The real problem with this kinda thing is that it can lead to Confabulation. Some people who make up stuff like this on the spot will retain the lie and start to believe the false event really did happen to them. They will fool themselves.
I hated that they did that. I was all ready for them to move on to the next age, but they had to backpedal like that.
But, since we always seem to have opposite options on all things geek-related, I am sure you probably really liked that Hal Jordan got his named cleared and any attempts to create a 3rd genration was ended. I would not be surprised if you got that nasty email I wrote to HEAT.
Maybe BlinkingSpirit did not intend this, but the illogical follow through is "I have as much reason to believe in any given religion as any ridiculous belief I make up on the spot." This is not true, because he has the experience of creating the ridiculous belief, and knows it to be an invention.
I know it's an invention. That has no bearing on whether or not it's correct. I could have gotten it right by accident - and my chances of doing so are no different than the chances of anyone else proposing anything else for which there is absolutely no evidence.
I write in a novel that there is an alien civilization of sentient amphibianoids in the star system Zubenelgenubi. This is my invention. Are the chances of there actually being such a civilization very high? Of course not. Are they any lower because I wrote it in a novel than if I hadn't? Of course not. It's ridiculous to say, "You just made up that civilization, so it must not exist; but David Icke's followers sincerely believe in this other civilization of reptiloids from Alpha Draconis, so it's more likely to exist." One entirely speculative theory is as likely as the other. The truth of the universe is utterly indifferent to what people believe, or why they believe it. All that matters is the evidence.
Evidence is a symptom, not determinant of reality. Existence does not hinge on our ability to calculate probability. Is saying "all that matters is the evidence" how we elect ourselves to divinity?
Do you agree that probability of the existence of any given concept diminishes with specificity?
The odds of there being a Creative force is greater than there was a single Creator named Yahweh. The odds of there being a God are greater than there being a God incarnate named Jesus? The odds of a historical Jesus existing is greater than the specific version proposed by Midway Heights Baptist church?
Or in your terms:
There is a galactic civilization is more likely than there is an amphibious galactic civilization on planet Zubenelgenubi.
Saying "my specific absurd idea is equally as likely as the existence of a Creator" is delusional. Equal evidence does not yield equal likelihood. Probability is not a force on existence.
Again, our belief is not determining reality here. I am not claiming "if someone believes this, it is more likely" as people have asserted. Rather, it's not sensible to compare "there's a pink Unicorn named Fred that created the universe" to "there is a Creator." To do so is to reduce scientific intelligence to legalistic paralysis.
Saying "my specific absurd idea is equally as likely as the existence of a Creator" is delusional. Equal evidence does not yield equal likelihood. Probability is not a force on existence.
Again, our belief is not determining reality here. I am not claiming "if someone believes this, it is more likely" as people have asserted. Rather, it's not sensible to compare "there's a pink Unicorn named Fred that created the universe" to "there is a Creator." To do so is to reduce scientific intelligence to legalistic paralysis.
Pascal's Wager crucially depends on the claim that equal lack of evidence yields equal likelihood. Once that's discarded - and I think you're right to discard it, though it's notoriously difficult to say why - Pascal's Wager has no hope of convincing anyone to believe in God.
One additional point - of course it's more likely that there is a creator than that there's a pink unicorn named fred who created the universe - because if the latter claim is true, the former is, but the former can be true without the latter being true, as you've noted. However, in order for the Wager to be sustained, it's not merely sufficient for their to be a creator. For the Wager to pay off, there must be a remarkably specific deity - meeting a particular name, description, personality, actions, etc. FAR more detailed than "a pink unicorn named Fred."
In all the examples you give, one claim is subordinate to another. If there is a pink unicorn called Fred that created the universe, there is necessarily a creator, and so you might with good reason say that the latter claim is more likely. Contrast Blinking Spirit's comparisons (banana hat versus Christianity), where neither of the claims are subordinate or superordinate to each other, and it becomes harder to say that one set of claims is broader than the other - at least not in the way you allege by your examples.
I think this is a fair statement, but it is not what BS is claiming.
Pascal's Wager crucially depends on the claim that equal lack of evidence yields equal likelihood. Once that's discarded - and I think you're right to discard it, though it's notoriously difficult to say why - Pascal's Wager has no hope of convincing anyone to believe in God.
One additional point - of course it's more likely that there is a creator than that there's a pink unicorn named fred who created the universe - because if the latter claim is true, the former is, but the former can be true without the latter being true, as you've noted. However, in order for the Wager to be sustained, it's not merely sufficient for their to be a creator. For the Wager to pay off, there must be a remarkably specific deity - meeting a particular name, description, personality, actions, etc. FAR more detailed than "a pink unicorn named Fred."
I agree. Pascal's coin is would be better represented by a roulette table of betting on black or red, odd or even, and then specific numbers.
My contention has been that Pascal's wager can be generalized to a more "it may behoove one to seek a creator(s)". We cannot be certain what stakes are riding on it, but the potential outcomes at least warrant thought.
There are several reasons people cite in this forum why they decline to search for the Creator. They see violence declared in the name of religion, they see others abandon all reason, they see bigotry, they cannot abide blind faith, etc. Unfortunately, I think these are people that would benefit the search for the Creator(s), rather than leaving it to those who readily accept these questionable aspects of religion.
I want to see more people say "**** this" and claim it as their right to search for the Creator(s), and do it earnestly.
I admit: I personally think there are stakes, but I am sadly unable to adequately offer the formulas other religious folks can cite.
Pascal's Wager crucially depends on the claim that equal lack of evidence yields equal likelihood. Once that's discarded - and I think you're right to discard it, though it's notoriously difficult to say why - Pascal's Wager has no hope of convincing anyone to believe in God.
I don't think its that hard to say why. For example I could challenge you by saying that one of the following is true:
A) I have two arms.
B) I have fourteen arms.
If there are just the two possibilities, are they equally likely to be true?
There are several reasons people cite in this forum why they decline to search for the Creator. They see violence declared in the name of religion, they see others abandon all reason, they see bigotry, they cannot abide blind faith, etc. Unfortunately, I think these are people that would benefit the search for the Creator(s), rather than leaving it to those who readily accept these questionable aspects of religion.
I want to see more people say "**** this" and claim it as their right to search for the Creator(s), and do it earnestly.
I think that it would be great if there was a Creator. I want to believe the Creator exists and I am honest to myself - this combination of attributes makes me an atheist.
And you're right about all those things - violence, bigotry, etc - those are all disconcerting but the single biggest reason that I don't believe in a Creator is because I have no reason to. The moment that evidence to believe rolls in I'll be more than happy to do so.
My contention has been that Pascal's wager can be generalized to a more "it may behoove one to seek a creator(s)". We cannot be certain what stakes are riding on it, but the potential outcomes at least warrant thought.
What outcomes would those be? And why do you assign them the probability you do? And if you say you're not assigning them probability - by taking them seriously enough to pursue you're implicitly assigning them at least a fairly high probability. You don't play the lottery unless you think (erroneously) that you've got a shot at winning.
I don't think its that hard to say why. For example I could challenge you by saying that one of the following is true:
A) I have two arms.
B) I have fourteen arms.
If there are just the two possibilities, are they equally likely to be true?
Examples like this don't get us anywhere towards answering the question of why they aren't.
Pascal's Wager crucially depends on the claim that equal lack of evidence yields equal likelihood. Once that's discarded - and I think you're right to discard it, though it's notoriously difficult to say why - Pascal's Wager has no hope of convincing anyone to believe in God.
I don't think its that hard to say why. For example I could challenge you by saying that one of the following is true:
A) I have two arms.
B) I have fourteen arms.
If there are just the two possibilities, are they equally likely to be true?
Disanalogous. I have strong, a posteriori evidence as to how many arms you're likely to have. I have no evidence whatsoever as to the existence or nature of God.
My contention has been that Pascal's wager can be generalized to a more "it may behoove one to seek a creator(s)". We cannot be certain what stakes are riding on it, but the potential outcomes at least warrant thought.
What outcomes would those be? And why do you assign them the probability you do? And if you say you're not assigning them probability - by taking them seriously enough to pursue you're implicitly assigning them at least a fairly high probability. You don't play the lottery unless you think (erroneously) that you've got a shot at winning.
You claimed that an absurd invented theology had equal validity to Pascal's argument. The illogical follow-through that I thought you were claiming was that any invented idea had equal merit to any religious idea, which as I explained above, doesn't make sense, even if we eschew historical evidence. I may have misunderstood?
As for the invention argument, I thought that's what we were discussing? As I said, evidence is a symptom of reality, not a determinant.
Do we use a void of evidence to allow us to usher in confusion and random equivalence? How do we weigh our desire for self-justification?
As you aptly point out, there is not enough evidence regarding the sentience of the Creator to adequately assign odds. Moreover, I don't expect any time in my life that we will have enough evidence to do so. Therefore, I am forced to make choices independent of mathematical odds. It comes down to "no possible yield" or "possible yield". I decided it wise to seek that Creator.
Science and religion have extremely different purposes. While taking the "Fair Witness" approach is of value to science, I don't think it needs to be an entire way of life. It don't think it must cost us the liberty to seek the Creator(s) in other ways. If it does, aren't we giving it liturgical weight?
But you are still making enormous leaps of assumptions just to seek whatever it is you are seeking.
(as well as I would really love to see what you claim is this "historical evidence" eschewed - sorry but, that Moses invented a banana hat people believe in is not "historical evidence")
I'll list some major problems with your reasoning, and for the sake of argument, I will assume that there is indeed a creator of the universe.
*You assume It is eternal and therefore still there to be sought, when it is just as likely It no longer exists to be sought at all.
*You assume it's a temporal possibility to find It if It in fact is still there to be sought, when it is just as likely that It exists outside of space-time and cannot be found.
*You assume there is something at stake in the wager, when it is just as likely that It has not created a heaven/hell/afterlife, we have no souls that pass beyond the flesh, It may not even realize we exist.
Imagine the creator of a Super-Mega-Walmart and everything within it, the earth would be one single grape located somewhere in the produce section.
Don't assume that the creator knows or cares about that grape, or what the mold spores which evolved upon the surface of that grape do, or what they believe.
Don't assume that the mold spores can actually discover the creator, because the creator could be outside the store, gone, or even dead.
Now imagine, there's a good possibility that the Super-Mega-Walmart was not created at all.
There is no evidence for god(s) in any form whatsoever. The chicken-scratch of ancient superstitious peoples is not evidence.
You are making too many assumptions just to get to a point where you believe it's worthwhile to "seek the creator".
Honestly, I'd go with aliens before I go with god(s).
We know life is possible, we have it on Earth. We know there are billions of stars and planets where the life/no-life dice can be rolled. Many ancient carvings and drawings like the ones on the Nazca Plains of Peru point as much to aliens as they do to spiritual deities. It's even possible ancient aliens were just called god(s) by ignorant sheepherders because, well, they were ignorant.
Aliens could have evolved just like us within a non-created Universe and then paid us some visits, maybe even still paying us visits. I know a particular RV resident down at the Walmart in town who believes it so much he has adorned his entire RV in Alien invasion propaganda.
Then, it is also possible that any aliens are dead and gone and we are truly alone in the Universe. Or even that Alien life has not evolved yet, and won't evolve for another billions of years long after we are dead and cannot discover them.
If I was playing Pascal here, I'd have to almost suggest we prepare for an Alien invasion, or get ready to bow to our new Alien overlords, after all, that scenario is based on way better "odds" than god(s).
My contention has been that Pascal's wager can be generalized to a more "it may behoove one to seek a creator(s)". We cannot be certain what stakes are riding on it, but the potential outcomes at least warrant thought.
What outcomes would those be? And why do you assign them the probability you do? And if you say you're not assigning them probability - by taking them seriously enough to pursue you're implicitly assigning them at least a fairly high probability. You don't play the lottery unless you think (erroneously) that you've got a shot at winning.
You claimed that an absurd invented theology had equal validity to Pascal's argument. The illogical follow-through that I thought you were claiming was that any invented idea had equal merit to any religious idea, which as I explained above, doesn't make sense, even if we eschew historical evidence. I may have misunderstood?
As for the invention argument, I thought that's what we were discussing? As I said, evidence is a symptom of reality, not a determinant.
Do we use a void of evidence to allow us to usher in confusion and random equivalence? How do we weigh our desire for self-justification?
As you aptly point out, there is not enough evidence regarding the sentience of the Creator to adequately assign odds. Moreover, I don't expect any time in my life that we will have enough evidence to do so. Therefore, I am forced to make choices independent of mathematical odds. It comes down to "no possible yield" or "possible yield". I decided it wise to seek that Creator.
Science and religion have extremely different purposes. While taking the "Fair Witness" approach is of value to science, I don't think it needs to be an entire way of life. It don't think it must cost us the liberty to seek the Creator(s) in other ways. If it does, aren't we giving it liturgical weight?
A void of evidence DOES usher in confusion. If there's no evidence on a subject, then virtually all statements on the truth value of that subject are unfounded. An absurd invented theology DOES have as much likelihood of being correct as the absurd invented theologies of desert tribesmen in the middle east 2000 years ago, no matter how many people have been suckered by them.
And that's the point. When you say...
Therefore, I am forced to make choices independent of mathematical odds. It comes down to "no possible yield" or "possible yield". I decided it wise to seek that Creator.
...you've made the mistake of posing a false dichotomy. "There is a Creator; for seeking him I get infinite rewards" and "There is no Creator; I get neither rewards nor punishments" are not the only two options with potentially equal chances of being correct. There's also, "There is a Creator who didn't wish for me to seek him; I get infinite punishment." If you want to decide between them, you need a razor to use for making the decision. If you're going to use "I feel this to be true" as a razor, well, go ahead - I haven't got a great way to prove that to be a bad razor, but you have to see that it's a completely useless argument to convert someone who doesn't already feel it to be true. If you want to try to use "The odds are against it" as a razor, you have to stop making choices independent of mathematical odds and start actually figuring out what the mathematical odds are. And you have to do that exercise fully prepared to discover that the mathematical odds might go against what you feel to be true.
A void of evidence DOES usher in confusion. If there's no evidence on a subject, then virtually all statements on the truth value of that subject are unfounded. An absurd invented theology DOES have as much likelihood of being correct as the absurd invented theologies of desert tribesmen in the middle east 2000 years ago, no matter how many people have been suckered by them.
And that's the point. When you say...
Therefore, I am forced to make choices independent of mathematical odds. It comes down to "no possible yield" or "possible yield". I decided it wise to seek that Creator.
...you've made the mistake of posing a false dichotomy. "There is a Creator; for seeking him I get infinite rewards" and "There is no Creator; I get neither rewards nor punishments" are not the only two options with potentially equal chances of being correct. There's also, "There is a Creator who didn't wish for me to seek him; I get infinite punishment." If you want to decide between them, you need a razor to use for making the decision. If you're going to use "I feel this to be true" as a razor, well, go ahead - I haven't got a great way to prove that to be a bad razor, but you have to see that it's a completely useless argument to convert someone who doesn't already feel it to be true. If you want to try to use "The odds are against it" as a razor, you have to stop making choices independent of mathematical odds and start actually figuring out what the mathematical odds are. And you have to do that exercise fully prepared to discover that the mathematical odds might go against what you feel to be true.
I agree. However, when it comes to banking, I was personally not content to wager on "not seeking". I did not see seeking as a threat to anything I valued. And I realize saying this will not be worth much as a testimony, but it in fact moderated my tendencies.
My use of probability was intended to question BS's assertion. I agree, I cannot use probability to justify my Christian leanings; They were a result rather than a destination on a map.
In religion, due to lack of evidence, measurements and odds, I would argue that motive is of utmost importance. Stripping down one's intent is akin to a scientist scrubbing a beaker of potential contaminants. I actually think that "I feel X" is a big red flag.
I agree. However, when it comes to banking, I was personally not content to wager on "not seeking". I did not see seeking as a threat to anything I valued. And I realize saying this will not be worth much as a testimony, but it in fact moderated my tendencies.
My use of probability was intended to question BS's assertion. I agree, I cannot use probability to justify my Christian leanings; They were a result rather than a destination on a map.
In religion, due to lack of evidence, measurements and odds, I would argue that motive is of utmost importance. Stripping down one's intent is akin to a scientist scrubbing a beaker of potential contaminants. I actually think that "I feel X" is a big red flag.
So, I think I've been wrong on what you were saying a few times so far in this thread. Are you conceding that Pascal's Wager doesn't work?
So, I think I've been wrong on what you were saying a few times so far in this thread. Are you conceding that Pascal's Wager doesn't work?
I don't think it works well due to its narrow scope, but gets progressively more intriguing as it is generalized. Mainly, I was reacting to the idea that "all religious ideas are equally stupid," which I'm honestly not sure was what BS meant. (?)
@ IceCreamMan, I think those are great points, but they deal with the results of the search. In this thread, I've been discussing whether a search for a Creator is useful. I have no argument with your experiences.
Did I take leaps to "search for the Creator"? Surely I did not account for all the possibilities, especially in my youth. Does that mean I should retract the results I believe I have found? Given how many aspects of my basic religious concepts have been revised and refined, I know I am not adverse to change. Yet there are experiences I will not abandon.
1. Do you believe you found the creator as a result of your search?
2. If so, was it because the creator is still there to be found, gone but left a way to find it, dead but left evidence of it's former existence?
3. Based on your answer to 1 and 2, explain your search methodology so that I may also search in the same manner and also find the creator, or would you claim that your methodology and search results are non-repeatable?
As an aside:
1. If you found the creator as a result of your search, would you say that it's evidence of the creators "eternal" characteristic, or would you say that you've only seen it's ghost?
2. If you found the creator as a result of your search, would you say that it's evidence of the creators "temporal" properties, or would you still put it in some "unrecoverable-unscientific zone" when your peers fail to also find the creator in the same place you found it?
I ask these because you are arguing that the "search" itself is worthwhile. However, how is any search worthwhile if it's a search for an unknown object, in an unknown place, at an unknown time, for which the tools of observation of said object are also unknown.
That to me seems like a search that is patently not worthwhile.
You claimed that an absurd invented theology had equal validity to Pascal's argument. The illogical follow-through that I thought you were claiming was that any invented idea had equal merit to any religious idea, which as I explained above, doesn't make sense, even if we eschew historical evidence. I may have misunderstood?
Not every invented idea has equal merit to every religious idea. As you have noted, an invented idea that is stronger (the technical term for what you called "more specific") than a religious idea is less probable, because in every possible world where the invented idea is true the religious idea is also true, but there are possible worlds where the religious idea is true but the invented idea is not. It may also simply be the case that the invented idea is self-contradictory and thus impossible, where the religious idea is not.
But the example I gave is not stronger than the idea proposed by Pascal's Wager, as Synalon pointed out. Nor is it self-contradictory. Nor is there any other a priori reason to deem it less plausible. It is a possibility that stands independent of the possibility that God exists (and that he is responsible for an afterlife and rewards people who believe in him with that afterlife - as long as you're speaking of specificity you should be fully aware of the specificity of your own claim). In order to make a rational judgment on plausibility, you are going to have to go beyond a priori reasoning to a posteriori reasoning: induction through the observation of evidence. This is how we can deem, for example, that rockondon probably has two arms and not nineteen. Our observations tell us that people who post on internet forums are usually human, and that humans usually have two arms.
As for the invention argument, I thought that's what we were discussing? As I said, evidence is a symptom of reality, not a determinant.
You're in the completely wrong field of philosophy. You're worrying about metaphysics, but we're actually discussing epistemology. The "probabilities" we are discussing are not a symptom of reality; in fact, there is some controversy over whether the concept of probability can ever apply to reality*. An epistemic or Bayesian probability, which is what we're discussing, is the level of certainty that may be rationally held by an observer with an incomplete knowledge of the facts. What's the probability that I'm wearing a red shirt right now? Metaphysically, the reality is simply that I'm either wearing the shirt or I'm not; the probability is either 1 or 0; there can be no uncertainty. But epistemically, you the observer don't know what shirt I'm wearing; you assign a Bayesian probability to quantify your uncertainty, which goes up and down as you acquire relevant evidence. Understand the difference?
We're talking epistemology rather than metaphysics because we're talking about what we should believe and why. You're right that God's existence is not dependent on your belief, any more than the color of my shirt is dependent on your belief. That fact does not change the my central point that you should not believe or give privileged standing to a claim for which you have no evidence.
Do we use a void of evidence to allow us to usher in confusion and random equivalence?
In the absence of any a priori or a posteriori reasoning to make a meaningful distinction, you do not just get to say, "There is a distinction, and it makes my favored claim more plausible, just because I say so!"
As you aptly point out, there is not enough evidence regarding the sentience of the Creator to adequately assign odds.
I never said that. In the absence of evidence (the complete absence of evidence, let's be clear), the odds that a positive claim is true approach zero. Infinitely many more possible things don't exist than do exist, so your probability of picking a possible thing at random and having it actually exist is accordingly abysmal. Now probability calculations and infinity don't play well together, so technically it's true that we can't assign odds, but this does not help your case at all. For what we can do is see what happens to the probability as we test increasingly large finite numbers: hence, "approaches zero". It would be erroneous to throw up our hands and say "The math doesn't work, so this one claim about God I happen to like must be plausible." It's not.
It comes down to "no possible yield" or "possible yield". I decided it wise to seek that Creator.
I do not tell you that I am running a lottery. I give you no odds, nor indication of the value of any prize. It is nevertheless possible that I am running a lottery and you just haven't heard about it. So walking up to me and handing me money has "possible yield". Are you going to do it?
Of course not. Because you don't think it's likely that I'm running a secret lottery (or that, even if I am running one, you will win). Whether or not you are explicitly thinking mathematically, by your behavior you are implicitly assigning a rough probability to the possibility, and that probability is, rationally, very low.
You might also consider that, in the absence of any evidence one way or the other, I could be secretly selling punches to the face just as easily as lottery tickets, or any other "prize" whatsoever. There is nothing to indicate that, even if I do give you something improbable when you give me money, it will be something you'll enjoy.
But if you're inclined to have faith, then give me your money.
Science and religion have extremely different purposes. While taking the "Fair Witness" approach is of value to science, I don't think it needs to be an entire way of life. It don't think it must cost us the liberty to seek the Creator(s) in other ways. If it does, aren't we giving it liturgical weight?
"Liturgical" is not the word you're looking for.
And nobody is saying that you don't have liberty to "seek the Creator(s)". It's a free country; you can do what you like with your time. What I'm saying is that, whatever belief you come up with in your "search", you have no grounds for claiming that your belief is true.
You say that science and religion have extremely different purposes. Well, the purpose of science is to find truth, and it uses whatever means will do so reliably. If religious methods could find the truth, then science would use them. But it doesn't; religious methods, as you say, have a different purpose. That purpose, therefore, must be something else than finding the truth. So when a religious person uses religious methods to come up with a truth claim (like "God exists" or "Jesus rose from the dead"), he must be doing something wrong.
If religion would actually stay out of the truth business, then I don't think many people would have an objection to it. (There will always be some sourpusses.) The problem is that religion makes truth claims all the time. In this, it is either (a) pretending to be science and doing so very badly; or (b) lying.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I just came across this video in response to Pascal's wager and was hoping it could catalyze a conversation. For anyone unfamiliar with Pascal's wager, it essentially states or argues that since the existence of God is possible, the rational person should operate under the assumption that such a proposition is true. Not accepting God yields an infinite loss if wrong and pays no dividends if correct. This is an argument based on probability theory.
Anyway, I only wish I could string my thoughts together as eloquently as this guy did in this video. His conclusion, of accepting infinite hell fire for his beliefs (or disbelief) because he couldn't stomach the fact of spending an eternity with a being whose "empathy would be so easily trumped by his vanity", pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.
The issue with Pascal's wager is which god do I submit too? If I say ok christian god blah blah blah I may piss of Zeus if he is the real god. I mean the history of our species we have like 4000 gods. if i pray to the wrong one then I might just piss off the real one if it did in fact exist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
@ Blinking Spirit: Thanks, that makes sense. I have learned a great deal from this conversation. I appreciate you taking time to explain these things to me. My view of Pascal's Wager has certainly changed. I think you are correct.
If I'm wrong, and there is no God, no afterlife, then I will just have to enjoy life as much as I can before I die. If there is an afterlife but it's not like the one Christianity portrays, then hopefully it's better like in Dead Like Me where everyone gets their own personal heaven. Worshiping God for all eternity doesn't sound much better than spiritual death. And I'm not even sure if hell is a place of eternal suffering or a place where you are thrown into a pit of fire and die for all eternity. I'm not even sure if there are people in heaven and hell right now. If there are people in hell right now, do they get destroyed when the final judgment comes?
If I'm wrong, and there is no God, no afterlife, then I will just have to enjoy life as much as I can before I die. If there is an afterlife but it's not like the one Christianity portrays, then hopefully it's better like in Dead Like Me where everyone gets their own personal heaven. Worshiping God for all eternity doesn't sound much better than spiritual death.
"Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die."
"Those grapes were probably sour anyway." I will suggest again that your understanding of heaven is probably steeped in tradition and specific scriptural interpretations. Be aware the atheists on these threads will evoke these interpretations and insist on unwavering meanings.
If God is odious and hateful, then indeed there is no hope. Do you trust what others tell you when they have no stake in it?
And I'm not even sure if hell is a place of eternal suffering or a place where you are thrown into a pit of fire and die for all eternity. I'm not even sure if there are people in heaven and hell right now. If there are people in hell right now, do they get destroyed when the final judgment comes?
One concept is that heaven/hell/Earth do not yet exist in their final form. Some assert that Christ's descriptions of "paradise" and "torments" are merely staging grounds for a spiritual existence and that bodily resurrection awaits the Time of Ends.
In essence, Revelation to depicts a chronology while OT prophecy holds a description. OT prophecy does not distinguish between descriptions of the 1000-year reign and the final state of existence; Doing so requires an acknowledgement that death cannot occur after a certain event.
That's assuming the Abrahamic Christian God is the one true God and orthodox Christian interpretations of the afterlife are correct. Gnostic Christians held that Hell was actually endless reincarnation rather than fire and brimstone. Unitarians and other Enlightenment-era Christian sects tend to not believe in eternal hellfire. My ex-fiance was raised in Lutheranism and they taught that Hell is actually complete separation from God--that is, you sleep forever and do not join the Heavenly Kingdom.
It seems to me that the obsessive focus on hellfire is a symptom of Western cultures obsessed with punishment and no justice in the here and now. I think a God whose mercy outweighs his wrath is more beautiful and consistent than the God of Jonathan Edwards and Billy Graham.
I was raised in Catholicism and there wasn't a huge focus on going to hell rather than being good in the here and now.
It is entirely possible God is smarter than dogma assumes and He can figure out what to do with individuals that desire His righteousness.
Possible, yes, but that doesn't really address the question. What if he isn't? What if he's a mean old one-eyed bastard who created the world in an act of murder, calls slain warriors to a "paradise" that consists of unending battle, and leaves those who die in bed to descend to a realm of mist, cold, and darkness?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j-HiMBa9cc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKiCplxwMz0
The real problem with this kinda thing is that it can lead to Confabulation. Some people who make up stuff like this on the spot will retain the lie and start to believe the false event really did happen to them. They will fool themselves.
I hated that they did that. I was all ready for them to move on to the next age, but they had to backpedal like that.
But, since we always seem to have opposite options on all things geek-related, I am sure you probably really liked that Hal Jordan got his named cleared and any attempts to create a 3rd genration was ended. I would not be surprised if you got that nasty email I wrote to HEAT.
Evidence is a symptom, not determinant of reality. Existence does not hinge on our ability to calculate probability. Is saying "all that matters is the evidence" how we elect ourselves to divinity?
Do you agree that probability of the existence of any given concept diminishes with specificity?
The odds of there being a Creative force is greater than there was a single Creator named Yahweh. The odds of there being a God are greater than there being a God incarnate named Jesus? The odds of a historical Jesus existing is greater than the specific version proposed by Midway Heights Baptist church?
Or in your terms:
There is a galactic civilization is more likely than there is an amphibious galactic civilization on planet Zubenelgenubi.
Saying "my specific absurd idea is equally as likely as the existence of a Creator" is delusional. Equal evidence does not yield equal likelihood. Probability is not a force on existence.
Again, our belief is not determining reality here. I am not claiming "if someone believes this, it is more likely" as people have asserted. Rather, it's not sensible to compare "there's a pink Unicorn named Fred that created the universe" to "there is a Creator." To do so is to reduce scientific intelligence to legalistic paralysis.
Pascal's Wager crucially depends on the claim that equal lack of evidence yields equal likelihood. Once that's discarded - and I think you're right to discard it, though it's notoriously difficult to say why - Pascal's Wager has no hope of convincing anyone to believe in God.
One additional point - of course it's more likely that there is a creator than that there's a pink unicorn named fred who created the universe - because if the latter claim is true, the former is, but the former can be true without the latter being true, as you've noted. However, in order for the Wager to be sustained, it's not merely sufficient for their to be a creator. For the Wager to pay off, there must be a remarkably specific deity - meeting a particular name, description, personality, actions, etc. FAR more detailed than "a pink unicorn named Fred."
I think this is a fair statement, but it is not what BS is claiming.
I agree. Pascal's coin is would be better represented by a roulette table of betting on black or red, odd or even, and then specific numbers.
My contention has been that Pascal's wager can be generalized to a more "it may behoove one to seek a creator(s)". We cannot be certain what stakes are riding on it, but the potential outcomes at least warrant thought.
There are several reasons people cite in this forum why they decline to search for the Creator. They see violence declared in the name of religion, they see others abandon all reason, they see bigotry, they cannot abide blind faith, etc. Unfortunately, I think these are people that would benefit the search for the Creator(s), rather than leaving it to those who readily accept these questionable aspects of religion.
I want to see more people say "**** this" and claim it as their right to search for the Creator(s), and do it earnestly.
I admit: I personally think there are stakes, but I am sadly unable to adequately offer the formulas other religious folks can cite.
A) I have two arms.
B) I have fourteen arms.
If there are just the two possibilities, are they equally likely to be true?
I think that it would be great if there was a Creator. I want to believe the Creator exists and I am honest to myself - this combination of attributes makes me an atheist.
And you're right about all those things - violence, bigotry, etc - those are all disconcerting but the single biggest reason that I don't believe in a Creator is because I have no reason to. The moment that evidence to believe rolls in I'll be more than happy to do so.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
I'd also like to pause to note that you've dropped the "invention" argument. Good for you.
What outcomes would those be? And why do you assign them the probability you do? And if you say you're not assigning them probability - by taking them seriously enough to pursue you're implicitly assigning them at least a fairly high probability. You don't play the lottery unless you think (erroneously) that you've got a shot at winning.
Examples like this don't get us anywhere towards answering the question of why they aren't.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Disanalogous. I have strong, a posteriori evidence as to how many arms you're likely to have. I have no evidence whatsoever as to the existence or nature of God.
You claimed that an absurd invented theology had equal validity to Pascal's argument. The illogical follow-through that I thought you were claiming was that any invented idea had equal merit to any religious idea, which as I explained above, doesn't make sense, even if we eschew historical evidence. I may have misunderstood?
As for the invention argument, I thought that's what we were discussing? As I said, evidence is a symptom of reality, not a determinant.
Do we use a void of evidence to allow us to usher in confusion and random equivalence? How do we weigh our desire for self-justification?
As you aptly point out, there is not enough evidence regarding the sentience of the Creator to adequately assign odds. Moreover, I don't expect any time in my life that we will have enough evidence to do so. Therefore, I am forced to make choices independent of mathematical odds. It comes down to "no possible yield" or "possible yield". I decided it wise to seek that Creator.
Science and religion have extremely different purposes. While taking the "Fair Witness" approach is of value to science, I don't think it needs to be an entire way of life. It don't think it must cost us the liberty to seek the Creator(s) in other ways. If it does, aren't we giving it liturgical weight?
(as well as I would really love to see what you claim is this "historical evidence" eschewed - sorry but, that Moses invented a banana hat people believe in is not "historical evidence")
I'll list some major problems with your reasoning, and for the sake of argument, I will assume that there is indeed a creator of the universe.
*You assume It is eternal and therefore still there to be sought, when it is just as likely It no longer exists to be sought at all.
*You assume it's a temporal possibility to find It if It in fact is still there to be sought, when it is just as likely that It exists outside of space-time and cannot be found.
*You assume there is something at stake in the wager, when it is just as likely that It has not created a heaven/hell/afterlife, we have no souls that pass beyond the flesh, It may not even realize we exist.
Imagine the creator of a Super-Mega-Walmart and everything within it, the earth would be one single grape located somewhere in the produce section.
Don't assume that the creator knows or cares about that grape, or what the mold spores which evolved upon the surface of that grape do, or what they believe.
Don't assume that the mold spores can actually discover the creator, because the creator could be outside the store, gone, or even dead.
Now imagine, there's a good possibility that the Super-Mega-Walmart was not created at all.
There is no evidence for god(s) in any form whatsoever. The chicken-scratch of ancient superstitious peoples is not evidence.
You are making too many assumptions just to get to a point where you believe it's worthwhile to "seek the creator".
Honestly, I'd go with aliens before I go with god(s).
We know life is possible, we have it on Earth. We know there are billions of stars and planets where the life/no-life dice can be rolled. Many ancient carvings and drawings like the ones on the Nazca Plains of Peru point as much to aliens as they do to spiritual deities. It's even possible ancient aliens were just called god(s) by ignorant sheepherders because, well, they were ignorant.
Aliens could have evolved just like us within a non-created Universe and then paid us some visits, maybe even still paying us visits. I know a particular RV resident down at the Walmart in town who believes it so much he has adorned his entire RV in Alien invasion propaganda.
Then, it is also possible that any aliens are dead and gone and we are truly alone in the Universe. Or even that Alien life has not evolved yet, and won't evolve for another billions of years long after we are dead and cannot discover them.
If I was playing Pascal here, I'd have to almost suggest we prepare for an Alien invasion, or get ready to bow to our new Alien overlords, after all, that scenario is based on way better "odds" than god(s).
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
A void of evidence DOES usher in confusion. If there's no evidence on a subject, then virtually all statements on the truth value of that subject are unfounded. An absurd invented theology DOES have as much likelihood of being correct as the absurd invented theologies of desert tribesmen in the middle east 2000 years ago, no matter how many people have been suckered by them.
And that's the point. When you say...
...you've made the mistake of posing a false dichotomy. "There is a Creator; for seeking him I get infinite rewards" and "There is no Creator; I get neither rewards nor punishments" are not the only two options with potentially equal chances of being correct. There's also, "There is a Creator who didn't wish for me to seek him; I get infinite punishment." If you want to decide between them, you need a razor to use for making the decision. If you're going to use "I feel this to be true" as a razor, well, go ahead - I haven't got a great way to prove that to be a bad razor, but you have to see that it's a completely useless argument to convert someone who doesn't already feel it to be true. If you want to try to use "The odds are against it" as a razor, you have to stop making choices independent of mathematical odds and start actually figuring out what the mathematical odds are. And you have to do that exercise fully prepared to discover that the mathematical odds might go against what you feel to be true.
I agree. However, when it comes to banking, I was personally not content to wager on "not seeking". I did not see seeking as a threat to anything I valued. And I realize saying this will not be worth much as a testimony, but it in fact moderated my tendencies.
My use of probability was intended to question BS's assertion. I agree, I cannot use probability to justify my Christian leanings; They were a result rather than a destination on a map.
In religion, due to lack of evidence, measurements and odds, I would argue that motive is of utmost importance. Stripping down one's intent is akin to a scientist scrubbing a beaker of potential contaminants. I actually think that "I feel X" is a big red flag.
So, I think I've been wrong on what you were saying a few times so far in this thread. Are you conceding that Pascal's Wager doesn't work?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I don't think it works well due to its narrow scope, but gets progressively more intriguing as it is generalized. Mainly, I was reacting to the idea that "all religious ideas are equally stupid," which I'm honestly not sure was what BS meant. (?)
@ IceCreamMan, I think those are great points, but they deal with the results of the search. In this thread, I've been discussing whether a search for a Creator is useful. I have no argument with your experiences.
Did I take leaps to "search for the Creator"? Surely I did not account for all the possibilities, especially in my youth. Does that mean I should retract the results I believe I have found? Given how many aspects of my basic religious concepts have been revised and refined, I know I am not adverse to change. Yet there are experiences I will not abandon.
1. Do you believe you found the creator as a result of your search?
2. If so, was it because the creator is still there to be found, gone but left a way to find it, dead but left evidence of it's former existence?
3. Based on your answer to 1 and 2, explain your search methodology so that I may also search in the same manner and also find the creator, or would you claim that your methodology and search results are non-repeatable?
As an aside:
1. If you found the creator as a result of your search, would you say that it's evidence of the creators "eternal" characteristic, or would you say that you've only seen it's ghost?
2. If you found the creator as a result of your search, would you say that it's evidence of the creators "temporal" properties, or would you still put it in some "unrecoverable-unscientific zone" when your peers fail to also find the creator in the same place you found it?
I ask these because you are arguing that the "search" itself is worthwhile. However, how is any search worthwhile if it's a search for an unknown object, in an unknown place, at an unknown time, for which the tools of observation of said object are also unknown.
That to me seems like a search that is patently not worthwhile.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
But the example I gave is not stronger than the idea proposed by Pascal's Wager, as Synalon pointed out. Nor is it self-contradictory. Nor is there any other a priori reason to deem it less plausible. It is a possibility that stands independent of the possibility that God exists (and that he is responsible for an afterlife and rewards people who believe in him with that afterlife - as long as you're speaking of specificity you should be fully aware of the specificity of your own claim). In order to make a rational judgment on plausibility, you are going to have to go beyond a priori reasoning to a posteriori reasoning: induction through the observation of evidence. This is how we can deem, for example, that rockondon probably has two arms and not nineteen. Our observations tell us that people who post on internet forums are usually human, and that humans usually have two arms.
You're in the completely wrong field of philosophy. You're worrying about metaphysics, but we're actually discussing epistemology. The "probabilities" we are discussing are not a symptom of reality; in fact, there is some controversy over whether the concept of probability can ever apply to reality*. An epistemic or Bayesian probability, which is what we're discussing, is the level of certainty that may be rationally held by an observer with an incomplete knowledge of the facts. What's the probability that I'm wearing a red shirt right now? Metaphysically, the reality is simply that I'm either wearing the shirt or I'm not; the probability is either 1 or 0; there can be no uncertainty. But epistemically, you the observer don't know what shirt I'm wearing; you assign a Bayesian probability to quantify your uncertainty, which goes up and down as you acquire relevant evidence. Understand the difference?
We're talking epistemology rather than metaphysics because we're talking about what we should believe and why. You're right that God's existence is not dependent on your belief, any more than the color of my shirt is dependent on your belief. That fact does not change the my central point that you should not believe or give privileged standing to a claim for which you have no evidence.
In the absence of any a priori or a posteriori reasoning to make a meaningful distinction, you do not just get to say, "There is a distinction, and it makes my favored claim more plausible, just because I say so!"
I never said that. In the absence of evidence (the complete absence of evidence, let's be clear), the odds that a positive claim is true approach zero. Infinitely many more possible things don't exist than do exist, so your probability of picking a possible thing at random and having it actually exist is accordingly abysmal. Now probability calculations and infinity don't play well together, so technically it's true that we can't assign odds, but this does not help your case at all. For what we can do is see what happens to the probability as we test increasingly large finite numbers: hence, "approaches zero". It would be erroneous to throw up our hands and say "The math doesn't work, so this one claim about God I happen to like must be plausible." It's not.
Why? Is somebody holding a gun to your head?
I do not tell you that I am running a lottery. I give you no odds, nor indication of the value of any prize. It is nevertheless possible that I am running a lottery and you just haven't heard about it. So walking up to me and handing me money has "possible yield". Are you going to do it?
Of course not. Because you don't think it's likely that I'm running a secret lottery (or that, even if I am running one, you will win). Whether or not you are explicitly thinking mathematically, by your behavior you are implicitly assigning a rough probability to the possibility, and that probability is, rationally, very low.
You might also consider that, in the absence of any evidence one way or the other, I could be secretly selling punches to the face just as easily as lottery tickets, or any other "prize" whatsoever. There is nothing to indicate that, even if I do give you something improbable when you give me money, it will be something you'll enjoy.
But if you're inclined to have faith, then give me your money.
"Liturgical" is not the word you're looking for.
And nobody is saying that you don't have liberty to "seek the Creator(s)". It's a free country; you can do what you like with your time. What I'm saying is that, whatever belief you come up with in your "search", you have no grounds for claiming that your belief is true.
You say that science and religion have extremely different purposes. Well, the purpose of science is to find truth, and it uses whatever means will do so reliably. If religious methods could find the truth, then science would use them. But it doesn't; religious methods, as you say, have a different purpose. That purpose, therefore, must be something else than finding the truth. So when a religious person uses religious methods to come up with a truth claim (like "God exists" or "Jesus rose from the dead"), he must be doing something wrong.
If religion would actually stay out of the truth business, then I don't think many people would have an objection to it. (There will always be some sourpusses.) The problem is that religion makes truth claims all the time. In this, it is either (a) pretending to be science and doing so very badly; or (b) lying.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The issue with Pascal's wager is which god do I submit too? If I say ok christian god blah blah blah I may piss of Zeus if he is the real god. I mean the history of our species we have like 4000 gods. if i pray to the wrong one then I might just piss off the real one if it did in fact exist.
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
What about Odin? Would you rather believe in Odin and be wrong, or not believe in Odin and be wrong?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die."
"Those grapes were probably sour anyway." I will suggest again that your understanding of heaven is probably steeped in tradition and specific scriptural interpretations. Be aware the atheists on these threads will evoke these interpretations and insist on unwavering meanings.
If God is odious and hateful, then indeed there is no hope. Do you trust what others tell you when they have no stake in it?
One concept is that heaven/hell/Earth do not yet exist in their final form. Some assert that Christ's descriptions of "paradise" and "torments" are merely staging grounds for a spiritual existence and that bodily resurrection awaits the Time of Ends.
In essence, Revelation to depicts a chronology while OT prophecy holds a description. OT prophecy does not distinguish between descriptions of the 1000-year reign and the final state of existence; Doing so requires an acknowledgement that death cannot occur after a certain event.
It is entirely possible God is smarter than dogma assumes and He can figure out what to do with individuals that desire His righteousness.
It seems to me that the obsessive focus on hellfire is a symptom of Western cultures obsessed with punishment and no justice in the here and now. I think a God whose mercy outweighs his wrath is more beautiful and consistent than the God of Jonathan Edwards and Billy Graham.
I was raised in Catholicism and there wasn't a huge focus on going to hell rather than being good in the here and now.
Possible, yes, but that doesn't really address the question. What if he isn't? What if he's a mean old one-eyed bastard who created the world in an act of murder, calls slain warriors to a "paradise" that consists of unending battle, and leaves those who die in bed to descend to a realm of mist, cold, and darkness?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.