So lately I've been thinking about the limits of human imagination and creativity. This line of thought eventually lead me to thinking about creation stories, after-life claims, and other various metaphysical or even "religious" topics (or more accurately, questions religion still claims to have an answer to). There is a blank canvas of an entire universe, and people paint it only with what they see around them. What struck me as incredibly disappointing is how remarkably unimaginative most of these things are. 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). Of course, I approach this from the realm of fiction, while some people still approach this as a description of "truth." Perhaps that explains the lack of creativity.
But this is about Pascal's Wager and why it is such terrible odds. Now, if you aren't familiar with the wager, just read up on the wiki link; it does a pretty good job of summarizing it. Pascal's Wager has been largely discredited by now, so I'm not exactly treading new ground in pointing out the problems it has. However, the biggest issue I had with it is how incredibly uncreative it really is. The problem starts with the very first supposition of the wager:
"God is, or He is not"
Reducing such a complex issue as whether or not there are supernatural/supreme beings to either there is one single one, or there is none, is depressingly simplistic for such a question. Why can there either be one god, or no gods? Why can't there be 10? Or 1000? Or 5 1/2 that all hate each other. You can see where I'm going with this; the answer to whether or not there is a supreme being "god" cannot be reduced to a binary: that is just being unimaginative. The reality is there are actually infinite possible answers to this question (as we have no solid evidence for any one answer being true, all answers are possible).
The second problem with the wager is the 4th part (in the wiki):
You must wager. (It's not optional.)]
Why must I wager? Says who? What rule of the universe says I must wager whether or not there is a god/gods? None. In fact, I argue that not wagering is the best option. By choosing either of the two options (there is one god, or there are no gods) you are excluding yourself from all the other possible options, which as discussed above, is actually infinite.
To make Pascal's Wager is, in essence to bet 1/∞. Which seems to be the worst odds possible in the universe (which is pretty bad if you are wagering with your eternal existence, as some would have you believe).
I think the biggest problem is how people put limits on what "God" is. If "God" is really all powerful why would there be 10 or 1000. The thing about numbers is that you can say that each individual "god" in that 1000 population is equally as powerful as each other (which in that case, why would you even call them gods?) or perhaps that they are so in tune and in sync with each other that it doesnt matter if they number more than 1.
About the unimaginative, once more, you reduce for unthinkable into a box. According to the quote you mentioned, it states that God doesnt look like us, we look like him, A difference in perspective that makes all the world. You look like your father and mother. Their resemblance to form does not hinge on your existence.
And finally, about the wager. Perhaps by not playing you've already made a choice? Religion is a very personal thing and I am merely sharing my views on it.
I suppose the crux to your question is that there should be "infinite possible answers" to what may be. But my definition of "God" would be one who encompasses all of those possibilities and more. Only then can that being be termed "God".
Nobody except for crooks take Genesis 'literally' - I write 'literally' because it is a funny thing to note that for the medieval theologians, a 'literal' reading of the Bible was something completely different from what fundamentalists understand it to mean nowadays.
Anyway, your first argument against Pascal is a red herring: Pascal is talking about the christian god - either that god exists or he does not (law of the excluded middle). You say that there could be other gods, but that's completely off-topic.
Your second argument came really close to being interesting, since you could have pointed out that Pascal had no conception of what agnosticism was, which is exactly the notion of withholding judgement about the existence of god. Pascal could have argued in response to that, saying agnosticism is based on a false understanding of faith and that the wager ultimately is a question of whether or not to believe in god's existence (in oder to attain salvation etc). Instead, you misunderstood him, coming really close to making a straw man fallacy: Pascal says either god exists or he doesn't; denying the existence of the christian god doesn't mean denying the existence of other gods. It just means that, according to christianity, if you deny the existence of god then you're going to burn in hell forever. Here you could have pointed out that Pascal assumes the wager to be done in the context of the assumed truth of the christian religion, but yeah.
The wiki has some fairly good stuff to say on the wager though. 1/5.
On February 19 2013 08:08 Sauwelios wrote: Nobody except for crooks take Genesis 'literally' - I write 'literally' because it is a funny thing to note that for the medieval theologians, a 'literal' reading of the Bible was something completely different from what fundamentalists understand it to mean nowadays.
Anyway, your first argument against Pascal is a red herring: Pascal is talking about the christian god - either that god exists or he does not (law of the excluded middle). You say that there could be other gods, but that's completely off-topic.
Your second argument came really close to being interesting, since you could have pointed out that Pascal had no conception of what agnosticism was, which is exactly the notion of withholding judgement about the existence of god. Pascal could have argued in response to that, saying agnosticism is based on a false understanding of faith and that the wager ultimately is a question of whether or not to believe in god's existence (in oder to attain salvation etc). Instead, you misunderstood him, coming really close to making a straw man fallacy: Pascal says either god exists or he doesn't; denying the existence of the christian god doesn't mean denying the existence of other gods. It just means that, according to christianity, if you deny the existence of god then you're going to burn in hell forever. Here you could have pointed out that Pascal assumes the wager to be done in the context of the assumed truth of the christian religion, but yeah.
The wiki has some fairly good stuff to say on the wager though. 1/5.
What... Is... what?
Pascal had no conception of what agnosticism is? What? Where in the world are you getting this idea? Why in the world do you believe this to be true? What reality are you currently inhabiting? The concept of agnosticism emerged (in the west) in roughly the 4th century BC.
Second, in order to believe in the christian god, you must, by definition, refute the existence of all other gods. I'm not even going to bother responding to anything else here, because I'm pretty sure (positive) you don't actually have any clue what you are talking about, and I'd rather spend time on other posters.
On February 19 2013 07:49 Crissaegrim wrote: I think the biggest problem is how people put limits on what "God" is. If "God" is really all powerful why would there be 10 or 1000. The thing about numbers is that you can say that each individual "god" in that 1000 population is equally as powerful as each other (which in that case, why would you even call them gods?) or perhaps that they are so in tune and in sync with each other that it doesnt matter if they number more than 1.
About the unimaginative, once more, you reduce for unthinkable into a box. According to the quote you mentioned, it states that God doesnt look like us, we look like him, A difference in perspective that makes all the world. You look like your father and mother. Their resemblance to form does not hinge on your existence.
And finally, about the wager. Perhaps by not playing you've already made a choice? Religion is a very personal thing and I am merely sharing my views on it.
I suppose the crux to your question is that there should be "infinite possible answers" to what may be. But my definition of "God" would be one who encompasses all of those possibilities and more. Only then can that being be termed "God".
This is a bit more interesting, but you're still thinking too much inside the box. Why does there have to be an "all powerful" god? You're still stuck in the same paradigm Pascal was. Why do the beings responsible for creating the universe (what I'm calling gods) have to be singular and all powerful? There is no evidence to suggest this must be the case.They may be separate entities that hate each other, or have no sort of consciousness that relates to anything we would define as consciousness at all.
What we are really going to get down to is definitions. This removes some of the most basic (Judeo-Christian) definitions of "god" from the table as a rational choice, and so we are left trying to define what is left in that space. How do you define a god/gods? Why do you chose to define it that way, and what justification/evidence (if any) do you have for that definition of god/gods?
On February 19 2013 08:40 Sauwelios wrote: Yes, he most likely had no conception of agnosticism as we use it today.
And yeah sure, just ad hominem your way out of it. It's ok, almost everyone else around here does as well.
Are you ignoring the wiki link I put in?
If you are saying he was unfamiliar with the specific term, then yes, I'd agree. However, to suggest that he is unfamiliar with the concept (again, the link), is wrong (unless you can somehow prove what he specifically knew and did not know). I'd assume a 17th century philosopher would be somewhat familiar with the ideas of Socrates et al. Call it a hunch.
And I'd like to know how you can reconcile the Christian concept of monotheism with the possibility of there being the Christian god, as well as other gods. I'd honestly be interested in reading that.
"Here is a link on the internet that supports my claim which is sufficient evidence to support my opinion on this matter, but if you wish to similarly validate your argument you must go back in time and bring Pascal back to the future with you and allow him to substantiate your claims in person because I don't like the fact that you're trying to question something I said on the internet."
I guess I should have highlighted "AS WE USE IT TODAY" because you know, we did quite a lot of work on the concept of agnosticism over the last couple of centuries.
As for the second point: You wrote in the OP thus:
Reducing such a complex issue as whether or not there are supernatural/supreme beings to either there is one single one, or there is none, is depressingly simplistic for such a question. Why can there either be one god, or no gods?
This is a false dichotomy, and this is what I have been pointing out. His point is that either God exists (and thus no other gods) or God does not exist (and thus other gods can exist). But you say that either God exists or no gods exist. That's just a misunderstanding. If God exists, no other gods can exist, but if he does not exist, then that doesn't mean other gods can't exist.
Then you said that whether 'God' exists cannot be expressed in a binary. Of course it can: see the law of the excluded middle. Either x is true or not-x is true. There is no third option. This is not unimaginative or uncreative, it's just plain logic.
On February 19 2013 08:51 Plaaank wrote: "Here is a link on the internet that supports my claim which is sufficient evidence to support my opinion on this matter, but if you wish to similarly validate your argument you must go back in time and bring Pascal back to the future with you and allow him to substantiate your claims in person because I don't like the fact that you're trying to question something I said on the internet."
Well... I was assuming it didn't need to be spelled out... but I may as well since people want be both dumb and snarky.
Pascal was a well educated 17th century French philosopher. A fairly standard part of the education for the... educated... in the 17th century would be a reading (usually in the ancient Greek), of ancient Greek philosophers including skeptics such as Socrates and friends. A part of this skeptic philosophy is that you could not possibly know whether there is a god/gods or not (what we term today as agnosticism). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Pascal would be familiar with the concept of "you can't know" as to whether there was a god/gods (he states as much, that is why it is a wager). However, the mistake is simply reducing that "I don't know" into an either he is, or isn't possibility, which is not the case (as I discussed above).
On February 19 2013 09:10 Sauwelios wrote: But you say that either God exists or no gods exist.
No, I don't. I say almost the opposite. That there is an infinite possibility regarding the existence of god/gods (again, I'm defining gods as beings responsible for the creation of the universe). Lumping an infinite possibly into the single definition of "God" is not in anyway logical. Especially when you get to the real meat of the wager, which is to say either you believe and worship in a certain way(that there is one single god), or you don't.
Perhaps if you could give your working definition of "God" we could reach a more mutual understanding.
Edit: I'm not sure whether you're understanding the wager. It is between believing in God, or believing in no gods (atheism). Not believing in God, or believing in infinite possibilities. At least, this is how I understand the wager, as it stands.
I found the OP interesting but not exactly about Pascal at all. You intentionally try to take some of Pascals biggest points and brush them off. Actually that is all you've done. It's not 1 vs infinity. The fact that you think that means you didn't understand what Pascal was talking about at all. I get your argument but that goes so far past Pascal that the only mention to him should be "this is why Pascals Wager could be wrong for another religion"
I dunno... interesting points but they don't really match to talking about this particular subject.
I recommend Slavoj Zizek, Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism, pp. 112-120, for an interesting discussion of Pascal's Wager!
I'm sure your local library has the text ()
On February 19 2013 09:19 HardlyNever wrote: Perhaps if you could give your working definition of "God" we could reach a more mutual understanding.
On February 19 2013 09:10 Sauwelios wrote: But you say that either God exists or no gods exist.
No, I don't.
So praise tell who wrote this:
"Why can there either be one god, or no gods?" "[...] whether or not there are supernatural/supreme beings to either there is one single one, or there is none [...]"
On February 19 2013 09:10 Sauwelios wrote: But you say that either God exists or no gods exist.
No, I don't.
So praise tell who wrote this:
"Why can there either be one god, or no gods?" "[...] whether or not there are supernatural/supreme beings to either there is one single one, or there is none [...]"
Read my edit for clarification. I think we are talking about who is saying what differently.
There (still) seems to be a debate as to whether Pascal would consider worshiping other gods as "choosing no god" or "actually just worshiping the one God in a different way," as I read it.
Edit:
This short but densely packed passage, which alludes to numerous themes discussed elsewhere in the Pensées, has given rise to many pages of scholarly analysis.
Makes me think we aren't going to get there in a TL blog post, either.
Edit: I'm not sure whether you're understanding the wager. It is between believing in God, or believing in no gods (atheism). Not believing in God, or believing in infinite possibilities. At least, this is how I understand the wager, as it stands.
The wiki says that the first part of the wager entails: "God is, or He is not" Where is it written that one ought to believe in no gods at all? That statement poses a simple question of whether x is or whether x is not. Not whether x is and the rest of the entire category that x was part of is not.
Here's an analogy: This table is made out of wood. Either this table exists or it does not. But if we deny it's existence then that doesn't mean we MUST deny the existence of everything that is made out of wood. The christian God is part of the category of all gods in general; either the christian God exists or he does not. But that doesn't mean all possible gods in general do not exist if we deny the christian God's existence.
Edit: I'm not sure whether you're understanding the wager. It is between believing in God, or believing in no gods (atheism). Not believing in God, or believing in infinite possibilities. At least, this is how I understand the wager, as it stands.
The wiki says that the first part of the wager entails: "God is, or He is not" Where is it written that one ought to believe in no gods at all? That statement poses a simple question of whether x is or whether x is not. Not whether x is and the rest of the entire category that x was part of is not.
Here's an analogy: This table is made out of wood. Either this table exists or it does not. But if we deny it's existence then that doesn't mean we MUST deny the existence of everything that is made out of wood. The christian God is part of the category of all gods in general; either the christian God exists or he does not. But that doesn't mean all possible gods in general do not exist if we deny the christian God's existence.
Again, it is definitions. Reading "God is, or He is not" means one singular god, not infinite possibilities that could be lumped together into some definition of "God (to me)." Having a such broad definition, to me, is worthless, as such a definition really gives no direction or focus for belief(and seems to have no real meaning). What is it that you are actually believing in if you believe in infinite gods? What does that look like? What is the meaning of that?
On February 19 2013 09:41 HardlyNever wrote: What is it that you are actually believing in if you believe in infinite gods? What does that look like? What is the meaning of that?
Oooh! I like that. Today I'm going to believe in that.
On February 19 2013 09:48 Sauwelios wrote: I have no idea how you got to infinite gods. I really don't.
so are you asking if Pascals wager can be used for other religions then? If so I can understand where the confusion is coming from. Because Blaise Pascal made it centered on Christianity. There is no point discussing how it applies in the case of an infinite amount of God's when that's not what he was relating anything he was talking about to. That is why it's a 50/50 chance. He wasn't talking about all the Egyptian God's or the Greeks, or Romans. He wasn't even giving consideration to there being more than a single God. He was talking about the Catholic church and why an Atheist was better off to believe in God because of this rather simple minded way of looking at things. It's good to look deeply into things but when something is said to be simple, and to be taken as a very simple concept, sometimes you start to grasp at things that are unrelated.
On February 19 2013 09:48 Sauwelios wrote: I have no idea how you got to infinite gods. I really don't.
You seem to be arguing that the "God" choice is a catch-all term for any sort of belief in any number of "higher powers (one or more)." Correct me if I'm wrong.
Edit:
The christian God is part of the category of all gods in general; either the christian God exists or he does not. But that doesn't mean all possible gods in general do not exist if we deny the christian God's existence.
It's not a 50/50 chance for Pascal. The chances are irrelevant. Even if the chance is 1/inf., you still make the wager, because you have everything to lose if you're wrong, and everything to gain if you're right.
Nono look, I'm just talking about the set of all possible gods. It's just a simple category and is not at all mysterious or controversial. The set of all possible gods includes.... well, all possible gods! For christians the set of all possible gods has only one element though, namely the christian God. Every theologian would accept that God is part of the set of all possible gods, because if he were not, he would not be possible, and if he were not be possible, he could not possibly exist (actuality presumes possibility). But we must not confuse the element of that set (God) with the set itself (all possible gods). For atheists, for example, the set of all possible gods exists, it just has no elements (the set is empty), otherwise atheists would be unable to argue against God's existence - they usually do it by arguing for his impossibility.
On February 19 2013 10:02 sam!zdat wrote: It's not a 50/50 chance for Pascal. The chances are irrelevant. Even if the chance is 1/inf., you still make the wager, because you have everything to lose if you're wrong, and everything to gain if you're right.
And really what my OP was about. Why would you chose one specific choice, the Christian god (the flood making, virgin raping one, that says there are no other gods, so we can be clear on definitions), when you could just say I'll take them all, but not that one in particular. Aren't those much better odds?
My original point was that Pascal had it all wrong to begin with. It isn't a 50/50 shot at all.
yeah, sure, I was just responding to the guy who mentioned 50/50. I'm less interested in this other thing, I'll let you guys argue about it. "The name that can be named is not the eternal name."
Yes, Pascal's Wager specifically focuses on Christianity and Atheism which kind of dilutes the purpose of thinking about it logically. But the fundamental idea can be expanded into something reasonable. For example:
Assume that if God (singular, plural, whatever) exists, then He wants to be known on some degree. (Reason: If He doesn't want to be known, you won't know Him; if He doesn't care, it's an exercise in futility)
Thus, if God does exist, then the truth of who He is likely resides in one of the major religions. If you apply Pascal's Wager to this, you get basically the same think except with 6 (or however many) choices instead of 2 in which case choosing one of the God beliefs is still a better "wager" than non-belief. (with a reasonable chance at choosing correctly)
Personally, I don't think Pascal's Wager should be used to "choose" a religion. Investigating, rather, would be more practical imo.
I think most of the discussion has already pointed out why it's just as commonly referred to as Pascal's Fallacy as Pascal's Wager... and I think most of the points have been discussed, so I merely wish to post my favorite video that quickly and efficiently dismantles the argument in its entirety (from the perspective of atheist vs. Christian, where the latter invokes Pascal):
On February 19 2013 11:32 Epishade wrote: ^That video could not have summed up Pascal's Wager any better imo. Thanks for posting it.
Sure Those seem to be the classic, stereotypical arguments that the layman presents for PW, already refuted neatly. I'm a fan of Matt Dillahunty (that speaker) in general; he seems to be rather coherent and knows how to dismantle arguments quite readily.
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 (or if you want to think of it as eternal burning in hell and losing your life, then the gains are finite and the losses are infinite). 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.
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.
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 1: 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.
Edit 2: I've seen the video, and it refutes absolutely nothing. You cannot make an appeal to philosophy when the wager is based on mathematics. Everything he says merely contributes to a reduction in the probability. But, and most important, it is never reduced to zero. You still take the wager.
I love the ending of that. "And by the way, to future callers, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO LIE..." XD.
But I'm not even sure if Pascal's wager is really that bad. I think I could refute some of those arguments Matt makes. He says that you do lose something, in that all the time you spend praying is life lost here and now, and if there is no afterlife, then you lose out on quite a lot.
But with the Christian religion, for example, all it asks is that you make an earnest prayer to God and believe in Jesus before you die, there is nothing about having to waste your entire life in a church; just five minutes at the end of your life . Of course this may not be true of all religions, in which case he has a point.
Then he says, its a false dichotomy. While this is true, it doesn't change the fact that some odds are better than no odds at all (aka believing in nothing, where presumably no God would take you) like Sam was saying. I think the only counterargument is that there may be other Gods that take offence to you praying to one God, but are okay with you being an atheist because at least its not *as* offensive. With this in mind I think it would be wisest to pray to all the potential Gods and say "I don't really know who exists, so if you respect me as an atheist, understand that I have to choose one God to maximize my chances". Man this is sounding so silly but it still makes some sense .
The same goes for the argument that God would not be silly enough to accept someone who, as Matt puts it, is trying to "cover their ass". I mean apparently, from what it says in the bible, as long as you do this one basic thing and accept Jesus apparently it IS okay! I mean all of religion is silly in general, why should this one silly decision be the thing that goes too far, that makes it all unacceptable to God?
And even if it isn't known to be acceptable, again the point is some odds are better than no odds at all (i.e. there is still a chance God would accept it). So why not choose a random religion? Or better yet why not make a plea to all Gods, explaining what you're going to do, so that you maximize the chance that they will have pity and accept you (in case they're one of those Gods that would be angry if you believed in another God, but would be understanding if you were an atheist).
Then you can choose the God that seems really popular, whether its the Christian one, or the Islamic one, or whatever, and take your chances with the Gods that wouldn't be forgiving, while hoping the Gods that are forgiving (and actually exist) will be understanding thanks to your plea.
Or maybe that's actually a bad wager, and the chances of there being more unforgiving gods than there are forgiving are high? Maybe then it would be better to believe in all potential Gods like HardlyNever points out, and reduce their wrath by going the most forgivable option and believing in them all!
I think it makes sense to do one of the two options before you die. You lose nothing except maybe a little mental dignity to yourself. But really, I think even a minute chance at having an eternal afterlife is worth it, just in case this universe really is that ridiculous . I'm sorry I type so much everyone. I don't think anyone will read this lol
Man passionfruit basically said everything much more clearly and concisely. I have to agree, Matt is basically just talking probabilities. You would still take a probability at having an eternal afterlife over nothing.
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).
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 and they really do cancel out, 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! (also, it seems like "covering your ass" was something that is sanctioned by Christianity. They don't say anything about having to attend church your life, just to have the belief before you die, which is why they have conversions on one's death bed)
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?
Why not take a wager and pray to all of them, just in case they do accept you?
Because most of the religions say you can't pray to others (including Christianity), and this would waste my entire life on something (or, in this case, multiple somethings) that are absurd.
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.
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
Because most of the religions say you can't pray to others (including Christianity), and this would waste my entire life on something (or, in this case, multiple somethings) that are absurd.
Oh I agree in this case. I just meant that you pray to all of them at the end of your life, because there is a possibility they might accept you. Or you could just gamble and choose one God (at the end). But either way its better than nothing. The only thing you lose is a little self-respect
On February 19 2013 12:17 PassionFruit wrote: 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.
That's not so bad . I think its highly unlikely that if God exists he is that irrational. Just make sure you pray for 5 minutes when you're 93 years old, since you lose nothing at that point. But really I think the probability of God being so irrational is so low, that if you don't pray it won't make much difference probabilistically speaking, compared to if you took Pascal's wager.
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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 13:35 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 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 13:35 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.
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.
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.
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.
On February 19 2013 14:17 sam!zdat wrote: ^what the hell is "an hour"?
An hour is 1/24th of a day. A day is the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate once.* *There's a new definition but I imaging the Bible is using the old definition of a day.
On February 19 2013 14:24 sam!zdat wrote: so how can you have a day which is 24 hours, without a planet, when an hour is just 1/24 of a day, which is defined by the planet?
and I believe your definition is what we call "a year"
Oh whoops fail about the year/day xD you know what I mean
God knew how long a day would be before he made the planet, of course I mean, if you're pro enough to make an entire universe, including a planet which has the exact circumference and distance from the sun to be able to support life without burning the planet up or freezing it, then I think you're going to know how long a day on that planet will be.
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.
Okay so here's what I got from the OP: -OP takes one of the most simple tautologies in the english language: "God is, or He is not". And calls it a false dichotomy. "Wow! I just dismantled this whole pascal's wager thing at the first premise! Awesome!" And then we get on this whole digression into: if that's a false dichotomy what's the middle? Holy shit :O. "What if there are a million other gods. What if the Christian God existed a billion times over?" OP uses the remaining paragraph space to flaunt his creativity. -Then we get to OP's insightful take on this: "You must wager. (It's not optional.)" "What if I don't wanna? Huh? Ever think of that??? I can just suspend judgement and you can't do anything! HA!" Okay since apparently, these simple ideas need explaining, let's take a look at what Pascal is really trying to convey here. The idea is that there is a game and you are part of it, no matter what you do, no matter what you believe. If you aren't a believer, and you're suspending judgement you have already made your wager, but you have until you die to change that wager. Make sense? -Now it's not my style to beat the proverbial dead horse. But there's one more thing that needs saying. At the end, the OP states that the infinitude of possibilities indicates an infinitely small likelihood for Pascal's selected solution. Basically Pascal says there's one god, when there could be 2, 3, or 4, or however many. Even though there are other possibilities, they are not necessarily equally probable. Suppose I'm working as a copilot on a commercial airliner. The pilot (call him Roger) is sitting in the cockpit with me, and we both hear a strange sound coming from the wing. Roger inquires with me what the cause could have been, suggesting that the cold weather may have caused the engine to slow down. I solemnly remind Roger that this is just one of many possibilities. It could have also been a swarm of high altitude bees getting sucked into the engine, or worse: gremlins making terrible mischief. Roger determines instead to wager that the plane is actually 180 pounds too heavy, and who needs copilots anyway?
I guess this is what happens when people get the short version of something (which wikipedia so elegantly provided). People read it verbatim, make no attempt at charity, and proudly teabag a straw man. But enough of me being obnoxious and ad hominem. One thing the OP said at the very end really struck me: 1/∞, the worst odds in the universe. What if the odds of God existing were 1/∞ and the rewards for believing it when its true are ∞. Unless my maths fail me, ∞/∞ is indeterminate, so how would we treat that? It's food for thought so I won't go into it. I wanted to say a little more about the "God is, or He is not" premise. The brevity of that statement should indicate to you that much is being left unsaid. So let's take a look at the argument as a whole, and see how it should fit. Hint: this is called charity.
The crux of the wager is this: There is some dogma D (crudely formed on Wiki as "God is") and the wager is between D and ~D(not D). If D is true, those who accepted it will enjoy infinite happiness and those who do not will endure infinite suffering. If D is false, those who accepted it will suffer minor finite inconveniences--burnt at the stake, castration, disembowelment, to name a few. Those who don't will enjoy finite benefits. So in this argument, D is the belief or set of beliefs a person must assent to in order to have a chance at heaven. That's not what the wikipedia explicitly says, but we can correctly assume that this is what is meant. In Christianity, it is not sufficient to simply believe in God to go to heaven. Pascal obviously knows this! So give him some credit.
The real problem with Pascal's wager is not his choice of dogmas. It is simply the fact that I can concoct another dogma D', incompatible with D, where D' has the same consequences for believing and disbelieving, and the same probability of being true. Since D' is part of ~D, our choice is now between D, D', and ~D & ~D' (neither). The wager no longer has a solution with this new option. And I could expound this even more. There could be a D'' incompatible with both, a D''', and so forth.
That was a little abstract, so lets discuss how this would play out in the real world. D is Christianity. It is the set of beliefs according to the bible one must have in order to get to heaven. We won't worry about what those are. D' is an alternate belief. I'm not a religion major, so I'm just gonna make one up. In D' you must believe everything in D except that God is actually another god named Baal. So you can already see how they might be probabilistically identical or at least indistinguishably close, and of course the consequences for believing and not believing are the same. So which do we pick? There is no clear solution to the wager. On second thought, I think there is something wrong with this rebuttal, but I'm not gonna say what it is.
Now, since this dipshit named Matt Dillahunty from the Atheist Experience got his wonderful opinion posted, I have to dismantle that too. I really don't enjoy this. Really, I don't. -He says it's a false dichotomy. We've beaten this to death already. The wager is a fucking tautology. It is as tautological as they come. -It ignores all other possible religions. Absolutely false, and I'm not gonna go into this because it extends naturally from his view that it's a false dichotomy. -It ignores other heavens and hells. The one scrap of truth. The idea of heaven and hell in christianity is infinite happiness and infinite torture. Again, I'm not a religion major, but religions rarely possess these extremes. - It claims that worshiping and believing costs you nothing. This little slip up perfectly captures Matt's inability to conceive this simple argument. He says worshiping and believing cost you something, as if that actually counts as ammo. Is that the best you can do? I bet for you, the cost of worship is getting up on Sunday morning. That sounds hard bro. It must be tough being you. First world fucking problems. Try harder. Lifetime of extreme torture? Doesn't make a difference. It's still finite. The solution to the wager does not change. - Belief is not subject to the will lmfao WTF How is this possible? How do you guys buy this fucking garbage? Do you listen to the words that are coming out of his mouth? Yes beliefs are often determined without consulting the will. But has anyone ever heard of believing something because they want it to be true? It happens all the time. So please stop taking that hack seriously.
phew, finally got that off my chest.
And that's all the time I've got. Sorry OP if I came off as a jerk. Not sorry to you Matt.
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. So a 7 day creation would then be a different amount of time and everything would be different.
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?
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.
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...
On February 19 2013 14:37 FunkyLich wrote: Okay so here's what I got from the OP: -OP takes one of the most simple tautologies in the english language: "God is, or He is not". And calls it a false dichotomy. "Wow! I just dismantled this whole pascal's wager thing at the first premise! Awesome!" And then we get on this whole digression into: if that's a false dichotomy what's the middle? Holy shit :O. "What if there are a million other gods. What if the Christian God existed a billion times over?" OP uses the remaining paragraph space to flaunt his creativity.
I'm pretty tired, so I'm not going to tell you why you're wrong on every count(right now), but I am thinking you skipped over the entire middle part of the thread.
Basically, I'm not too sure it actually is a tautology(yet it is convenient for your argument, so you will claim it is), and it seems there is still some debate regarding this: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Argument_from_inconsistent_revelations).
If you can provide convincing evidence as to why I should assume Pascal meant it as a tautology, I'd love to read it. Right now I'm operating under the assumption that he has chosen the Christian "God" (the dude who you read about in the bible) as his one god. I'm not going to rehash everything else that was said, you can go back and read it if you want.
Your D and D' example are meaningless. There are infinite possibilities. There could be a (one) god that is really fucking picky about his name, and if you didn't get it exactly right, you are burning in hell forever (if you think this is in anyway far fetched, see the Chalcedonian controversy, it isn't that far off).
The airplane thing just doesn't make much sense. There is no probable cause or reason here, as there is no true evidence to go off of.
I think that is the short of everything for the moment. I'll be back tomorrow.
shouldn't it be obvious why Pascal would mean it as a tautology?
the dude had trouble taking his own religion seriously, let alone some other motherfucker's religion. c'mon. this whole notion that one would even for a minute give equal weight to the possibility of some other culture's religion being true is a total anachronism
On February 19 2013 14:49 sam!zdat wrote: shouldn't it be obvious why Pascal would mean it as a tautology?
the dude had trouble taking his own religion seriously, let alone some other motherfucker's religion. c'mon. this whole notion that one would even for a minute give equal weight to the possibility of some other culture's religion being true is a total anachronism
I'm not sure which part of this is being sarcastic.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
On February 19 2013 14:37 FunkyLich wrote: Okay so here's what I got from the OP: -OP takes one of the most simple tautologies in the english language: "God is, or He is not". And calls it a false dichotomy. "Wow! I just dismantled this whole pascal's wager thing at the first premise! Awesome!" And then we get on this whole digression into: if that's a false dichotomy what's the middle? Holy shit :O. "What if there are a million other gods. What if the Christian God existed a billion times over?" OP uses the remaining paragraph space to flaunt his creativity.
I'm pretty tired, so I'm not going to tell you why you're wrong on every count(right now), but I am thinking you skipped over the entire middle part of the thread.
Basically, I'm not too sure it actually is a tautology(yet it is convenient for your argument, so you will claim it is), and it seems there is still some debate regarding this: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Argument_from_inconsistent_revelations).
If you can provide convincing evidence as to why I should assume Pascal meant it as a tautology, I'd love to read it. Right now I'm operating under the assumption that he has chosen the Christian "God" (the dude who you read about in the bible) as his one god. I'm not going to rehash everything else that was said, you can go back and read it if you want.
Your D and D' example are meaningless. There are infinite possibilities. There could be a (one) god that is really fucking picky about his name, and if you didn't get it exactly right, you are burning in hell forever (if you think this is in anyway far fetched, see the Chalcedonian controversy, it isn't that far off).
The airplane thing just doesn't make much sense. There is no probable cause or reason here, as there is no true evidence to go off of.
I think that is the short of everything for the moment. I'll be back tomorrow.
Premise 1 says: "God is, or He is not" As I explained, this should be interpreted roughly as: "Christianity or not Christianity"
The argument from inconsistent revelations is not saying this is a false dichotomy. The debate in that section boils down to whether or not other religions, which are part of ~X should be brought out as additional options in the wager. So maybe the wager should say "Christianity or Hinduism or neither" instead of bundling Hinduism with "not Christianity".
Once you reach the your personal revelation that "X or not X" is a tautology, we can continue this conversation.
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?
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.
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.
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 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 15:32 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 16:04 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 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 16:07 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 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.
@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.
"For if eternity and time are rightly distinguished by this, that time does not exist without some movement and transition, while in eternity there is no change, who does not see that there could have been no time had not some creature been made, which by some motion could give birth to change,—the various parts of which motion and change, as they cannot be simultaneous, succeed one another,—and thus, in these shorter or longer intervals of duration, time would begin? Since then, God, in whose eternity is no change at all, is the Creator and Ordainer of time, I do not see how He can be said to have created the world after spaces of time had elapsed, unless it be said that prior to the world there was some creature by whose movement time could pass. And if the sacred and infallible Scriptures say that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, in order that it may be understood that He had made nothing previously,—for if He had made anything before the rest, this thing would rather be said to have been made “in the beginning,”—then assuredly the world was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time. For that which is made in time is made both after and before some time,—after that which is past, before that which is future. But none could then be past, for there was no creature by whose movements its duration could be measured. But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world’s creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" Augustine, City of God Book 6.
Here's what I want to know. Why are the constants the constants they are?
edit:@above: there, Augustine is just talking about the existence of God outside of time, though, that's not important to our question.
and all of you people who think that religion is stupid and has only ever done bad things for people should please note what a clever philosophical point our dear old Auggie has here
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.
Okay I gave you a wiki link in a previous post about this. Here it is again.
It has nothing to do with states of the world. Propositions are basically just declarative sentences, or more atomically, subject-predicate combinations.
Well you just demonstrated that you don't. Propositions have nothing to do with states of the world. I would expect anyone with a background in analytic philosophy to realize that when they use definitions utterly counter from their colloquial meanings, they would have the good grace to explain themselves. I can't read your mind.
On February 19 2013 16:35 FunkyLich wrote: Propositions have nothing to do with states of the world. I would expect anyone with a background in analytic philosophy to realize that when they use definitions utterly counter from their colloquial meanings, they would have the good grace to explain themselves.
a "proposition" is not a colloquial word, it is a term from analytic philosophy. any "colloquial" meaning is just people using it wrong. don't use the word if you don't mean it in the correct sense.
If you want to claim that "X or not X" is a tautology, now you are invoking a set-theoretical notion and I think that obligates you to a certain precision.
edit: hmm. So if I disagreed about the prettiness of the painting, you would hold me to be incorrect in a matter of truth and falsity? I suppose that's one aesthetic theory, but it leaves me unsatisfied
edit: what is the logical structure of what you mean as a "proposition"?
On February 19 2013 16:24 sam!zdat wrote: Here's what I want to know. Why are the constants the constants they are?
edit:@above: there, Augustine is just talking about the existence of God outside of time, though, that's not important to our question.
No, he's talking about time and the creation of the world. In the latter part at least.
Now I'm confused as to what we were talking about, because you weren't stating your case directly but were implying it. Or maybe I was inferring something that you weren't implying ;o If you just wanted to know how long an hour is, that's different.
Time and constants are based on perception of movement. Because the rotation of the earth is (relatively) constant, human perception of time can't distort the length of an hour, which is 1/24th of the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate. The reason a day is the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate fully once is because that's what God decided it would be.
Okay, you got me there. I should have said "correct", "recognized". Again, your use of the word deviates from these.
X or not X. X is some proposition. Fill it in with an proposition you can think of. You do not need set theory to understand this very basic thing.
The logical structure of propositions? I don't even know what you're looking for here. We don't need to turn this into a meaning of meaning conversation. We're talking about pascal's wager.
On February 19 2013 16:24 sam!zdat wrote: Here's what I want to know. Why are the constants the constants they are?
edit:@above: there, Augustine is just talking about the existence of God outside of time, though, that's not important to our question.
No, he's talking about time and the creation of the world. In the latter part at least.
right, because time must have come into existence with the world, therefore God, who created the world, must exist out of time. The bit about the days of creation at the end is just to prove that time must have come into existence with the world, and not at some point during the days of creation, because the days of creation are measured in days themselves, and so time couldn't have been created at some time during days of creation themselves. Then at the end he mentions briefly that these days of creation might not have been our ordinary days, because that seems more plausible to him.
Now I'm confused as to what we were talking about, because you weren't stating your case directly but were implying it. Or maybe I was inferring something that you weren't implying ;o If you just wanted to know how long an hour is, that's different.
Time and constants are based on perception of movement. Because the rotation of the earth is (relatively) constant, human perception of time can't distort the length of an hour, which is 1/24th of the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate. The reason a day is the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate fully once is because that's what God decided it would be.
But the problem is, what units did God decide it would be that much in? that's sort of the angle I was pursuing, but I don't know how far I can really press the point, because it would be some number of plank units, at which point the question just reduces to why God made the constants the constants he made them, and would therefore cease to be interesting on its own merits.
On February 19 2013 16:43 FunkyLich wrote: X or not X. X is some proposition. Fill it in with an proposition you can think of. You do not need set theory to understand this very basic thing.
Yeah, you need set theory to understand that it's not as basic as you think. This argument might have gotten too technical though, I can let it drop. The point might only be amusing to me.
What discipline are you drawing your terminology from?
edit: the point is, I could be a Christian and also hold that nothing at all would be different within the world whether or not God existed. At that point, my belief in Christianity simply cannot be considered to be a proposition within either Russell's formulation of objects and properties or Wittgenstein's of sets of possible worlds in which the proposition matches up to some state of affairs. As far as I can see, anyhow. At which point, we need to explain what other sort of thing that belief is, and then we need to decide whether the axiom of the excluded middle holds in that system. It's just all an open question, as far as I'm concerned.
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.
edit: whoops. I should just quote everything.
It seems like every time you post you retreat from a now-untenable position, to a new one that you think is better.
With regards to the proof that "what could be" is. We have established that there are infinite possibilities. We have established that there is no evidence. Therefore, without evidence, every possibility is equally likely. You're basically reducing this to the age-old conversation where someone says "prove there is god" and someone else says "prove that there isn't." We are incapable of proving either. All we can know (due to the lack of evidence) is what I said above. Therefore, what could be, is, until we have evidence to believe otherwise.
Generally the burden of proof is placed upon the person making the non-null claim. In this case, if you believe that the possibilities are not infinite (or that they are not all equally likely), you must explain why (based on some evidence).
On February 20 2013 06:12 Smancer wrote: Either a unicorn exists or it does not.
So the chances are 50/50
No. Either there exists something that is a unicorn, or it is not the case that there exists something that is a unicorn. If you assign a chance of 50/50, then you have just said that you know something about it, when in fact you know nothing about it. You don't know what the chances are of there existing something that is a unicorn - you have no clue. Don't go around pretending that you know there's a 50 percent chance.
On February 20 2013 06:12 Smancer wrote: Either a unicorn exists or it does not.
So the chances are 50/50
No. Either there exists something that is a unicorn, or it is not the case that there exists something that is a unicorn. If you assign a chance of 50/50, then you have just said that you know something about it, when in fact you know nothing about it. You don't know what the chances are of there existing something that is a unicorn - you have no clue. Don't go around pretending that you know there's a 50 percent chance.
So what do you think of the OPs argument?
On February 19 2013 07:01 HardlyNever wrote: The reality is there are actually infinite possible answers to this question (as we have no solid evidence for any one answer being true, all answers are possible).
Does this mean there are infinite answers to the question "Do unicorns exist?" Since we have no solid evidence for any one of the answers being true.
it means you don't have any clue about unicorns, and you can't even begin constructing a disjunction of possibilities which would allow you to start assigning probabilities in any meaningful fashion.
edit: a total absence of information does not imply that something is 50/50. A total absence of information implies a total absence of information.
edit: that only implies in game-theoretical situations in which you have constructed the situation yourself. Since you didn't make reality, your knowledge about reality doesn't work like that.
On February 20 2013 06:30 sam!zdat wrote: it means you don't have any clue about unicorns, and you can't even begin constructing a disjunction of possibilities which would allow you to start assigning probabilities in any meaningful fashion.
So we are in agreement, you have no clue about gods, and assigning probabilities in the way the OP did was meaningless.
On February 20 2013 06:32 sam!zdat wrote: Yes, we agree about that.
Well that was the point of my unicorn post. I was mocking the OPs logic about assigning probabilities. I intended it to be obvious sarcasm. I guess it wasn't?
sorry, I've run into too many people in this thread who think they can go from zero information to assuming that two things are equally likely - it's sort of my crusade for the day. went right over my head
On February 20 2013 06:37 sam!zdat wrote: sorry, I've run into too many people in this thread who think they can go from zero information to assuming that two things are equally likely - it's sort of my crusade for the day. went right over my head
Don't worry, there was a 50% chance he was being serious anyways right?
On February 20 2013 06:12 Smancer wrote: Either a unicorn exists or it does not.
So the chances are 50/50
But why should only one unicorn exist? Why not 20 why not 30?
Why stop at unicorns? Why not dragons, and trolls, and umpa lumpas?
So it is basically a 1/ infinity chance that imaginary things don't exist. Since that is essentially 0, those things must exit.
Why do people insist on posting the first thing that comes to their head, without stopping to think about what they are saying in the slightest. Oh right, I'm on TL.
Any sort of god/supernatural being, basically by definition, would exist in a metaphysical reality outside our own. Do unicorns exist on earth? No. Might unicorns exist in some other galaxy or dimension/reality? Of course. They have a 1/∞ chance of existing (if you define a unicorn as a horse with a horn on its head) in some sort of metaphysical plane.
Why is infinity so hard to comprehend for people. This is the lack of imagination I'm talking about.
At least you are starting to understand the absurdity of claiming that there is a god, and that we can know him/them. At least that basic premise is getting through.
EPT
)
Those seem to be the classic, stereotypical arguments that the layman presents for PW, already refuted neatly. I'm a fan of Matt Dillahunty (that speaker) in general; he seems to be rather coherent and knows how to dismantle arguments quite readily. 
. I'm sorry I type so much everyone. I don't think anyone will read this lol![[image loading]](http://previews.agefotostock.com/previewimage/bajaage/e517600aad861520a64743134ef2e87f/IBR-1138130.jpg)
