ScoreHero :: View topic - Pascal's Wager: Do you buy it?

Home > Forum

Pascal's Wager: Do you buy it?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 22, 23, 24 Next

ScoreHero Forum Index -> General Chat

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

laupow17

Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 591
Location: Tuscaloosa, AL

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:52 pm Post subject:

Smeddy24 wrote:

Yes I know that point is made by Dawkins. I realized it well before I read The God Delusion though, so it's fair game for me to repeat it without linking to him. Dawkins just makes religious people angry.

To the contrary, Dawkins makes me happy because he proves my point.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2543431/is-richard-dawkins-still-evolving.thtml

Now, the difference between Dawkins and the people arguing in this thread is, Dawkins is savvy enough to realize that the case for God is, in fact, more plausible than the case for the Tooth Fairy, even if the evidence for both is lax. (Necromac makes a good point at the beginning of his post). Dawkins at least knows not to stick to a ridiculous point (like saying that the Tooth Fairy existing is as likely as God existing) just for the sake of being an atheist.

lazor wrote:

What point are you trying to make?

If 2 entities have the same amount of observable evidence of their existence, then the likelihood of them both existing would be the same.

Wrong.
Counterexample.
I walk outside and see that my car is missing.
Possibility #1) Someone jimmied the lock and stole the car
Possibility #2) My car was lifted up by a UFO's tractor beam, never to be seen again.

No evidence for or against either. That doesn't mean the chance of the possibilities are equal.

And side note, I already pointed out that Santa should be replaced with Tooth Fairy if it will make you guys feel better about picking out trivial things with my analogies. Cut the picayune crap and debate the main point. Good Lord.
_________________

Jon's Goals:
FC 40 Expert GH3X songs [X] #40, Monsters
FC 50 Expert GH3X songs [ ] 49, Pride And Joy
FC 20 GH1X Songs [X] #20, Sharp Dressed Man
FC 25 GH1X Songs [ ] 23, The Breaking Wheel
My Accomplishment Thread
^^Please, please tell me what you think I should go for next! =)

kainiac

Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 551
Location: North Attleboro, MA

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:40 pm Post subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o God damn I wish this man was still alive. I will say what I think, based on what Carlin says. Religion is believing there is an invisible man in the sky, watching over you. The only reason you say Santa Clause doesn't exist is because of the way we were brought up. What if God and Santa Clause's roles were switched? What if we all thought that a large, man brought us presents on our one day of worship was real, and the "fantasy" was that there is a man in the sky that judges whether you are a good or bad person. what really is bullshit? _________________

Necromac

Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 440
Location: I Come From The Land Down Under

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:12 pm Post subject:

Yeah, that quote tunnel was getting a little out of hand

lazor wrote:

Necromac wrote:

(gigantic quote tunnel)

dont you also need to look at the evidence of them not existing?

There is pretty clear "evidence" of santa/toothfairy not existing - parents trick their children into believing in them - peoples actions essentially prove they dont exist... well, as much as anything can be proven not to exist...

(Overlooking hoaxters/fraudsters) people dont knowingly trick people into believing in a religion

There is no observable evidence of the island in lost - doest this make it just as likely to exist as a god?
even though its know it was made up by some guy?
I would say no.

Why overlook people intentionally distorting the facts to promote God, that is the exact same as putting change under the pillow for your child.

And the actions of people don't matter when weighing evidence. What you might have is evidence that the tooth fairy isn't actively collecting teeth, or the parents are beating the tooth fairy to it.

I overlook people intentionally distorting the facts to promote God because it is a pretty significant minority.
Compare this to absolutley everyone ever tricking kids into believing in the tooth fairy (Yes, I know im exaggerating there)

I just think there is a greater plausibility in something unknown than something known not to be true. (well, there are bound to be exceptions to this, but its a nice general rule)
_________________

<--Thank You karatechess
I

ed Jordan... WOOOOOOT, Thanks to lun471k for the kick-ass avitar

Smeddy24

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Posts: 1778

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:28 pm Post subject:

laupow17 wrote:

Smeddy24 wrote:

Did you read that article? I feel bad saying that, because it sounds really antagonistic, and I'm just trying to have a conversation, but seriously. Did you miss this "[Dawkins] was certainly still saying that belief in the personal God of the Bible was just like believing in fairies."? There's nothing in the article about the relative plausibilities of different mythical entities, admittedly, but this is as close as the article gets to being relevant.

Quote:

And side note, I already pointed out that Santa should be replaced with Tooth Fairy if it will make you guys feel better about picking out trivial things with my analogies. Cut the picayune crap and debate the main point. Good Lord.

The main point? Pascal's Wager? I thought it was pretty clear that it's extremely fallacious.
_________________

My YouTube show. Try it. You might like it.

ruametalhed

Joined: 18 Mar 2007
Posts: 476
Location: Chino Hills,CA

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:12 am Post subject:

i don't believe in god, but i try to be a good person. If, when i die, god does turn out to be real, then if he is all that he is made out to be(being all powerful and forgiving and blah blah) then he would reward someone for being a good person, not just for believing in him. So as i see it. If i'm wrong, and God does exist, then when i die, i will still be let into heaven for being a good person. If i'm right, then i rot in the ground.

laupow17

Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 591
Location: Tuscaloosa, AL

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:42 am Post subject:

Smeddy24 wrote:

I read the article; I'm wondering if you actually read it though. Dawkins is simply saying that God as described in the Bible isn't likely. He admits the possibility of a deistic God.

Smeddy24 wrote:

The main point? Pascal's Wager? I thought it was pretty clear that it's extremely fallacious.

It is. I meant my main point.

_________________

Slagr

Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 989
Location: IL

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:21 am Post subject:

laupow17 wrote:

I raised an eyebrow at that. You're applying car thieves to God and UFOs to the Tooth Fairy, when the more accurate comparison of the two entities would be UFOs and bigfoot.

Actually, your comparison is more against religion than anything else.
Example: there are many different species in the world.
Possibility #1) They grew to be that way through a slow process of mutations.
Possibility #2) An omnipotent entity put them there exactly as they are.

You'll note that car thieves and mutations both certainly exist, but both UFOs and God have inconclusive evidence. (This is of course made with Creationism specifically in mind, but it can be applied to all areas of religion.)

Care to consider your own scenario?
_________________

Lego Guitar
the chain mail thread
cross-console double neck - now PS2, PS3, and 360. DONE!
LED Guitar: frets, strum bar, star power

Zourtack

Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Posts: 449

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:25 am Post subject:

ruametalhed wrote:

i don't believe in god, but i try to be a good person. If, when i die, god does turn out to be real, then if he is all that he is made out to be(being all powerful and forgiving and blah blah) then he would reward someone for being a good person, not just for believing in him.
So as i see it. If i'm wrong, and God does exist, then when i die, i will still be let into heaven for being a good person. If i'm right, then i rot in the ground.

If you honestly think you are a good person, or even that your good outweighs your bad you are horribly, horribly wrong. (this goes for everyone.)

And to the people arguing about which is more likely God or the tooth fairy. Do you believe there is a chance the tooth fairy is real? Do you think the is any chance there is a God? If you don't answer no and yes then you aren't being honest.
also if you are arguing that with Santa http://www.chainreactionbicycles.com/santaclaus.htm
:P
_________________

goals:Find something funny to put here []

ferretgod

Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 276

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:43 am Post subject:

ManfredvonKarma wrote:

The other flaw with Pascal's Wager is that if we are all believing in God solely for the benefit of the afterlife, then we are avoiding the messages of the Bible. We are not to be selfish, but rather selfless. Wouldn't believing in God for selfish reasons actually be a ticket to hell?

Bingo! That's why I don't like people using it when they witness to people.

I didn't read most of the thread but here's my 2 cents on this subject. I'm a pretty devoted Christian. I've even concluded Pascal's Wager on my own before hearing him say it. However, Manfred's right. To believe in God because it's the better wager is dumb and it's not right in my eyes and most likely not God. According to the Bible we are saved by having faith and Pascals Wager says we should do it because it's a better wager which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with faith.

Plus if you start believing in God because of Pascals the question that should be asked is do you really believe or are you just saying it?

While Pascals Wager is correct, IMO, I think it's irrelevant.
_________________

I couldn't resist lulz
"I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, because America gave him the White House based on the same credentials." ~Newt Gingrich
"To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt." - Thomas Jefferson
"What was wrong with communism wasn't aberrant leadership, it was communism" - William F. Buckley, Jr.

laupow17

Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 591
Location: Tuscaloosa, AL

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:44 am Post subject:

Slagr wrote:

laupow17 wrote:

I raised an eyebrow at that. You're applying car thieves to God and UFOs to the Tooth Fairy, when the more accurate comparison of the two entities would be UFOs and bigfoot.

I absolutely agree that the UFO and Bigfoot comparison would be a better analogy for the debate we're currently having -- the God debate. My point was that lack of evidence for either scenario doesn't necessarily mean one possibility isn't more likely than the other, since that was what the poster I replied to seemed to be implying. My point still stands even if it isn't the most fitting analogy for the God debate specifically.

Slagr wrote:

Actually, your comparison is more against religion than anything else.
Example: there are many different species in the world.
Possibility #1) They grew to be that way through a slow process of mutations.
Possibility #2) An omnipotent entity put them there exactly as they are.

You'll note that car thieves and mutations both certainly exist, but both UFOs and God have inconclusive evidence. (This is of course made with Creationism specifically in mind, but it can be applied to all areas of religion.)

Care to consider your own scenario?

You assume I'm a Biblical Creationist. I'm a borderline Deist and believe in evolution.
_________________

Smeddy24

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Posts: 1778

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:48 am Post subject:

laupow17 wrote:

Smeddy24 wrote:

laupow17 wrote:

Now, the difference between Dawkins and the people arguing in this thread is, Dawkins is savvy enough to realize that the case for God is, in fact, more plausible than the case for the Tooth Fairy, even if the evidence for both is lax. (Necromac makes a good point at the beginning of his post). Dawkins at least knows not to stick to a ridiculous point (like saying that the Tooth Fairy existing is as likely as God existing) just for the sake of being an atheist.

I read the article; I'm wondering if you actually read it though. Dawkins is simply saying that God as described in the Bible isn't likely. He admits the possibility of a deistic God.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say anymore. I went back and copied your original statement when you linked the article because I want to keep that in context. You seemed to have linked it to support the claim "Dawkins is savvy enough to realize that the case for God is, in fact, more plausible than the case for the Tooth Fairy". But where in the article does it say anything of the sort? The closest it gets, again, is when he equates the believing in a Biblical God with believing in fairies. That's pretty damn near the opposite of saying God is more plausible.

To talk about your "main point" I'm going to kind of take a stab of a guess and say it's this part:

Quote:

Hypothetical situation: You, a once zealous atheist, find out there actually is a god that does exist. You don't know which one it is, but you do know there is some god that exists. What would you hedge your salvation on -- the God that the world's three major religions follow (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) or the Sun God Ra?

It got quite misinterpreted and changed over a couple of pages, but I think this is what you were referring to.
Speaking only for myself, of course.
So, one night I look up and see that the stars spell out, "Sup, Earth? I made all this shit. Pretty cool, no?" and witness events for a while which I deem evidence for the existence of at least one deity. How do I pick which one?

I don't. Yes, some deities seem more plausible than others, but, having, as an atheist, renounced deities as implausible by their nature, I'm not going to just go ahead and pick a deity because it is popular. If all I know is that there is some deity, out of all those ever worshiped on Earth, all those imaginable, how do I even begin to pick? I can assign the deity a name (rather presumptuous of a mortal, perhaps), and maybe chose some form of worship, but if all I know is that he exists, there's no way for me to chose. Could be Christ, could be Cthulu, if all I know is that it exists.

Your language reveals a bias. "What would you hedge your salvation on[?]" You're coming from a Christian or Islamic background, almost certainly if you assume this god saves or redeems. There's similar concepts found in other religions, but not with your choice of word. I ask that, if you ask atheists to consider hypothetical proposals, you not predispose the situation to result in a Christian answer. Of course if I know this deity is a redeemer I can eliminate Baphomet, Thor, and Cthulu as candidates. But even then, I have left as candidates, Christ, in some ways, Allah, and any deity I can imagine.

The more evidence I had of a deity, the more precise a form I would be able to attribute to this deity. Given only that he exists, I wouldn't even bother to make a guess.
_________________

My YouTube show. Try it. You might like it.

laupow17

Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 591
Location: Tuscaloosa, AL

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:21 pm Post subject:

Smeddy24 wrote:

I think it can be pretty much inferred that Dawkins does not believe the Tooth Fairy exists, since, well, no rational adult does. And if he is admitting even the slightest possibility of a Deistic God, then that means he automatically believes a Deistic God existing is more likely than the Tooth Fairy existing. It might not be by much, but it's definitely not equal.

As for the rest of your (quite unfounded) objection, the key phrase is Biblical God. That's what he's saying is like believing in fairies. This does not apply to Deistic God, which makes this part...

Smeddy24 wrote:

The closest it gets, again, is when he equates the believing in a Biblical God with believing in fairies. That's pretty damn near the opposite of saying God is more plausible.

MOOT!

Smeddy24 wrote:

To talk about your "main point" I'm going to kind of take a stab of a guess and say it's this part:

Quote:

If all I know is that there is some deity, out of all those ever worshiped on Earth, all those imaginable, how do I even begin to pick? I can assign the deity a name (rather presumptuous of a mortal, perhaps), and maybe chose some form of worship, but if all I know is that he exists, there's no way for me to chose. Could be Christ, could be Cthulu, if all I know is that it exists.

Your language reveals a bias. "What would you hedge your salvation on[?]" You're coming from a Christian or Islamic background, almost certainly if you assume this god saves or redeems. There's similar concepts found in other religions, but not with your choice of word. I ask that, if you ask atheists to consider hypothetical proposals, you not predispose the situation to result in a Christian answer. Of course if I know this deity is a redeemer I can eliminate Baphomet, Thor, and Cthulu as candidates. But even then, I have left as candidates, Christ, in some ways, Allah, and any deity I can imagine.

But that's not my point! I'm not even saying that the God of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims is the most likely God! I'm just saying that the choices are not all equal, so to pretend they are is a pretty ridiculous argument. Also, your argument about not all gods granting salvation is probably your strongest point, but you have to consider that if the atheist knows a god exists, it is quite likely that the atheist will consider that the god that exists could be one that grants salvation and the atheist will likely "hedge his bets" on one that does just to be safe. (This is a terrible reason to believe in God, by the way, it's basically just Pascal's Wager all over again. I've already made clear that Pascal's Wager is a very bad reason to believe in God. This is more just for the sake of disproving the point that the likelihood of any god existing is necessarily equal.)

You (rightly) admit that plausibilities aren't necessarily equal right here:

Smeddy24 wrote:

Yes, some deities seem more plausible than others, but, having, as an atheist, renounced deities as implausible by their nature, I'm not going to just go ahead and pick a deity because it is popular.

By the way, I completely agree that the atheist position defines deities in general as being implausible. But despite the fact that implausible does not mean impossible, I circumvented that by introducing a hypothetical. I created a situation in which an atheist would be compelled to pick a god, but I never said it would be easy!. But I'm still willing to bet that Ra would not be a popular choice. And despite the inductive nature of this argument, I'd pretty much be willing to be my life on it.

_________________

Matt276

Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 1242
Location: Princeton, NJ

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:08 pm Post subject:

Smeddy24 wrote:

Your language reveals a bias. "What would you hedge your salvation on[?]" You're coming from a Christian or Islamic background, almost certainly if you assume this god saves or redeems. There's similar concepts found in other religions, but not with your choice of word. I ask that, if you ask atheists to consider hypothetical proposals, you not predispose the situation to result in a Christian answer. Of course if I know this deity is a redeemer I can eliminate Baphomet, Thor, and Cthulu as candidates. But even then, I have left as candidates, Christ, in some ways, Allah, and any deity I can imagine.

The more evidence I had of a deity, the more precise a form I would be able to attribute to this deity. Given only that he exists, I wouldn't even bother to make a guess.

I really appreciate your arguments. I agree that if you decided you were absolutely sure there was a deity, but you didn't know anything else about it, then you wouldn't bother wasting your time believing in anything. I just have two questions, out of curiosity.

Why does the decision to believe in a deity have to be preceded by the decision that a deity exists? What about the possibility that there are compelling reasons to believe in a certain deity?

What "evidence" do you have that no deity exists?
_________________

200 Combined GH1/GH2/GH80's/GH3 Expert FC's! - 3/6/09
RB2 Expert Guitar FC'd! - 11/21/08
Goal: Stop wasting all my time playing GH/RB. (Done!)

kainiac

Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 551
Location: North Attleboro, MA

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:19 pm Post subject:

Matt276 wrote:

Why does the decision to believe in a deity have to be preceded by the decision that a deity exists?

So you're saying that it's reasonable to believe in something without believing it's there?

or...

It's reasonable to believe in a deity without knowing it exists?

If that is the case, how is that no different from an 8 year old on Christmas Day or a toothless kid the morning after the "Tooth Fairy" came?
_________________

Slagr

Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 989
Location: IL

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:31 pm Post subject:

laupow17 wrote:

Slagr wrote:

laupow17 wrote:

I raised an eyebrow at that. You're applying car thieves to God and UFOs to the Tooth Fairy, when the more accurate comparison of the two entities would be UFOs and bigfoot.

Alright, but it'd be more accurate to provide two possibilities with equal negative evidence and positive evidence.

Quote:

Slagr wrote:

You assume I'm a Biblical Creationist. I'm a borderline Deist and believe in evolution.

My example was made with that in mind, but not assuming anything of you. Omnipotence itself is fantastic enough to severely discredit its probability-- although the possibility, just like bigfoot, is still there.

EDIT:

Matt276 wrote:

Why does the decision to believe in a deity have to be preceded by the decision that a deity exists? What about the possibility that there are compelling reasons to believe in a certain deity?

what reasons would those be? Christian and Muslim reasons usually include burning forever, hypothetically. There is no logical reason to believe in any specific deity-- just threats, basically.

Quote:

What "evidence" do you have that no deity exists?

the fact that it is completely impossible to disprove existence.

There is an elephant sitting right next to me.

Since you can't prove me wrong, there is indeed an elephant right here, right now. Correct?
_________________

Lego Guitar
the chain mail thread
cross-console double neck - now PS2, PS3, and 360. DONE!
LED Guitar: frets, strum bar, star power

Display posts from previous:

	ScoreHero Forum Index -> General Chat	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 22, 23, 24 Next
Page 4 of 24

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum