Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MRM · 04-08-2006, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Good. Your complaints are against Pascal’s reasoning. However, we can both agree that Pascal provided reasons for rejecting other religions.

If his reasoning is full of errors, then his conclusion is not better then any blind guess. If you make an long calculation and there are a lot of errors in that - then you can only come to the correct result if you are very very lucky ...

Quote:

I didn’t see any proof. Looked more like someone who extracted verses from their context to create the impression of a problem.

I know even christians who admit that there are contradictions. And numerous christians sect who all interprete the very same book very different suggest also that there are contradictions in it .

Quote:

The first uncertainty deals with the issue of eternal torment. The person does not know whether eternal torment is real and wants to know what action to take in the face of that uncertainty. The Wager is concerned with this.

The second uncertainty deals with the action a person will take to escape eternal torment (which god or belief system to embrace). The Wager has nothing to do with this.

How does the second uncertainty prove that one cannot deal with the first? Can you explain what you mean by this?

The wager has a lot to do with it. If you take a look at the wager then it tells you that there is a safe bet and you can't be wrong with it. That is essential to the wager, because otherwise assuming that there is a hell is meaningless if you don't know how to escape it. The second uncertainty tells you, there is no safe bet. No matter what you do - it can be wrong.
If the christian guy tells you go through door number 437 and you are safe, then you may end there in Zeus version of a hell. Who knows ?

Uncertainty two defeat uncertainty one. All you can extract out of uncertainty is ... uncertainty.

Quote:

OK. So, if a person does have some idea where the threat comes from and how to evade that threat, would you have a problem?

Well we don't have only one person who has an idea where this threat maybe come from - we have thousends of them. And each tell you someting different. So there is only one thing sure - they all have no clue either. There still might be a threat that no one of those thousend persons is thinking of.

Quote:

The Bible provides information on both the threat and how to evade it. Absent your ability to prove that the threat does not exist, would you have a problem with a person responding to the threat in the manner described in the Bible in order to escape the threat?

The bible is only one out of thousend ancient religous textes. And none of them is verifiable. And even if there yre supernatural divines, they can be completly different then all of those that have ever been descripted.

Quote:

Labels do not verify the claim. They only describe what is known. Uncertainty still rules.

In a sense, yes. They stand there because it is obvious which door people will go through. However, you are trying to label the door as “death,” and that is not what we are talking about at this point. There is a later door labeled, “death,” and it is that door which Pascal argues defines the default choice for the person if no choice is made before death.

Well if labels show us all we know about those doors then death is exactly what the label says. All we know about people who have gone through those doors is that they are physical dead. If there is some form of afterlife behind those doors, then we don't know anything about it. We don't know which form of afterlife might be behind which door. Sure, there are some people who say they have an idea ( and all of them have different ones ) - but they can't prove it. And we know for sure, since they are alive they have not seen the other side of the door yet.

Wayne Delia · 04-08-2006, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

OK. So, if a person does have some idea where the threat comes from and how to evade that threat, would you have a problem?

OK. Put that in the fine print for people to consider.

You keep using the term "OK". Your argument is not OK. It's Grade A Stupid, as pointed out many times by many different people.

My question is, after 100 pages of the same refuted bullshit, do you think you've persuaded anyone that you are even remotely correct? Anyone at all? Do they have names, or are they part of an imagined "silent majority" of everyone who agrees with you but who are too timid to identify themselves?

Seriously. What progress do you think you've made?

WMD

Wayne Delia · 04-08-2006, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dlx2

An infinitesimal probability would be:

p = 1/∞

Technically, that would be "zero probability", since lim (x -> ∞) 1/x = 0.

An infinitesimal probability p = 1/x would be something like a sufficiently large x such that 1/x < epsilon, for any arbitrary really small fixed value of epsilon.

Quote:

If you then multiply the probability of God's existence by the reward, you get an average reward of:

∞/∞ = unresolved

With two of the four options being mathematically unresolved, the Wager falls apart.

That is "expected value," as you correctly pointed out later, and yes, the "infinite gain" multiplied by the "infinitesimal probability" results in an indeterminate expected value. Theists frequently try to get around that by dismissing, ignoring, or misrepresenting the "infinitesimal probability," but any similar second-guessing of "infinite reward" by atheists and skeptics is expressly disallowed.

Quote:

This is the functional reason to exclude the infinitesimal from the Wager. However, this is clearly a decision that clashes with the philosophy of the Wager. Thus, we're looking at quite the mathematical fallacy by excluding the infinitesimal.

As I've said before. The Wager is bad philosophy, bad theology, and most importantly, bad math.

I've read the Pensees twice, and from what I know of Blaise Pascal, I am convinced that he wrote the theological part of it almost as a tongue-in-cheek practical joke, sort of like "I can't believe anyone is stupid enough to be taken in by this scam, but the church leaders seem to like it, so let's go with it."

WMD

rhutchin · 04-08-2006, 05:02 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Good. Your complaints are against Pascal’s reasoning. However, we can both agree that Pascal provided reasons for rejecting other religions.

MRM
If his reasoning is full of errors, then his conclusion is not better then any blind guess. If you make an long calculation and there are a lot of errors in that - then you can only come to the correct result if you are very very lucky ...

I did not notice you really identifying errors in Pascal’s reasoning. Your comments related to his failure to fully explain his reasoning (i.e., You question his claim on witnesses.) You did not prove him to be in error. Nonetheless, Pascal does provide a basis for rejecting gods other than the Biblical god.

Quote:

rhutchin
I didn’t see any proof. Looked more like someone who extracted verses from their context to create the impression of a problem.

MRM
I know even christians who admit that there are contradictions. And numerous christians sect who all interpret the very same book very different suggest also that there are contradictions in it.

So. If you found a lot of Christians who said that there were no contradictions in the Bible, would you accept that position? I think the solution to the contradiction issue is to examine the disputed passages and determine if there is a contradiction and not to take a poll on whether people believe it to be a contradiction.

Quote:

rhutchin
The first uncertainty deals with the issue of eternal torment. The person does not know whether eternal torment is real and wants to know what action to take in the face of that uncertainty. The Wager is concerned with this.

The second uncertainty deals with the action a person will take to escape eternal torment (which god or belief system to embrace). The Wager has nothing to do with this.

How does the second uncertainty prove that one cannot deal with the first? Can you explain what you mean by this?

MRM
The wager has a lot to do with it. If you take a look at the wager then it tells you that there is a safe bet and you can't be wrong with it. That is essential to the wager, because otherwise assuming that there is a hell is meaningless if you don't know how to escape it. The second uncertainty tells you, there is no safe bet. No matter what you do - it can be wrong.
If the christian guy tells you go through door number 437 and you are safe, then you may end there in Zeus version of a hell. Who knows ?

Uncertainty two defeat uncertainty one. All you can extract out of uncertainty is ... uncertainty.

The Wager does not tell a person that there is a safe bet and the person can't be wrong with it. The Wager merely concludes that it is rational for a person to seek to escape eternal torment and irrational for a person not to do so. I don’t see you arguing against the Wager on this point.

Given that you accept the point of the Wager that a person acts rationally in seeking to escape eternal torment (at least, you haven’t argued against it), I still don’t understand your point that a person should not deal with that uncertainty. It seems that you are arguing that if a person cannot be certain that he will escape eternal torment, then it is irrational for him to seek to escape eternal torment.

Quote:

rhutchin
OK. So, if a person does have some idea where the threat comes from and how to evade that threat, would you have a problem?

MRM
Well we don't have only one person who has an idea where this threat maybe come from - we have thousands of them. And each tell you something different. So there is only one thing sure - they all have no clue either. There still might be a threat that no one of those thousand persons is thinking of.

rhutchin
The Bible provides information on both the threat and how to evade it. Absent your ability to prove that the threat does not exist, would you have a problem with a person responding to the threat in the manner described in the Bible in order to escape the threat?

MRM
The bible is only one out of thousand ancient religious texts. And none of them is verifiable. And even if there are supernatural divines, they can be completely different then all of those that have ever been described.

OK. Regardless, each person can act to avoid the threat that they perceive to exist. If Indians in South America do not have a Bible and do not know that it says they are accountable for their actions, they will not seek to escape that accountability. They might perceive a threat form their own gods and seek to escape the wrath of their own gods. Again, the Wager says that people act rationally in seeking to escape threats. I do not see you arguing against that conclusion.

Quote:

rhutchin
Labels do not verify the claim. They only describe what is known. Uncertainty still rules.

In a sense, yes. They stand there because it is obvious which door people will go through. However, you are trying to label the door as “death,” and that is not what we are talking about at this point. There is a later door labeled, “death,” and it is that door which Pascal argues defines the default choice for the person if no choice is made before death.

MRM
Well if labels show us all we know about those doors then death is exactly what the label says. All we know about people who have gone through those doors is that they are physical dead. If there is some form of afterlife behind those doors, then we don't know anything about it. We don't know which form of afterlife might be behind which door. Sure, there are some people who say they have an idea ( and all of them have different ones ) - but they can't prove it. And we know for sure, since they are alive they have not seen the other side of the door yet.

I agree. People are uncertain what exists after death. Pascal devised the Wager to help people decide what to do before death.

rhutchin · 04-08-2006, 08:33 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Well, OK. What confuses me is why an infinitesimal probability of the existence of God matters against an infinite reward. The infinitesimal probability is still >0. It is a positive number even though we cannot really known what it is. It seems, to me, like asking whether an infinite number is odd or even. Because a number can only be odd or even we know that an infinite number is one of these, but because it is infinite, we can't know which it is. Still, an infinite number must be either odd or even. We can't know what an infinitesimal number is but we do know that it must be positive. If the probability of God is positive and 0<P<1 and the reward is infinite, then I don't see why infinitesimal matters -- why it matters what p actually might be. Considering the infinite reward, why would it matter whether p is .5 or .000000000000000000000001?

Dlx2
An infinitesimal probability would be:

p = 1/∞

If you then multiply the probability of God's existence by the reward, you get an average reward of:

∞/∞ = unresolved

With two of the four options being mathematically unresolved, the Wager falls apart.

This is the functional reason to exclude the infinitesimal from the Wager. However, this is clearly a decision that clashes with the philosophy of the Wager. Thus, we're looking at quite the mathematical fallacy by excluding the infinitesimal.

As I've said before. The Wager is bad philosophy, bad theology, and most importantly, bad math.

rhutchin
I don't follow this.

Let's start with an example. We have a lottery. The prize is $50. A person can pick a number between 1 and 100. If he selects the right number he gets the $50.

Following your methodology above, we do the following--

1/100 x $50.00 = $0.50

That number, $0.50, means something. What does it mean? It is not the actual reward because the person either gets $50.00 or he gets nothing. It must have to do with a person's expectations and whether he should invest in the lottery. In a large lottery where millions of numbers can be chosen and the likelihood of winning are essentially infinitesimal (but the reward is not infinite), the rational person should not participate.

Dlx2
Not entirely. It's the average reward considering all possible outcomes.

Right [about the lottery]. You'll always on average lose money by gambling, because the house always makes an average profit. Thus, one should only enter a lottery if they're comfortable throwing that money away entirely.

rhutchin
Back to your example. Your ∞/∞ is trying to tell us something. What is it trying to tell us? What is unresolved? If this were a lottery and the reward is infinite and the chances of winning are infinitesimal, then what is your formula telling the person. Does the person participate in the lottery or not and why?

Dlx2
It's telling us that Pascal's Wager, when the math properly models the philosophical proposition, cannot give an answer. Even if you believe that escaping eternal damnation is important, Pascal's Wager (when corrected) states that betting on the existence of any specific God is not even a rational decision to accomplish these ends.

I still don’t understand, because it does not seem to me that you have explained everything that is happening.

You introduced:

p = 1/∞

This is the probably of a person choosing God by chance from among an infinite number of gods. If a person chooses the correct god who is God then he receives a reward that is infinite. Priot to randomly selecting the god, the average reward is determined thusly:

1/∞ x ∞ = unresolved

First Issue
Given what you say above, the average reward cannot be determined. Given that the person knows with certainty that not choosing a god provides no reward and that choosing a god by chance leaves the reward issue unresolved (or indeterminate), it would appear to be in the person’s interest to choose a god. Cast in terms of a lottery we have two choices (1) no reward for non-participation and (2) unresolved (indeterminate) reward for participation. How come it is not rational to still choose option (2)?

Second Issue
Your analysis involves a person selecting one of an infinite number of gods by chance. What if we narrow the field to those gods for whom specific historical information is available. Since most of the infinite gods do not have a historical foundation, we can deal with those gods that have a historical foundation. The historical foundation means that we can identify the specific actions a person must take to avoid eternal torment. Even though there are a theoretical infinite number of possible gods, there is a finite number of gods for which historical information is known. If we further compare and contrast the gods for which historical information is known, we can remove pure chance as the method of choosing. The effect is to reduce the choice to that which Pascal claimed through his Wager – a choice between certain punishment and uncertain punishment (or if you accept Pascal’s argument for rejection of all but the Biblical god – certain reward). Wouldn't it still be rational to choose uncertain punishment over certain punishment?

rhutchin · 04-08-2006, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" Your suggestion that people love such a God is preposterous and outlandish.

Why is that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Calvinism is patently absurd. If God chooses who will be saved, what people wager is meaningless. Hundreds of millions of people have died without ever having heard the Gospel message, so how in the world could they have made a wager?

The Wager is not for people who have never heard the gospel. It is for the people who have heard the gospel and like you, find that they are unable to accept it even though it is irrational not to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

You have mentioned that Jesus performed miracles, but your claim is not convincing. Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why do you believe that it was any different back then?

OK, then I claim that Jesus did those things described in the Bible. Whether one calls them miracles, signs, etc. seems irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What do you believe that the God of the Bible did for countless trillions of years before he created humans? If he exists, there has never been anything for him to learn or to consider because he knows everything. Since he obviously got along just fine without creating humans for countless trillions of years, why do you believe that he created humans? If he loves people, does he do so because he chooses to love them or because he does not have free will and can't help himself?

God could have done anything or nothing. He does that which He wants.

He apparently created humans so that He could lavish gifts on them and have them experience Him.

God loves people because He made each one. Each person is unique and special because God made each person.

Dlx2 · 04-08-2006, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

First Issue
Given what you say above, the average reward cannot be determined. Given that the person knows with certainty that not choosing a god provides no reward and that choosing a god by chance leaves the reward issue unresolved (or indeterminate), it would appear to be in the person’s interest to choose a god. Cast in terms of a lottery we have two choices (1) no reward for non-participation and (2) unresolved (indeterminate) reward for participation. How come it is not rational to still choose option (2)?

No. That's exactly NOT what you see. Among those infinite possibilities are ones in which it is possible to be rewarded for complete nonparticipation. Nonparticipation has as much a chance of rewarding you as participation, and participation has as much a chance of damning you as nonparticipation. That's what the infinitesimal does.

Additionally, there isn't "no cost" to wagering. There is a cost (be it infinite as I've already proposed or finite as you have proposed) to entering the Wager. Spending a known amount (which one can't really afford) so as to invest in a lottery where no one knows anything about the reward is completely irrational.

Quote:

Second Issue
Your analysis involves a person selecting one of an infinite number of gods by chance. What if we narrow the field to those gods for whom specific historical information is available. Since most of the infinite gods do not have a historical foundation, we can deal with those gods that have a historical foundation. The historical foundation means that we can identify the specific actions a person must take to avoid eternal torment. Even though there are a theoretical infinite number of possible gods, there is a finite number of gods for which historical information is known. If we further compare and contrast the gods for which historical information is known, we can remove pure chance as the method of choosing. The effect is to reduce the choice to that which Pascal claimed through his Wager – a choice between certain punishment and uncertain punishment (or if you accept Pascal’s argument for rejection of all but the Biblical god – certain reward). Wouldn't it still be rational to choose uncertain punishment over certain punishment?

Can't do that. Remember, the Wager is dealing with uncertainty of the existence of any given metaphysical configuration. You can't have it both ways. Either the Wager is dealing with uncertainty (in which case, you have to accept the implications of that uncertainty) or else the Wager becomes useless because it is more important to determine whether or not a particular God even exists, and the Wager is useless.

In other words, the Wager is useless.

rhutchin · 04-08-2006, 11:36 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Let’s start at the beginning. A person reads the Bible (or other religious document). He is unsure whether to believe what it says about eternal torment.

DHW
Already, this isn't working. There are many religious texts that claim eternal torment is the fate of people who are not in that religion. How does the "unsure" guy even determine which "eternal torment" exists (and which ones don't), let alone if there is one, at all?

It doesn’t really matter, does it? If the person is unsure whether eternal torment is real, does it matter whether he got the idea from the Bible, the Koran, or other source? The question is whether he should do anything about it. According to the Wager, a person who is uncertain whether eternal torment is real should take action to avoid eternal torment. If you want, you can argue that it is irrational for a person to want to escape eternal torment.

Quote:

rhutchin
Pascal comes along and says, “Let me help you decide what to do.” Pascal then walks the man through the Wager. As they go through the methodology of the Wager, Pascal shows the person that he has two choices (the two doors): (1) seek to escape eternal torment (Door 1) and (2) do not seek to escape eternal torment (Door 2). [The original analogy was confused with respect to the Wager and is corrected here.]

DHW
This makes even less sense. Suppose the man reads a bunch of religious books and concludes - because they contradict themselves and one another - that there is no "eternal torment." He obviously wouldn't seek to escape that which he doesn't think is there.

According to Pascal's wager, as I understand it, this is the wrong choice because if you're wrong, you lose everything. The problem is that those who seek the wrong path to escape "eternal torment" are just as damned as those who said it wasn't there... rendering the wager entirely useless.

The Wager is only for those who are uncertain whether eternal torment is real. If a person reads something that proves that there is no eternal torment, then he stops there. The worse that can happen is that he is wrong. So yes, the Wager is useless to a person who can prove that there is no eternal torment.

Quote:

rhutchin
The person chooses Door 1 and walks through. After he walks through he is confronted with many people telling him how to escape eternal torment. Ahead of him is another door (a door labeled “death”). He finds that he will be forced to go through that door and must make a decision before that time. Pascal offers the person his thoughts on this as listed in the Pensees (outside the Wager) to help the person make a decision.

DHW
Hence, a further reason to reject the wager. If the wager fails to address an issue that is more important than itself (yet is crucial to the wager), we have to address the issue first, before deciding whether or not the wager is even meaningful.

The Wager addresses one problem that the person faces. If a person decides to address the issue of which god to embrace and resolve that issue, the Wager would seem to be superfluous. If the person starts at the beginning and wants to determine if it is even rational to seek to escape eternal torment, then he would start with the Wager.

Quote:

rhutchin
You are half correct about the people behind Door 1. They are arguing but about who will escape eternal torment and not about who has escaped. The final outcome is determined when they walk through the door labeled “death.”

DHW
Well, the reason I put "has" is because many religions say you know immediately (fundamentalist Christianity is the first to come to mind). I suppose the others would fall under "will."

A lot of people like to say that. Yet everyone knows people who walk the aisle, confess all kinds of things about Christ, get dunked in some water, study the Bible for a while, witness to people, etc. and then get tired of it and go back to their former life. Those whom God saves have great confidence in God to preserve them. Those who claim that they decided to be saved are often told that they are saved, but it means nothing.

aa5874 · 04-08-2006, 06:30 PM

Rhutchin, the Gods in the Christian Bible do not have any of the characteristics you have given them. The God are definitely man-made, unreal, fabricated creatures.

Rhutchin, you can not confirm the existence of any Gods, you cannot confirm what you believe, you cannot confirm that you will not be Eternally Tormented.

Rhutchin, as you know the Christian Bible has been interpreted in numerous ways, there are numerous doctrines in Christian religion, in fact persons who believed in one doctrine killed and tortured those who believed in another, even to this very day, belief in the Diety varies from country to country and person to person.

There are billions of people who do not hold the belief of the Calvinist, there are billions who do not accept the belief of the Mormons and there are billions who have rejected the belief of the Roman Catholic.

Rhutchin, Pascal's Wager is rubbish. It is based on superstition or belief. Belief cannot gaurantee escape from eternal torment. Rhutchin, you cannot identify what you claim to believe. Your belief is purely subjective, speculative and based personal interpretation.

Rhutchin, your personal belief cannot be regarded as absolute.

Pascal's Wager is worthless.

aa5874 · 04-08-2006, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

According to the Bible, when Christ returns to earth, every eye shall see Him and everyone will know Him. Given the circumstances described in the Bible regarding the return of Christ, I don't see a problem identifying Him.

Rhutchin, there are too many contradictory statements in the Christian Bible to accept what is written as true. A fabricated character cannot return to earth.

In any event, the same Bible says, "....Many shall come in my name and shall decieve many..." To this very day, no theist can identify the nun-deceiver( Jesus).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-08-2006, 06:30 PM	#2519
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Rhutchin, the Gods in the Christian Bible do not have any of the characteristics you have given them. The God are definitely man-made, unreal, fabricated creatures. Rhutchin, you can not confirm the existence of any Gods, you cannot confirm what you believe, you cannot confirm that you will not be Eternally Tormented. Rhutchin, as you know the Christian Bible has been interpreted in numerous ways, there are numerous doctrines in Christian religion, in fact persons who believed in one doctrine killed and tortured those who believed in another, even to this very day, belief in the Diety varies from country to country and person to person. There are billions of people who do not hold the belief of the Calvinist, there are billions who do not accept the belief of the Mormons and there are billions who have rejected the belief of the Roman Catholic. Rhutchin, Pascal's Wager is rubbish. It is based on superstition or belief. Belief cannot gaurantee escape from eternal torment. Rhutchin, you cannot identify what you claim to believe. Your belief is purely subjective, speculative and based personal interpretation. Rhutchin, your personal belief cannot be regarded as absolute. Pascal's Wager is worthless.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.