Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pascal's Wager (Gambit).

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 7:08:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What do you think about it? Wikipedia article summing it up: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I honestly think it's fallacious in that Pascal whittles down faith to a logical equation. The very concept of BELIEF in god is thrown out--it's basically promoting the idea of belief in god to be safe--which, to me, is counter-productive to the very concept.

Your thoughts?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 7:13:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
1) How does one choose which God to believe in? What if I believe in the Christian God, but Allah is actually the real one?

2) Believe in the Flaming Angels of Blah, for if you do not you will burn in hell.

3) Atheists Wager
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 7:15:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 7:08:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
What do you think about it? Wikipedia article summing it up: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I honestly think it's fallacious in that Pascal whittles down faith to a logical equation. The very concept of BELIEF in god is thrown out--it's basically promoting the idea of belief in god to be safe--which, to me, is counter-productive to the very concept.

Your thoughts?

It can't work. Most concepts of god (in most religion) would view anyone that comes to them with such motives as false worshipers, and so reject their worship.

Going to the bible, Luke 16:15

"You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 7:17:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 7:13:01 PM, seraine wrote:
1) How does one choose which God to believe in? What if I believe in the Christian God, but Allah is actually the real one?

Doesn't attempt to, it merely removes one option (atheism) that has no benefit.


2) Believe in the Flaming Angels of Blah, for if you do not you will burn in hell.

This sounds like a repeat of #1.


3) Atheists Wager

False dichotomy.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 7:29:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 7:17:17 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/30/2011 7:13:01 PM, seraine wrote:
1) How does one choose which God to believe in? What if I believe in the Christian God, but Allah is actually the real one?

Doesn't attempt to, it merely removes one option (atheism) that has no benefit.

According to popular religion, but that's BS. It's no less conceivable that God loves reason and rewards atheism (i.e. the reasonable conclusion, based on the evidence) and punishes faith even when it, in spite of itself, guesses right.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 7:35:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 7:08:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
What do you think about it? Wikipedia article summing it up: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I honestly think it's fallacious in that Pascal whittles down faith to a logical equation. The very concept of BELIEF in god is thrown out--it's basically promoting the idea of belief in god to be safe--which, to me, is counter-productive to the very concept.

Your thoughts?

It's not compelling at all for the atheist - let's examine it like a decision chart:

--------------- Belief--------------- Non-Belief ------
God Exists--- oo Gain ------------ oo Loss ---------
No God ------ + some ----------- + some ----------

Now, of course, the biggest argument is going to be that if there is no god, it's best to have believed in error for the moral benefits, but this isn't really compelling at all, because some of the beliefs could be considered immoral (i.e. beliefs about homosexuality). It's much easier for the sake of argument to consider the two sides if God doesn't exist to be equal - sure, you gain some moral benefits as the incorrect theist, but you could behave in a similarly moral fashion as an atheist, so it's pretty moot. The correct nonbeliever also gains a benefit of freedom to do as he please. Remember that it's not important how the theist views these actions, because you are trying to convince someone based on, essentially, hedonism ANYWAY, so why the nonbeliever likes what he gets is irrelevant.

So... to my actual point. The *only* way this makes sense for the sincere nonbeliever is if he changes teams based on the wager - i.e. if God will reward insincere belief. Since this seems unlikely (indeed, who would god send you to heaven for worshiping because of so selfish a reason?), it is actually the case that the insincere believer will have infinite loss regardless of his belief.

Thus, we are concerned with the bottom half of the chart, where it is obvious that AT BEST, the disbeliever is equally worse off either way. Add to that the inconvenience of believing and worshiping and tithing, etc...

And the correct response for the nonbeliever is to remain in nonbelief.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 7:37:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 7:35:39 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/30/2011 7:08:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
What do you think about it? Wikipedia article summing it up: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I honestly think it's fallacious in that Pascal whittles down faith to a logical equation. The very concept of BELIEF in god is thrown out--it's basically promoting the idea of belief in god to be safe--which, to me, is counter-productive to the very concept.

Your thoughts?

It's not compelling at all for the atheist - let's examine it like a decision chart:

--------------- Belief--------------- Non-Belief ------
God Exists--- oo Gain ------------ oo Loss ---------
No God ------ + some ----------- + some ----------

Now, of course, the biggest argument is going to be that if there is no god, it's best to have believed in error for the moral benefits, but this isn't really compelling at all, because some of the beliefs could be considered immoral (i.e. beliefs about homosexuality). It's much easier for the sake of argument to consider the two sides if God doesn't exist to be equal - sure, you gain some moral benefits as the incorrect theist, but you could behave in a similarly moral fashion as an atheist, so it's pretty moot. The correct nonbeliever also gains a benefit of freedom to do as he please. Remember that it's not important how the theist views these actions, because you are trying to convince someone based on, essentially, hedonism ANYWAY, so why the nonbeliever likes what he gets is irrelevant.

So... to my actual point. The *only* way this makes sense for the sincere nonbeliever is if he changes teams based on the wager - i.e. if God will reward insincere belief. Since this seems unlikely (indeed, who would god send you to heaven for worshiping because of so selfish a reason?), it is actually the case that the insincere believer will have infinite loss regardless of his belief.

Thus, we are concerned with the bottom half of the chart, where it is obvious that AT BEST, the disbeliever is equally worse off either way. Add to that the inconvenience of believing and worshiping and tithing, etc...

And the correct response for the nonbeliever is to remain in nonbelief.

You've stated what I tried to say in MUCH better words.

So, ^THIS, I guess? lol
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 7:45:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 7:29:51 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 9/30/2011 7:17:17 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/30/2011 7:13:01 PM, seraine wrote:
1) How does one choose which God to believe in? What if I believe in the Christian God, but Allah is actually the real one?

Doesn't attempt to, it merely removes one option (atheism) that has no benefit.

According to popular religion, but that's BS. It's no less conceivable that God loves reason and rewards atheism (i.e. the reasonable conclusion, based on the evidence) and punishes faith even when it, in spite of itself, guesses right.

Reason does not give either way on the matter. There is no evidence for, nor against. So any god that focuses on reason would only be punishing those on the dawkins scale of 1 and 7 (the strong atheist and the strong theist). But it does nothing for 2-6.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 8:06:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 7:08:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
What do you think about it? Wikipedia article summing it up: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I honestly think it's fallacious in that Pascal whittles down faith to a logical equation. The very concept of BELIEF in god is thrown out--it's basically promoting the idea of belief in god to be safe--which, to me, is counter-productive to the very concept.

Your thoughts?

Most people b@stardize Pascal's wager. He used a mathmatical argument with expected utility calculations. There are several anachronism which seem like obvious flaws to us but were basically axioms back them. It's quite a beautiful piece of work if you read it.

It is aimed at those who were apathetic towards religion and would not convert based on pure belief and faith.

(Expected utility = probability x utility)

1. Even if you are a non-believer, you should still care about the expected utility of your actions.
2. If the expected utility of one action outweighs the other, the greater should be taken.
3. The utility of the afterlife is infinite.
4. However much utility one gains from no afterlife, it is not infinite.

Thus
5. Regardless of the probability of heaven, even if the chance of heaven existing are 0.1%, a rational human (defined at the time as using expected utility) should choose to believe in God, since no matter WHAT the utility or probability of no afterlife is, it is not infinite.

Rather elegant, if you ask me.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 11:22:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 8:06:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/30/2011 7:08:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
What do you think about it? Wikipedia article summing it up: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I honestly think it's fallacious in that Pascal whittles down faith to a logical equation. The very concept of BELIEF in god is thrown out--it's basically promoting the idea of belief in god to be safe--which, to me, is counter-productive to the very concept.

Your thoughts?

Most people b@stardize Pascal's wager. He used a mathmatical argument with expected utility calculations. There are several anachronism which seem like obvious flaws to us but were basically axioms back them. It's quite a beautiful piece of work if you read it.

It is aimed at those who were apathetic towards religion and would not convert based on pure belief and faith.

(Expected utility = probability x utility)

1. Even if you are a non-believer, you should still care about the expected utility of your actions.
2. If the expected utility of one action outweighs the other, the greater should be taken.
3. The utility of the afterlife is infinite.
4. However much utility one gains from no afterlife, it is not infinite.

Thus
5. Regardless of the probability of heaven, even if the chance of heaven existing are 0.1%, a rational human (defined at the time as using expected utility) should choose to believe in God, since no matter WHAT the utility or probability of no afterlife is, it is not infinite.

Rather elegant, if you ask me.

You are the first person I have read that has been legitimate to Pascal's wager.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 11:43:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 11:22:54 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 9/30/2011 8:06:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/30/2011 7:08:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
What do you think about it? Wikipedia article summing it up: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I honestly think it's fallacious in that Pascal whittles down faith to a logical equation. The very concept of BELIEF in god is thrown out--it's basically promoting the idea of belief in god to be safe--which, to me, is counter-productive to the very concept.

Your thoughts?

Most people b@stardize Pascal's wager. He used a mathmatical argument with expected utility calculations. There are several anachronism which seem like obvious flaws to us but were basically axioms back them. It's quite a beautiful piece of work if you read it.

It is aimed at those who were apathetic towards religion and would not convert based on pure belief and faith.

(Expected utility = probability x utility)

1. Even if you are a non-believer, you should still care about the expected utility of your actions.
2. If the expected utility of one action outweighs the other, the greater should be taken.
3. The utility of the afterlife is infinite.
4. However much utility one gains from no afterlife, it is not infinite.

Thus
5. Regardless of the probability of heaven, even if the chance of heaven existing are 0.1%, a rational human (defined at the time as using expected utility) should choose to believe in God, since no matter WHAT the utility or probability of no afterlife is, it is not infinite.

Rather elegant, if you ask me.

You are the first person I have read that has been legitimate to Pascal's wager.

Not many people get assigned pascal in a symbolic systems class.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 1:00:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 8:06:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/30/2011 7:08:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
What do you think about it? Wikipedia article summing it up: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I honestly think it's fallacious in that Pascal whittles down faith to a logical equation. The very concept of BELIEF in god is thrown out--it's basically promoting the idea of belief in god to be safe--which, to me, is counter-productive to the very concept.

Your thoughts?

Most people b@stardize Pascal's wager. He used a mathmatical argument with expected utility calculations. There are several anachronism which seem like obvious flaws to us but were basically axioms back them. It's quite a beautiful piece of work if you read it.

It is aimed at those who were apathetic towards religion and would not convert based on pure belief and faith.

(Expected utility = probability x utility)

1. Even if you are a non-believer, you should still care about the expected utility of your actions.
2. If the expected utility of one action outweighs the other, the greater should be taken.
3. The utility of the afterlife is infinite.
4. However much utility one gains from no afterlife, it is not infinite.

Thus
5. Regardless of the probability of heaven, even if the chance of heaven existing are 0.1%, a rational human (defined at the time as using expected utility) should choose to believe in God, since no matter WHAT the utility or probability of no afterlife is, it is not infinite.

Rather elegant, if you ask me.

But we run into the same problem... Let's use a rational apatheist (the RA) as our example person here and go through your numbered premises.

1. Obviously the RA cares about the utility of his actions.

2. I'll grant, too, that the RA would take the greater of the two.

3. I will grant this in limited fashion - the premise is correct, but there is a possibility that the actual utility may in fact be 0.

4. I will grant this in a similarly limited fashion - but I think we can agree that what really matters is that it be non-zero, even if the only utility is in not having to spend the effort of changing the RA's status quo.

So let's re-examine the calculation of the afterlife's utility. If we describe it as you do above as Expected Utility = (probability * utility) (call it E=PU), we can start to break things down.

If E = PU where P represents the probability of one's obtaining U, then what we really care about is P. So let P = God's weighing of the RA's belief - or, perhaps at the risk of simplifying - Sincerity * Faith * Works - i.e. the more faith and works you sincerely do, the more likely you are to go to heaven. Let us further assume for the sake of argument that God will reward sincere belief, but punish insincere belief, and thus S can only have a value of 1 or -1.

In the end, it comes down to the question of whether the RA begins to believe in God because he truly has a change of heart, or because he is self-interested. Pascal's wager is entirely set up so that it induces people to change their behavior on a very simple principle - hedonism - it's better FOR ME to believe that God exists so I DON'T GET PUNISHED.

But if that is the case, then we've just demonstrated that E = PU is evaluated as a negative number for the RA.

In other words, even given a rational apatheist (or perhaps it is even made *worse* for the RA because he doesn't even care about the outcome - he is ONLY self-interested here), Pascal's wager still would cause a rational actor to bet against God.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 2:11:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yes it assumes belief is a deliberate conscious choice. Pascal was a bit foolish.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
jewgirl
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 10:41:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
1)Which god?
Even if you worship god it doesn't tell you which one.

a1) Indeed it doesn't.
Pascal's wager tells the non believer to serve god.
The atheist responds "well which one? Since I don't know which one I will serve none."
This is analogous to a person who has been convinced it is better to go to university then not to do so, but doesn't go bec. "Which one?". The obvious answer is try to figure it out. Pascal's wager is an imperative to serve god the fact that you don't know how is not reason not to serve him. It is reason to try to find out how.

a2)All god expects of us is that we do our best.

a3)As with anything in life when we are uncertain we do the best we can. The fact that you are unsure of the answer to a question does not mean you shouldn't ans. Do the best you can.

a4)Pascal's wager is an imperative to constantly ask god for direction of how to serve him. This is the only way of worshiping him until you find an answer.

a5) (∞ / any #) > (any #)

2)insincere:

a1) So? Even if it is, It's certainly better than nothing.

a2) It is not insincere since you are doing the best you can.

a3) According to at least some religions (such as Judaism I think) it is through service even with insincere motives that one comes sincere service.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 11:04:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is only one God.

Existence, or actuality, and all are subservient to it whether they like it or not. The real trick is not learning which God to follow, but learning to have your head more aligned to what God is telling you.

God speaks to us through reality, but not everyone understands. Understanding takes some time, and lots of honesty.

The God that I speak of is the God that was spoken of by the prophets. It is the one constant eternal, and true God.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 12:10:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 11:04:55 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There is only one God.

Existence, or actuality, and all are subservient to it whether they like it or not. The real trick is not learning which God to follow, but learning to have your head more aligned to what God is telling you.

God speaks to us through reality, but not everyone understands. Understanding takes some time, and lots of honesty.


The God that I speak of is the God that was spoken of by the prophets. It is the one constant eternal, and true God.

I've never actually been able to work out what you are, religiously. So any examples of this God speaking to us? Or is that all experience and reality has some sort of expression of God?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 2:48:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 12:10:45 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/9/2011 11:04:55 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There is only one God.

Existence, or actuality, and all are subservient to it whether they like it or not. The real trick is not learning which God to follow, but learning to have your head more aligned to what God is telling you.

God speaks to us through reality, but not everyone understands. Understanding takes some time, and lots of honesty.


The God that I speak of is the God that was spoken of by the prophets. It is the one constant eternal, and true God.

I've never actually been able to work out what you are, religiously. So any examples of this God speaking to us? Or is that all experience and reality has some sort of expression of God?

I do not have a religion. I have a direct line with God, religion is unnecessary and harmful.

The God I speak of is apparent, and you'd have to be a fool to deny it. God is existence. God speaks on a level of total objectivity that is alien to the human way of thinking, which due to our perceptual limitations is more or less based on symbols.

Human beings need to compare things to each other to make sense of things. Human beings need to use words that represent things other than the words to communicate.

God is beyond all this, but God is very natural. God is all.

Even the phantoms of our mind exist on some level within God, just as your internet browser "exists" in your computer.

There is no breaking of God's law, but there certainly is a lot of lawyering.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 2:51:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 2:48:22 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 10/9/2011 12:10:45 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/9/2011 11:04:55 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There is only one God.

Existence, or actuality, and all are subservient to it whether they like it or not. The real trick is not learning which God to follow, but learning to have your head more aligned to what God is telling you.

God speaks to us through reality, but not everyone understands. Understanding takes some time, and lots of honesty.


The God that I speak of is the God that was spoken of by the prophets. It is the one constant eternal, and true God.

I've never actually been able to work out what you are, religiously. So any examples of this God speaking to us? Or is that all experience and reality has some sort of expression of God?

I do not have a religion. I have a direct line with God, religion is unnecessary and harmful.

The God I speak of is apparent, and you'd have to be a fool to deny it. God is existence. God speaks on a level of total objectivity that is alien to the human way of thinking, which due to our perceptual limitations is more or less based on symbols.

Human beings need to compare things to each other to make sense of things. Human beings need to use words that represent things other than the words to communicate.

God is beyond all this, but God is very natural. God is all.

Even the phantoms of our mind exist on some level within God, just as your internet browser "exists" in your computer.

There is no breaking of God's law, but there certainly is a lot of lawyering.

Spinoza?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 2:52:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
God is literally existence. The idols that people worship are slaves to the only eternal god.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 3:07:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 2:51:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/9/2011 2:48:22 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 10/9/2011 12:10:45 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/9/2011 11:04:55 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There is only one God.

Existence, or actuality, and all are subservient to it whether they like it or not. The real trick is not learning which God to follow, but learning to have your head more aligned to what God is telling you.

God speaks to us through reality, but not everyone understands. Understanding takes some time, and lots of honesty.


The God that I speak of is the God that was spoken of by the prophets. It is the one constant eternal, and true God.

I've never actually been able to work out what you are, religiously. So any examples of this God speaking to us? Or is that all experience and reality has some sort of expression of God?

I do not have a religion. I have a direct line with God, religion is unnecessary and harmful.

The God I speak of is apparent, and you'd have to be a fool to deny it. God is existence. God speaks on a level of total objectivity that is alien to the human way of thinking, which due to our perceptual limitations is more or less based on symbols.

Human beings need to compare things to each other to make sense of things. Human beings need to use words that represent things other than the words to communicate.

God is beyond all this, but God is very natural. God is all.

Even the phantoms of our mind exist on some level within God, just as your internet browser "exists" in your computer.

There is no breaking of God's law, but there certainly is a lot of lawyering.

Spinoza?

If not, very close.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 3:43:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 2:52:47 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
God is literally existence. The idols that people worship are slaves to the only eternal god.

So your a Patheist eh.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 3:46:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 3:07:42 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
If not, very close.

Then I am certain I have no idea what you are talking about because I fail to understand how Spinoza is not an atheist.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 3:46:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 3:43:24 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/9/2011 2:52:47 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
God is literally existence. The idols that people worship are slaves to the only eternal god.

So your a Patheist eh.

Pantheist
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 3:54:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 3:46:41 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:43:24 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/9/2011 2:52:47 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
God is literally existence. The idols that people worship are slaves to the only eternal god.

So your a Patheist eh.

Pantheist

"Pantheism is watered down atheism." - Richard Dawkins.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 3:58:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 3:54:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:46:41 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:43:24 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/9/2011 2:52:47 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
God is literally existence. The idols that people worship are slaves to the only eternal god.

So your a Patheist eh.

Pantheist

"Pantheism is watered down atheism." - Richard Dawkins.

LOL. I disagree but it is kind of funny. Richard Dawkins is so full of hate he would say anything to look witty and smart.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 4:26:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 3:58:16 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:54:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:46:41 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:43:24 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/9/2011 2:52:47 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
God is literally existence. The idols that people worship are slaves to the only eternal god.

So your a Patheist eh.

Pantheist

"Pantheism is watered down atheism." - Richard Dawkins.

LOL. I disagree but it is kind of funny. Richard Dawkins is so full of hate he would say anything to look witty and smart.

Wow, an incredibly apt summary of Dawkins.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 4:31:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/1/2011 1:00:52 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/30/2011 8:06:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/30/2011 7:08:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
What do you think about it? Wikipedia article summing it up: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I honestly think it's fallacious in that Pascal whittles down faith to a logical equation. The very concept of BELIEF in god is thrown out--it's basically promoting the idea of belief in god to be safe--which, to me, is counter-productive to the very concept.

Your thoughts?

Most people b@stardize Pascal's wager. He used a mathmatical argument with expected utility calculations. There are several anachronism which seem like obvious flaws to us but were basically axioms back them. It's quite a beautiful piece of work if you read it.

It is aimed at those who were apathetic towards religion and would not convert based on pure belief and faith.

(Expected utility = probability x utility)

1. Even if you are a non-believer, you should still care about the expected utility of your actions.
2. If the expected utility of one action outweighs the other, the greater should be taken.
3. The utility of the afterlife is infinite.
4. However much utility one gains from no afterlife, it is not infinite.

Thus
5. Regardless of the probability of heaven, even if the chance of heaven existing are 0.1%, a rational human (defined at the time as using expected utility) should choose to believe in God, since no matter WHAT the utility or probability of no afterlife is, it is not infinite.

Rather elegant, if you ask me.

But we run into the same problem... Let's use a rational apatheist (the RA) as our example person here and go through your numbered premises.

1. Obviously the RA cares about the utility of his actions.

2. I'll grant, too, that the RA would take the greater of the two.

3. I will grant this in limited fashion - the premise is correct, but there is a possibility that the actual utility may in fact be 0.

4. I will grant this in a similarly limited fashion - but I think we can agree that what really matters is that it be non-zero, even if the only utility is in not having to spend the effort of changing the RA's status quo.

So let's re-examine the calculation of the afterlife's utility. If we describe it as you do above as Expected Utility = (probability * utility) (call it E=PU), we can start to break things down.

If E = PU where P represents the probability of one's obtaining U, then what we really care about is P. So let P = God's weighing of the RA's belief - or, perhaps at the risk of simplifying - Sincerity * Faith * Works - i.e. the more faith and works you sincerely do, the more likely you are to go to heaven. Let us further assume for the sake of argument that God will reward sincere belief, but punish insincere belief, and thus S can only have a value of 1 or -1.

In the end, it comes down to the question of whether the RA begins to believe in God because he truly has a change of heart, or because he is self-interested. Pascal's wager is entirely set up so that it induces people to change their behavior on a very simple principle - hedonism - it's better FOR ME to believe that God exists so I DON'T GET PUNISHED.

But if that is the case, then we've just demonstrated that E = PU is evaluated as a negative number for the RA.

In other words, even given a rational apatheist (or perhaps it is even made *worse* for the RA because he doesn't even care about the outcome - he is ONLY self-interested here), Pascal's wager still would cause a rational actor to bet against God.

Pascal's point is that if you put aside reason and only consider a persons "happiness" (expected utility) then you should choose to believe in God.

"If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....
..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions."

P is not the probability of god putting you in heaven. P is the probability of god/heaven existing.

Pascal addressed the matter you raise about sincerity.

"God regards only the inward; the Church judges only by the outward. God absolves as soon as He sees penitence in the heart; the Church when she sees it in works. God will make a Church pure within, which confounds, by its inward and entirely spiritual holiness, the inward impiety of proud sages and Pharisees; and the Church will make an assembly of men whose external manners are so pure as to confound the manners of the heathen. " Pensee 904

Once the RA has concluded the wager by saying "God exists" he has not attained heaven unless his belief coincides with "inward" change that God can see.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 4:45:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
An atheist is someone who does not believe in the theistic conception of god. By that understanding, I'm an atheist.

I'm closer to a pantheist than maybe a panantheist, but either way, I find these labels to be slightly misleading.

If I were to say that "The universe is God", this may or may not be accurate depending on a person's understanding of these words. One person's idea of the universe is different than another, and the word God itself has a lot of baggage. If I say that I'm a pantheist, someone will close their head up to what I'm saying, which is totally deep, dawg.

I choose to use the word God for a variety of reasons, and the people who understand what I'm saying will know why.

You can't teach what is unteachable, so I just allude to it, hoping that maybe someone who hasn't discounted me off as some loon will be able to put the pieces together to get what I'm trying to say.

What I know has been known since the dawn of man, and long has it been known how impossible it is to transfer this information through direct and obvious means.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp