 2013 15:21 sam!zdat wrote:
heaven and hell have infinite cardinality If Pascal ever asks you where you'd like to place your wager, just punch him in the face. That's my new solution. Welcome to Zen!
What is the sound of one hand................... punching Pascal in the face?
|
On February 19 2013 15:42 FunkyLich wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 15:38 sam!zdat wrote:On February 19 2013 15:32 FunkyLich wrote:
Once you reach the your personal revelation that "X or not X" is a tautology, we can continue this conversation.
Hmm... "christianity or not christianity" is not a tautology, I don't think. edit: "X or not X" is only a tautology when you have the axiom of the excluded middle. Is it evident that this holds here? Christianity: conjunction of propositions one must believe to go to heaven. Think of it as a variable.
What self-respecting Christian would consider Christianity a conjunction of propositions? ridiculous. How many Christians in history would have understood the notion of "a conjunction of propositions" in the first place?
On February 19 2013 15:44 BoxingKangaroo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 15:40 sam!zdat wrote:On February 19 2013 15:39 PassionFruit wrote:On February 19 2013 15:21 sam!zdat wrote:
heaven and hell have infinite cardinality If Pascal ever asks you where you'd like to place your wager, just punch him in the face. That's my new solution. Welcome to Zen! What is the sound of one hand................... punching Pascal in the face?
SMACK!
|
It's just a variable name. I could call it C or X. Makes no difference. If there exists such a conjunction, that's what we're after. If there's no such thing, then there is no way to reliably get to heaven and the wager is worthless.
Do you know what a conjunction of propositions is?
|
No. You do not assent to Christianity. You believe it. It is not a proposition.
edit: propositions just tell you about states of the world. Christianity is a belief about something that exists outside of the world. Therefore, it is not a proposition.
|
Okay, forget I ever used the word "Christianity". Pretend I just said C, and defined it right then and there.
No, please give me one belief that doesn't have a corresponding proposition.
edit: a wild hyperlink appears
|
Ok, tell me about the system of axioms in which you are using the predicate "C", and then I'll tell you whether that is an appropriate formal system to talk about what we're trying to talk about.
|
There's no need to say what is included in C. Just that there is a set of beliefs required to get to heaven IF heaven exists. Unfortunately I'm not qualified enough about Christianity to tell you what those are. That and it's pretty controversial.
|
I can't sleep, so here I am. Sigh.
Premise 1 says:
"God is, or He is not"
As I explained, this should be interpreted roughly as:
"Christianity or not Christianity"
You say this, as another poster did, yet you bring no evidence of this (which I asked for). You seem to be so sure of what Pascal meant (or didn't mean), without any evidence (or evidence that you have yet to provide). I would like to see why you believe this is what Pascal meant.
However, for the sake of the argument to continue, I will even give you that he meant it as a tautology(which, for the record, I'm not convinced of). Congratulations, you have now just reduced the odds to 1/∞-1.
Because you are no longer talking about Christianity exclusively, we must open up the wager to any form of deity possibility, as long as there is something. That is the only requirement. Just believe in something, or somethings, or anythings, as long as something is there. There could be a Christian god, Hindu gods, or gods from the planet x-19(and you can see where I'm going with this). As long as there is a belief, you fulfill that requirement. There are infinite possibilities, -1. The -1 is for atheism, as the no god possibility must be ruled out, by definition.
However, as discussed earlier, we are back to definitions. Because you are not a god (at least that I know of) and you are a human, you must have some sort of working definition of what you believe. You cannot have an all-encompassing (infinite) knowledge of god/gods, because you are incapable of comprehending such a thought. You can claim that your god is infinite and all-encompassing, but you cannot claim such omniscience. How ever you decide to stake your claim, you are ultimately choosing one belief system, because as a human being, you are incapable of having more than one true belief. This may be a little confusing, and I can expand on this if necessary. Basically, due to your humanity, you have to choose 1 out of the ∞-1 possibilities. Which means if any of those other (infinite) possibilities is true, you could potentially be screwed.
So now we are at the one you chose, and the -1 for atheism. You now have 2/∞ odds. Are those still the worst odds in the universe?
|
On February 19 2013 15:59 FunkyLich wrote:
There's no need to say what is included in C. Just that there is a set of beliefs required to get to heaven IF heaven exists. Unfortunately I'm not qualified enough about Christianity to tell you what those are. That and it's pretty controversial.
And I'm telling you that your question is a category error. You can't use first-order predicate logic to model Christianity. obviously.
|
On February 19 2013 16:00 HardlyNever wrote:I can't sleep, so here I am. Sigh. Show nested quote +Premise 1 says:
"God is, or He is not"
As I explained, this should be interpreted roughly as:
"Christianity or not Christianity" You say this, as another poster did, yet you bring no evidence of this (which I asked for). You seem to be so sure of what Pascal meant (or didn't mean), without any evidence (or evidence that you have yet to provide). I would like to see why you believe this is what Pascal meant. However, for the sake of the argument to continue, I will even give you that he meant it as a tautology(which, for the record, I'm not convinced of). Congratulations, you have now just reduced the odds to 1/∞-1. Because you are no longer talking about Christianity exclusively, we must open up the wager to any form of deity possibility, as long as there is something. That is the only requirement. Just believe in something, or somethings, or anythings, as long as something is there. There could be a Christian god, Hindu gods, or gods from the planet x-19(and you can see where I'm going with this). As long as there is a belief, you fulfill that requirement. There are infinite possibilities, -1. The -1 is for atheism, as the no god possibility must be ruled out, by definition. However, as discussed earlier, we are back to definitions. Because you are not a god (at least that I know of) and you are a human, you must have some sort of working definition of what you believe. You cannot have an all-encompassing (infinite) knowledge of god/gods, because you are incapable of comprehending such a thought. You can claim that your god is infinite and all-encompassing, but you cannot claim such omniscience. How ever you decide to stake your claim, you are ultimately choosing one belief system, because as a human being, you are incapable of having more than one true belief. This may be a little confusing, and I can expand on this if necessary. Basically, due to your humanity, you have to choose 1 out of the ∞-1 possibilities. Which means if any of those other (infinite) possibilities is true, you could potentially be screwed. So now we are at the one you chose, and the -1 for atheism. You now have 2/∞ odds. Are those still the worst odds in the universe?
uhhh, before I go on, what is the precedence of this?
1/∞-1
negative odds don't exist. You gotta keep it between 0 and 1.
Okay good:
1/(∞-1)
Now here's the funny thing about accepting tautologies. They establish nothing. They do not give you any new information. In this case, the tautology he's providing is the dilemma, the wager. It's not performing any argumentative work. So basically, if you accept that it's a tautology, that really only means you understand the wager. You understand why it's a wager, and why you have no choice in the matter. I grant you that the odds could be 1/∞, but you have yet to show that that is the case. could be.
I am not gonna bullshit you and give you a definition of God. And I'm really not sure why you need one to discuss the wager. All you need to know is that there may or may not be some being up there capable of bestowing infinite punishment or infinite happiness upon you depending on whether you possess a certain set of beliefs. It's very important that you understand X or ~X is necessarily true.
edit: whoops. I should just quote everything.
|
the "precedence"?
sorry, I'm not sure what you mean
edit: oh I guess you're talking to him
|
On February 19 2013 16:03 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 15:59 FunkyLich wrote:
There's no need to say what is included in C. Just that there is a set of beliefs required to get to heaven IF heaven exists. Unfortunately I'm not qualified enough about Christianity to tell you what those are. That and it's pretty controversial. And I'm telling you that your question is a category error. You can't use first-order predicate logic to model Christianity. obviously.
What was my question?
|
On February 19 2013 16:04 FunkyLich wrote:
uhhh, before I go on, what is the precedence of this?
1/∞-1
negative odds don't exist. You gotta keep it between 0 and 1.
I'm joking around. ∞-1= ∞. The point is your odds don't change.
|
Err, your assumption that religious beliefs are conjunctions of propositions. not question.
edit: it's certain that Pascal considered it a tautology, however. We seem to kinda have two tracks about Pascal exegesis and our own analysis of his notion.
|
On February 19 2013 16:07 sam!zdat wrote:
Err, your assumption that religious beliefs are conjunctions of propositions. not question.
Okay first of all, what's is a conjunction? In logic, it's two or more propositions tied together by an 'and'. So you're use of the word belief indicates that it's a proposition, and your plural usage indicates that we are conjoining them. Now maybe there are disjunctions too (or's), but I'm trying not to rock the boat.
|
On February 19 2013 15:40 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 15:39 Birdie wrote:On February 19 2013 14:40 sam!zdat wrote:On February 19 2013 14:39 Birdie wrote:On February 19 2013 14:33 sam!zdat wrote:
but no matter what planet He made, it would have had a day that was exactly 24 hours long. In fact, I believe that, according to your reasoning, it would have been utterly impossible for God to create a planet which did NOT have a 24-hour day. No, if he created a larger planet which was further away from the sun then it would rotate differently and have a different length day. but you said an hour was 1/24 of the time it took the planet to turn on its axis. So now I'm confused. remind me what an hour is again? Well, the length of an hour would change depending on the amount of time it takes the planet to turn on its axis. The amount of time we call an hour on planet Earth is a different ratio of rotation on, say, planet Mars. how would you measure the difference, though?
What difference?  State your case directly instead of hinting at it. The length of time we, in this universe, on this planet, call an Earth day, is an amount of time which doesn't change no matter what planet you are on. However, the length of a particular planet's day may vary.
|
On February 19 2013 16:13 FunkyLich wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 16:07 sam!zdat wrote:
Err, your assumption that religious beliefs are conjunctions of propositions. not question. Okay first of all, what's is a conjunction? In logic, it's two or more propositions tied together by an 'and'. So you're use of the word belief indicates that it's a proposition, and your plural usage indicates that we are conjoining them. Now maybe there are disjunctions too (or's), but I'm trying not to rock the boat.
I'm not worried about the conjunction, unless you really want to argue about what a conjunction is and then I'll put some thought into it. I'm worried about your notion that religious beliefs are propositions. I don't believe this is the case, because propositions tell me about states of the world, and I don't really see how Christianity is a belief about states of the world - except possibly for the existence of the historical Jesus, and I don't think anybody really seriously doubts that. Whether or not he's God the Son? idk man. I just don't see that as a valid proposition in first-order predicate logic.
@Birdie: you've lured me onto thin sophistic ice, I'm going to have to concede defeat. I'm still not entirely sure what "time" is, but perhaps the argument doesn't depend on it.
|
On February 19 2013 14:17 sam!zdat wrote:
^what the hell is "an hour"?
6.678341397*10^46 planck times
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
