But if you have two mutually exclusive propositions with no evidence for either of them, wouldn't you say it's better to not believe either? Why have faith in either?
That's where Pascal's Wager can come into effect. Remember what I said a few posts back:
"The most generally profitable principle is, if two claims contradict, to trust the one that has the greatest amount of apparent evidence (and thus needs the least amount of faith)."
In that statement, I qualified our dilemma as an issue of profit. Let's say there are two doors, red and blue. One has a reward behind it, one has nothing behind it. In this situation, you can commit yourself to a door for possible profit, even if there's no evidence of where the reward lies. A more direct analogy is that you have one door that costs X amount to open, and is purported to have >X behind it, but it's possible that there's nothing at all if the rumors are false.
The problem, of course, is when they charge you to play. Pascal's Wager is indeed a wager... it's a sacrificial commitment for the hope of a return, even if there's gaps of uncertainty.
Make no mistake, Pascal's Wager is not a way to increase certainty in anything. If it's phrased that way, like an ontological argument, then it's being used incorrectly and ought to be shot down. Pascal's Wager is just a model of reference once issues of faith are boiled down to probable profit.
R = Reward of trusting
P = Probability of validity (0 to 1)
C = Cost of trusting
F = Final value of subscription
For every possible belief, and for every person,
(R * P) - C = F
You should subscribe to systems with positive F. With competing systems, you should subscribe to the one with highest F. This model applies to every belief, ever, no matter how profound or mundane.
As a Christian, with Christianity's equation, it's my job to inform you of R and C, and convince you to raise P.
Quote from erimir »
At any rate, it would seem where we would have more problems is that I don't think that Christianity is consistent with logic or observation And to definitely require more faith than a number of other theological positions. But that's a discussion on Christianity, perhaps a bit too far off topic.
Indeed. However, this discussion has been productive. It's shown us that we can't debate it without begging a question we've yet to resolve.
Sorry, Harikus. I just saw that I completely missed a chunk of posts in this thread somehow.
Quote from Harkius »
It's not so bad, though. Once you realize that that whole "God must be logical" thing is pesky and completely unnecessary, then you will sleep a lot better at night. I know that I have.
Oh yeah, I'm totally there. In fact, in another thread I stated pretty much that exact point as an assumption about God. Why should God be bound by logic just because we can't understand how that's possible?
Of course, such an assumption tends to derail any logical discussion about God, so it's not exactly a useful assumption to make.
Quote from Harkius »
What qualities does God have?
I would say that the list should start off with two things:
Incomprehensibility
A Teflon-like coating (LogiconTM) that allows him to be free of the need for logical coherency.
I would agree with both of those. But as far as their usefulness in a discussion, well, see above.
Quote from extremestan »
The problem, of course, is when they charge you to play. Pascal's Wager is indeed a wager... it's a sacrificial commitment for the hope of a return, even if there's gaps of uncertainty.
Make no mistake, Pascal's Wager is not a way to increase certainty in anything. If it's phrased that way, like an ontological argument, then it's being used incorrectly and ought to be shot down. Pascal's Wager is just a model of reference once issues of faith are boiled down to probable profit.
R = Reward of trusting
P = Probability of validity (0 to 1)
C = Cost of trusting
F = Final value of subscription
For every possible belief, and for every person,
(R * P) - C = F
You should subscribe to systems with positive F. With competing systems, you should subscribe to the one with highest F. This model applies to every belief, ever, no matter how profound or mundane.
As a Christian, with Christianity's equation, it's my job to inform you of R and C, and convince you to raise P.
That is without a doubt the most sensible discussion of Pascal's Wager I've ever seen.
I am truly impressed.
In fact, the way you've stated it is rather convincing. If we examine the variables, Christianity teaches that the value of R is infinity. It is reasonable to assume that even in a worst-case scenario the value of C is less than infinity, since even if a person lived their life 100% according to Christian teaching here will be some choices they will want to make that are in line with Christianity. ie., the sacrifices you make will be something less than infinity unless you happen to die without ever having done anything that wasn't a sacrifice (highly unlikely).
So, given the numbers, even if P is infinitesimally small as long as it has some value greater than zero F will always be infintitely greater than C.
Oh yeah, I'm totally there. In fact, in another thread I stated pretty much that exact point as an assumption about God. Why should God be bound by logic just because we can't understand how that's possible?
Well yeah, it's more intellectual masturbation. Why should we trust what's in front of our eyes when we know that it could all be an hallucination? After the orgasm's over, we can go back to making basic, intuitively reasonable assumptions.
Well I'm all about masturbation, so that works for me.
Quote from extremestan »
Why should we trust what's in front of our eyes when we know that it could all be an hallucination? After the orgasm's over, we can go back to making basic, intuitively reasonable assumptions.
Frankly, I think assuming that God is not bound by the same limitations human beings are is both reasonable and intuitive.
Regardless, it is uncalled-for, rude comments like this which intermittantly creep into your posts that derails any interest I have in maintaining discussion with you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Frankly, I think assuming that God is not bound by the same limitations human beings are is both reasonable and intuitive.
But it isn't just humans that are bound by logic.
Quote from Kraj »
Regardless, it is uncalled-for, rude comments like this which intermittantly creep into your posts that derails any interest I have in maintaining discussion with you.
Ack, yours and Harkius's comments surprised me. I didn't mean it to come across as that harsh. My attitude was not , it was .
Forget I phrased it like that. I don't want to ruin the maintenance of discussion, honestly. In retrospect, it was a bad way to put it, especially on the internet where I can't express it the way I intended.
Quote from Harkius »
First, Pascal's wager is a poor argument, regardless of what you are trying to use it to prove. Unless there can be universally agreed upon values for each of the variables (at which point, they wouldn't be called variables), the entire thing is subjective and not really that conducive to anything.
It's not just subjective. Your own values can be altered by outside influences. It's true that the values vary from individual to individual, but that doesn't make them subjective. Each person has a hair color and unique fingerprint, but that doesn't make them subjective. A person can alter the color of their hair, but I can also play a practical joke and dye their hair blue.
Quote from Harkius »
If your argument were not subjective, you would not have to inform us of your values of R and C. Instead, they would be readily determined without your input.
What? You're saying that outside value influences promote subjectivity? I'm afraid it's the exact opposite.
Ack, yours and Harkius's comments surprised me. I didn't mean it to come across as that harsh. My attitude was not , it was .
Forget I phrased it like that. I don't want to ruin the maintenance of discussion, honestly. In retrospect, it was a bad way to put it, especially on the internet where I can't express it the way I intended.
Fair enough. I won't get my undies in a bunch about it.
Quote from extremestan »
But it isn't just humans that are bound by logic.
Well .... so? Is there anything in the universe we can observe as bound by logic that has the same attributes as God?
Look at it this way: the entire universe follows a law of conservation of energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, simply converted from one form to another. This law is both logical and binding to absolutely everything (as far as I'm aware, even the most ground-breaking and controversial theories of physics do not contradict this law) in the entire universe. However, if God did - in fact - create the universe where there was only a void then God violated the law of conservation of energy. God, therefore, must not be bound by arguably the most basic and fundamental attribute of existance.
If that is possible, why is it impossible for God to be "A" and "Not A" at the same time?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
So, given the numbers, even if P is infinitesimally small as long as it has some value greater than zero F will always be infintitely greater than C.
But P is only a probability, and if extremely small, implies a *huge* amount of risk. Further, following Christianity specifically would preclude you from following *other* systems with their own variables. (Truly a wager, the ultimate wager as one might put it...)
Quote from extremestan »
What? You're saying that outside value influences promote subjectivity? I'm afraid it's the exact opposite.
Depends on what you mean by "outside". Harkius is referring to something that is clear and evident (I think).
But P is only a probability, and if extremely small, implies a *huge* amount of risk. Further, following Christianity specifically would preclude you from following *other* systems with their own variables. (Truly a wager, the ultimate wager as one might put it...)
Quite true. Further, if the value of R is anything other than infinity, the values of P and C become very relevant and can lead to negative values of F.
I wasn't trying to say the formula is a strong argument for believing in Christianity, just that strictly speaking in terms of risk reward it actually turns out to be the correct choice. Assuming you accept the assumptions that R is infinite, C is not, and P is any value greater than zero, the value of F is infinite.
The element that screws the pooch, if you will, is that R is subject to P and C is known with certainty, and there is a tension between the value of a known risk versus an unknown reward (ie., if you don't eat the cookie now, I might give you two later) as well as the tension between immediate and deferred gratification (ie., if you don't eat teh cookie now, I will give you two later).
A Christian, one might argue, places a higher weight of importance on R and a lesser weight of importance on C (say 80% and 20% respectively; whereas as an atheist, in contrast, places 0% importance on R and 100% importance on C. The formula should include a variable to account for this, and would look like:
R = Reward of trusting
P = Probability of validity (0 to 1)
C = Cost of trusting
W = Weight of importance placed on R
F = Final value of subscription
For every possible belief, and for every person,
( (R*W)*P) - C*(100-W) = F
So, keeping all assumptions the same, if W is anything greater than zero then F will still be infinite. But if W is zero then F will always be negative.
BTW, I think my introduction of the variable "W" is exactly what Harikus is referring to.
Yes, I would say that. If someone were to say that "reality is the sum of all things," then I would say that there is a chance that they could be correct, with the caveat that reality is actually the sum of all things which can be demonstrated to exist or can be demonstrated to have existed at some time. This is much, much different, although I realize now where the breakdown in communication was. It is fine for God to include all of these things that are mutually exclusive, so long as God is not simply defined by being all of these things.
So . . . there are some things that aren't in reality (aren't real)?
Quote from Harkius »
Yes, it absolutely would.
I see. So a mono-black card and a mono-white card can't have been designed by the same designer, printed by the same printer, can't be in the same deck, and can't both be part of the same game? I guess I'll remember that the next time I make a multi-color deck.
Quote from Harkius »
Yeah, metaphysics is fun and all, but proof of this phenomoneon would be nice.
Okay, you're missing the point. We haven't even gotten that far. You're attempting to "dissolve" my points by alleging that they are irrelevant (in this case, "unprovable").
How about you prove, then, that it's impossible - that every object (I say object, not state) has exactly one form, cannot change, never has changed, and is not different at all in different contexts?
Otherwise your argument is also just "metaphysics."
Quote from Harkius »
Yes, they may make that claim, but holding two Magic cards at the same time would seem to disprove it, nyet?
Who's holding anything?
If I am a card, how can I "hold" another card?
Quote from extremestan »
But it isn't just humans that are bound by logic.
What does it mean to be "bound" by logic?
What is logic?
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Einsteinmonkey, I think, has my position more accurate. I am talking about observable, definable quantities (like Planck's Constant) being non-subjective, but things like R and C being dependent upon the person whom is making the Wager.
Harkius
Let's ditch the subjectivity talk, then, because I'm in agreement with you that the individual is the ultimate arbiter of the values of R and C. I don't agree that "subjective" = "ultimately up to the individual," but that's a semantic debate -- and, quite useless, because we both agree that R and C are individual-based value judgments.
R and C, as it turns out, are all about personal value attribution.
Kraj: My versions of R and C pre-include the weight of importance. 100 pounds of gold is less R to a rich man than it is to a poor man.
Mamelon: Logic is a cohesive system made solely of sacrosanct axioms. Being "bound by logic" means being unable to violate that system.
Kraj: My versions of R and C pre-include the weight of importance. 100 pounds of gold is less R to a rich man than it is to a poor man.
Well... OK, I guess. That just means my process is more precise, but the conclusions are the same. Your way kinda tosses the assumtion that R is infinite, then, since building the wieght of importance into it makes it rather arbitrary. The last thing that formula needs is another arbitrary variable, but... whatever.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Mamelon: Logic is a cohesive system made solely of sacrosanct axioms. Being "bound by logic" means being unable to violate that system.
Isn't it possible for a good deal of our axioms to be inapplicable to God?
For instance, if we can logically conclude that an object cannot be wholly in one space and simultaneously be in another space with equal presence - what does that mean in context of the idea that God is omnipresent?
You yourself said that you think God transcends physical laws.
Aside from that - I see what you are saying. You are saying that there is a certain "way" that things are (a logical way), and that God does not/cannot go against that "way" (presumably because it originates from His very nature).
The way you phrase it though, is interesting. I recall in another thread, someone asked everyone to rank different conceptual entities in order of "power" - including logic and God. You put logic at a higher rank than God, as you said "God can't go against logic."
To me that is like saying that one's eyes are more powerful than the light they perceive.
Quote from Harkius »
Yes. Unicorns are not real. If you want an example of something that cannot exist in either imagination or reality, how about a circle-square. It is the normally cited example.
But a unicorn is indeed real. A unicorn is part of reality, by which I mean everything, even things that are only images. Unlike a circle-square, a unicorn is potentially existent, and is a concrete image (unlike an abstract image - i.e. the circle-square).
You could say "well, a unicorn isn't really a thing" - in which case it's irrelevant, because I asked if there are "things" that aren't real.
An illusion, while not being "real," is still "real." It's still there.
I am starting to be reminded of the whole axiom-absolute truth thing in that other thread.
If a circle-square can't exist, then it's not a part of either reality or everything - so how does mentioning circle-squares make the statement "reality is everything" illogical?
A circle-square has no essence or substance, it is a word manipulation, an empty term. It is completely abstract. Unlike a unicorn, which, while not existing in material form as far as we know, could exist, and is an imagined "alternate form" of something that does exist (an animal).
Quote from Harkius »
I like the fact that you keep bringing this back to Magic cards instead of the actual topic at hand. It makes my arguments sound invalid, even when they really aren't. The example in question is using your definitions of permeated and context. By these terms what I mean is that an object in a context is the instantiation of said object in reality. A Magic card can be both black and white. If it is both, it cannot simply be one or the other. It can be treated as one or the other, but treatment does not always reflect reality. C.F., Jim Crow laws.
The fact is that your example extrapolates away from reality into a highly tuned and mutually accepted abstract realm. One in which it is possible to treat something that is both black and white as if it were only black or only white. Such treatment in an abstract realm (which is not reality) is allowable under the context in which it is in (in this case, I mean the abstract realm when I say context), but not in the other contexts in which it might be treated (i.e., other abstract realities, like the real one or another game that you could play with Magic cards).
It's an anology, Harkius. I'm not actually talking about cards.
You seem to be hung on up on the multi-color thing. *sigh* That wasn't even the point of my post.
Okay - question: can cards with mutually exclusive properties (mono-black or mono-white) exist in the same card game?
Quote from Harkius »
Because your argument bears the burden of proof in this case. I am simply stating that there is no reason to believe that objects have multiple forms that are logically irreconcilable; forms that they switch between, apparently without our being able to observe it. If you were to make such a claim, you must bear the burden of proof.
If you're going to start talking about "burden of proof," then you probably don't know what it is I am trying to say. Which seems to be a pattern with you. You're missing the point by talking about proof in the first place. It's a cop out.
You are talking about "impossibilities," (it is impossible for God to encompass everything) and all I am doing is demonstrating (trying to, anyway) why 1) it's not as impossible as you say and 2) how what you are talking about isn't even what the rest of us are talking about.
We could get into "burdens of proof," but proving whether or not God exists, or whatever, is rather off topic, despite how frequently you insist otherwise.
Quote from Harkius »
I am afraid that I have absolutely no idea what argument you are making, now. I thought that I understood that the argument was that all cards are one card, not that all things are cards. Is that your argument?
My argument was not that all cards are one. I explicity stated that such was not my argument. I never claimed such a thing, I was using the possibility of such a thing as an example (another reason why proving that possibility to be factual isn't relevant). Nor was I saying that all things are cards (though it was implicit in the analogy that all distinct objects are cards - that's what the cards represented).
You are saying that one object cannot be both of one quality and another quality if either of those qualities necessitates that it not be the other. Which is true. I'm not arguing that it's not true. You are correct.
What I am trying to tell you is that the others in this thread saying that "God is all/God encompasses everything" are not even implying that God is an object in the first place.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Yes. Unicorns are not real. If you want an example of something that cannot exist in either imagination or reality, how about a circle-square. It is the normally cited example.
Just out of sheer curiosity... doesn't the fact that you can conceive the term "circle-square" even though you cannot define it mean that a circle-square exists in imagination, or - to put it another way - as an abstraction?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
No. The fact that you can imagine a term does not mean that said thing can exist. I can imagine the term snurglegarp. That does not mean that a snurglegarp can be imagined.
Can you imagine a circle-square? In fact? A circle has no angles. A square has only 90° angles. How is this reconciled?
Harkius
In order for a circle to be a circle, it cannot be a square. In order for a square to be a square, it cannot be a circle.
But circles and squares both exist, and they are both part of the same thing (i.e. the universe, reality, infinity, whatever you want to call it).
You questioned my usage of the words "permeate" and "context."
If I am holding a round object (a wooden ball) and an object with angles (a wooden building block), it's true that the ball and the block can't simultaneously be each other (a ball is only a ball if it's not a block, so on).
But both balls are solid - here, I am using "solidness" as an example of a quality, which "permeates" both objects - both objects are equally solid, despite their other differences. And both objects are made of wood, despite their other differences. Now, if both objects were painted red, they would both be red, despite the fact that one is a ball and the other, a block.
That is what I meant by "permeated by the same thing."
As for "context," I was indincating the fact that the ball and the block, while both being objects with a quality that necessitates that it not have a certain quality of the other (ball-ness and block-ness are incompatible qualities), are still each being held in one of my hands (being held by the same person). They both are in the same room. They both exist in the same universe. They are both being presented to the same person(s).
This is what I meant by "being in the same context."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Why do you think Christianity is illogical? Is it just Christianity, or other religions, too?
Well, I haven't studied other religions as in depth, but I think many of the same problems would apply to all the Abrahamic religions. There would be different problems for Hinduism and Buddhism, etc.. Most generally, all religions that posit an afterlife have problems when it comes to personal identity and how "you" can survive your death, or be reincarnated, etc. Ones that believe in the soul not only have no evidence for it, but the soul has problems with personal identity and the connection between the soul, mind and/or body as well.
Buddhism's main problem would seem to be with reincarnation. Without reincarnation, it would seem to me that nirvana (often described as nothingness) can be obtained through suicide, which I doubt many Buddhists would agree with.
The whole idea of Christianity, the Garden of Eden story, the problems with the Bible, the idea of God "needing" to sacrifice himself to himself in order to get around his rules so that he can allow people into heaven instead of just changing his rules, the fact that many of the events, and specifically the most important events are not supported historically, etc.
So I don't reject religion merely because of arguments for God failing, but because I find there are a whole host of problems with the supernatural claims of religion. But those are all off topic.
Quote from Harkius »
It's not so bad, though. Once you realize that that whole "God must be logical" thing is pesky and completely unnecessary, then you will sleep a lot better at night. I know that I have.
This seems to lead to the same problems as Kraj's initial definition. There doesn't seem to be any reason to ascribe any particular traits at all to God if he need not be logical. You can say that atheists will go to heaven and theists to hell, and there isn't any particular reason to say God would or wouldn't do that if he's not logical.
Quote from mamelon »
[yada yada about split cards and hybrids, we all know the rules of Magic]
In the same way, while Night // Day can only be in one form at a time, both forms are part of that card at all times, regardless of which "form" it takes.
Nonetheless, we have found that one card have have a quality that excludes another quality, one which necessitates that it not have the other quality.
In some sense Night/Day is both black and not black, because we can understand that it can be used to play a black spell and a spell that is not black. But Night/Day is black and white. Night is black. Day is white. However, none of those is both black and not black. That Day is not black does not mean that Night/Day has the property "not black". You would be committing the fallacy of composition.
This is what you are saying. An A-object cannot also be a non-A-object. You are saying God cannot be everything because to be one thing God must also not be some other thing (God can't be all cards because God can't be a mono-black card and a mono-white card).
This is not a contradiction of identity, as Harkius says, however. What Harkius is making is a fallacy of composition. Because a deck contains a mono-red card does not make the entire deck mono-red, or even just red. Likewise, if God were everything, it would not follow that God has every property that each part of him has.
An example is something made of Lego blocks. A car made of Legos contains all the Legos, and each individual Lego block is small. The Lego car, however, may in fact be very big. Or, each individual grain of sand may be hard and stiff, but a pile of sand is not hard and stiff. God can be everything without it causing God to be both A and not-A. God would contain some parts that are A and some parts that are not-A, but God would not necessarily be either A or not-A.
That is sufficient to dismiss Harkion's objection, so I won't go over you trying to explain how something can be both A and not-A...
Quote from extremestan »
That's where Pascal's Wager can come into effect.
...
R = Reward of trusting
P = Probability of validity (0 to 1)
C = Cost of trusting
F = Final value of subscription
For every possible belief, and for every person,
(R * P) - C = F
You should subscribe to systems with positive F. With competing systems, you should subscribe to the one with highest F. This model applies to every belief, ever, no matter how profound or mundane.
I don't find Pascal's Wager to be useful whatsoever. Regardless of the rest of it, I'll just say that I don't think belief is volitional, so even if Pascal's Wager were otherwise valid, I couldn't make myself believe in anything because of it anyhow.
Anywho, as long as there is a religion with an infinite punishment for not believing in it other than Christianity, with P>0, then it would seem that F becomes incoherent, since while R is infinite, C is also infinite (and you're subtracting C...).
Quote from Kraj »
Well .... so? Is there anything in the universe we can observe as bound by logic that has the same attributes as God?
No. That doesn't mean that God is not bound by logic however. That is simply because we haven't observed anything like God, period. Have you observed anything in the universe bound by logic that has the same attributes as leprechauns? Does it then follow that leprechauns are not bound by logic? Does that even make any sense?
Look at it this way: the entire universe follows a law of conservation of energy.
Logic and physical laws are not the same thing. Physical laws are not logically necessary. If God is bound by logic and omnipotent, he would still be able to violate any physical law he wanted to.
No. The fact that you can imagine a term does not mean that said thing can exist. I can imagine the term snurglegarp. That does not mean that a snurglegarp can be imagined.
Can you imagine a circle-square? In fact? A circle has no angles. A square has only 90° angles. How is this reconciled?
Harkius
Let me see if I understand what you're getting at: for something to exist in the imagination, it must be in a form that could potentially exist in reality even if it doesn't. For example, a unicorn does not exist but there's no reason why a horse with a horn couldn't exist if evolution had taken that direction.
On the other hand, one could imagine the term circle-square to describe an imaginary geometrical shape, but since that shape cannot be represented in a form that could be reconciled with reality, it doesn't actually exist in the imagination.
Is that accurate?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
I don't find Pascal's Wager to be useful whatsoever. Regardless of the rest of it, I'll just say that I don't think belief is volitional, so even if Pascal's Wager were otherwise valid, I couldn't make myself believe in anything because of it anyhow.
All of your belief subscriptions follow its model. The ontologists would like all belief to be volitional, and thus Pascal's Wager might encourage belief in and of itself. But, as I said, I think that's a misapplication of the Wager. It's simply the model by which we subscribe to beliefs based on apparent profit. Pascal's Wager in particular was often put into a religious context, but it doesn't have to be.
Quote from erimir »
Anywho, as long as there is a religion with an infinite punishment for not believing in it other than Christianity, with P>0, then it would seem that F becomes incoherent, since while R is infinite, C is also infinite (and you're subtracting C...).
R and C are personal, relative values. I can't imagine how a finite mind could value either of them infinitely. This isn't strict mathematics -- I don't expect actual numbers to be assigned to R and C. It's just a relationship expressed through mathematical analogy.
Quote from Kraj »
Let me see if I understand what you're getting at: for something to exist in the imagination, it must be in a form that could potentially exist in reality even if it doesn't. For example, a unicorn does not exist but there's no reason why a horse with a horn couldn't exist if evolution had taken that direction.
On the other hand, one could imagine the term circle-square to describe an imaginary geometrical shape, but since that shape cannot be represented in a form that could be reconciled with reality, it doesn't actually exist in the imagination.
Is that accurate?
I think he's saying that the term circle-square can be conceived in the mind, but any other (lower on the abstraction layers, for instance) notion of the circle-square is inconceivable.
Just out of sheer curiosity... doesn't the fact that you can conceive the term "circle-square" even though you cannot define it mean that a circle-square exists in imagination, or - to put it another way - as an abstraction?
Just out of sheer curiosity, since it is nice to define the terms one uses...
Could one of you define what it means to exist in the imagination/mind?
I'm not sure the idea is even coherent.
Quote from extremestan »
R and C are personal, relative values. I can't imagine how a finite mind could value either of them infinitely. This isn't strict mathematics -- I don't expect actual numerals to be assigned to R and C. It's just a relationship expressed through mathematical analogy.
How else would I value eternal reward and eternal suffering? Also, infinity is not a numeral...
At any rate, there are infinitely many distinct positions, and of those, infinitely many of them could result in eternal punishment for believing in Christianity. Likewise, infinitely many of them could result in eternal reward for you, regardless of your beliefs. Now, we can assign 0 probability to completely incoherent positions, but if you view Christianity as coherent, there are at least a fair number of similar positions with those results. The expected outcome doesn't really help then. And on what rational basis can one say that, say, Deism(1) with inf reward for believers, and inf punishment for non-believers is more probable than Deism(2) with heaven for everybody? And if there's no rational basis, it doesn't make much sense to say that you should have faith that the probability of one is higher so that one can have faith in it. Then you might as well say that there was no point to comparing F of these beliefs and you just believe it completely on faith.
In some sense Night/Day is both black and not black, because we can understand that it can be used to play a black spell and a spell that is not black. But Night/Day is black and white. Night is black. Day is white. However, none of those is both black and not black. That Day is not black does not mean that Night/Day has the property "not black". You would be committing the fallacy of composition.
That's true, and I'm not arguing otherwise. The whole point of my "yada yada" (as you put it) was to show my process of coming to identify the "quality" of having a color as not being contingent wholly on color of mana cost, as well to show how sometimes the way we define things, while seeming perfectly logical, can be problematic. It wasn't actually my argument that Night // Day shows that an object can be defined by two qualities which each exclude the other quality.
Also, I was trying to show the difference between a "card" or a "deck" or the game itself.
Quote from erimir »
This is not a contradiction of identity, as Harkius says, however. What Harkius is making is a fallacy of composition. Because a deck contains a mono-red card does not make the entire deck mono-red, or even just red. Likewise, if God were everything, it would not follow that God has every property that each part of him has.
An example is something made of Lego blocks. A car made of Legos contains all the Legos, and each individual Lego block is small. The Lego car, however, may in fact be very big. Or, each individual grain of sand may be hard and stiff, but a pile of sand is not hard and stiff. God can be everything without it causing God to be both A and not-A. God would contain some parts that are A and some parts that are not-A, but God would not necessarily be either A or not-A.
Which was exactly my point. I agree.
Quote from erimir »
That is sufficient to dismiss Harkion's objection, so I won't go over you trying to explain how something can be both A and not-A...
Which would be problematic anyway, since I was trying to explain no such thing. I stated that such was not my argument a number of times, including in the original discourse about color, if you'll notice.
I'm sorry if the whole thing about "color quality" was confusing, I guess I figured we'd all get more pertinent use out of the analogy than we actually did.
Quote from erimir »
Just out of sheer curiosity, since it is nice to define the terms one uses...
Could one of you define what it means to exist in the imagination/mind?
I'm not sure the idea is even coherent.
Yeah, it kind of depends on how we define "exist."
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
No. That doesn't mean that God is not bound by logic however. That is simply because we haven't observed anything like God, period. Have you observed anything in the universe bound by logic that has the same attributes as leprechauns? Does it then follow that leprechauns are not bound by logic? Does that even make any sense?
I'm not sure comparing God to leprechauns is such a good move, but in any case... no, it doesn't make sense to declare with certainty that God is not bound by logic, nor does it make any sense to declare He is. Both arguments are victim of inclusion fallacies (God is not A so He must not have the attributes of A; Nothing in A has attribute Z, so B must not have attribute Z).
Quote from erimir »
Logic and physical laws are not the same thing. Physical laws are not logically necessary. If God is bound by logic and omnipotent, he would still be able to violate any physical law he wanted to.
You've basically just defined omnipotent as being able to defy physical but not logical laws, and then defined God as omnipotent. Your argument and your conclusion are the same.
Quote from erimir »
Just out of sheer curiosity, since it is nice to define the terms one uses...
Could one of you define what it means to exist in the imagination/mind?
I'm not sure the idea is even coherent.
Quote from mamelon »
Yeha, it kind of depends on how we define "exist."
Well, the most elemental statement DesCartes-ian philosophy can prove is undeniably true is "Thought exists". I would likely have to put a great deal of time and energy into arriving at a solid definition of the word "exist", but I think it's fair to accept that thought does indeed exist. And since imagination is thoughts, anything imagined exists.
And since imagination is thoughts, anything imagined exists.
The important thing here is not to confuse a concept with an actual manifestation. "Unicorn" exists as a concept, but it doesn't exist as an actual manifestion. And when someone says unicorn, they're generally referring to the "manifestion" context of the word. The "concept" context of the word is usually not what they're referring to. Confusing two different contexts of a single term can be just as much an equivocation fallacy as confusing two different terms.
In other words, if I say "Unicorns[1] don't exist," the proper response is not "Of course unicorns[2] exist!"
You've basically just defined omnipotent as being able to defy physical but not logical laws, and then defined God as omnipotent. Your argument and your conclusion are the same.
No, this was the argument:
1. Omnipotence is the ability to do everything but violate logic.
2. Physical laws are not logically necessary (in other words, it would not result in a logical contradiction if physical laws were different in some ways, e.g. if Planck's constant was different)
3. Thus, violating a physical law does not violate logic.
4. Therefore, omnipotence includes the ability to violate physical laws.
Would you like to clarify what your problem with that is? The argument seems valid to me. I don't see how it is circular.
Well, the most elemental statement DesCartes-ian philosophy can prove is undeniably true is "Thought exists".
Was that it, or was it that "I think"?
(the adjective is "Cartesian", btw)
I would likely have to put a great deal of time and energy into arriving at a solid definition of the word "exist", but I think it's fair to accept that thought does indeed exist. And since imagination is thoughts, anything imagined exists.
Suppose I say that my character on a MMORPG exists. What does that mean? If we examine it closely, its existence is actually just a configuration of some computers, it does not exist independent of the computers, and the computers have a material existence.
So what does it mean to say that a unicorn exists in the MMORPG, vs. existing in reality? Wouldn't it be that the unicorn exists in the MMORPG is really shorthand for a more complicated statement about the configuration of the computers, which exist in reality? In which case there would only be one kind of existence - existence in reality.
Also, you could talk about unicorns, and the idea of unicorns. And the idea of the idea of unicorns, and the idea of the idea of the idea of unicorns... What does it mean to say that those ideas "exist"?
Anywho, why exactly are we talking about this...? Way off topic, very complicated subject. Just raising some interesting questions to think about tho.
How else would I value eternal reward and eternal suffering?
I don't know. How would you value eternal reward? Eternal reward is in the future, so many would (and do) say that it has less value because it's not "right now." "Everlasting bliss" is simply not considered "infinitely valuable" to a person. The two terms have similar words in them, but one does not necessarily lead to the next.
Quote from erimir »
Also, infinity is not a numeral...
I'm quite aware of that and didn't intend to say it was, dude. The intent was to question going too far into the analogy and doing things like applying 130,002 to C or multiplying infinity by a number less than 1. Don't be so quick to nitpick, it's annoying and comes across as elitist, even if you didn't mean it.
Quote from erimir »
At any rate, there are infinitely many distinct positions, and of those, infinitely many of them could result in eternal punishment for believing in Christianity. Likewise, infinitely many of them could result in eternal reward for you, regardless of your beliefs. Now, we can assign 0 probability to completely incoherent positions, but if you view Christianity as coherent, there are at least a fair number of similar positions with those results. The expected outcome doesn't really help then. And on what rational basis can one say that, say, Deism(1) with inf reward for believers, and inf punishment for non-believers is more probable than Deism(2) with heaven for everybody? And if there's no rational basis, it doesn't make much sense to say that you should have faith that the probability of one is higher so that one can have faith in it. Then you might as well say that there was no point to comparing F of these beliefs and you just believe it completely on faith.
I think we're back to our fundamental disagreement about having a rational basis for one's religious beliefs, about one religion having more evidence for its validity than another, etc.
I think anything about God is always going to draw reactions...
I do not think we can use reason to understand or define God, if it is at all possible.
In magic terms, its a little like this.
Izzet Goblin verses Firemind
different levels of cognition... may not even be cognition.
Too tough to argue and to what end?? =P
Reality is but a perception of your being --
Visit my blog!!! - http://huffalump-magic.blogspot.com/
"The brain is wider than the sky,
For, put them side by side,
The one the other will include
With ease, and you beside."
—Emily Dickinson
For sales or trade, visit my blog or visit my ebay blog for my listings :http://myworld.ebay.com/arcane7828
881
Oooh Dicey:
[dice=1]100[/dice]
God = Niv Mizzet
Us = Mogg Flunkies
Can we all agree on this one?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
That's where Pascal's Wager can come into effect. Remember what I said a few posts back:
"The most generally profitable principle is, if two claims contradict, to trust the one that has the greatest amount of apparent evidence (and thus needs the least amount of faith)."
In that statement, I qualified our dilemma as an issue of profit. Let's say there are two doors, red and blue. One has a reward behind it, one has nothing behind it. In this situation, you can commit yourself to a door for possible profit, even if there's no evidence of where the reward lies. A more direct analogy is that you have one door that costs X amount to open, and is purported to have >X behind it, but it's possible that there's nothing at all if the rumors are false.
The problem, of course, is when they charge you to play. Pascal's Wager is indeed a wager... it's a sacrificial commitment for the hope of a return, even if there's gaps of uncertainty.
Make no mistake, Pascal's Wager is not a way to increase certainty in anything. If it's phrased that way, like an ontological argument, then it's being used incorrectly and ought to be shot down. Pascal's Wager is just a model of reference once issues of faith are boiled down to probable profit.
R = Reward of trusting
P = Probability of validity (0 to 1)
C = Cost of trusting
F = Final value of subscription
For every possible belief, and for every person,
(R * P) - C = F
You should subscribe to systems with positive F. With competing systems, you should subscribe to the one with highest F. This model applies to every belief, ever, no matter how profound or mundane.
As a Christian, with Christianity's equation, it's my job to inform you of R and C, and convince you to raise P.
Indeed. However, this discussion has been productive. It's shown us that we can't debate it without begging a question we've yet to resolve.
Oh yeah, I'm totally there. In fact, in another thread I stated pretty much that exact point as an assumption about God. Why should God be bound by logic just because we can't understand how that's possible?
Of course, such an assumption tends to derail any logical discussion about God, so it's not exactly a useful assumption to make.
I would agree with both of those. But as far as their usefulness in a discussion, well, see above.
That is without a doubt the most sensible discussion of Pascal's Wager I've ever seen.
I am truly impressed.
In fact, the way you've stated it is rather convincing. If we examine the variables, Christianity teaches that the value of R is infinity. It is reasonable to assume that even in a worst-case scenario the value of C is less than infinity, since even if a person lived their life 100% according to Christian teaching here will be some choices they will want to make that are in line with Christianity. ie., the sacrifices you make will be something less than infinity unless you happen to die without ever having done anything that wasn't a sacrifice (highly unlikely).
So, given the numbers, even if P is infinitesimally small as long as it has some value greater than zero F will always be infintitely greater than C.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Well yeah, it's more intellectual masturbation. Why should we trust what's in front of our eyes when we know that it could all be an hallucination? After the orgasm's over, we can go back to making basic, intuitively reasonable assumptions.
Well I'm all about masturbation, so that works for me.
Frankly, I think assuming that God is not bound by the same limitations human beings are is both reasonable and intuitive.
Regardless, it is uncalled-for, rude comments like this which intermittantly creep into your posts that derails any interest I have in maintaining discussion with you.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
But it isn't just humans that are bound by logic.
Ack, yours and Harkius's comments surprised me. I didn't mean it to come across as that harsh. My attitude was not , it was .
Forget I phrased it like that. I don't want to ruin the maintenance of discussion, honestly. In retrospect, it was a bad way to put it, especially on the internet where I can't express it the way I intended.
It's not just subjective. Your own values can be altered by outside influences. It's true that the values vary from individual to individual, but that doesn't make them subjective. Each person has a hair color and unique fingerprint, but that doesn't make them subjective. A person can alter the color of their hair, but I can also play a practical joke and dye their hair blue.
What? You're saying that outside value influences promote subjectivity? I'm afraid it's the exact opposite.
Fair enough. I won't get my undies in a bunch about it.
Well .... so? Is there anything in the universe we can observe as bound by logic that has the same attributes as God?
Look at it this way: the entire universe follows a law of conservation of energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, simply converted from one form to another. This law is both logical and binding to absolutely everything (as far as I'm aware, even the most ground-breaking and controversial theories of physics do not contradict this law) in the entire universe. However, if God did - in fact - create the universe where there was only a void then God violated the law of conservation of energy. God, therefore, must not be bound by arguably the most basic and fundamental attribute of existance.
If that is possible, why is it impossible for God to be "A" and "Not A" at the same time?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
But P is only a probability, and if extremely small, implies a *huge* amount of risk. Further, following Christianity specifically would preclude you from following *other* systems with their own variables. (Truly a wager, the ultimate wager as one might put it...)
Depends on what you mean by "outside". Harkius is referring to something that is clear and evident (I think).
Quite true. Further, if the value of R is anything other than infinity, the values of P and C become very relevant and can lead to negative values of F.
I wasn't trying to say the formula is a strong argument for believing in Christianity, just that strictly speaking in terms of risk reward it actually turns out to be the correct choice. Assuming you accept the assumptions that R is infinite, C is not, and P is any value greater than zero, the value of F is infinite.
The element that screws the pooch, if you will, is that R is subject to P and C is known with certainty, and there is a tension between the value of a known risk versus an unknown reward (ie., if you don't eat the cookie now, I might give you two later) as well as the tension between immediate and deferred gratification (ie., if you don't eat teh cookie now, I will give you two later).
A Christian, one might argue, places a higher weight of importance on R and a lesser weight of importance on C (say 80% and 20% respectively; whereas as an atheist, in contrast, places 0% importance on R and 100% importance on C. The formula should include a variable to account for this, and would look like:
R = Reward of trusting
P = Probability of validity (0 to 1)
C = Cost of trusting
W = Weight of importance placed on R
F = Final value of subscription
For every possible belief, and for every person,
( (R*W)*P) - C*(100-W) = F
So, keeping all assumptions the same, if W is anything greater than zero then F will still be infinite. But if W is zero then F will always be negative.
BTW, I think my introduction of the variable "W" is exactly what Harikus is referring to.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
So . . . there are some things that aren't in reality (aren't real)?
I see. So a mono-black card and a mono-white card can't have been designed by the same designer, printed by the same printer, can't be in the same deck, and can't both be part of the same game? I guess I'll remember that the next time I make a multi-color deck.
Okay, you're missing the point. We haven't even gotten that far. You're attempting to "dissolve" my points by alleging that they are irrelevant (in this case, "unprovable").
How about you prove, then, that it's impossible - that every object (I say object, not state) has exactly one form, cannot change, never has changed, and is not different at all in different contexts?
Otherwise your argument is also just "metaphysics."
Who's holding anything?
If I am a card, how can I "hold" another card?
What does it mean to be "bound" by logic?
What is logic?
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
Let's ditch the subjectivity talk, then, because I'm in agreement with you that the individual is the ultimate arbiter of the values of R and C. I don't agree that "subjective" = "ultimately up to the individual," but that's a semantic debate -- and, quite useless, because we both agree that R and C are individual-based value judgments.
R and C, as it turns out, are all about personal value attribution.
Kraj: My versions of R and C pre-include the weight of importance. 100 pounds of gold is less R to a rich man than it is to a poor man.
Mamelon: Logic is a cohesive system made solely of sacrosanct axioms. Being "bound by logic" means being unable to violate that system.
Well... OK, I guess. That just means my process is more precise, but the conclusions are the same. Your way kinda tosses the assumtion that R is infinite, then, since building the wieght of importance into it makes it rather arbitrary. The last thing that formula needs is another arbitrary variable, but... whatever.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Isn't it possible for a good deal of our axioms to be inapplicable to God?
For instance, if we can logically conclude that an object cannot be wholly in one space and simultaneously be in another space with equal presence - what does that mean in context of the idea that God is omnipresent?
You yourself said that you think God transcends physical laws.
Aside from that - I see what you are saying. You are saying that there is a certain "way" that things are (a logical way), and that God does not/cannot go against that "way" (presumably because it originates from His very nature).
The way you phrase it though, is interesting. I recall in another thread, someone asked everyone to rank different conceptual entities in order of "power" - including logic and God. You put logic at a higher rank than God, as you said "God can't go against logic."
To me that is like saying that one's eyes are more powerful than the light they perceive.
But a unicorn is indeed real. A unicorn is part of reality, by which I mean everything, even things that are only images. Unlike a circle-square, a unicorn is potentially existent, and is a concrete image (unlike an abstract image - i.e. the circle-square).
You could say "well, a unicorn isn't really a thing" - in which case it's irrelevant, because I asked if there are "things" that aren't real.
An illusion, while not being "real," is still "real." It's still there.
I am starting to be reminded of the whole axiom-absolute truth thing in that other thread.
If a circle-square can't exist, then it's not a part of either reality or everything - so how does mentioning circle-squares make the statement "reality is everything" illogical?
A circle-square has no essence or substance, it is a word manipulation, an empty term. It is completely abstract. Unlike a unicorn, which, while not existing in material form as far as we know, could exist, and is an imagined "alternate form" of something that does exist (an animal).
It's an anology, Harkius. I'm not actually talking about cards.
You seem to be hung on up on the multi-color thing. *sigh* That wasn't even the point of my post.
Okay - question: can cards with mutually exclusive properties (mono-black or mono-white) exist in the same card game?
If you're going to start talking about "burden of proof," then you probably don't know what it is I am trying to say. Which seems to be a pattern with you. You're missing the point by talking about proof in the first place. It's a cop out.
You are talking about "impossibilities," (it is impossible for God to encompass everything) and all I am doing is demonstrating (trying to, anyway) why 1) it's not as impossible as you say and 2) how what you are talking about isn't even what the rest of us are talking about.
We could get into "burdens of proof," but proving whether or not God exists, or whatever, is rather off topic, despite how frequently you insist otherwise.
My argument was not that all cards are one. I explicity stated that such was not my argument. I never claimed such a thing, I was using the possibility of such a thing as an example (another reason why proving that possibility to be factual isn't relevant). Nor was I saying that all things are cards (though it was implicit in the analogy that all distinct objects are cards - that's what the cards represented).
You are saying that one object cannot be both of one quality and another quality if either of those qualities necessitates that it not be the other. Which is true. I'm not arguing that it's not true. You are correct.
What I am trying to tell you is that the others in this thread saying that "God is all/God encompasses everything" are not even implying that God is an object in the first place.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
Just out of sheer curiosity... doesn't the fact that you can conceive the term "circle-square" even though you cannot define it mean that a circle-square exists in imagination, or - to put it another way - as an abstraction?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
In order for a circle to be a circle, it cannot be a square. In order for a square to be a square, it cannot be a circle.
But circles and squares both exist, and they are both part of the same thing (i.e. the universe, reality, infinity, whatever you want to call it).
You questioned my usage of the words "permeate" and "context."
If I am holding a round object (a wooden ball) and an object with angles (a wooden building block), it's true that the ball and the block can't simultaneously be each other (a ball is only a ball if it's not a block, so on).
But both balls are solid - here, I am using "solidness" as an example of a quality, which "permeates" both objects - both objects are equally solid, despite their other differences. And both objects are made of wood, despite their other differences. Now, if both objects were painted red, they would both be red, despite the fact that one is a ball and the other, a block.
That is what I meant by "permeated by the same thing."
As for "context," I was indincating the fact that the ball and the block, while both being objects with a quality that necessitates that it not have a certain quality of the other (ball-ness and block-ness are incompatible qualities), are still each being held in one of my hands (being held by the same person). They both are in the same room. They both exist in the same universe. They are both being presented to the same person(s).
This is what I meant by "being in the same context."
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
Buddhism's main problem would seem to be with reincarnation. Without reincarnation, it would seem to me that nirvana (often described as nothingness) can be obtained through suicide, which I doubt many Buddhists would agree with.
The whole idea of Christianity, the Garden of Eden story, the problems with the Bible, the idea of God "needing" to sacrifice himself to himself in order to get around his rules so that he can allow people into heaven instead of just changing his rules, the fact that many of the events, and specifically the most important events are not supported historically, etc.
So I don't reject religion merely because of arguments for God failing, but because I find there are a whole host of problems with the supernatural claims of religion. But those are all off topic.
This seems to lead to the same problems as Kraj's initial definition. There doesn't seem to be any reason to ascribe any particular traits at all to God if he need not be logical. You can say that atheists will go to heaven and theists to hell, and there isn't any particular reason to say God would or wouldn't do that if he's not logical.
In some sense Night/Day is both black and not black, because we can understand that it can be used to play a black spell and a spell that is not black. But Night/Day is black and white. Night is black. Day is white. However, none of those is both black and not black. That Day is not black does not mean that Night/Day has the property "not black". You would be committing the fallacy of composition.
This is not a contradiction of identity, as Harkius says, however. What Harkius is making is a fallacy of composition. Because a deck contains a mono-red card does not make the entire deck mono-red, or even just red. Likewise, if God were everything, it would not follow that God has every property that each part of him has.
An example is something made of Lego blocks. A car made of Legos contains all the Legos, and each individual Lego block is small. The Lego car, however, may in fact be very big. Or, each individual grain of sand may be hard and stiff, but a pile of sand is not hard and stiff. God can be everything without it causing God to be both A and not-A. God would contain some parts that are A and some parts that are not-A, but God would not necessarily be either A or not-A.
That is sufficient to dismiss Harkion's objection, so I won't go over you trying to explain how something can be both A and not-A...
I don't find Pascal's Wager to be useful whatsoever. Regardless of the rest of it, I'll just say that I don't think belief is volitional, so even if Pascal's Wager were otherwise valid, I couldn't make myself believe in anything because of it anyhow.
Anywho, as long as there is a religion with an infinite punishment for not believing in it other than Christianity, with P>0, then it would seem that F becomes incoherent, since while R is infinite, C is also infinite (and you're subtracting C...).
No. That doesn't mean that God is not bound by logic however. That is simply because we haven't observed anything like God, period. Have you observed anything in the universe bound by logic that has the same attributes as leprechauns? Does it then follow that leprechauns are not bound by logic? Does that even make any sense?
Logic and physical laws are not the same thing. Physical laws are not logically necessary. If God is bound by logic and omnipotent, he would still be able to violate any physical law he wanted to.
Let me see if I understand what you're getting at: for something to exist in the imagination, it must be in a form that could potentially exist in reality even if it doesn't. For example, a unicorn does not exist but there's no reason why a horse with a horn couldn't exist if evolution had taken that direction.
On the other hand, one could imagine the term circle-square to describe an imaginary geometrical shape, but since that shape cannot be represented in a form that could be reconciled with reality, it doesn't actually exist in the imagination.
Is that accurate?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
All of your belief subscriptions follow its model. The ontologists would like all belief to be volitional, and thus Pascal's Wager might encourage belief in and of itself. But, as I said, I think that's a misapplication of the Wager. It's simply the model by which we subscribe to beliefs based on apparent profit. Pascal's Wager in particular was often put into a religious context, but it doesn't have to be.
R and C are personal, relative values. I can't imagine how a finite mind could value either of them infinitely. This isn't strict mathematics -- I don't expect actual numbers to be assigned to R and C. It's just a relationship expressed through mathematical analogy.
I think he's saying that the term circle-square can be conceived in the mind, but any other (lower on the abstraction layers, for instance) notion of the circle-square is inconceivable.
Could one of you define what it means to exist in the imagination/mind?
I'm not sure the idea is even coherent.
How else would I value eternal reward and eternal suffering? Also, infinity is not a numeral...
At any rate, there are infinitely many distinct positions, and of those, infinitely many of them could result in eternal punishment for believing in Christianity. Likewise, infinitely many of them could result in eternal reward for you, regardless of your beliefs. Now, we can assign 0 probability to completely incoherent positions, but if you view Christianity as coherent, there are at least a fair number of similar positions with those results. The expected outcome doesn't really help then. And on what rational basis can one say that, say, Deism(1) with inf reward for believers, and inf punishment for non-believers is more probable than Deism(2) with heaven for everybody? And if there's no rational basis, it doesn't make much sense to say that you should have faith that the probability of one is higher so that one can have faith in it. Then you might as well say that there was no point to comparing F of these beliefs and you just believe it completely on faith.
That's true, and I'm not arguing otherwise. The whole point of my "yada yada" (as you put it) was to show my process of coming to identify the "quality" of having a color as not being contingent wholly on color of mana cost, as well to show how sometimes the way we define things, while seeming perfectly logical, can be problematic. It wasn't actually my argument that Night // Day shows that an object can be defined by two qualities which each exclude the other quality.
Also, I was trying to show the difference between a "card" or a "deck" or the game itself.
Which was exactly my point. I agree.
Which would be problematic anyway, since I was trying to explain no such thing. I stated that such was not my argument a number of times, including in the original discourse about color, if you'll notice.
I'm sorry if the whole thing about "color quality" was confusing, I guess I figured we'd all get more pertinent use out of the analogy than we actually did.
Yeah, it kind of depends on how we define "exist."
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
I'm not sure comparing God to leprechauns is such a good move, but in any case... no, it doesn't make sense to declare with certainty that God is not bound by logic, nor does it make any sense to declare He is. Both arguments are victim of inclusion fallacies (God is not A so He must not have the attributes of A; Nothing in A has attribute Z, so B must not have attribute Z).
You've basically just defined omnipotent as being able to defy physical but not logical laws, and then defined God as omnipotent. Your argument and your conclusion are the same.
Well, the most elemental statement DesCartes-ian philosophy can prove is undeniably true is "Thought exists". I would likely have to put a great deal of time and energy into arriving at a solid definition of the word "exist", but I think it's fair to accept that thought does indeed exist. And since imagination is thoughts, anything imagined exists.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
The important thing here is not to confuse a concept with an actual manifestation. "Unicorn" exists as a concept, but it doesn't exist as an actual manifestion. And when someone says unicorn, they're generally referring to the "manifestion" context of the word. The "concept" context of the word is usually not what they're referring to. Confusing two different contexts of a single term can be just as much an equivocation fallacy as confusing two different terms.
In other words, if I say "Unicorns[1] don't exist," the proper response is not "Of course unicorns[2] exist!"
No, this was the argument:
1. Omnipotence is the ability to do everything but violate logic.
2. Physical laws are not logically necessary (in other words, it would not result in a logical contradiction if physical laws were different in some ways, e.g. if Planck's constant was different)
3. Thus, violating a physical law does not violate logic.
4. Therefore, omnipotence includes the ability to violate physical laws.
Would you like to clarify what your problem with that is? The argument seems valid to me. I don't see how it is circular.
Was that it, or was it that "I think"?
(the adjective is "Cartesian", btw)
Suppose I say that my character on a MMORPG exists. What does that mean? If we examine it closely, its existence is actually just a configuration of some computers, it does not exist independent of the computers, and the computers have a material existence.
So what does it mean to say that a unicorn exists in the MMORPG, vs. existing in reality? Wouldn't it be that the unicorn exists in the MMORPG is really shorthand for a more complicated statement about the configuration of the computers, which exist in reality? In which case there would only be one kind of existence - existence in reality.
Also, you could talk about unicorns, and the idea of unicorns. And the idea of the idea of unicorns, and the idea of the idea of the idea of unicorns... What does it mean to say that those ideas "exist"?
Anywho, why exactly are we talking about this...? Way off topic, very complicated subject. Just raising some interesting questions to think about tho.
I don't know. How would you value eternal reward? Eternal reward is in the future, so many would (and do) say that it has less value because it's not "right now." "Everlasting bliss" is simply not considered "infinitely valuable" to a person. The two terms have similar words in them, but one does not necessarily lead to the next.
I'm quite aware of that and didn't intend to say it was, dude. The intent was to question going too far into the analogy and doing things like applying 130,002 to C or multiplying infinity by a number less than 1. Don't be so quick to nitpick, it's annoying and comes across as elitist, even if you didn't mean it.
I think we're back to our fundamental disagreement about having a rational basis for one's religious beliefs, about one religion having more evidence for its validity than another, etc.