Tercel

You directly addressed Reid's argument as presented by Sikh, but neither of my variations.

HRG

A personal and consistently joking deity will not yield consistency and regularity of personal experience.

However the absence of any deities will yield them since there will be no one around who could change the behavior of the universe.

IOW, Reid's argument is based on his default assumption that the universe is "chaotic" in the absence of a Divine Regulator. An equally valid default assumption is that the universe is "regular" in the absence of Divine Disturbers.

Since both default assumptions are equally arbitrary, nothing can be concluded from the regularity of our experiences.

Regards,
HRG.

Vorkosigan

4) A personal and consistent deity as the ultimate reality will yield consistency and regularity of personal experience.

Accepting 1-3, but this is not necessarily the case. "Consistency" and "regularity" are subjective. Suppose the Deity's idea of C&R is different from ours? Further, suppose this universe is not the one the Deity is really interested in, so it pays no attention to it? I can think of lots of ways that this assumption would not hold.

5) A non-personal naturalistic ultimate reality will be incidental to personal experiences and hence has no more reason to render personal experiences consistent and regular than not.

If you mean that we have no evidence either way, I can accept that.

6) Probabilistically observed consistency and regularity in personal experience implies the existence of a personal and consistent deity as more probable than a naturalistic ultimate reality.

Depends on how you concieve of that nonpersonal divinity. For example, the Chinese saw order in the universe as an intrinsic property of all things, spontaneously manifested. They never developed a concept of natural law, instead seeing order as organic. This arose from an ultimate reality, the great chi. There are more ways to concieve of order.....

-----
3) This assumption is a purely pragmatic one. Here we are assuming the accuracy and truth of extremely important propositions based on no evidence but only convenience.

I don't know if convenience is the right word. It would be better to say that truth is defined as what consistently appears when we interact with what's out there.

4) If pragmatic assumptions are justifiable with respect to such major components of one's worldview, pragmatic assumptions are justifiable with respect to the existence of the deity.

Ok, but can you confirm them by interaction with what's ok there? Can you confirm your diety's existence by some sort of empirical thrust at the stuff of reality?

5) It is pragmatic to assume the existence of the deity. (*)

LOL. Very unpragmatic.

6) Hence it is justifiable to assume the existence of the deity.

Justifiable with respect to what and to who? "justifiable" is a subjective term.

a) Pascal's Wager. Most religions teach that if one doesn't believe in the exisetence of the deity then bad consequences follow. Hence a lack of belief in the deity if the deity did in fact exist is probably very bad. Conversely there seems to be no compelling reason why belief in the deity if the deity didn't exist should be a bad thing. Hence belief in the deity is pragmatic.

You're equivocating. You've stuffed lots of different things in here. Some religions believe in many deities, others in none at all. All religions may teach the consequences of not adopting their religion are negative, but may not teach so with respect to a deity. You can't make religious belief = deistic belief.

b) Belief in the deity gives a sufficient philosophical foundation for morals.

That should read "insufficient foundation" as no deistic belief gives a complete account of morals. Also.....

Lack of belief in the deity fails to give (or at best gives an extremely questionable) philosophical foundation for morals.

....you're assuming morals have some kind of foundation. We need not buy that assumption. Morals exist in networks of beliefs about facts and values. They are interdependent, fluid and subjective.

Morals are pragmatically necessary.

Agreed, I think.

Hence a sound philosophical foundation for morality is pragmatically necessary.

Incorrect, I do not need a foundation for morals; I need not understand morals in order to possess them or utilize them. Morals can be ad hoc and rote, as the case may be. Thus no "foundation" is necessary or even warranted.

Hence belief in the deity is (perhaps probabilistically) pragmatic.

LOL. Nice try. There's that word again, "pragmatic." What does it mean to you?

c) Many people find belief in the deity give a meaning to life and gives answers to similar such important questions. While some maintain that with a lack of belief in the deity people can still give "their own meaning" to their lives, this also seems to lack a sound philosophical foundation, and in general life without the existence of the deity would appear absurd and meaningless. Hence belief in the deity is pragmatic.

Why is it important to have "meaning?" You seem to think that people without deities live meaningless lives. What about non-deistic religious systems? Are non-Deistic buddhists like my wife living meaningless lives? Most metaphysical naturalists live meaningful lives, as far as I can see. Do you have some objective measure of "meaning" we can use to examine the issue?

d) Many people use their belief in the deity and a subsequent afterlife as an emotional crutch, so to speak, to help them during emotional strife. Lack of belief in the deity, provides no such crutch (save perhaps the oft voiced idea that atheists are "facing reality"). Hence belief in the deity is pragmatic.

Your argument seems to be that if something serves a purpose, it is pragmatic. In terms of that commonsense definition, we need to know whether it is pragmatic across all aspects of a person's life to adopt a belief if it has consequences for himself and society that are profoundly negative. Given that Christianity is violent, authoritarian, divisive and intolerant, is it really pragmatic to adopt disruptive and destructive beliefs even if particular individuals who hold them are comforted thereby?

Further, Christian beliefs have other costs. You have to tithe, get up early on Sunday, commit to dogma that must go unquestioned, etc, etc ,etc. Deistic beliefs are not pragmatic.

Koyaanisqatsi

I reiterate...

The second you argue for a personal, subjective god is the second you negate the entire purpose of god; to establish objectivity!

Tercel is arguing that nothing can be known outside of the human mind (aka, solipsism), which negates God, since God is supposed to exist outside of the human mind, thus establishing both "objective reality" and "objective morallity."

Obviously neither can exist without God existing outside of human perception, which in turn must mean that he/she/it is therefore testable/verifiable outside of human perception.

Not to mention the fact that solipsism itself negates God since, to the solipsist, nothing but the solipsist exists, including "God."

Argue it all you want, Terc, but everything you are stating negates God, not establishes it.

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Vorador

Ah, sorry. That was my bad ^_^;;
I could have sworn I did.

Here we go.

-----
1) No empirical evidence can prove the existence of the external world, other minds, or the reality of history, or other such basic things.

I'll give you this. On a very, very base level one cannot discern whether or not the reality around is is indeed real or is an illusion.


2) We do not find this epistemological dilemma debilitating on a daily basis because we assume that if our experiences are consistent and regular than we can navigate in "reality" whether it is ultimately illusory of not.

Again, from my perspective, this is true.


3) Consistency and regularity of personal experience is the key. To what?

4) A personal and consistent deity as the ultimate reality will yield consistency and regularity of personal experience.

As will a life without this diety. Case in point: My life has yielded rather consistant results that abide by the laws of the reality I percieve. With God, if one drops a stone, it falls to the earth. Without God, if one drops a stone, it falls to the earth. What's your point?

5) A non-personal naturalistic ultimate reality will be incidental to personal experiences and hence has no more reason to render personal experiences consistent and regular than not.

I'm sorry, my mind isn't working very well today. But, uhm, what's your point here? That we should believe other people's words without applying any critical thinking? I doubt that's it but that's what I'm garnering here.

6) Probabilistically observed consistency and regularity in personal experience implies the existence of a personal and consistent deity as more probable than a naturalistic ultimate reality.

How so? With a diety, we have laws in the universe that have been made. WIthout a diety, we have eternal laws that this reality, or at least our perception of this reality, must and do adhere to. These laws are what allows this reality, or this perception of reality, to exist in the way it does. If the laws were different, reality or this perception of reality would be different. This is a fact.
-----
1) No empirical evidence can prove the existence of the external world, other minds, or the reality of history, or other such basic things.

Again: Where are you going with this?

2) We do not find this epistemological dilemma debilitating on a daily basis because we assume that if our experiences are consistent and regular than we can navigate in "reality" whether it is ultimately illusory of not.

Yes.

3) This assumption is a purely pragmatic one. Here we are assuming the accuracy and truth of extremely important propositions based on no evidence but only convenience.

No evidence? I suppose that, again, if you want to say that reality is an illusion that all evidence is really no evience at all because it's ultimately illusionary, but seeing as how I work and exist either within an ultimate reality or within a perception of reality that yields consistant results and woirks along certain laws, then ultimately if there is evidence of something within this reality or my perception of it of certain things, given that this reality or my perception of reality -is- indeed consistant and regular, evidence within this reality or my perception of it is indeed evidence of certain events within reality or my perception of it. Evidence, whether ultimately illusionary or not, still yields results within a consistant reality. Or my perception of it.

4) If pragmatic assumptions are justifiable with respect to such major components of one's worldview, pragmatic assumptions are justifiable with respect to the existence of the deity.

I think I kinda shot that one down in my last one. Evidence is needed that exists within this reality or my/our perception of it. Without this evidence to yield consistant results we have no reason to believe in the proposed concept because it lacks a foundation grounded in logic, this being a fundamental principal in this reality or our/my perception of it.

5) It is pragmatic to assume the existence of the deity. (*)

How so? Doesn't seem that way to me.

6) Hence it is justifiable to assume the existence of the deity.

Justifiable to -assume- the existance of a diety? How? Why? And if so, how do you know which one you're just going to assume exists?

(*) I imagine that the premise that is most problematic in the above is number 5 - that it is pragmatic to assume the existence of the deity. I would defend that with:
a) Pascal's Wager. Most religions teach that if one doesn't believe in the exisetence of the deity then bad consequences follow. Hence a lack of belief in the deity if the deity did in fact exist is probably very bad. Conversely there seems to be no compelling reason why belief in the deity if the deity didn't exist should be a bad thing. Hence belief in the deity is pragmatic.

Pascal's Wager fails on so many levels. First of all, if your God really does know everything about you, then he knows you're just riding the fence in case he does exist. You're not really believing. Second of all, it just goes to show that one may believe out of fear - and then only if this fear has been instilled in him powerfully. Sounds kind of Machiavellian to me. Third of all, given the logic of Pascal's Wager, one might as well believe in ALL religions, because any one of them might be right and if you just happen to believe in the wrong one, it's off to Hell or the equivelant with you!

b) Belief in the deity gives a sufficient philosophical foundation for morals. Lack of belief in the deity fails to give (or at best gives an extremely questionable) philosophical foundation for morals. Morals are pragmatically necessary. Hence a sound philosophical foundation for morality is pragmatically necessary. Hence belief in the deity is (perhaps probabilistically) pragmatic.

No, it does not give sufficient foundations for morals because, once again, you're following that code of morals out of fear of your God's unique sense of justice. Either that, or these morals are being followed to please this God. They are for the most part, it seems according to this logic, NOT followed because the individual believes in this code of morals on his or her own. Furthermore, oine does not need a diety in order to have good morals. That's the same as saying all athiests are immoral by definition, which is simply not so and a ludicrous assumption to make.

c) Many people find belief in the deity give a meaning to life and gives answers to similar such important questions. While some maintain that with a lack of belief in the deity people can still give "their own meaning" to their lives, this also seems to lack a sound philosophical foundation, and in general life without the existence of the deity would appear absurd and meaningless. Hence belief in the deity is pragmatic.

Again, this is a ludicrous assumption to make. I find my life to be pretty fulfilling. I and others like me don't need your or any other God to fill the holes in our lives. We do it ourselves through our own efforts, thanks. How can you say it lacks a philosophical ground? Just because we're not out to please some celestial being either out of love or fear does not make our existences meaningless.

d) Many people use their belief in the deity and a subsequent afterlife as an emotional crutch, so to speak, to help them during emotional strife. Lack of belief in the deity, provides no such crutch (save perhaps the oft voiced idea that atheists are "facing reality"). Hence belief in the deity is pragmatic.

This is just a cop out, like so many of your other arguments. Just that this one is a far more glaring example. If one believes in a diety just so they can say "I'm going to Heaven and you're not!" then they have some serious mental issues to work out.

Tercel

That is insufficient evidence. Have you seen The Matrix? When people living in the matrix stepped in front of cars on a highway they really died. Hence this cannot be sufficient evidence that you are not in a similar matrix.

Really?
How much "lack of certainty" do you have for the following basic beliefs? How much evidence do you have for them?
* The world you perceive objectively exists and is neither an illusion or a psychological projection.
* Other minds apart from yours objectively exist.
* The universe (and your memories etc along with it) wasn't created 5 minutes ago.

These are the sorts of things we call "properly basic" beliefs. We can't actually prove any of the above or even get any significant evidence for them one way or another. We simply assume they're true. Alvin Plantinga argues that belief in God is similarly properly basic.

If you've reached the stage of denying logical arguments on the basis that they're "marketing tools", then there's not much more to discuss.

There is no correlation. However there is a correlation between wanting/needing something to exist and us believing it does. And a justifiable one at that, according to my argument.

Tercel

Since this is a probabilistic argument, your introduction of these "possible" alternatives doesn't affect the power of the argument unless you can show these alternatives are reasonably probable.

I believe we are justified in believing them non-probable. If a personal Deity indeed exists, then it seems highly probable that the Deity is directly or indirectly responsible for our existence. If the Deity is responsible for our existence it seems unlikely that the Deity would have created us with an understanding of consistency and regularity in personal experience that significantly differs from the Deity's.
Whether or not the deity currently pays any attention to our world, it seems that at some stage the Deity must have willed our world into existence and again it seems likely that when the Deity created our world it would have caused the consistency and regularity in personal experience as regards that world to be not significantly different to its own preferences.

Is this an argument or a random fact?

How do we know what “consistently” appears? If the universe came into being (your memories included) 5 seconds ago, how do you know what “consistently” happens? You probably don’t believe the universe came into being 5 seconds ago though – why? Convenience?

Can you confirm you’re not in the Matrix by empirically thrusting at reality? Perhaps you can confirm that the universe is not a psychological projection of your own mind, or that you are not currently dreaming, or that the universe is older than 5 minutes etc by similar empirical thrusts?
Empiricism seems to break down completely when confronted with such questions that are, lets face it, extremely basic. Presumably you solve this rather serious problem in your worldview by plugging the gaps with Presupposition. If so, why can’t I do the same with God?

In this case, justifiable with respect to what is consistent. If people think it’s justifiable to do presupposing (based on nothing more than convenience) for the rest of their basis for their worldview, then it seems similarly justifiable to presuppose God if it’s convenient for him to exist.

I think I can. Many religions do seem to be at least happier if one believes in a God of some sort as opposed to simply being atheistic.

Don’t we need a sufficient reason to be moral? (That’s all I’m saying by “philosophical foundation”) Morality is necessary, and hence a sufficient reason to be moral is necessary. IMO, God provides such a sufficient reason, atheism doesn’t.

Hmm, my introduction of the tautologious “perhaps probabilistically” into the sentence perhaps is confusing. By “pragmatic” I mean: doing, or believing that which most likely yields the most beneficial results to you, regardless of any evidence for truth or morality (or otherwise) of such actions. ie A pragmatic choice is one which maximises the Expected Value (it’s a statistics term for those who aren’t familiar with such) of the results.

I think that if they clearly thought through the implications of what they believed they would quickly realise their lives are meaningless. If we are simply freaks of nature who have evolved from sludge and are destined to live a mere 70 years or so before vanishing back into dust, then what’s the use of anything? Nothing we achieve will last. Nothing we do matters.
It’s all meaningless.
Of course we can trick ourselves into thinking that what we do matters and “give it meaning”… it seems many atheists here like doing that. But they’re ultimately only tricking themselves.

I think you confuse the teachings of Christianity with the way in which its followers have acted from time to time. A democracy is a good thing, and we can’t really reject the idea simply because Hitler manipulated the democracy to get him into power. Can we then turn around and blame “Christianity” for being the thing that was manipulated to give us the Crusades etc?

I think that’s a rather small price to pay in light of some of the more pressing points above.

Vorkosigan

Since this is a probabilistic argument, your introduction of these "possible" alternatives doesn't affect the power of the argument unless you can show these alternatives are reasonably probable.

Tercel, you aren't making a probablistic argument. That would involve being able to make statistical inferences about the behavior of a group of beings called gods. However, according to you, you have only one instance of gods to make generalizations about. You don't know anything about the behavior of such beings, so no inferences can be made.

However, from the standpoint of philosophy, you you are simply making hypothetical claims about a hypothetical being. You are not making an argument from probability, but from "reasonableness."

I believe we are justified in believing them non-probable. If a personal Deity indeed exists, then it seems highly probable that the Deity is directly or indirectly responsible for our existence.

If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs. Even granted that gigantic hypothetical personal deities exist, there is no reason to assume that it was anywhere near the chain of events that led to our appearance in the cosmos. Since you don't know anything about the behavior of a deity, all of this is wishful thinking.

If the Deity is responsible for our existence it seems unlikely that the Deity would have created us with an understanding of consistency and regularity in personal experience that significantly differs from the Deity's.

"it seems unlikely" is not an argument. It is just a statement of your feeling on the matter.

Whether or not the deity currently pays any attention to our world, it seems that at some stage the Deity must have willed our world into existence and again it seems likely that when the Deity created our world it would have caused the consistency and regularity in personal experience as regards that world to be not significantly different to its own preferences.

Why do you make that assumption? There's nothing to support it except your own urgent desire to believe. For all you know the Creator is a brutal trickster god who enjoys creating diseases that kill only children and saddling them with learning disabilities. You don't have any argument one way or the other, just your opinions.

Tercel: Probabilistically observed consistency and regularity in personal experience implies the existence of a personal and consistent deity as more probable than a naturalistic ultimate reality.

Vork epends on how you concieve of that nonpersonal divinity. For example, the Chinese saw order in the universe as an intrinsic property of all things, spontaneously manifested. They never developed a concept of natural law, instead seeing order as organic. This arose from an ultimate reality, the great chi. There are more ways to concieve of order.....

Tercel: Is this an argument or a random fact?

It's an argument, although I certainly could have been clearer. The fact is that there are many ways order could have arisen in the universe, many points of view on it, and none of the supernatural claims has more support than any other supernatural claim. Again, because we have no pool of universes to study, we can make no claims about one being more probable than the other.

How do we know what “consistently” appears? If the universe came into being (your memories included) 5 seconds ago, how do you know what “consistently” happens? You probably don’t believe the universe came into being 5 seconds ago though – why? Convenience?

I use "consistently" because that's my experience of the universe. Things are generally where I left them last, unless my dog has gone on another chewing binge. When I take actions, the universe always reacts in the same way. It never breaks down in an anarchy of miracles.

I tend to agree, though, with your overall point, but I object to your use of the word "convenience." That word implies we have some kind of other choices. But really, we don't. We have to accept the world our senses tell us about because it is the only game in town, unless one opts for insanity. "Convenience" isn't really the right word for that kind of choice.

Can you confirm you’re not in the Matrix by empirically thrusting at reality?

No, Tercel, but the interesting thing about your analogy is that it was possible for the Matrix to be shown to be a lie.....

Perhaps you can confirm that the universe is not a psychological projection of your own mind, or that you are not currently dreaming, or that the universe is older than 5 minutes etc by similar empirical thrusts?

To you? Probably not.

Empiricism seems to break down completely when confronted with such questions that are, lets face it, extremely basic.

Empirical testing does very well, thank you, granting that the universe exists. I think that small presupposition goes a long way.

Presumably you solve this rather serious problem in your worldview by plugging the gaps with Presupposition. If so, why can’t I do the same with God?

My presuppositions -- if indeed I have them -- don't involve murdering others when they disagree with me. My presuppositions don't involve reductions in the civil rights of others because of who they sleep with. Your presuppositions have pernicious social consequences. Mine don't.

In this case, justifiable with respect to what is consistent. If people think it’s justifiable to do presupposing (based on nothing more than convenience) for the rest of their basis for their worldview, then it seems similarly justifiable to presuppose God if it’s convenient for him to exist.

Unfortunately I don't presuppose the world because it is convenient. In any case, you presuppose the world + god. You've got an additional and unjustified set of presuppositions.

I think I can. Many religions do seem to be at least happier if one believes in a God of some sort as opposed to simply being atheistic.

This is an extremely stupid comment and unworthy of you. Do you have some measure of happiness that can used for comparison? Do you think Buddhists are less happy than Christians? What an absurd position to hold!

Don’t we need a sufficient reason to be moral? (That’s all I’m saying by “philosophical foundation&#8221 Morality is necessary, and hence a sufficient reason to be moral is necessary. IMO, God provides such a sufficient reason, atheism doesn’t.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. Atheists have other grounds for their moral beliefs. You're criticizing atheism for what it doesn't attempt to provide.

Your particular deity provides no reason for moral behavior, since under your system a human can run riot his whole life and accept Jesus as his savior at the last minute, and wind up in Heaven. So what incentive is there to behave? We metaphysical naturalists (whom you always confuse with atheists) have a powerful incentive to behave, since our punishment happens in this life and not in some fictional future existence.

I think that if they clearly thought through the implications of what they believed they would quickly realise their lives are meaningless. If we are simply freaks of nature who have evolved from sludge and are destined to live a mere 70 years or so before vanishing back into dust, then what’s the use of anything? Nothing we achieve will last. Nothing we do matters.

Tercel, you can't be serious. In your view, the one and only thing that counts is accepting Jesus. Everything else has no meaning. Your position renders Mozart and Einstein and Wang Chung and Newton and Faulkner and Tu Fu and all the other achievements of humans ridiculous if we don't accept Jesus. I don't understand how any meaning is supplied here, in any case. If there's a god, I am even more meaningless. I mean, if I work hard, I might facilitate human progress, but in your view, god already knows how to do everything, so what's the point???? There's nothing more meaningless than life with a deity.

I think you confuse the teachings of Christianity with the way in which its followers have acted from time to time.

Nope....

A democracy is a good thing, and we can’t really reject the idea simply because Hitler manipulated the democracy to get him into power. Can we then turn around and blame “Christianity” for being the thing that was manipulated to give us the Crusades etc?

Your comparison is false. Hitler is not inherent in democracy. Killing, however, is inherent in any authoritarian belief system, such as Christianity. You could argue that the Crusades were an aberration, if there weren't so many of them, and if they hadn't been preceded by five centuries of murder of non-Christians, and another 5 of Western Christian Imperialism. Evil is inherent in Christianity because of its authoritarian nature.

Vorkosigan

Adrian Selby

"How much "lack of certainty" do you have for the following basic beliefs? How much evidence do you have for them?
* The world you perceive objectively exists and is neither an illusion or a psychological projection.
* Other minds apart from yours objectively exist.
* The universe (and your memories etc along with it) wasn't created 5 minutes ago.
These are the sorts of things we call "properly basic" beliefs. We can't actually prove any of the above or even get any significant evidence for them one way or another. "

Why don't you try falsifying the hypothesis that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago? Isn't there a burden of proof issue here? If you can't falsify or verify the hypothesis that we were created 5 minutes ago, at what point is that hypothesis meaningful?

Regardless of what Plantinga says about anything we can constantly test our assumptions about the reality of our environment. It is constantly consistent with the view that it exists objectively and our senses give us information about it, just keep walking in front of cars, or stop feeding you're baby for about 16 hours, are you making up that screaming sound, and projecting the object that is smashing up your bones?

If we're talking only of what is possible, and it is possible it was created 5 minutes ago, then we can begin to talk of there being a Macdonalds on the far side of the moon, because it is possible, however unlikely, we can talk about how, when I'm not looking at at my feet when they're in my socks, the skin is green. Its possible, but unlikely. And on we go with possible but patently ridiculous assertions. And when it is suggested that we can send a probe to the moon to check for a Macdonalds, its possible that the Macdonalds in question sends a signal out to stop itself being seen by probes. Next you'll be telling me its possible there's an all powerful being that can't be seen, touched, heard, smelled, that created the universe and put his son on this planet out of all the planets there are etc. etc. After all, its possible.

Where does this leave you? It seems apparent that what can be rationally said to be 'true' is something with at least a high level of consistency and probability. Such as the notions in the quote above. Where things are very highly probable, such as, there is pain when I am hit by a speeding car, possibly death, it starts to not make sense to dispute them, and maintain a rational position.

God is not comparable with regard to these kinds of statements as statements of basic givens because of many problems in even trying to get a definition, coupled with many theists unwillingness to suggest they can offer a proper description, and we're left with some contentious design and first cause arguments, which it would be ridiculous to suggest provide sufficient evidence given how they're debated and contested so heavily.

It seems that what counts as proof for beliefs is what is in question. Walking in front of a car for you is insufficient proof for this basic belief about the reality of the external world.

But its something anyone can do to test the hypothesis that we're projecting from our heads the car that's about to hit us.

Then you equate this with a belief in God as basic? Did this belief, like my belief in an external environment, come from the senses? If so, what is it you're seeing that I am not? Also, can I test this belief, can I test to see whether God exists?

You might respond that the test for the car is only showing evidence that you're in a Matrix that's creating it all for you. Occam anyone?

Adrian

Theli

Tercel...

But the world inside the matrix did exist. It existed as a computer generated reality. People could interact with it, and change it. It also kept existing after the death of the individual living in it.

Isn't that "reality"?

BTW, the reality in the matrix could be proven to be computer-generated (and not out of matter) by bending the rules set in it's programming.
This change was observable by everyone.
So, drawing a comparison to us and our world: Show me your god!

First of all, if my world was just a psychological projection it would be changing along with my thought. No new information could be presented by me, since that info must have an external source.

This one I have thought about. I can't prove that people other than me are really conscious and not just "pretending". But the difference from my point of view is irrelavent.

Again, my memories would have to have an external source. Meaning that something did exist prior to "5 minutes ago". And again, this would have a lesser impact on my reality as I interpret it today.

But god doesn't fit into the rest. Because by assuming that god exists, you have to assume that the world around you exist aswell.
Your info on god, aswell as your "vision" of him is based in that world. Why should "god" be interpreted any different from a flying yellow elephant?

Are you calling "hell" a logical argument?
I've heard arguments similar to Pascal's Wager being used by a con artist doctor. Actually, I saw it on television last night. What the "so called doctor" did was that he picked a fairly common disease, it was some sort of feet fungus (don't remember the excact name), and then he posted adds in numerous newspapers describing the disease as a cause for cancer (among others). Wich was ofcourse not true.
In the same add he happened to mention his own "miracle cure" wich was the only cure for this disease (or so he said) at a pretty high cost.
It worked really good, people who had symptoms of the disease read the paper, got scared out of their mind and bought his product. Only to end up with even greater pain (and severe money loss )

Now, I see a correlation between his miracle cure and Pascal's Wager, don't you?
Follow the church's will and you'll get rewarded in the afterlife, do not and you will be punished.
It's the same thing, first scare people half to death, and then offer them salvation (at a cost).

The bible paints up hell as being as horrifying as you can imagine, descibing tortures that are painfull to the human body that ofcourse will scare people.

The only difference is that noone can come back from the dead to say "hey, you lied to me!"
"I didn't go to heaven/hell!"

Christianity does have a product to sell, and you just bought it.

Yes, if you manage to fool yourself, that is.

Sorry for my insufficient english... I'm pretty tired.

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>