The Wager

[Hyperqube]

There is a living organism known as "Kalkaria", on an unknown planet orbiting a never-before-seen star. The Kalkaria follow the belief that their world is ruled by a volcano, his humanoid form being called "Kod". Kod is an all powerful being. I read it in a book, called the Kible. Some Kalkaria had even said, quoting the Kible,

 

"Jennifer was very sick, almost dead. We carried her to the top of the volcano, and prayed to Kod. The next day, she began recovering. This is what truly began our journey. He has to exist. Miracles like this don't happen every day."

 

Can you disprove this statement? I have proof, a book named the Kible says this is true. And, I even have faith that it's true. There are even miracles! Those can't happen everyday, without a supernatural being, this couldn't even be possible, right? I don't want any ignorance, I want a valid, non-ignorant statement on why this couldn't happen.

 

I'm not sure I understand your point ... you're the person making the claim - so you're the one required to prove it (and no, that it's written down in a book isn't proof. refer to ... well ... any decent discussion between atheists & theist)

Inability on my account (or anyone else's account) to disprove it doesn't make your claim true - or false for that matter: lack of proof & counterproof makes it unknown.

 

The only reason why the burden of proof can be skipped in a discussion, if it's considered to be axiomatic (there is consensus that it can be assumed to be true in the context of the discussion).

 

Oppositely, if one can prove that one explenation lies quite close to the axioms, while another explenation lies very far, one could invoke occams razor arguing that the close explenation is more likely. However, the problem with this method is the first there needs to be a true concensus, not two camps trying to argue that the consensus should be (close to) their point - because the latter is not trying to find the explenation with the least assumptions, it's trying to shift the burden of proof.

 

[Heated Bread]

relevant:

 

 

also, to summarize my own position in a tl;dr -

 

Reserving judgement is preferable, but when comparing

 

1) Belief in:  something which is not evidently true

 

vs.

 

2) Belief that: something which is not evidently true, is in fact, not true

 

Belief number 2 is superior in judgement to number 1, regardless of which one reflects reality, especially considering that number 1 represents gullibility.

[Hyperqube]

Seriously?  I'm currently at 2:24 of that movie and I'm pretty much blown away:

 

their VERY FIRST ASSUMPTION at 2:24 is that  something happened, there's a bigger chance of their being evidence of it then their isn't

 

 

Wanna bet that with that assumption ... you can conclude that the absence of evidence IS (at least to some degree) evidence of absence?

 

OF COURSE. it's called CIRCULAR REASONING.

 

 

*watched the movie till the end ... oh, surprised I was wit their conclusion ... not*
 

 

 

Wanna have some real math? Here's some real math.

• let P(E) be the chance that there exists evidence proving chritianity or islam or hindusim or ... (basically all the typical  religions, where gods have supposedly have some evidence, like Jesus, or ... you know, whatever.). Doesn't matter if it's found or not, just 'exists'. At some point in time.
  0 < P(E) < 1
  as it proves this god, P(E) equals the chance a god exists that has provided evidence.for it. Lets call that this a nondeistic god .
  P(a nondeistic god) = P(E)
• P(-E) = 1-P(E) is the chance that there exists no proof whatsover.
• A deisic god (a god without any evidence), by definition, is indesinguisable from no god.
  By the principle of indifference that gives them equal odds
  P(no god) = P(deistic god) = P(-E)/2
• Chance there's no god
  0 < P(E)
  1 > 1-P(E) = P(-E)
  P(no god) < 1/2
• Likewise, the chance there is a god
  P(a deistic god or a nondeistic god) > 1/2

From an evidence based logic, Mathematically: In the worst case senario for nondeistic gods, the god question is still 50-50 (between no god & a deistic one). In anything but the worst case senario ( with P(E) > 0 ), odds are in favor of theism over atheism.
 

[Heated Bread]

Seriously?  I'm currently at 2:24 of that movie and I'm pretty much blown away:

 

their VERY FIRST ASSUMPTION at 2:24 is that  something happened, there's a bigger chance of their being evidence of it then their isn't

 

 

Wanna bet that with that assumption ... you can conclude that the absence of evidence IS (at least to some degree) evidence of absence?

 

OF COURSE. it's called CIRCULAR REASONING.

 

 

*watched the movie till the end ... oh, surprised I was wit their conclusion ... not*

 

So are we to believe that any premise(s) that strongly favors the conclusion is/are circular?  I guess we can dismiss any strong logical proof by that criteria!  Nice try though, using the strength of the proof against it.  That's like a troll judo move.   Too bad it won't fool anyone if they have half a brain. 

 

Wanna have some real math? Here's some real math.

• let P(E) be the chance that there exists evidence proving chritianity or islam or hindusim or ... (basically all the typical  religions, where gods have supposedly have some evidence, like Jesus, or ... you know, whatever.). Doesn't matter if it's found or not, just 'exists'. At some point in time.

  0 < P(E) < 1

  as it proves this god, P(E) equals the chance a god exists that has provided evidence.for it. Lets call that this a nondeistic god .

  P(a nondeistic god) = P(E)

• P(-E) = 1-P(E) is the chance that there exists no proof whatsover.
• A deisic god (a god without any evidence), by definition, is indesinguisable from no god.

  By the principle of indifference that gives them equal odds

  P(no god) = P(deistic god) = P(-E)/2

• Chance there's no god

  0 < P(E)

  1 > 1-P(E) = P(-E)

  P(no god) < 1/2

• Likewise, the chance there is a god

  P(a deistic god or a nondeistic god) > 1/2

From an evidence based logic, Mathematically: In the worst case senario for nondeistic gods, the god question is still 50-50 (between no god & a deistic one). In anything but the worst case senario ( with P(E) > 0 ), odds are in favor of theism over atheism.

 

 

Since a deistic god is, as you say, indistinguishable from there being no god(s) at all, it is effectively pointless to raise it.  Applying occam's razor, we can dismiss it, since there's nothing useful about including it in any model, and there's no reason to go looking for evidence for it in the first place.  It rests precisely on the same level as any other random unfalsifiable assertion that any lunatic could pull out of their ass at any given moment.

 

You also failed to account for the possibility of the existence of evidence(s) proving there is no god.  It would also have to be greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to one.  In effect, completely unknown, put on equal footing with evidence for god(s), as you like.  Not that it even matters.  You called it evidence based logic, but in reality there is no point at all in including the word "evidence", since you immediately equate it to non-desitic gods.  You may as well have just said "the possibility of a god which is non-desitic is greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to one", and skipped the first bit entirely.  There was literally no point in including it.  Likewise, you could also say that "the possibility of a god which is deistic is greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to one", and "the possibility no gods existing is greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to one".  But doing this reveals the problem.  Making the distinction between deistic and non-deistic gods is pointless.  They're all gods, and either they exist or they don't, whether they left evidence of it or not.  Without any evidence, they're all equally likely.  Except for the ones which have already been ruled out, of course.

 

And here we have encountered one of the biggest nails in the coffin of religions.  If they are in constant retreat from evidential inquiry such that they must reform their assertions to become unfalsifiable, the truth of their assertions have reached the status of being indistinguishable from the untruth of those same assertions.  So we can safely swipe them clean from the table.  They have become irrelevant.

[Hyperqube]

> So are we to believe that any premise(s) that strongly favors the conclusion is/are circular? 

> Too bad it won't fool anyone if they have half a brain.

 

Except, using assumptions that (strongly) favors the conclusion is a fallacy. Complain about it won't chance that.

 

 

 

> Since a deistic god is, as you say, indistinguishable from there being no god(s) at all, it is effectively pointless to raise it.

No, because the god question doesn't care if a god has evidence or not. Only wether or not a god exist.

To ignore the possibility that a god exist who doesn't leave evidence, would not be looking at all options. By that reasoning, rolling a die has a 1/5 chance on landing on a '1' ... because I'm ignoring the option that it could land on a '6'.

> Applying occam's razor,

 

 

You're gonna apply occam's razor to math ??? Occam's razor doesn't exist in calculating probability - because it's a tool to select an explenation out of ones who are equally possible (namely the one with the least assumptions), it doesn't alter the probability

 

> You also failed to account for the possibility of the existence of evidence(s) proving there is no god.

 

I didn't fail to take that into account: I did so when pointing out that the two are indistinquishable

You seel to be forgetting that an omnipotent entitiy that wants to make it look like it isn't there, will create the same evidence that proves there's no god (an easy task, by nature of omnipotence).

 

On that note: in fact, my logic also takes into account a trickster god - who creates evidence that another god exists (again, an easy task, by nature of omnipotence).* Once evidence exists, there's a god, it doesn't matter if it's of the actual actual god, or the trickster god. just a god.

*: soo, you proven Jesus/Ark of Noah/... exists? How do you know it's not Loki playing a trick on you? Omnipotent as gods are, he could ...

 

 

> And here we have encountered one of the biggest nails in the coffin of religions.

 

Perhaps, but I make no assumptions on the probability on them, other then 0 < P < 1. It matters not if P ~ 0 or P ~ 1.

[Heated Bread]

You apparently missed, or chose to miss, that I just ripped your shit apart.  Without evidence in the first place, there is no reason to prefer one type of god over another, making the distinction between deistic and non-deistic gods irrelevant. You're going to have to come up with something better.  Or make a new account, since I'm done responding to this one.  It's pretty obvious to me at this point by watching your posts that you're just doing this for shits and giggles.  Either that or you're really thick.  Either way, I'm done.

 

Peace.

[Hyperqube]

> You apparently missed, or chose to miss, that I just ripped your shit apart. 

> Without evidence in the first place, there is no reason to prefer one type of god over anothe

 

This is called setting up a strawman: what you rippad apart was NOT my argument - but what you incorrectly presume is my argument.

 

All I did was make a mathematical analysis. You simply can't respond to a statistical analysis with "but you should use non-statistical tools (as occams razor) to conclude X"

[Heated Bread]

> You apparently missed, or chose to miss, that I just ripped your shit apart. 

> Without evidence in the first place, there is no reason to prefer one type of god over anothe

 

This is called setting up a strawman: what you rippad apart was NOT my argument - but what you incorrectly presume is my argument.

 

All I did was make a mathematical analysis. You simply can't respond to a statistical analysis with "but you should use non-statistical tools (as occams razor) to conclude X"

 

You've tried this trick before already.  When in response to a direct quote from you, I showed you were mistaken in equating beliefs, your response was to claim you weren't talking about that when it was clear that you were, and you then tried to accuse me of misrepresenting you instead of acknowledging that even if I were misrepresenting you, my point was still valid by itself, and instead you chose to say I was wrong because I wasn't arguing the correct point.

 

All I've done here is shown that what you've done was pointless in the absence of evidence, while you simultaneously called it evidence based logic.  Flawed from the begining, especially since you have literally no reason to make the distinction you're making between types of gods.  You want to apply the principle of indiference in one way, but fail to apply it in another.  Why?  Because there might be evidence, which you have not supplied.  The very least you can say is that deistic gods leave no evidence while non-deistic gods might.  You cannot get from there to saying that one type is more likely than the other, or that gods are more likely than no gods without any such evidence.  Until such time as there is evidence, they are indistingushable.  And you can complain about occam's razor all you like, but that doesn't make it go away.  It's a matter of practicality, a thing which any position on the matter by itself is lacking.  But even if we drop occam's razor, you've still got the problem of evidence.  So trying misdirection will solve nothing for you.

 

You might be clever in some ways, but you're not at all wise.  The argument is flawed.  But you won't admit error when it is pointed out and explained to you, instead choosing to blame others for not understanding you.  This is one of the reasons why I think you don't deserve to be humored.  A respectable honest person makes an effort to take responsibility when they have been wrong instead of trying to blame others, as I have done and will continue to do in the future.

[Hyperqube]

> I showed you were mistaken in equating beliefs,

 

No, you did not. You presented an argument why one could consider one over the other. (occams razor, the uselessness of a deity who doesn't intervene, ...)

However, this is a statistical analysis. Chosing one over the other isn't math, it isn't statistics.

 

Like this:

 

> All I've done here is shown that what you've done was pointless in the absence of evidence

 

'pointless' doesn't exist in math (well, not in the sense you mean, as math has infinitely small objects called points). in statistics, in the abscence of any evidence, the principle of indifference jumps in.

 

 

> Because there might be evidence, which you have not supplied

 

Where there can be evidence, I have not applied the POI, but P(evidence) & 1-P(evidence). Where you said "what about evidence that there is no god" - I've proven by means of proof by contradiction - such a thing can not exist. (by nature of omnipotence, evidence that god doesn't exist can be created by god)

 

You might not like the fact that gods can be omniponent - but you can't go just exclude that from your logic. Or esle you don't have a statisitcal analysis of the existance of a god, but the existance of a non-omnipotent god.

 

 

> And you can complain about occam's razor all you like, but that doesn't make it go away.  It's a matter of practicality, a thing which any position on the matter by itself is lacking

 

The mathematical idea behind occams razor is that if you assume something to be true, you introduce a margin of error. Except, I don't do that: if there's an assumption in there (like the existance of evidence) , I multiply it by it's chance - which is an unknown variable, yes, but not something I assume to be true.

 

 

 

> The argument is flawed.  But you won't admit error when it is pointed out and explained to you,

 

You have said so - but you've not presented an explaination

• Why should I exclude a non-intervening god? a non-intervening god still is a god, and thus should belong in the statisitcal analysis
• Why should I use occams rasor, in the middle of a statistical analysis, while occams rasor itself admits that it doesn't alter probability.

 

---------------

 

Edit: then again, maybe I did  make an error. I accidently did use occams razor: In pointing out that evidence can't exist of no god ... I wonder if I shouldn't be multiplying with the change I'm calculating (if R is the result we calculate - the chance of a god)

 

instead of pointing out that evidence of a god can be faked by a omnipotent being, I should be splitting it up in 2 senarios (one with chance R and one with chance 1-R).

- if there's a god (chance R), then such evidence is faked, and thus not actual evidence.

- if there's no god (chance 1-R), there's no omnipotent being to fake it, making it actual evidence.

P(actual evidence of no god) = P(evidence of no god) * (1-R)

Obviously , during a calculation of R, I can't presume R = 0.5

 

hmmm... *pondering*

 

 

[ThatOtherChigga #Mack]

I don't think that NOT believing in God will lead to hell. There are plenty of good people who (I'm sure) have gone to heaven without believing in God. But they do that which manifests love, and if God is Love, then they have lived a life worthy of Heaven.

Same for me, basically "obey your conscience" - Pope Francis 

 

The "Wager" situation is used by a lot of people to convert others: the fear of hell. But to me, if someone believes in God because they fear death or possible hell, it's not really knowing God and it's not what being a Christian means (kinda hard to explain). 

 

And is this Pascal the same one as Pascal's Triangle?

[Hyperqube]

Same for me, basically "obey your conscience" - Pope Francis 

 

The "Wager" situation is used by a lot of people to convert others: the fear of hell. But to me, if someone believes in God because they fear death or possible hell, it's not really knowing God and it's not what being a Christian means (kinda hard to explain). 

 

And is this Pascal the same one as Pascal's Triangle?

 

Yes: he was mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and Christian philosopher.

[oli.t678]

I don't think It would be a completly safe bet to start believeing in God when there is no evedience for its existance, unlike the scenario you proposed with the medicen, I would lose a lot for believeing in God that potentially not exist. For example, I would lose 10% of my income, few hour every Sunday and such.

[l Lexan l]

So basically you're saying believing in God is a fail-safe, you could believe and God is real, get eternal life, or if God isn't, no harm?

[Hyperqube]

So basically you're saying believing in God is a fail-safe, you could believe and God is real, get eternal life, or if God isn't, no harm?

 

That's the gest of pascals wager: Even a small chance of infinite bliss still beating a large chance of nothingness

[♛ AlphaOmega ♛]

So basically you're saying believing in God is a fail-safe, you could believe and God is real, get eternal life, or if God isn't, no harm?

 

That's the gest of pascals wager: Even a small chance of infinite bliss still beating a large chance of nothingness

 

Do remember though that this "theory" appeals to the lowest levels of a person's values: Pure survival. It is the mere idea that wouldn't you rather bet on eternal happiness and live your life like it will happen if you are a good person or bet the other way and you have denied God? 

 

I don't deny that there isn't a scare tactic there, but again, it only applies to a low value. What does this mean? It means that if you take other things into consideration, such as the fact that you are a hardcore atheist who truly does not believe in heaven or hell or God, then there is little point to be made here. However, if you are an agnostic or someone who is bordering on yes or no, this is something that MAY be considered. Again, it all has to do with the mindset: Typically that of someone who is teetering on yes/no but has not committed to either side really. 

 

For me for instance: I believe in God and eternal life. The flip side of the wager (That it doesn't exist) Doesnt matter to me because my values rank above that about just simple survival: I know, even if it is only to myself, that there is heaven and a God. On the other hand, there is an atheist: There is no God and no eternal life. The side of the wager (that he does exist) doesnt matter to them because their values rank above that of just simple survival: They know, even if it is only to themselves, that there is no God and no heaven. 

 

However, let's take an agnostic. They know /think that a God exists, but they have not committed to either belief of whether or not he does exist. For them, they must discover which side is the truth. However, if you play the "wager" card, this puts them in a position that gives them a sense of "survival": There is something after death. Meanwhile, if an atheist were to try to persuade him, all he has at his disposal are the same old questions: Where is the proof? Why gamble your future on something that has absolutely no substance?

 

But that is what the gamble is: wouldn't it be better to just bet on the better thing, even if it may not be real? 

[Hyperqube]

> then there is little point to be made here

 

yes, of course. any argument is useless for those who're not open to consider it.

 

> But that is what the gamble is: wouldn't it be better to just bet on the better thing, even if it may not be real?

 

In a nutshell yes.

 

 

 

But, I think I've found a practical example of how Pascal's wager is wrong (it's pretty black & white, so appoligies for any polliticall incorrect statements):

• Suppose Pascals wager is used to recruit atheists into becomming an ISIS terrorist:
  Better to bet on a chance of heaven & 72 virgins, then to bet on nothing, right?
• yet, pope Francis (of the Roman Catholic Church) wrote that even atheists would get into heaven, if they've lived by their conciousness.
  (while, one can assume that an ISIS terrorist doesn't get into Catholic Church's heaven)

Pascals wager (in regards to ISIS & the RCC) wouldn't be

- heaven if the presented option was correct,
- nothing if they were wrong

but

- heaven if the presented option was correct,
- hell if the presented option was incorrect, while and other option was correct
- nothing if they were wrong

[Heated Bread]

Here's a rather long talk that covers the equivalence principle, and the related fallacy called "distinction without a difference", and also has a bit of occam's razor thrown into the mix:

 

 

tl;dw version of this hour+ long talk - if you propose something which is supposedly different, but in a way that is currently unverifiable/unmeasurable/undetectable/etc (ex: a god exists as opposed to no god exists), there's literally no point in assuming it.  Applying occam's razor, we can dismiss the unnecessary assumption altogether, since there's no need to factor it into anything and doing so accomplishes nothing (it's pointless to assume that a god exists).

 

I want to also include an analogy I posted in another recent thread:

 

Well, since we don't know for sure whether there is bacon on the opposite side of the galaxy, we should all give it some serious thought.  Because after all, you can't prove there's no bacon there, even though we don't have any evidence to suggest that there is.  And we don't know for sure whether there might be some point that we are replaced by an identical copy of ourselves and whisked away to the other side of the galaxy through a wormhole and asked by aliens whether we believe in the existence of the bacon, and if we say yes, we can live happily and eat the bacon, but if we say no, they send us to a prison orbiting a black hole.  We don't know.  You can't disprove it.  So we should all think seriously about whether we believe in the bacon.  A lot could be riding on it.  It might be there and our belief in it might be critical.  You can't say for sure whether it is or isn't there.

 

If there is a god, it would likely be smart enough to understand this problem and then shouldn't reasonably expect intelligent people to believe in it.  If there is a god and it wasn't smart enough to figure this out, why would it be worthy of worship in the first place?

[mlyn148]

Personally, I don't believe someone who takes Pascal's Wager is someone who believes in God. I believe that person is just saying that they believe in God, because if they do, then they think they have nothing to lose.

 

Also for those who believe that God punishes those who don't believe in him;

 

There are many different ways to think about it, such as this: If you don't believe God exists, then why would you want to spend an eternity with Him, since that's a large part of what Heaven is about? Some people who claim not to believe in Him, even seem rather spiteful to what they deem His concept.

 

Heaven/Salvation is deemed mostly as a friendship with God. God loves you, and you love Him. However, if you spat in His face on Earth, why should He let you into Heaven?

[mlyn148]

Here's a rather long talk that covers the equivalence principle, and the related fallacy called "distinction without a difference", and also has a bit of occam's razor thrown into the mix:

 

 

tl;dw version of this hour+ long talk - if you propose something which is supposedly different, but in a way that is currently unverifiable/unmeasurable/undetectable/etc (ex: a god exists as opposed to no god exists), there's literally no point in assuming it.  Applying occam's razor, we can dismiss the unnecessary assumption altogether, since there's no need to factor it into anything and doing so accomplishes nothing (it's pointless to assume that a god exists).

 

I want to also include an analogy I posted in another recent thread:

 

 

If there is a god, it would likely be smart enough to understand this problem and then shouldn't reasonably expect intelligent people to believe in it.  If there is a god and it wasn't smart enough to figure this out, why would it be worthy of worship in the first place?

It really isn't a matter of "intelligent people are smart enough not to have faith".

 

You're missing the bigger picture. You still want God to prove Himself to you. That's not how it works. You prove yourself to Him, and in return you are granted eternal life with Him (and others that believed in Him/the ones you care about most? Besides the first part it's still somewhat of an abstract concept to me).

 

also sorry for the double post am forum noob

[Hyperqube]

tl;dw version of this hour+ long talk - if you propose something which is supposedly different, but in a way that is currently unverifiable/unmeasurable/undetectable/etc (ex: a god exists as opposed to no god exists), there's literally no point in assuming it.  Applying occam's razor, we can dismiss the unnecessary assumption altogether, since there's no need to factor it into anything and doing so accomplishes nothing (it's pointless to assume that a god exists).

Except, that's not the point. Pascal's wager doesn't discuss the ability to prove/detect/measure god - it discusses the consequences of deciding either way.

 

It's like a hazmat suit in the case that it's worn preemptively: It's not because airborn disease carrying pategens are "currently unverifiable/unmeasurable/undetectable/etc" (to use your words) that they are just dismissed. This is because of the the harsh consequence in the future if they are such germs. That's why it's still decided to wear them until proven one way or the other.

 

 

In fact, Pascal doesn't care about equivalence: In case of inequality, even a small chance of infinite bliss still beats a large chance of nothingness

 

[Heated Bread]

Except, that's not the point. Pascal's wager doesn't discuss the ability to prove/detect/measure god - it discusses the consequences of deciding either way.

 

It's like a hazmat suit in the case that it's worn preemptively: It's not because airborn disease carrying pategens are "currently unverifiable/unmeasurable/undetectable/etc" (to use your words) that they are just dismissed. This is because of the the harsh consequence in the future if they are such germs. That's why it's still decided to wear them until proven one way or the other.

 

 

In fact, Pascal doesn't care about equivalence: In case of inequality, even a small chance of infinite bliss still beats a large chance of nothingness

 

Congratulations on foolishly asserting without proof that your odds increase by adopting belief while ignoring the false dichotomy fallacy present in pascal's wager, even though it's been mentioned multiple times in this thread already.

 

Allow me to propose another scenario which hasn't been discussed yet: god exists, but will award eternal torment to all who accept the existence of god in the hope of gaining pleasure and/or avoiding pain.  Perhaps god has even set up the universe the way it is specifically to eliminate the fools which believe in things that cannot be demonstrated, and reward those who do not.

 

This game of hypotheticals can be played ad nauseum.  What if the bacon scenario I proposed is true?  You can't disprove that.  Or what if it's true with the slight variation proposed above: those who do believe in it for the sake of benefiting themselves will not be rewarded.

 

We can even see that with the concept of jealous gods, there exists the hypothetical possibility that by selecting belief in one god, you may risk punishment from a god that is displeased with your choice.

 

Your chances of benefiting don't appear to increase at all by adopting one of countless arbitrary hypothetical gods when you consider that adopting one may be just as bad or worse than adopting none. 

 

It's all nothing more than a childish game of "what if?", something most people grow out of at an early age, probably right around the time that they realize people around them don't seem to care.

 

Anyway, you better start believing in the bacon on the other side of the galaxy I mentioned in the quote from my last post.  If you do, your chances of being rewarded might be higher!  Then again, they might be lower or exactly the same in all cases.  Who can say!

 

[mlyn148]

Congratulations on foolishly asserting without proof that your odds increase by adopting belief while ignoring the false dichotomy fallacy present in pascal's wager, even though it's been mentioned multiple times in this thread.

 

Allow me to propose another scenario which hasn't been discussed yet: god exists, but will award eternal torment to all who accept the existence of god in the hope of gaining pleasure and/or avoiding pain.  Perhaps god has even set up the universe the way it is specifically to eliminate the fools which believe in things that cannot be demonstrated, and reward those who do not.

 

This game of hypotheticals can be played ad nauseum.  What if the bacon scenario I proposed is true?  You can't disprove that.  Or what if it's true with the slight variation proposed above: those who do believe in it for the sake of benefiting themselves will not be rewarded.

 

We can even see that with the concept of jealous gods, there exists the hypothetical possibility that by selecting belief in one god, you may risk punishment from a god that is displeased with your choice.

 

Your chances of benefiting don't appear to increase at all by adopting one of countless arbitrary hypothetical gods when you consider that adopting one may be just as bad or worse than adopting none. 

 

It's all nothing more than a childish game of "what if?", something most people grow out of at an early age, probably right around the time that they realize people around them don't seem to care.

 

Anyway, you better start believing in the bacon on the other side of the galaxy I mentioned in the quote from my last post.  If you do, your chances of being rewarded might be higher!  Then again, they might be lower or exactly the same in all cases.

 

Congratulations on editing the part out of your post where you called religious people "gullible morons" (albeit sarcastically).

[Heated Bread]

Congratulations on editing the part out of your post where you called religious people "gullible morons" (albeit sarcastically).

 

Good day, don't know why I expected a little bit more mature discussion and a little bit less hostility for an extremely stupid reason.

Ergo, I don't have the tunnel vision required to see someone who, for example, believes that human civilization could not survive a nuclear war, while I believe the opposite, as a belligerent idiot.

 

Just like religion, we can only find out when such an event occurs.  

Maybe you'll get mad at me, assume I'm an idiot which you've no doubt already done, and stop replying to my posts? Who knows. 

 

If you believe in a thing without proof, that's being gullible.  Go look up what gullible means.  It means you're easily persuaded.  Not requiring proof makes you pretty easy to convince.  Faith may as well be synonymous with gullibility. 

 

This is the first time I think I've replied to you.  I ignored you earlier because what you said was... not really worth replying to in my opinion.  It's fairly easy to see that your thinking is flawed.  It would be like if you said my stuffed animal was secretly alive, but it wasn't up to it or anyone else to prove that to me, it's up to me to prove myself to the stuffed animal.  It completely ignores the burden of proof, isn't actually an argument for anything, and advocates superstitious behavior without providing reasonable grounds for it. 

 

Sorry if your feelings are hurt.  But at least you can admit that you don't know or not whether a given religion is true.  That's something I can respect.

[Hyperqube]

Congratulations on foolishly asserting without proof that your odds increase by adopting belief while ignoring the false dichotomy fallacy present in pascal's wager, even though it's been mentioned multiple times in this thread already.

I don't assert that. Pascal does (and he doesn't even asserts it, just assumes it)

 

Pascal works on the logic that if an action has a small chance on an infinite reward, and not doing the action doesn't grant a reward, it's still beneficial to do the action.

 

Arguing that action is something silly like "believing in a non-existant thing"... that doesn't chance the logic. it's is still there: if a silly action has a small chance on an infinite reward, and not doing the action doesn't grant a reward, it's still beneficial to do the action.

 

If god doesn't exist, but believing in him does get you into heaven ... that still is the optimal path.

 

The problem is not the existance of god, but the fact that pascal ignores the down side

 

if an action has a small chance on an infinite reward, and not doing the action doesn't grant a reward, it's still beneficial to do the action ... that true.

but if an action has a chance on an infinite reward, or a chance on an infinite negative award - and not doing the action doesn't grant a reward, it's no longer always beneficial.

 

Allow me to propose another scenario which hasn't been discussed yet: god exists, but will award eternal torment to all who accept the existence of god in the hope of gaining pleasure and/or avoiding pain.

 

Refer to post 62. it's not the exact same senario you point out, but this already HAS been adressed. Byt yours truely

 

[Hyperqube]

If you believe in a thing without proof, that's being gullible.  Go look up what gullible means.  It means you're easily persuaded.

 

Gullible

• easily taken in or tricked
• easily deceived or cheated; naive; credulous.
• A derivative of archaic gull, "dupe" or "simpleton."
• naive and easily deceived or tricked
• easily tricked because of being too trusting
• easily tricked or fooled.

If there was proof - there wouldn't be belief - but knowing. Believing is what you do when proof is abscent.