Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-10-2013, 08:35 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(08-10-2013 02:20 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(07-10-2013 09:53 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  People also acknowledge aliens and ghosts and say they have interacted with them once or more during their life, personally and one-on-one.

You made some general statements there. Would you care to elaborate on your concepts?



Drinking Beverage

We both know there are far more theists than ghost-sighters and alien abductees combined. We both know there are people who believe in God and people who do not--my comment was regarding the other poster's one-sided, biased comment. He can attempt to elaborate on his special knowledge if he chooses.

Your comment was off-base in terms of if my god and devil exist, we get a lot more insight into ghosts and aliens, too...


And far more people used to think the world was flat and the center of all of creation... Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 02:44 AM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2013 02:48 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(08-10-2013 02:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, the third is the single universe that can only be how it is.

There is simply no good reason for us to think this has to be the case. It is possible, but not probable. Remember we are talking about probable explanations.

(08-10-2013 02:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  The fourth is serial universes.

Serial Universes would fall under the category of some sort of multiverse. Multiple universes that exist in series(or in succession) are still multiple universes. Multiple universes that exist parallel(next to each other) are still multiple universe.

(08-10-2013 02:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  And others not yet mentioned or thought of.

That which is not thought of or mentioned is not an explanation.

If you're an atheist, and you know anything about cosmology, you kinda have to hang your hat on the multiverse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 03:18 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
It is baseless to assert that any identifiable description of "why" the universe is "probable" or "improbable" based on personal incredulity alone. All we can say with confidence about any possibility is that it is possible. If there is anything we can say about probability or improbability it would have to relate to something concrete such as complexity. We might be able to say that a complex formulation of "why" for the universe is less probable if it is more complex, or is less probable because that formulation is overly specific.

So to describe "the universe is as it is, was caused by nothing but itself, and can't be any other way due to its own nature" is improbable is hard to support. It is easily the simplest solution to the question, so the only argument against it might be to claim that it is overly specific and therefore improbable on that basis. However, it is far more probable by definition than the possibility that a particular god creature created the universe as we know it. That is both overly specific and overly complex. It is by definition among the least probable answers based on this line of reasoning.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
09-10-2013, 03:50 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(09-10-2013 03:18 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  It is baseless to assert that any identifiable description of "why" the universe is "probable" or "improbable" based on personal incredulity alone. All we can say with confidence about any possibility is that it is possible. If there is anything we can say about probability or improbability it would have to relate to something concrete such as complexity. We might be able to say that a complex formulation of "why" for the universe is less probable if it is more complex, or is less probable because that formulation is overly specific.

So to describe "the universe is as it is, was caused by nothing but itself, and can't be any other way due to its own nature" is improbable is hard to support. It is easily the simplest solution to the question, so the only argument against it might be to claim that it is overly specific and therefore improbable on that basis. However, it is far more probable by definition than the possibility that a particular god creature created the universe as we know it. That is both overly specific and overly complex. It is by definition among the least probable answers based on this line of reasoning.


You are part of the universe...and you are intelligent...and you reflect on the universe. So in a very true sense this universe is intelligent and self reflective. If it is a brute fact of nature that this universe is the only universe and it is this way because it can only be this way, then it is also brute fact of nature that the universe is intelligent and self reflective. God is also self reflective and intelligent so the attributes of God happen to be brute facts of reality.

How does that make you feel as an atheists that the attributes of God are brute facts of reality? How does it make you feel as an atheists to know that intelligence must exist in reality? If intelligence has to exist in reality, doesn't that make intellect fundamental to reality or at least inevitable?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 04:18 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
I am complex as the product of simple rules and properties of the universe. A god that is complex by analogy would perhaps be the product of simple rules and properties of the multiverse. To say that I'm a product of the universe by analogy is to say that God is not an absolute, not a prime mover, but simply an expression of the multiverse he inhabits.

How does it feel as a theist to admit that your belief in God requires him to an emergent property of some other underlying reality? Does it bother you that in the progression from multiverse to universe he becomes an entirely unnecessary step?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 04:44 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(09-10-2013 04:18 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I am complex as the product of simple rules and properties of the universe. A god that is complex by analogy would perhaps be the product of simple rules and properties of the multiverse. To say that I'm a product of the universe by analogy is to say that God is not an absolute, not a prime mover, but simply an expression of the multiverse he inhabits.

How does it feel as a theist to admit that your belief in God requires him to an emergent property of some other underlying reality? Does it bother you that in the progression from multiverse to universe he becomes an entirely unnecessary step?

The bolded portion doesn't bother me one bit. In fact I have espoused it. What would you look like if for an eternity you constantly progressed in both knowledge and ability. For all intents and purposes, you'd be a god. And since were talking in terms eternity, there would never be a point when you didn't have infinite knowledge or infinite abilities.

All you need for God to exist is eternal emergent complexity. The existence of emergent complexity is a fact that is not in dispute. What is unknown to us is if emergent complexity is some short lived, transitory phenomena or something eternal.

With regard to the second question, I'm not sure what you mean....perhaps you can re-phrase.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 04:58 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(09-10-2013 02:44 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-10-2013 02:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, the third is the single universe that can only be how it is.

There is simply no good reason for us to think this has to be the case. It is possible, but not probable. Remember we are talking about probable explanations.

(08-10-2013 02:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  The fourth is serial universes.

Serial Universes would fall under the category of some sort of multiverse. Multiple universes that exist in series(or in succession) are still multiple universes. Multiple universes that exist parallel(next to each other) are still multiple universe.

(08-10-2013 02:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  And others not yet mentioned or thought of.

That which is not thought of or mentioned is not an explanation.

If you're an atheist, and you know anything about cosmology, you kinda have to hang your hat on the multiverse.

No, I don't. I don't recognize the strong anthropic principle as being interesting.

Serial and parallel multiple universes are vastly different concepts.

The point being made that a false dichotomy was presented.

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
09-10-2013, 05:02 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(09-10-2013 03:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 03:18 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  It is baseless to assert that any identifiable description of "why" the universe is "probable" or "improbable" based on personal incredulity alone. All we can say with confidence about any possibility is that it is possible. If there is anything we can say about probability or improbability it would have to relate to something concrete such as complexity. We might be able to say that a complex formulation of "why" for the universe is less probable if it is more complex, or is less probable because that formulation is overly specific.

So to describe "the universe is as it is, was caused by nothing but itself, and can't be any other way due to its own nature" is improbable is hard to support. It is easily the simplest solution to the question, so the only argument against it might be to claim that it is overly specific and therefore improbable on that basis. However, it is far more probable by definition than the possibility that a particular god creature created the universe as we know it. That is both overly specific and overly complex. It is by definition among the least probable answers based on this line of reasoning.


You are part of the universe...and you are intelligent...and you reflect on the universe. So in a very true sense this universe is intelligent and self reflective. If it is a brute fact of nature that this universe is the only universe and it is this way because it can only be this way, then it is also brute fact of nature that the universe is intelligent and self reflective. God is also self reflective and intelligent so the attributes of God happen to be brute facts of reality.

How does that make you feel as an atheists that the attributes of God are brute facts of reality? How does it make you feel as an atheists to know that intelligence must exist in reality? If intelligence has to exist in reality, doesn't that make intellect fundamental to reality or at least inevitable?

Word salad.

That there are intelligent beings in the universe does not make the universe intelligent.

There is no evidence of any gods - you syllogisms are void.

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
09-10-2013, 05:05 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(09-10-2013 04:44 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 04:18 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I am complex as the product of simple rules and properties of the universe. A god that is complex by analogy would perhaps be the product of simple rules and properties of the multiverse. To say that I'm a product of the universe by analogy is to say that God is not an absolute, not a prime mover, but simply an expression of the multiverse he inhabits.

How does it feel as a theist to admit that your belief in God requires him to an emergent property of some other underlying reality? Does it bother you that in the progression from multiverse to universe he becomes an entirely unnecessary step?

The bolded portion doesn't bother me one bit. In fact I have espoused it. What would you look like if for an eternity you constantly progressed in both knowledge and ability. For all intents and purposes, you'd be a god. And since were talking in terms eternity, there would never be a point when you didn't have infinite knowledge or infinite abilities.

All you need for God to exist is eternal emergent complexity. The existence of emergent complexity is a fact that is not in dispute. What is unknown to us is if emergent complexity is some short lived, transitory phenomena or something eternal.

With regard to the second question, I'm not sure what you mean....perhaps you can re-phrase.

The bolded statement is a bold, unsupported, and meaningless statement.

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
09-10-2013, 05:12 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(09-10-2013 05:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 03:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You are part of the universe...and you are intelligent...and you reflect on the universe. So in a very true sense this universe is intelligent and self reflective. If it is a brute fact of nature that this universe is the only universe and it is this way because it can only be this way, then it is also brute fact of nature that the universe is intelligent and self reflective. God is also self reflective and intelligent so the attributes of God happen to be brute facts of reality.

How does that make you feel as an atheists that the attributes of God are brute facts of reality? How does it make you feel as an atheists to know that intelligence must exist in reality? If intelligence has to exist in reality, doesn't that make intellect fundamental to reality or at least inevitable?

That there are intelligent beings in the universe does not make the universe intelligent.

I suppose then you think that even though you have an intelligent organ(called a brain) that's not enough to say you are an intelligent being.

Like a brain is to the body, you are a component of the universe. If you are intelligent then the universe if intelligent.

If it is a brute fact that the universe had to be this way, then it is a brute fact that the universe(or reality as a whole) has to be intelligent. This whole, the universe is the way it is because it has to be that way, takes us a least half way to theism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: