Pascal's Wager

[QuantumT]

Who's to decide what is and isn't sensible though?

[OldTrees]

Who's to decide what is and isn't sensible though?

Each individual separately as always.
In the case of the Atheism god you have to wonder why it permits theism to exist. The existence of theism is evidence against such a god just as evil is evidence against an all powerful, all good, all knowing god.
[Note: Evidence <<< Proof]

[QuantumT]

Who's to decide what is and isn't sensible though?

Each individual separately as always.
In the case of the Atheism god you have to wonder why it permits theism to exist. The existence of theism is evidence against such a god just as evil is evidence against an all powerful, all good, all knowing god.
[Note: Evidence <<< Proof]

Nah, the god I proposed just has a weird sense of humor.

[Neopergoss]

@QuantumT
You might want to scan back at he previous comments about adding additional gods into the wager. The end result was once you start considering all the possible gods including those that appear nonsensical then all options become equally opportune (including walking both east and west at the same time). Such a diverse collection of possible gods has the downside that both rationality and irrationality become equality valid. So a subset of possible gods needs to be considered or irrationality should be considered.

Maybe the only subset of possible gods that is rational to believe in is the empty set. That certainly seems to have been the thrust of a few earlier posts.

[OldTrees]

@QuantumT
You might want to scan back at he previous comments about adding additional gods into the wager. The end result was once you start considering all the possible gods including those that appear nonsensical then all options become equally opportune (including walking both east and west at the same time). Such a diverse collection of possible gods has the downside that both rationality and irrationality become equality valid. So a subset of possible gods needs to be considered or irrationality should be considered.

Maybe the only subset of possible gods that is rational to believe in is the empty set. That certainly seems to have been the thrust of a few earlier posts.

You misunderstood the role of the set.
The subset is the Gods considered aka the gods deemed possible. [even atheists should be able to point out 20 gods that are reasonably possible.]
From that subset (including the nonexistent god) a belief should be selected. (although I still contest thee ability to believe on demand)

[Essence]

Anyone who has practiced magic(k) has oodles of practice in believing things outside of their normal realm of belief.  The Red Queen also notably believed in several impossible things (before breakfast, even.)

[QuantumT]

You misunderstood the role of the set.
The subset is the Gods considered aka the gods deemed possible. [even atheists should be able to point out 20 gods that are reasonably possible.]
From that subset (including the nonexistent god) a belief should be selected. (although I still contest thee ability to believe on demand)

I still fail to see who is making the determination that a god is or isn't reasonably possible. Is the god I proposed allowed in those 20?

[OldTrees]

Anyone who has practiced magic(k) has oodles of practice in believing things outside of their normal realm of belief.  The Red Queen also notably believed in several impossible things (before breakfast, even.)

Anyone practiced in reason has oodles of practice believing possible things that are outside their beliefs.
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/How_To_Actually_Change_Your_Mind

You misunderstood the role of the set.
The subset is the Gods considered aka the gods deemed possible. [even atheists should be able to point out 20 gods that are reasonably possible.]
From that subset (including the nonexistent god) a belief should be selected. (although I still contest thee ability to believe on demand)

I still fail to see who is making the determination that a god is or isn't reasonably possible. Is the god I proposed allowed in those 20?

Is it?
I know nothing more on that subject than you. Hence we both decide for ourselves. The god you presented with a weird sense of humor sounds possible to me. However my opinion on which gods are possible is akin to a blindman guiding another blindman.

[Neopergoss]

@QuantumT
You might want to scan back at he previous comments about adding additional gods into the wager. The end result was once you start considering all the possible gods including those that appear nonsensical then all options become equally opportune (including walking both east and west at the same time). Such a diverse collection of possible gods has the downside that both rationality and irrationality become equality valid. So a subset of possible gods needs to be considered or irrationality should be considered.

Maybe the only subset of possible gods that is rational to believe in is the empty set. That certainly seems to have been the thrust of a few earlier posts.

You misunderstood the role of the set.
The subset is the Gods considered aka the gods deemed possible. [even atheists should be able to point out 20 gods that are reasonably possible.]
From that subset (including the nonexistent god) a belief should be selected. (although I still contest thee ability to believe on demand)

I don't think so. The operative word is "reasonably." What gods are "reasonably possible?" Any atheist will tell you that the answer is none of them.

[OldTrees]

@QuantumT
You might want to scan back at he previous comments about adding additional gods into the wager. The end result was once you start considering all the possible gods including those that appear nonsensical then all options become equally opportune (including walking both east and west at the same time). Such a diverse collection of possible gods has the downside that both rationality and irrationality become equality valid. So a subset of possible gods needs to be considered or irrationality should be considered.

Maybe the only subset of possible gods that is rational to believe in is the empty set. That certainly seems to have been the thrust of a few earlier posts.

You misunderstood the role of the set.
The subset is the Gods considered aka the gods deemed possible. [even atheists should be able to point out 20 gods that are reasonably possible.]
From that subset (including the nonexistent god) a belief should be selected. (although I still contest thee ability to believe on demand)

I don't think so. The operative word is "reasonably." What gods are "reasonably possible?" Any atheist will tell you that the answer is none of them.

I think you are confusing likely with possible. Either that or the "atheists" you name have not considered the question in good faith. (see link above about the difficulty in being willing to consider new ideas in good faith)

The following is an example god that all would agree is possible although both unlikely and irrelevant to our daily routine.
A god that although all powerful doesn't care and doesn't act. [This god easily fits with the data provided and in no way can be distinguished from a lack of a god. It it thus possible as long as the lack of a god is possible. However as prefaced at the beginning its existence or non existence would not affect our lives]

All beings of reasonable intelligence that have considered alternate possibilities in good faith would be able to conceive of alternatives that are equally possible even if not equally likely with their original beliefs. Atheists are more likely to consider more possibilities if they make an effort in good faith. Have I underestimated you?

[Neopergoss]

I will agree that such a being is possible. But the adverb "reasonably" is important here. To me, "reasonably possible" is basically synonymous with "significantly likely," a definition the above god fails to meet. A lot of things are possible but unreasonable.

[OldTrees]

I will agree that such a being is possible. But the adverb "reasonably" is important here. To me, "reasonably possible" is basically synonymous with "significantly likely," a definition the above god fails to meet. A lot of things are possible but unreasonable.

May I suggest that your restrictive definition of reasonable prevents you from even considering alternatives on the off chance that the most likely is wrong? Sticking to only significantly likely events prevents accurate scientific inquiry as all scientists will admit that the null hypothesis is still possible even when the p value is <0.05. [Example of when this is important distinction: http://xkcd.com/882/]