Pascal's Wager

[OldTrees]

Why are you insisting on strong atheism? That's a colossal strawman, as very few atheists are actually strong atheists. I've certainly never met one.

Furthermore, you're making a mathematical error in asserting that all beliefs are equally valid. You are attempting to conceptually divide by infinity, without proving that is in fact reasonable.

I was comparing claims about reality and answers to the question "what is the nature of God?" Agnostics, and soft atheists do not have an answer to the question and are thus were not included. Since this might not have been clear I started to clarify the situation. Soft atheism on a single topic like Christianity does have almost 100%. I will go edit my posts to make what I was referring to clear. However a relevant detail is that the sum of Soft atheistic responses to each possible god does result in the default answer of hard atheism with regards to the complete question: "what is the nature of God?". This is partially from my experience with a self-titled soft atheist where he agreed that he disbelieved all possible answers to the question except the remaining possibility that no god exists.

Could you elaborate on how different possible versions of god (or the lack) would not have the same possibly? Or more accurately on what basis could we claim one is more likely than another? I think we do not have any relevant knowledge to claim that this possible god is less probable than another possible god.

[Neopergoss]

Why are you insisting on strong atheism? That's a colossal strawman, as very few atheists are actually strong atheists. I've certainly never met one.

Furthermore, you're making a mathematical error in asserting that all beliefs are equally valid. You are attempting to conceptually divide by infinity, without proving that is in fact reasonable.

I was comparing claims about reality and answers to the question "what is the nature of God?" Agnostics, and soft atheists do not have an answer to the question and are thus were not included. Since this might not have been clear I started to clarify the situation. Soft atheism on a single topic like Christianity does have almost 100%. I will go edit my posts to make what I was referring to clear. However a relevant detail is that the sum of Soft atheistic responses to each possible god does result in the default answer of hard atheism with regards to the complete question: "what is the nature of God?". This is partially from my experience with a self-titled soft atheist where he agreed that he disbelieved all possible answers to the question except the remaining possibility that no god exists.

Could you elaborate on how different possible versions of god (or the lack) would not have the same possibly? Or more accurately on what basis could we claim one is more likely than another? I think we do not have any relevant knowledge to claim that this possible god is less probable than another possible god.

I agree with you that the proposition that one god is more likely than another is absurd, which was a point that had a lot of bearing on Daytripper's point that all of their rewards/punishments ultimately cancel eachother out. But atheism is more rational than theism because there is a lack of evidence for belief in God.

It is absolutely untrue that soft atheists don't have an answer to the question. Just because you aren't 100% sure of something doesn't mean you don't have a good enough idea to go on. We can't be certain the sun will rise tomorrow or that a door will open when we turn a doorknob, but we have a reasonable expectation of such things, without which day-to-day life would be impossible.

Sorry, not trying to speak for Daxx, but those are my thoughts.

[OldTrees]

There is no reason to assume hard atheism. (ninja'd by Daxx!) Not really sure why you did. I said "near 100%." That's still soft atheism. I'm not saying that atheists are immune, but resistant, at least to a form of superstition. And I'm sorry, but I really don't see what colored glass has to do with this except as a way to illustrate that many possibilities exist.

It is absolutely untrue that soft atheists don't have an answer to the question. Just because you aren't 100% sure of something doesn't mean you don't have a good enough idea to go on. We can't be certain the sun will rise tomorrow or that a door will open when we turn a doorknob, but we have a reasonable expectation of such things, without which day-to-day life would be impossible.

I had been referring to the non theistic possible reality. That possibility is where no god exists. Hence it would be most accurately described as the hard atheist possibility. Soft atheism and agnosticism avoid answering the question about "what is the nature of god?". As such I did not treat either of them as a credible final belief when discussing reward/punishment based upon your final answer to the question "what is the nature of god?".
To be more accurate: the hard atheistic possible reality predicted by hard atheism and not eliminated by soft atheism has a small chance to be accurate.

Soft atheism is only nigh 100% when considering 1 possible god at a time. If you asked about all the possible gods the probability of ~A&~B&~C&~D&~E&~F&~G&... decreases from nigh 100% with each additional disbelief added to the statement.

The colored glass was to illustrate the hard atheistic possible reality is also unlikely.

I am not talking about day to day life. I was talking about single belief strategies and their relative value. Soft atheism and agnosticism are not positive claims about the nature of god and hence do not match a possible reality 1:1.

[Daxx]

I had been referring to the non theistic possible reality. That possibility is where no god exists. Hence it would be most accurately described as the hard atheist possibility.

Soft atheism and agnosticism are not positive claims about the nature of god and hence do not match a possible reality 1:1.

This makes no sense. You cannot discount a position simply because it does not make solid assertions. In a (analogistic) sense, weak atheism can be viewed a form of mixed strategy which does not assert a dominating strategy but assigns the greatest probability to the non-existence of God. By attempting to insist on "non-mixed" or non-probabilistic strategies, you're artificially restricting the game space and thereby arriving at an inaccurate answer.

You're also still not substantiating how you're arriving at the assertion that the non-existence of god is equally likely to the existence of any given definition of God. In fact, I am willing to bet that you are not capable of justifying this and are simply taking this axiomatically. This is the most fundamental flaw of your position and without it your entire case falls apart.

[OldTrees]

I had been referring to the non theistic possible reality. That possibility is where no god exists. Hence it would be most accurately described as the hard atheist possibility.

Soft atheism and agnosticism are not positive claims about the nature of god and hence do not match a possible reality 1:1.

This makes no sense. You cannot discount a position simply because it does not make solid assertions. In a (analogistic) sense, weak atheism can be viewed a form of mixed strategy which does not assert a dominating strategy but assigns the greatest probability to the non-existence of God. By attempting to insist on "non-mixed" or non-probabilistic strategies, you're artificially restricting the game space and thereby arriving at an inaccurate answer.

You're also still not substantiating how you're arriving at the assertion that the non-existence of god is equally likely to the existence of any given definition of God. In fact, I am willing to bet that you are not capable of justifying this and are simply taking this axiomatically. This is the most fundamental flaw of your position and without it your entire case falls apart.

Good point about mixed strategies. I never thought of soft atheism that way. Neat.

I was taking it axiomatically because I have insufficient creativity/knowledge to justify the opposite premise.
Premise: The probabilities for each positive claim [(A,~B,~C,~D,... ~Z) (~A,B,~C,~D, ... ~Z) through (~A,~B,~C,~D, ... ~Z)] are assumed equal unless a reason for a more complex model is given. (misuse of the razor?)

[QuantumT]

*snip*

That's all really based on how you divide things up. What if I instead do it this way?

God vs. No God

and divide those probabilities equally?

OT- Pascal's Wager commits the fallacy of the false dichotomy, and as such should be discarded as worthless.

[Daxx]

I would say that it is a misuse of the razor to some extent but not entirely.

I actually don't think it's completely unreasonable to consider the probability of any given god existing as similar if not equal to the probability of another infinitesimally different god existing - given an equal amount of evidence so satisfy each claim, there is no practical way of differentiating their probabilities. Of course, this is certainly not conclusive because absence of evidence (in terms of the existence of a differential) is not evidence of absence.

On the other hand, the probability of the non-existence of a god is entirely different because we have a method of differentiating this hypothesis from a good deal of other hypotheses - we can perform testing. For instance, we test the claim that God will kill me for writing the word "snarfle" by writing the word "snarfle". Since I am continuing this sentence, we can reasonably assert that we have disproved a hypothesis that asserts the existence of a God who is metaphysically incapable of not killing anyone who types the word "snarfle". One down, an infinite number to go.

By iterating this process we arrive at a definition which has died a death of a thousand papercuts, as the domains of hypothetical gods are restricted more and more through continuous testing. See also the Invisible Gardener.

This is only one method by which the probabilities can be determined to be unequal. There are probably others, but I believe this is sufficient to illustrate my point.

[OldTrees]

Thanks Daxx.

Off topic:
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence but absence of proof is not proof of absence.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_of_absence/

Strange article I found one day.

[Daxx]

Oh hey, that's the guy that wrote Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, right? Awesome dude.

[OldTrees]

Oh hey, that's the guy that wrote Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, right? Awesome dude.

Yep. That is the same guy. Lots of articles to read though.

[WrekX]

*Grabs stick, inserts it in pot...


There is evidence of ghosts. It's basically the only old time legend that has spawned a reality tv show. Multiple reality tv shows actually. I can think of at least two and I can think of a few personal friends that have described events of poltergeist activity as well.

What about "demonic possesion." I put the word in quotes because the word demonic has certain religious implications and I would like to suggest it with an open mind so this suggestion is more acceptable by all.

Unfortunately this is largely based off television. However, there is the chance that this is true. I mean, the technology in paranormal research has increased a lot. So let's lable the chance this is un-faked evidence "X."

So, assuming the evidence is real, there is a chance it has no relation to god, gods, death, life, ghost aren't what we think they are, etc. For example, the cause of the evidence is some unknown etc etc... The chance that it dose not pertain to religion lets lable this Y.

You can see now I'm forming an equation.

The devil has come up before in EVP (tape recorded ghosts)session. Quite more than god, I don't think I've ever heard god. However, the increase in chance of there being a devil increases the chance of there being god. Not in the same direct amount becuase there, logicaly speaking, could be a devil but no god. So that would be another factor.

Pascal wager states the existence of god can not be reasoned. Which is true, but what I'm getting at is that, though it wouldn't have an answer, you could form this equation off paranormal research which would show there's increased chance that there is a god, as long as "X" dose not = 0. Maybe there are other things you could use too.


Dose this sound crazy, perhaps pointless since it has no final answer? If you got real numbers, proving and disproving god would that be useable as the current odds there is a god?

Edit: I just realized that for pascals wager to work a religion has to have a reward or punishment. If there is no reward or punishiment you risk nothing and gain nothing. All religions have some sort of reward though, I believe. I won't pretend to be an expert on that. I think something similar may have been said if so sorry I didn't quote you in agreeance.

[Daxx]

I find claims of the paranormal about as suspect as spirit healing and other forms of "supernatural" activity. It's an interesting topic though, and might be worth starting another thread about.

The problem with the paranormal is that we don't actually have any evidence to suggest it exists. Anecdotal accounts are for the most part easily explained by psychology, and no actual evidence has appeared when this stuff is actually tested for by disinterested scientists. I would lump this "evidence" in with the same "evidence" that people use to explain their personal relationships with their god or gods.

Just as a matter of opinion, it seems vastly more probable to me that given the brain's tendency to be wrong and occasionally just make shit up, witches/demons are more likely the result of sleep paralysis-induced hallucinations, angels the result of wishful thinking, fairies the result of an active imagination, and the "holy spirit flowing through a person" as crowd psychology (as examples, not a comprehensive list).

Which is another interesting topic that we could pursue if people were interested. Who in this thread who has/has not hallucinated (drugs, sleep paralysis, etc.)? What were your experiences? (Again we could start another thread for this.)