| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/06/2007 12:28:08 AM · #926 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Well, the way I would describe myself would be an agnostic atheist. One word is about knowledge the other is about belief. A weak atheist is equivalent to an agnostic atheist. As an atheist, I don't deny gods exist, I just don't believe they do. It's a subtle difference.
|
So being a weak atheist, where do you hold the Anthropic Principle? and why do you feel more comfortable with whatever your answer than a Supreme Being?
It's seems I'm taking a poll here. I find it quite interesting. |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 09:24:12 AM · #927 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm happy to have Pascal's Ace as my hole card, but that's not the reason I believe. |
I don't see how Pascal's wager is any comfort at all - it assumes that one particular view of god(s) out of the thousands that we've come up with has any more likelihood of being remotely valid than any other. It's stated as a choice between two options, when the reality is much more diverse. |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 10:45:06 AM · #928 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm happy to have Pascal's Ace as my hole card, but that's not the reason I believe. |
I don't see how Pascal's wager is any comfort at all - it assumes that one particular view of god(s) out of the thousands that we've come up with has any more likelihood of being remotely valid than any other. It's stated as a choice between two options, when the reality is much more diverse. |
If the existence of God or gods cannot be proven, there is absolutely no logical support for your statement that "the reality is much more diverse". If there is no proof that the reality is much more diverse, then Pascal's wager is valid for those who choose to consider it. |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 11:11:14 AM · #929 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm happy to have Pascal's Ace as my hole card, but that's not the reason I believe. |
I don't see how Pascal's wager is any comfort at all - it assumes that one particular view of god(s) out of the thousands that we've come up with has any more likelihood of being remotely valid than any other. It's stated as a choice between two options, when the reality is much more diverse. |
Nearly every other major religion in the world judges each man by their works (as opposed to Christianity). While the highest levels of heaven can be reserved for the "truly faithful", the "good" people don't come out too bad. I'm counting on squeaking in by having tried to lead a pious and moral life. ;) Therefore I'm less worried if it turns out that God calls himself Allah.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 11:14:14 AM · #930 |
Originally posted by RonB:
If the existence of God or gods cannot be proven, there is absolutely no logical support for your statement that "the reality is much more diverse". If there is no proof that the reality is much more diverse, then Pascal's wager is valid for those who choose to consider it. |
Only if you assume to know the mind of your chosen god(s) though. There's nothing to say a capricious and ineffable god might provide preferential treatment to those that exercised their free will not to believe in it either. Pascal's wager at its heart appears to claim to know the intention, motivations and desires of the particular deity it is applied to - which at least in the Christian tradition isn't possible to do and at least from the biblical record appears to be quite a malleable position, as well. (the various shifts and behaviours throughout the old & new testaments for example)
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 11:37:15 AM · #931 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Well, the way I would describe myself would be an agnostic atheist. One word is about knowledge the other is about belief. A weak atheist is equivalent to an agnostic atheist. As an atheist, I don't deny gods exist, I just don't believe they do. It's a subtle difference. |
So being a weak atheist, where do you hold the Anthropic Principle? and why do you feel more comfortable with whatever your answer than a Supreme Being?
It's seems I'm taking a poll here. I find it quite interesting. |
If I understand your question correctly, I don’t worry about the Anthropic Principle because I don’t think our existence is the “goal” of the universe. Since there are likely more black holes in the universe than there have ever been people, couldn’t one conclude rather that the “goal” of the universe is the creation of black holes? In other words, the universe has been around for billions of years before we showed up and will continue for billions of years after we’re gone. I would surmise that the universe would continue spinning and expanding and contracting and emitting and fusioning and imploding and exploding just fine if we never existed. Referring back to the well-worn quote from Douglas Adams:
“. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm happy to have Pascal's Ace as my hole card, but that's not the reason I believe. |
I don't see how Pascal's wager is any comfort at all - it assumes that one particular view of god(s) out of the thousands that we've come up with has any more likelihood of being remotely valid than any other. It's stated as a choice between two options, when the reality is much more diverse. |
I also have never found Pascal’s Wager particularly compelling, even when I was still a Christian back in high school. A friend brought that argument up to me in an e-mail exchange last year and here, rather than having to create a new post, was my reply to her. (Bear in mind several instances referenced to are contextual to our earlier conversations and it’s slightly edited for personal information):
“There are several problems with what is popularly known as Pascal’s Wager. The most prominent one being that Pascal’s Wager depends on there being only two choices â€Â¦ but there aren’t only two choices.
“There are multiple choices – which god(s)(ess)(es)? What if the Aztecs were ultimately correct about Huitzilopochtli, the Muslims about Allah or the Hindus about Ganesh? What if god existed but doesn’t really care? Or even died? The Wager assumes that on the god belief side of the equation that there is a single god and this god cares about how you live your life. You see, Pascal limits the parameters (god or no god) thereby setting up a false proposition: you either believe in this one particular god or you don’t believe in any god and your fate is determined between those two choices, but there are a lot more options that the wager, in and of itself, doesn’t contemplate.
“Secondly, the Wager makes the assumption that one can choose to believe or not to believe, but, as you know with experience, you can’t choose to believe things. If anyone thinks they can, I would ask them to believe that moon is made of green cheese for five minutes (or some other not easily testable thing they don't currently believe to be true) and then choose not to believe that moon is made of green cheese. You either believe something or you don’t. You either choose to question those beliefs or you don’t and your beliefs are based on your answers to those questions and not on the will to believe or not to believe.
“Thirdly, if there is a god and you don’t believe, you’re not going to fool it by not believing but acting as if you do. If a god cares that you “believe” more than “acting like you believe”, “acting like you believe” will most likely not fool a god.
“Fourthly, if there is no god, you could end up wasting the only life you will ever have if you believe in one and follow those ultimately manmade, not the non-existent god’s, rules. It’s about intellectual integrity.”
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 11:49:12 AM · #932 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
If the existence of God or gods cannot be proven, there is absolutely no logical support for your statement that "the reality is much more diverse". If there is no proof that the reality is much more diverse, then Pascal's wager is valid for those who choose to consider it. |
Only if you assume to know the mind of your chosen god(s) though. There's nothing to say a capricious and ineffable god might provide preferential treatment to those that exercised their free will not to believe in it either. Pascal's wager at its heart appears to claim to know the intention, motivations and desires of the particular deity it is applied to - which at least in the Christian tradition isn't possible to do and at least from the biblical record appears to be quite a malleable position, as well. (the various shifts and behaviours throughout the old & new testaments for example) |
Of course Pascal's wager is an assumption, that's a fundamental aspect of all wagers. Any wager "assumes" that the odds are in favor of the one making the wager.
Pascal's wager at its heart does not appear to claim to know the intention, motivations and desires of the particular entity it is applied to - first, because Pascal's wager is not a "god or no god" wager, it is a "God ( capital G ) or no God ( capital G )" wager and therefore applies only to God, not any other "particualr entity"; and secondly, because God's intentions, motivations, and desires are extensively detailed in Scripture, therefore Pascal's wager ( an assumption by definition ) also assumes that those attributes are "known" to be true. |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 11:59:36 AM · #933 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
“Fourthly, if there is no god, you could end up wasting the only life you will ever have if you believe in one and follow those ultimately manmade, not the non-existent god’s, rules. It’s about intellectual integrity.” |
This sentence perplexes me, particularly the choice of words "you could end up wasting the only life you will ever have", and more specifically the choice of the word "wasting". I find it illuminating that you see it that way. It implies that following or at the very least striving to follow christian principles is a waste of time.
edit to add; more accurately, a waste of life.
Message edited by author 2007-12-06 12:01:46.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 12:04:23 PM · #934 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by milo655321:
“Fourthly, if there is no god, you could end up wasting the only life you will ever have if you believe in one and follow those ultimately manmade, not the non-existent god’s, rules. It’s about intellectual integrity.” |
This sentence perplexes me, particularly the choice of words "you could end up wasting the only life you will ever have", and more specifically the choice of the word "wasting". I find it illuminating that you see it that way. It implies that following or at the very least striving to follow christian principles is a waste of time. |
Is it a Christian principle to defend genocide and slavery as moral? I’ve seen Christians do that in defense of the commandments of the God of the Old Testament. I consider that a waste of time. Did you find that illuminating as well?
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 12:04:35 PM · #935 |
In case anyone's wondering, this is a translation from the French of Pascal's Wager:
If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....
..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 12:09:08 PM · #936 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Is it a Christian principle to defend genocide and slavery as moral? I’ve seen Christians do that in defense of the commandments of the God of the Old Testament. I consider that a waste of time. Did you find that illuminating as well? |
Forget the specifics; based on what you are saying, one could deduce that you believe to choose a moral code and follow it all your days is a waste of a life...
R
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 12:11:00 PM · #937 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Of course Pascal's wager is an assumption, that's a fundamental aspect of all wagers. Any wager "assumes" that the odds are in favor of the one making the wager. |
This actually isn't true. Plenty of wagers are made at even odds. People do it all the time. But that's really neither here nor there I suppose...
R.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 12:12:19 PM · #938 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by milo655321:
“Fourthly, if there is no god, you could end up wasting the only life you will ever have if you believe in one and follow those ultimately manmade, not the non-existent god’s, rules. It’s about intellectual integrity.” |
This sentence perplexes me, particularly the choice of words "you could end up wasting the only life you will ever have", and more specifically the choice of the word "wasting". I find it illuminating that you see it that way. It implies that following or at the very least striving to follow christian principles is a waste of time. |
Is it a Christian principle to defend genocide and slavery as moral? I’ve seen Christians do that in defense of the commandments of the God of the Old Testament. I consider that a waste of time. Did you find that illuminating as well? |
All of your posts are illuminating to me. Should I infer that your reply and specifically the reference to genocide and slavery are your interpretation of what Christ taught? Thus since Christ was so evil, God's existence must be denied?
edit to add: I suggest to you that you reference not christian principles, but rather actions by christians. Should you choose to read a red letter edition of the Gospels, you will discover that Christ had some very basic teachings. 1) he loved his father. 2. he believed in a brotherhood. 3. He taught compassion (as in turn the other cheek), however did not rule out anger/retribution (as in the money changers in the Temple). 4. Although he is generally portrayed as a pascifist, he certainly was clear when he told his disciple to "sell your cloak and buy a sword".
There are of course many others...he even referred to slaves and how they should be treated.
Message edited by author 2007-12-06 12:36:09.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 12:15:06 PM · #939 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
If I understand your question correctly, I don’t worry about the Anthropic Principle because I don’t think our existence is the “goal” of the universe. Since there are likely more black holes in the universe than there have ever been people, couldn’t one conclude rather that the “goal” of the universe is the creation of black holes? In other words, the universe has been around for billions of years before we showed up and will continue for billions of years after we’re gone. I would surmise that the universe would continue spinning and expanding and contracting and emitting and fusioning and imploding and exploding just fine if we never existed. |
Yes, I think you are misunderstanding the dilemma. The Principle States that most possible states of the universe would not be conductive for ANY life (not just life that looks like us). We'd have a universe without matter or a universe which collapsed way too soon or a universe with runaway inflation or a universe with ONLY black holes, etc. Instead we find a universe with complex matter which seems to be expanding at just the right rate, etc. There seem to be only a few options right now as to why that is: 1) we won some cosmic lottery of infinitesimal chance, 2) there is a multiverse outside our own which helps those chances or 3) there is a creator which helps those chances. Which of those do you choose (or do you choose a 4th) and why do you like it versus the others?
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 12:35:19 PM · #940 |
Originally posted by Flash:
|
Wow. I’m sorry, but that has “I wasn’t paying attention to what you were saying so I’ll make up a strawman of your position for you” written on it on so many levels. Think a little longer before you post next time. It’s tiresome to reply to strawmen arguments.
Originally posted by Flash:
All of your posts are illuminating to me. Should I infer that your reply and specifically the reference to genocide and slavery are your interpretation of what Christ taught? |
Is Christ equal to the God of the Old Testament? If so, are the God-commanded genocides of the Old Testament moral? If yes, are those morals the same as the morals of Christ? If yes, do Christ’s morals not justify genocide?
Originally posted by Flash:
Thus since Christ was so evil, God's existence must be denied? |
If Jesus was not a god, then his morality is independent of the existence of any gods. If he were a god, his morality could be independent for the existence of other gods. If he were the son of, and part of, the only God, God, by your post, could be evil and still exist.
Edited for grammar.
Message edited by author 2007-12-06 12:44:29. |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 12:37:06 PM · #941 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by milo655321:
“Fourthly, if there is no god, you could end up wasting the only life you will ever have if you believe in one and follow those ultimately manmade, not the non-existent god’s, rules. It’s about intellectual integrity.” |
This sentence perplexes me, particularly the choice of words "you could end up wasting the only life you will ever have", and more specifically the choice of the word "wasting". I find it illuminating that you see it that way. It implies that following or at the very least striving to follow christian principles is a waste of time.
edit to add; more accurately, a waste of life. |
Wasting in the sense that rather than develop your own moral compass to decide what is right or wrong, using your own intellect, you would unthinkingly adopt the premade rules of a nonexistent God and since that God does not exist, the rules are essentially some other person's rules. In essence wasting of your capability to decide for yourself.
Message edited by author 2007-12-06 12:38:40. |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 12:43:49 PM · #942 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Wow. I’m sorry, but that has “I wasn’t paying attention to what you were saying so I’ll make up a strawman of your position for you” written on it on so many levels. Think a little longer before you post next time. It’s tiresome to reply to strawmen arguments. |
When your position was posed as sarcasm, it was appropriate to address it with a clarification question. When I asked "Should I" you could have replied with no, then went on to clarify. Instead you continue with the sarcasm. Again, illuminating.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 12:45:34 PM · #943 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Is it a Christian principle to defend genocide and slavery as moral? I’ve seen Christians do that in defense of the commandments of the God of the Old Testament. I consider that a waste of time. Did you find that illuminating as well? |
Forget the specifics; based on what you are saying, one could deduce that you believe to choose a moral code and follow it all your days is a waste of a life...
R |
Depends upon the moral code, wouldn’t you agree?
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 12:48:47 PM · #944 |
Originally posted by Flash:
When your position was posed as sarcasm, it was appropriate to address it with a clarification question. When I asked "Should I" you could have replied with no, then went on to clarify. Instead you continue with the sarcasm. Again, illuminating. |
Again, pay attention to the subject at hand and think before posting. If you can, try replying to my actual points next time.
How's that for sarcasm? |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 12:48:59 PM · #945 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RonB:
Of course Pascal's wager is an assumption, that's a fundamental aspect of all wagers. Any wager "assumes" that the odds are in favor of the one making the wager. |
This actually isn't true. Plenty of wagers are made at even odds. People do it all the time. But that's really neither here nor there I suppose...
R. |
True. Thanks for noticing that the statement was too narrow.
Sometimes wagers are made at far worse odds than 50/50. For example: the lottery, where the odds of winning are several million to one against. Even so, the one who wagers, assumes that the odds are favorable vis-a-vis his potential gain if he wins, vs. his potential loss if he loses. Namely, he thinks it favorable to lose a little for the chance to gain a lot.
So, if I may be permitted to restate:
Any wager is made with the "assumption" ( in the mind of the one making the wager ) that either the odds or the potential gain for winning the wager is sufficient to outweigh the odds or the potential loss for losing the wager, regardless of what the stated odds or statistical probabilities are.
What do you think? Is that a more accurate statement? |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 12:50:52 PM · #946 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Is Christ equal to the God of the Old Testament? If so, are the God-commanded genocides of the Old Testament moral? If yes, are those morals the same as the morals of Christ? If yes, do Christ’s morals not justify genocide? |
I have never known Christ to be equated with the God of the old testament. That may be true, and if so, then I can see your logic. Christ as the son of God was born after the old testament. Although the Trinity teaches a 3 in 1 god that could be intrepreted as christ = OT god, my take is that God existed 1st. If christ is not = to OT god, then your argument does not hold regarding Christ's morals.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 12:54:42 PM · #947 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Is Christ equal to the God of the Old Testament? If so, are the God-commanded genocides of the Old Testament moral? If yes, are those morals the same as the morals of Christ? If yes, do Christ’s morals not justify genocide? |
I have never known Christ to be equated with the God of the old testament. That may be true, and if so, then I can see your logic. Christ as the son of God was born after the old testament. Although the Trinity teaches a 3 in 1 god that could be intrepreted as christ = OT god, my take is that God existed 1st. If christ is not = to OT god, then your argument does not hold regarding Christ's morals. |
Much better. I'll try to get back to this later. (Work has picked up.) |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 01:25:24 PM · #948 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Wasting in the sense that rather than develop your own moral compass to decide what is right or wrong, using your own intellect, you would unthinkingly adopt the premade rules of a nonexistent God and since that God does not exist, the rules are essentially some other person's rules. In essence wasting of your capability to decide for yourself. |
Is this for real? Do you feel the best thing that can be done is for each and every person to create their own moral code without input from outside sources? Even on a humanist level (ie. assuming the Judeo-Christian moral code is fabricated by man alone), wouldn't 4,000 years to tinker count for anything?
All I can see from your plan is moral chaos and the fraying of society.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 01:48:20 PM · #949 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Wasting in the sense that rather than develop your own moral compass to decide what is right or wrong, using your own intellect, you would unthinkingly adopt the premade rules of a nonexistent God and since that God does not exist, the rules are essentially some other person's rules. In essence wasting of your capability to decide for yourself. |
Is this for real? Do you feel the best thing that can be done is for each and every person to create their own moral code without input from outside sources? Even on a humanist level (ie. assuming the Judeo-Christian moral code is fabricated by man alone), wouldn't 4,000 years to tinker count for anything?
All I can see from your plan is moral chaos and the fraying of society. |
No, I just restated in different terms what  milo655321 posted.
However, I don't think that what I wrote went so far as to imply that someone develop their sense of right and wrong in a vacuum, without regarding what has gone before. I don't even think that's possible in today's world. I did suggest that someone should decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong without simply accepting what some church tells them is right or wrong, independent of their own thought.
Blind acceptance of dogma leads to people believing that that they will be divinely rewarded for strapping on an explosive vest and blowing up a school or making their kids drink the purple Kool-Aid before they themselves drink.
Do you believe that the blame for the moral chaos and fraying of society today rests on the shoulders of those who think for themselves?
Message edited by author 2007-12-06 13:50:50. |
|
|
|
12/06/2007 01:54:09 PM · #950 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Do you believe that the blame for the moral chaos and fraying of society today rests on the shoulders of those who think for themselves? |
To an equal amount as those who do not. unfortunately thinking for yourself doesn't always lead to proper answers.
Message edited by author 2007-12-06 14:00:41.
|
|
