Pascal's Wager

[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.

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/]

I only arrived at the conclusion that it was unreasonable after great thought. It's not as though I never considered (or believed) it.

Btw, funny comic. I like xkcd. But for this the p value is infinitesimal.

[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/]

I only arrived at the conclusion that it was unreasonable after great thought. It's not as though I never considered (or believed) it.

Btw, funny comic. I like xkcd. But for this the p value is infinitesimal.

Then you agree that considering a subset of possible gods and then picking a belief from that subset or the null set is the correct rational route?
If that is the case than a different looser definition for reasonable possible is required for the subset than is required for the conclusion. (as you demonstrated with your personal account of your progress through this route)

[Neopergoss]

Then you agree that considering a subset of possible gods and then picking a belief from that subset or the null set is the correct rational route?
If that is the case than a different looser definition for reasonable possible is required for the subset than is required for the conclusion. (as you demonstrated with your personal account of your progress through this route)

I got lost in quotes for a minute. My original point was that when you start with a list of all possible gods and then eliminate the ones that are irrational, you are left with an empty set. Does that clarify what I meant? I don't think a looser definition is needed, because I started with a list of all possible gods. Here is the quote:

@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]

I thought that you were exaggerating in that quote. I was sure you did not consider all possible gods (you are not immortal yourself right?).

All possible gods --narrowed to--> reasonable subset to consider: all gods you could imagine --narrowed to--> Conclusion:No rational god

Does this make what I suggested clearer or do you contend that the middle step is unwarranted?

[Jenkar]

I got lost in quotes for a minute. My original point was that when you start with a list of all possible gods and then eliminate the ones that are irrational, you are left with an empty set.

I may sound stupid, but what makes a god irrational?

[Neopergoss]

I thought that you were exaggerating in that quote. I was sure you did not consider all possible gods (you are not immortal yourself right?).

All possible gods --narrowed to--> reasonable subset to consider: all gods you could imagine --narrowed to--> Conclusion:No rational god

Does this make what I suggested clearer or do you contend that the middle step is unwarranted?

I think the middle step is unwarranted. It's like you can consider brown without considering every possible shade of brown. Let me put it to you this way: it's also possible that there are invisible aliens living amongst us, or that we were created by aliens. But no one believes that because there is no rational reason to. You may not have considered all possible types of aliens, but that doesn't matter.

[agentflare]

I think this very nice Youtube video dispells Pascal's wager nicely.

(Youtube being intellectual? Oh my)

[Neopergoss]

Dude. I can't offer enough praise for that video. Just...wow 

[OldTrees]

I think this very nice Youtube video dispells Pascal's wager nicely.

(Youtube being intellectual? Oh my)

Very good video until
1"We can invest in things we can never know." [True option]
2"But to do that is nonsensical" [Unjustified intuitive leap that I epistemologically find absurd]
3"Alternatively, we can invest in the knowable." [Unjustified assertion that knowledge can exist.]
However to all who believe that a belief with 99% recursive certainty is knowledge these critiques are irrelevant.
Those that hold that knowledge requires 100% recursive certainty have either died or have accepted that dealing with the unknowable is our lot in life.
For those of you who have a less strict definition of knowledge but consider morality to be a part of the unknowable then 2 has the flaw that it assumes an unknowable to claim unknowables are not worth considering.

@Neopergoss
The set Brown is finite is all dimensions but 1.
The set Possible Gods is infinite in all dimensions.

[Neopergoss]

Infinity in multiple dimensions is still the same infinity. The amount of points on an infinite plane = the amount of points on a finite line segment. There has been work done on the cardinality of different infinities that is quite interesting.

Anyway, if you require 100% certainty for anything, I'm afraid you're going to be quite disappointed with how little you can be so sure of. It's interesting that you finally reveal this. I find myself repeating over and over in discussions with you that absolute certainty is [fool's gold, a windmill to duel...I can't find an awesome enough analogy. Any suggestions?]. Reminds me of Descartes. I would call it folly, but I respect you for your earnestness and I wish you all the best in your search for truth.

And btw, I agree with everything in the video. I don't know how you can find statements #2 and #3 above "unjustified"; the whole video was justification for those conclusions.

[OldTrees]

Infinity in multiple dimensions is still the same infinity. The amount of points on an infinite plane = the amount of points on a finite line segment. There has been work done on the cardinality of different infinities that is quite interesting.

Anyway, if you require 100% certainty for anything, I'm afraid you're going to be quite disappointed with how little you can be so sure of. It's interesting that you finally reveal this. I find myself repeating over and over in discussions with you that absolute certainty is [fool's gold, a windmill to duel...I can't find an awesome enough analogy. Any suggestions?]. Reminds me of Descartes. I would call it folly, but I respect you for your earnestness and I wish you all the best in your search for truth.

And btw, I agree with everything in the video. I don't know how you can find statements #2 and #3 above "unjustified"; the whole video was justification for those conclusions.

I was arguing about the infinite relevant variables to consider while with color there is only 1 relevant variable to consider. This means 1 test of sufficient rigor would work for the colors brown but an infinite number would be needed to test all the variables relevant to possible divine characteristics.

I am not afraid to never be sure. I am afraid of being wrong about the most important question. Hence my humble epistemological view.

My criticism of 2+3 was inherent in my epistemological belief.

My 2nd criticism of 2 was that "We can invest in things we can never know. But to do that is nonsensical" makes a normative statement about a descriptive option which would require a normative system to make that judgement. Morality is the subject that best fits the category "things we can never know". Hence it invests in something it cannot know to refute investing in something it cannot know. (This criticism assumes the author cannot know the answer to the important question "What ought one do?")

[QuantumT]

My favorite excerpt from the video:

For every unknowable idea that rewards a particular behavior,
another unknowable idea will punish that very same behavior.