Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-10-2013, 01:12 AM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2013 03:28 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(11-10-2013 11:18 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I mentioned Pangea for clarity so you'd know I understood the waters as referring to encircling ocean and not something else. I disagree with certain aspects of plate techtonic theory as you know.

Except that's not how it's presented in Hebrew, you're reading a modern interprtation into the story instead of a plain reading of what the texts actually say.


(11-10-2013 11:18 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  We're discussing slavery and indentured service elsewhere. Both testaments clearly elevated the roles of women, not demeaning them. Females were judges leading Israel. Jesus had young leaders and female leaders in an era where both were second-class citizens worldwide.

And you were wrong in that thread too.


(11-10-2013 11:18 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The Bible further mentions dinosaurs and agrees with Evolutionists in that animals may evolve new species after their type or family. There is some disagreement there, yes.

There has never been a definitive solid definition for 'kind', and even then, the Bible makes really odd gaffes like categorizing bats as birds and whales as fish. The Bible does not say 'oh yeah, 65 million years ago there where giant ancestors of birds known as X and they ruled the Earth, but they were shit so fuck em'.


(11-10-2013 11:18 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  ...And yes, always bear in mind, the Bible is written for the heart and mind.


Ah yes, when it's full of shit, it's now 'metaphorical' or 'allegorical' whenever it clashes with observable reality. Funny how the most holy of instruction manuals is so open to wildly divergent interpretations. If school text books were written this poorly, we'd have dozens of different sects of Algebra or Chemistry, instead of the one that just fucking works...

Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
12-10-2013, 02:24 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(12-10-2013 01:04 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Pascal's Wager places your bet of Christianity against all other religions of the past, present, and all possible religions of the future or of the imagination. That is your wager, 1 against infinity.

Ready to place your bet? Drinking Beverage

So if you are a Christian should you switch to another religion/atheism or just keep the belief system you got? Future religions and those of the imagination can be ignored because they don't exist....so betting on them would be like betting on an eight coming up when a standard 6 sided die is rolled.

I say stay the same because by switching there are more ways you can land in hell then if you stay the same.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 03:27 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(12-10-2013 02:24 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  So if you are a Christian should you switch to another religion/atheism or just keep the belief system you got? Future religions and those of the imagination can be ignored because they don't exist....so betting on them would be like betting on an eight coming up when a standard 6 sided die is rolled.

I say stay the same because by switching there are more ways you can land in hell then if you stay the same.

Could pre-Christians place their bet on Christianity? Now do you see how stupid your point is?

The only sane option is to not bet at all, to not play the game, to await better odds. That would be agnostic atheism, methodological naturalism, and rational skepticism. Await sound evidence and reasoning before placing your bet. If it happens there is some 'higher power' that will judge us after we die, if he/she/it/they are smart enough to have created our universe, hopefully he/she/it/they would value intellectual honesty over a mercenary fire insurance policy.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
12-10-2013, 03:40 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(12-10-2013 03:27 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Could pre-Christians place their bet on Christianity? Now do you see how stupid your point is?

The only sane option is to not bet at all, to not play the game, to await better odds. That would be agnostic atheism, methodological naturalism, and rational skepticism. Await sound evidence and reasoning before placing your bet. If it happens there is some 'higher power' that will judge us after we die, if he/she/it/they are smart enough to have created our universe, hopefully he/she/it/they would value intellectual honesty over a mercenary fire insurance policy.

Yeah but Pascal was already a Christian when he considered the wager. He was already in the game and didn't have the option of not playing it. Do you see how asinine your point is? If it happens there is some higher power that will judge us after we die, if he/she/it/they are smart enough to have created our universe, hopefully he/she/it/they would value loyalty to ones beliefs/clan/tribe/etc.

My point, in order to evaluate Pascals wager correctly. You have to look at it from Pascal's position. Looking at it from another position is just a waste of time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 03:48 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(12-10-2013 03:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  My point, in order to evaluate Pascals wager correctly. You have to look at it from Pascal's position. Looking at it from another position is just a waste of time.

The problem is that Pascal's viewpoint is far too narrow to encompass all possibilities, and stems from his own theistic bias. His wager is only somewhat tenable if one assumes a false dichotomy of atheism and Christianity. His wager (and the probabilities) start to fall apart when you add in all of the religions of the past that were believed in, all of his contemporary religions, and all of the possible religions of the future (because nobody knows for sure if humanity has ever had the 'one true' religion or if it has yet to be devised). These are your real odds, 1 against infinity. Feel free to take that bet, while I step away from the infinite roulette wheel.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 03:49 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(11-10-2013 11:50 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(10-10-2013 08:21 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  The simplest possibility is that our reality is the prime one, so that is a reasonable conservative hypothesis to operate from in the mean time. Both alternatives are more complex, and if you start throwing a god in there as well then you are in my view in profoundly unfounded territory.

I think that used to be true, but isn't true anymore. In recent years the universe has shown itself to be just too fine tuned for that to be the case. Its just too much of a stretch to think that things like the cosmological constant or tri-alpha process are what they are simply because that is what is required for this universe to exist. Why should we be so lucky? The simplest explanation is that we aren't lucky. The simplest explanation is that our universe exists because it is inevitable that it exists.

The multiverse make our universe inevitable and God makes our universe inevitable. I'd put my money on those two explanations rather than some claim that our reality is the prime reality. Prime reality requires a google of luck or a completely unsupported assumption that the physical laws have to be what they are because of some unknown/unexplained reason.

I put my money on the answer "We don't know, yet." All is currently hypotheses and we don't yet have enough evidence.

The "Why should we be so lucky?" question is simply the anthropic principle cast as a question. It assumes that we 'should' be here. We do not know whether the universe could be different, we certainly have no evidence that it could be. That one can vary a mathematical model of reality says nothing about reality.

The god argument is the weakest of the lot as it has no evidence to support it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
12-10-2013, 04:45 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(12-10-2013 03:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(12-10-2013 03:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  My point, in order to evaluate Pascals wager correctly. You have to look at it from Pascal's position. Looking at it from another position is just a waste of time.

The problem is that Pascal's viewpoint is far too narrow to encompass all possibilities, and stems from his own theistic bias. His wager is only somewhat tenable if one assumes a false dichotomy of atheism and Christianity. His wager (and the probabilities) start to fall apart when you add in all of the religions of the past that were believed in, all of his contemporary religions, and all of the possible religions of the future (because nobody knows for sure if humanity has ever had the 'one true' religion or if it has yet to be devised). These are your real odds, 1 against infinity. Feel free to take that bet, while I step away from the infinite roulette wheel.

The problem with your thinking is you want to give future and imaginary religions the same weight as Pascal's own religion or the other belief systems available to him. For all you know, Pascal could drop dead before any future or imaginary religions come into existence. The world could end before any future or imaginary religions come into existence. Because those religions don't exist and might never exists, they don't have the same potential to be the true belief system as those which do in fact exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 05:01 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(12-10-2013 03:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 11:50 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I think that used to be true, but isn't true anymore. In recent years the universe has shown itself to be just too fine tuned for that to be the case. Its just too much of a stretch to think that things like the cosmological constant or tri-alpha process are what they are simply because that is what is required for this universe to exist. Why should we be so lucky? The simplest explanation is that we aren't lucky. The simplest explanation is that our universe exists because it is inevitable that it exists.

The multiverse make our universe inevitable and God makes our universe inevitable. I'd put my money on those two explanations rather than some claim that our reality is the prime reality. Prime reality requires a google of luck or a completely unsupported assumption that the physical laws have to be what they are because of some unknown/unexplained reason.

I put my money on the answer "We don't know, yet." All is currently hypotheses and we don't yet have enough evidence.

The "Why should we be so lucky?" question is simply the anthropic principle cast as a question. It assumes that we 'should' be here. We do not know whether the universe could be different, we certainly have no evidence that it could be. That one can vary a mathematical model of reality says nothing about reality.

The god argument is the weakest of the lot as it has no evidence to support it.

We are pretty certain that if the Cosmological constant were off by more than 1 in 120 decimal places the planets wouldn't exist....this is the conclusion of fairly simply mathematical calculations. Without planets it is safe to say human would not evolve.

In order to adopt your position that the nature of the universe is some brute unchangeable fact, we have to make an unsubstantiated assumption that there is something unknown in nature which makes it so.

You might as well just assume God exists if you are going to make such ridiculous and completely unsubstantiated assumptions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 05:21 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(12-10-2013 05:01 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(12-10-2013 03:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  I put my money on the answer "We don't know, yet." All is currently hypotheses and we don't yet have enough evidence.

The "Why should we be so lucky?" question is simply the anthropic principle cast as a question. It assumes that we 'should' be here. We do not know whether the universe could be different, we certainly have no evidence that it could be. That one can vary a mathematical model of reality says nothing about reality.

The god argument is the weakest of the lot as it has no evidence to support it.

We are pretty certain that if the Cosmological constant were off by more than 1 in 120 decimal places the planets wouldn't exist....this is the conclusion of fairly simply mathematical calculations. Without planets it is safe to say human would not evolve.

In order to adopt your position that the nature of the universe is some brute unchangeable fact, we have to make an unsubstantiated assumption that there is something unknown in nature which makes it so.

You might as well just assume God exists if you are going to make such ridiculous and completely unsubstantiated assumptions.

You missed the point.

We have no evidence that it could be different. I am not assuming anything.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
12-10-2013, 05:47 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(12-10-2013 05:01 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(12-10-2013 03:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  I put my money on the answer "We don't know, yet." All is currently hypotheses and we don't yet have enough evidence.

The "Why should we be so lucky?" question is simply the anthropic principle cast as a question. It assumes that we 'should' be here. We do not know whether the universe could be different, we certainly have no evidence that it could be. That one can vary a mathematical model of reality says nothing about reality.

The god argument is the weakest of the lot as it has no evidence to support it.

We are pretty certain that if the Cosmological constant were off by more than 1 in 120 decimal places the planets wouldn't exist....this is the conclusion of fairly simply mathematical calculations. Without planets it is safe to say human would not evolve.

In order to adopt your position that the nature of the universe is some brute unchangeable fact, we have to make an unsubstantiated assumption that there is something unknown in nature which makes it so.

You might as well just assume God exists if you are going to make such ridiculous and completely unsubstantiated assumptions.

Where you and your anthropic pals keep jumping off the highway is a failure to understand some basic probability theory; for instance, we are fucking here, therefore - probability 1

Not applicable for determining extant circumstance. When you win the lottery, you chance for having won the lottery is -

What, class?

Probability 1.

Next up - "cosmological constant" is an extant factor of the universe. You can spin up all kinds of bullshit hypotheses about changing this or that, but what you end up with is just that - bullshit. You think you can tell this, that, and the other thing by fucking around with constants, but that fails to account for contingency. Spin up a universe of whack, and we could be sentient clouds of gas communicating through plasma after having a scientific methodology and mathematics indistinguishable from what we're doing right now.

Anthropic principle is for chumps, dude.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: