enemigo

It is long overdue for a split.

Julian

[MOD]
I started doing a split but pretty much every single post touched on Pascal's Wager or arguments related to the existence and/or 'choice' of god. In the end it was easier to simply rename the thread for clarity.

Julian
Moderator BC&H
[/MOD]

Amaleq13

Proving a negative is inherently logically problematic which is why the burden is more rationally placed on the affirmative claim. I have no uncertainty with regard to my impression of the evidence and arguments offered to establish the existence of God. I simply do not find them convincing so I continue to disbelieve the existence of that entity. The same is true of Big Foot and space aliens abducting humans.

It is not certain to you but I couldn't care less about your lack of certainty nor do I see why it should influence my conclusions.

On the contrary, it differs quite significantly in that my position is contingent upon the existing evidence and, as a result, necessarily remains open to the possibility of change given new evidence.

rhutchin

As you originally described it, atheistic Buddhism is a belief system that purportedly allows a person to escape eternal torment. That is the same thing that theistic belief systems offer. Pascal’s Wager is built on two basic points: (1) uncertainty in the position that God does not exist, and (2) the penalty (eternal torment) for believing that God does not exist and being wrong. Pascal’s Wager says that rational reaction to this uncertainty and the penalty is to pursue that option which provides a means for a person to escape eternal torment.

Atheistic Buddhism may be a non-belief position with respect to the existence of god, but that is irrelevant to the analysis posed by Pascal’s Wager.

Pascal’s Wager leads one to the conclusion that they should take action to avoid eternal torment. As originally conceived by Pascal, only the Biblical God was seen as providing an escape from eternal torment. Since then, other gods and belief systems (such as atheistic Buddhism) have been suggested to provide a means to escape eternal torment. The Wager is still valid; the rational action is for a person to seek to avoid eternal torment. The part that has become complicated is the need to determine which of the many belief systems espousing a way to escape eternal torment is actually true.

That’s fine. If you decide that you will not believe in any god, then you should be pursuing one of those non-theistic systems that promise you escape from eternal torment. Are you? If not, you are acting irrationally.

OK. You are adding an option that is eliminated by the uncertainty and penalty arguments. You may hold the possibility that god does not exist, but it would be irrational for you to pursue that option. If you act rationally, you would pursue either God Y or God Z (or whatever belief system that comes across your path) until you found the true belief system that would provide a means for you to escape eternal torment.

OK. How is the Professor’s God not an alternative belief system? Are you saying that it is not a belief system?

OK. I say A and you say (A + irrelevant trivia).

OK. You can’t escape eternal torment unless you believe that god Z provides a means of escape but if you believe in god Z, you lose. That limits you to the only “safe� position possible - belief in God Y. That is the conclusion the Wager reaches – One should rationally pursue that option that offers escape from eternal torment.

You are leaving the basic premises out. The two premises driving the analysis are the uncertainty inherent in the nonbelief position and the penalty of eternal torment. Those premises remove any non-belief option as a viable option. The risk in taking a nonbelief position and being wrong is too great.

Consequently, the rational course of action is to pursue a belief system that provides a means to escape eternal torment (with the added problem of determining which belief system is true).

Not really. If you have knowledge of leprechauns and the requirement that one must believe in leprechauns in order to escape eternal torment, then this becomes one more belief system that you have to deal with. However, if you want to escape eternal torment, you must identify the true belief system. You have to evaluate the leprechaun belief system against the Biblical God system, the Allah system, the Professors God system, etc, and determine which of the belief systems is actually true. It is a daunting task.

Again, it is the risk of eternal torment that is driving the analysis. It is the possibility that certain god concepts might exist PLUS the need to believe in one of these god concepts to escape eternal torment that requires a person to believe that one of them does exist. You appear to be arguing as if there is no penalty for nonbelief.

A distinction without a purpose. So what? Given that the penalty for being wrong is eternal torment, does it matter whether one believes that neither god exists or does not believe that either exists if the risk is the same for either position and being wrong is equally fatal for either position.


OK, but one has to believe in some other comparable system that provides a means for the person to escape eternal torment. You can call that belief system God Y or Pepsi or Jonathan. What you call it is irrelevant.

OK. If you don't take the position that one must exist, you must take the position that something (God Y or Pepsi or Jonathan) does exist and that it provides a means to escape eternal torment. If it is not God Y, it has to be something else that gets you the end result that you seek (i.e., escape from eternal torment).

OK. You seem to be defining atheism as a belief system that provides a means for a person to escape eternal torment. Fine. Throw it into the pile with God Y, God Z, atheistic Buddhism, Pepsi, and Jonathan. Thou dost protest too much over nothing.

I think only one of us understands Pascal’s Wager and it is not you.

All that is required is that a person accept the potential that everything that is uncertain present situations where one can make wrong decisions. Merely having knowledge of X does not require that one believe X. All one has to consider is the possibility of being wrong in that which one believes and factor in the consequences of being wrong.

Mageth

rhutchin:

Only if you accept its premise that eternal torment is a real threat, which I do not.


The non-theistic system I work under features: 1) lack of belief in an afterlife; 2) lack of belief in an eternal afterlife; and 3) therefore, the lack of belief in (or fear of) eternal torment in an afterlife.

And thus the complete, total lack of any need whatsoever to "escape from eternal torment."

In fact, it would be quite irrational of me to seek a way to "escape from [an] eternal torment" in which I lack belief in an afterlife in which I lack belief under the non-theistic system I work under.

Johnny Skeptic

I am quite pleased that this thread has finally attracted more attention. I am not aware of any other topic of equal or greater importance, including the Resurrection.

As I said in part of my opening statement, "It is my position that the authority of the Bible depends completely upon the claim that God created the universe, and since the claim is completely non-verifiable by any tangible means, the Bible does not have any legitimate authority whatsoever." In other words, what gives legitimacy to any given being's ability to enforce rules of his own choosing? According the rhutchin, the being in the universe who has the most power, and that the best odds favor that the most powerful being in the universe is the God of the Bible. However, the Bible clearly disagrees with him, as I showed in my previous post. Rhutchin's arguments do not demand that a person love and obey God in order to go to heaven, but the Bible most certainly does demand that a person love and obey God in order to go to heaven. However, since God's nature is questionable, he has stacked the deck against skeptics by making it as impossible for them to love him as it would be for him to convince them that 2+2=5. 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?" We skeptics must ask rhutchin how he can possibly love such a being?

enemigo

So since you are aware of the concept of atheistic Buddhism, your logic says that you should accept it and choose not to believe in god, just in case it is true. So do you believe in god?


Notice how you have retreated from the position that Pascal's Wager necessarily results in theism.


You 've shifted the goalposts. You have admitted that Pascal's Wager's risk analysis logic can produce situations where nontheism is safer than theism. But the whole point of Pascal's Wager is supposed to be an argument that one should believe in God!!!


What do you mean by "belief system?"

You said, "Pascal’s Wager affirms your position that you should believe in a god vs not believing in any god, but it does not tell you which god to believe in."
It does not affirm the position that you should believe in god, because if God Z exists, and you believe in any god, including himself, then you get punished.


Accepting potential does not automatically exclude non-belief as a valid position though, as your example does.


But the options you included in your example A, are incomplete. They don't account for the possibility of atheism. You excluded atheism as an option before even making the risk assessment. And your supposed reasoning for excluding atheism as an option, is because risk assessment makes it invalid. You are arguing in circles.


See this? You are assuming your desired conclusion; that risk makes nonbelief invalid. Then using that assumption to decide that non-belief is invalid.

Should I pursue an atheistic belief system that provides escape from eternal torment, or should I pursue a theistic belief system that provides escape from eternal torment?


You are eliminating nonbelief as an option before you even get to the analysis that supposedly eliminates nonbelief as a viable option.

Ok.. I'll try to explain this one more time, this time being more specific:

Premise A: either God Y, God Z, or neither exists

Inherent in Premise A, is the acceptance that all of the following configurations of belief vs. reality are possible outcomes of choosing theism or sticking with atheism:

I choose belief in God Y & God Y exists = safe
I choose belief in God Y & God Z exists = hell
I choose belief in God Y & neither exist = safe
I choose belief in God Z & God Y exists = hell
I choose belief in God Z & God Z exists = hell
I choose belief in God Z & neither exist = safe
I don't believe in either & God Y exists = hell
I don't believe in either & God Z exists = safe
I don't believe in either & neither exist = safe

**Keep in mind that we are supposed to enter risk analysis with no pre-existing assumptions about whether belief or nonbelief is riskier, just an acceptance of Premise A.

Now, the risk analysis is supposed to consist of looking at the above possible configurations of belief vs. reality, comparing the ratio of "safe:hell" for each belief, and then deciding whether it is better to choose theism or atheism based on which is safer.

As you can see, by choosing theism, that is, choosing one of the first 6 configurations of belief vs. reality, you have a 50% chance of going to hell.

But if you stick with atheism, the last 3 configurations, you only have a 33% chance of hell. Based on Premise A, nonbelief is the safest bet.

You've tried to get around this by saying that I can't accept one of the atheist configurations because they are invalid if I admit the possibility of god. Then I ask you why they are invalid, and you say because the possibility that they are wrong makes them too risky for them to be viable. But that risk is what you're supposed to be trying to figure out by risk analysis!! Again, you aren't supposed to enter risk analysis already assuming that nonbelief is too risky to be viable.


I understand it just fine. You have shifted the goalposts multiple times now in this thread, and have used a combination of circular reasoning and equivocation in an attempt to save Pascal's Wager from the most obvious inadequacies.


You had better not believe in god then, otherwise you won't acheive Nirvana. Since that potential exists. The only rational course of action is for you to not believe in god.

Toto

The mods have finally reached a consensus that this entire thread belongs in EOG, the home of Pascal's Wager debates.

rhutchin

That’s where the uncertainty comes in. If you cannot remove eternal torment as a real threat (i.e., you cannot prove that God does not exist) so that there is some uncertainty in believing that it is not a real threat, then you have to include it in any risk analysis. I don’t think you have to accept it as a real threat as much as you cannot discount that it could be a real threat (i.e., you are forced to consider something you would like to ignore)

The issue is not just that which you believe but is it possible for you to be wrong in that which you believe. If you have sufficient evidence to prove that your beliefs are absolutely correct and that it is impossible for you to be wrong, then it would be irrational for you to seek to escape eternal torment. For the rest of the world that cannot prove this, it would be irrational not to seek escape from eternal torment.

Gawen

Math books tell us 1+1=2. The bible tells us 1+1+1=1. There is no need to interpret a+b=ab. The bible is so ambiguously written, people have no choice but to interpret it. That's why there's 34,000 sects of Chritianity.

The bible tells us there are miracles performed by selected individuals and God Himself. Science tells us miracles are against the laws of nature and physics. The bible leans strongly to interpreting itself as a work of fiction.