Pascal's wager is not practical

[tafan2]

I read your post as if it was reversed. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[STT]

So, in what sense is that “Evil God” supposed to be “God”?

Devil God could be the creator.

Have you just “rediscovered” devil under a different name?

No, I mean Devil when I talk about Evil God.

 

[MPat]

Let me give you an example that makes Evil God feasble: Think of an Evil God for a second. He of course lies about who is real creator. So, how do we could possibly know the truth?

Devil God could be the creator.

Um, are you asking me to imagine a scenario where that “Evil God” has created the Universe and lies saying that someone else did that?

Sounds a bit incoherent…

So no, I am not going to imagine that.

Have you just “rediscovered” devil under a different name?

So, apparently, by “No” you mean “Yes”…

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Well, almost - it takes a tiny bit more work. Pascal’s advise is simple: try to be honest with yourself, accept the Wager, follow the motions for a while (snip) - and you will discover that you actually do believe.

Wow. You do realize that many nonbelievers started out as church going believers, right? A few of us also have it another try in adulthood to no avail. Your model of how one comes to believe just isn’t compatible with my personal experience. Maybe it works as you say for some people, but this hasn’t been my experience.

First, you seem to think that believing is a matter of feelings (of something you really can’t control directly). It is not. It is a matter of will. Catholicism does not care about feelings all that much.

So you’re suggesting that you could choose to believe something you view as false? That makes no sense.
Wouldn’t believing imply one accepts the statement in question as true? As such, one can’t believe while also viewing the statement as false. The change in view from false to neural or true is not an act of will.
Are we defining “believe” differently here?

Or you could link to relevant threads.

Or not. I understand this is a place for Catholics and others to discuss the intricacies of their faith. Just as I wouldn’t shout “There is no God!” when I end up at mass, I try not to argue about God’s existence directly on these forums. You’re welcome to search threads from others who do and see how those end up.

 

[MPat]

Wow. You do realize that many nonbelievers started out as church going believers, right?

Sure.

That, by the way, does not in any way contradict what I have said.

And yes, I know - you wanted to smuggle in an assumption that those people ended up unbelievers after long, honest, impartial and reasonable thinking.

But, of course, it is not so.

Once in a while we do get people having a crisis of faith (or thinking about joining the faith) in this forum. And we see that their problems were not caused by, let’s say, reading about “argument from evil”. No. But it does happen that they were discouraged by suffering. Or that they were discouraged by hostile reaction from society or family. Or that they do not want to give up some bad habit.

And those motivations can be balanced against motivations mentioned in Pascal’s Wager.

So you’re suggesting that you could choose to believe something you view as false? That makes no sense.
Wouldn’t believing imply one accepts the statement in question as true? As such, one can’t believe while also viewing the statement as false.

Yes, even if “believing” and “viewing as true” might have some small differences, they are mostly the same.

The change in view from false to neural or true is not an act of will.

Naturally, this conclusion does not follow.

It would, if you had a premise like “Viewing a proposition as true is not a matter of will.”. But you do not have it. You have not been granted it. You did not even propose it.

Are we defining “believe” differently here?

Yes, it might be so. It might be that by “believing” you mean “having feelings associated with believing”.

For yes, the feelings are not under direct control of will.

It might also be that you do not understand what is meant by “will”, expecting that it could be changed “at the drop of the hat”.

No, will is the part of mind that works with motivations. And while balance of motivations sometimes does change so easily, sometimes it does not.

Or not. I understand this is a place for Catholics and others to discuss the intricacies of their faith. Just as I wouldn’t shout “There is no God!” when I end up at mass, I try not to argue about God’s existence directly on these forums.

So, is shouting “There is no God!" the only way to argue about God’s existence you can think of?

Yes, such “arguing” would be a bad idea. And yes, threads where atheists just shout like that are not exactly in high demand here.

And, of course, if such “arguing” is the best you can do, we can certainly conclude that yes, you have no good reason to be an atheist.

And yes, in such case thinking more clearly and honestly about motivations might be all that is necessary from your side.

 

[STT]

Um, are you asking me to imagine a scenario where that “Evil God” has created the Universe and lies saying that someone else did that?

Yes, for example. I have other examples.

Sounds a bit incoherent…

What is the incoherence?

So no, I am not going to imagine that.

How could you say that it is incoherent if you haven’t tried to imagine it?

 

[MPat]

What is the incoherence?

Well, for starters, what is the motivation for lying?

“Just because”?

How could you say that it is incoherent if you haven’t tried to imagine it?

Imagination is not a tool for checking if a set of propositions is consistent.

Yes, for example. I have other examples.

Sorry, not interested.

If the very first one was so bad (and you still didn’t notice), why should I waste time and effort on others?

 

[STT]

Well, for starters, what is the motivation for lying?

Natures of Good God and Evil God dictate what they should do. Good God cannot lie. He always tells the truth. Evil God, however, do opposite.

“Just because”?

Because of His nature as it is illustrated.

Imagination is not a tool for checking if a set of propositions is consistent.

Where is the inconsistency?

Sorry, not interested.

If the very first one was so bad (and you still didn’t notice), why should I waste time and effort on others?

As you wish?

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

And yes, I know - you wanted to smuggle in an assumption that those people ended up unbelievers after long, honest, impartial and reasonable thinking.

But, of course, it is not so.

Such a blanket statement is accurate. This is true for some but not all.

Once in a while we do get people having a crisis of faith (or thinking about joining the faith) in this forum. And we see that their problems were not caused by, let’s say, reading about “argument from evil”. No. But it does happen that they were discouraged by suffering. Or that they were discouraged by hostile reaction from society or family. Or that they do not want to give up some bad habit.

And those motivations can be balanced against motivations mentioned in Pascal’s Wager.

Those motivations listed would be more appropriate to the nature of God and if He should be worshiped, not His existence.

So, is shouting “There is no God!" the only way to argue about God’s existence you can think of?

Obviously not, but I have nothing to gain. The point is I’m not a big fan of arguing God’s nonexistence in most settings. I have no real desire to convince others that there’s no God because I understand that most faiths bring meaning, comfort, and joy to many. Why would I seek to weaken that? Why attack another’s happiness?

What do you think my goal is when discussing religious matters here or IRL? It certainly isn’t to disprove another’s faith.

 

[MPat]

Natures of Good God and Evil God dictate what they should do. Good God cannot lie. He always tells the truth. Evil God, however, do opposite.

Or, perhaps, “Evil God” should tell nothing at all? That is an opposite to “telling” anything.

That hints at why “Evil God” is incoherent. “Good” is existence. “Evil” is privation, defect, non-existence. In order to be perfectly evil, “Evil God” would have not to exist.

Where is the inconsistency?

I already gave one reason, but in general, your scenario is full of “plot holes” (What makes “Evil God” God? What makes “Evil God” evil? Why would “Evil God” pretend not to have created? Why would “Evil God” create?), while having little “plot”. You can patch up some of “plot holes”, but not all.

And having to force you to see a “plot hole”, then seeing you try to patch it up… That’s not very fun.

Such a blanket statement is accurate. This is true for some but not all.

If you think some atheists have reached atheism after “long, honest, impartial and reasonable thinking”, write down your thesis and prove it. Or at least argue for it.

Don’t just try to assume it implicitly.

What do you think my goal is when discussing religious matters here or IRL? It certainly isn’t to disprove another’s faith.

Well, one possibility is strengthening your faith.

Why would you need that? Because it is not all that pleasant to live as if God doesn’t exist while knowing that you have no proof that God really does not exist.

Once in a while you do end up with questions like “And what if God does exist?” or “Did I really evaluate various options reasonably, honestly, impartially?”.

So, a common tactic chosen by many atheists seems to be challenging someone to persuade them not to be atheists. After that try fails, an atheist can say to himself that it shows he was right all along, that he evaluated the evidence right etc. Of course, logically this argument is circular (it assumes that atheist evaluates the evidence well to prove it), but I guess psychologically it works kinda well - until next time.

That hypothesis also explains why you are not willing to offer your own arguments: if you would do so and we would laugh at them (or demonstrate that they do not work), it would become harder and not easier to justify your atheism to yourself.

And, of course, our job, among other things, is to make it a bit harder for you to hide all that from yourself. Which is why I asked for arguments.

 

[STT]

Or, perhaps, “Evil God” should tell nothing at all? That is an opposite to “telling” anything.

No. Evil God tells lies. That is your mistake because you think that Evil is absence of Good. Lie exists and it is opposite of truth as Evil is opposite of Good.

That hints at why “Evil God” is incoherent. “Good” is existence. “Evil” is privation, defect, non-existence. In order to be perfectly evil, “Evil God” would have not to exist.

Evil is not privation of good as lie is not privation of truth.

I already gave one reason, but in general, your scenario is full of “plot holes” (What makes “Evil God” God?

What makes “Good God” God.

What makes “Evil God” evil?

His Nature is Evil.

Why would “Evil God” pretend not to have created?

For example, He lies in order to people have wrong idea about God, thinking that God is Good, and do good things instead of evil things.

Why would “Evil God” create?

To punish His creatures who do good eternally.

 

[MPat]

No. Evil God tells lies. That is your mistake because you think that Evil is absence of Good. Lie exists and it is opposite of truth as Evil is opposite of Good.

Yes, lie is an opposite of truth. But error is also an opposite of truth. And telling truth is a kind of telling something meaningful, the opposite of which is saying some nonsense. And it is also a kind of telling something, the opposite of which is being silent.

So, four opposites of telling the truth (lie, error, nonsense, silence) which are incompatible. So, why choose one and not some other?

You can also see that the account of evil as a privation of good handles all those cases easily: a good action of telling the truth can have such and such defects etc.

But your Manichaeism does not handle those cases all that well. So, why is “Evil God” lying? Why can’t “Evil God” be mistaken all the time instead?

And that’s why “Evil God” is not possible: “Evil God” would have to be defective in every way, and those ways are incompatible.

Or otherwise we’d have “Evil God” that is good in some ways and evil in other ways.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

write down your thesis and prove it. Or at least argue for it.

Is this how most believers came to believe? Maybe you? (If you had an unbelief phase)

I’m not that motivated when it comes to proving or disproving God. I find the importance others place on this topic bizarre. But since you keep asking see the last 3 paragraphs of this post for a few issues I have without running afoul of etiquette or forum rules.

Well, one possibility is strengthening your faith.

(Snip)Because it is not all that pleasant to live as if God doesn’t exist while knowing that you have no proof that God really does not exist.

Strengthen what now?

I assure you there’s no distress from within. The only unpleasantness is how others react upon discovering my opinion.

Once in a while you do end up with questions like “And what if God does exist?”

Oh my friend, I’m simply trying to understand how most of the world comes to and maintain belief. Sometimes I wonder “What if God(s) exist and all religions got key details completely wrong?” But mostly religious stuff only matters because many use it as a basis for policies/politics that could affect me.

So, a common tactic chosen by many atheists seems to be challenging someone to persuade them not to be atheists.

I’m not interested in believing in your God. But you we’re correct in implying that I do not have the burden of proof. You seem to treat this as if faith is the default.

That hypothesis also explains why you are not willing to offer your own arguments: if you would do so and we would laugh at them (or demonstrate that they do not work), it would become harder and not easier to justify your atheism to yourself.

“Justify”? Sigh.
The reason is simply, I don’t need to. It’s almost as if you are treating atheism as a replacement for religion when it is merely a label for one who doesn’t believe.
It’s not about proving “no God” but rather that I’m not sufficiently convinced of “yes god”. In the absence of other ppl making anything of it I’ve been more of an “apatheist” for a big chunk of my life.

I’m no biblical scholar, but a few issues are around the narratives in Scripture that seem to conflict with God’s 3 omnis and/or free will. Ex: Exodus 7:3-4 indicate that God hardened pharaoh’s heart prior to the demand and the plagues. That’s a free will violation and the opposite of good. There’s obviously a few others.

More philosophically, the argument morality doesn’t work as I do not accept absolute morality. God need not exist for what we can morality to exist. Though I agree that the assumption god(s) exist have played a part in societies developing and abiding by certain rules of morality.

The fine tuning argument doesn’t work as the observable universe is so large that even astronomical odds means its likely that a give set of conditions could occur on a large time scale. Not to mention that past events almost wiped out life and such a threat still exist.

 

[rossum]

Not to mention that past events almost wiped out life and such a threat still exist.

It is possible that past events did wipe out life on earth. Any primitive life that started during the Late Heavy Bombardment could well have been wiped out by one of the larger impacts. Our particular iteration of life seems to have started shortly after the bombardment stopped.

 

[goout]

goout:

You assume that if there is a God, God is bad.
If you assume that God is good, then…you have to change your thinking.

In Buddhist morality, the Bible God is bad. He kills far too many people, unborn babies included.

God kills people ?!!
When did Buddhists become fundamentalist Christians?

 

[goout]

MPat:

Why would “Evil God” create?

To punish His creatures who do good eternally.

It’s hard to imagine a more pessimistic and backward way of thinking. If you can’t appreciate the reality of your existence as a good, then why are you even here talking about it?

This is a serious question that you should answer (along with all others who are atheists or skeptics)
What are you doing here?
Why are you here debating what is real, good, and true, with a bunch of Catholics on a Catholic forum?

At the very least, you ought to consider that you are wasting your life with things you consider to be foolish, and/or trivial.

So why are you here? A rational person ought to give some meaning to this question, since your engagement here is sucking up a lot of your life.

This sort of disingenuous incongruity makes it difficult to take you and your positions seriously. There are an army of non-believers across the street from me right now, occupying barstools watching re-runs of baseball games. But they at least know who they are, and are honest with themselves, and they own their indifference to anything “God”. They are living their non-belief and indifference with integrity and gusto.

Why are you here…
And I want to emphasize that it is good you are here. Can you admit that your inquiries here are proof that transcendental truth is available to you, and that you are seeking it, and that your search is “good”?

 

[Gorgias]

Only if one buys into the assertion that the cost of attempting to follow a religion is insignificant. Pascal makes that assertion but many would disagree.

I think that this mischaracterizes the argument. It’s not that the “cost is insignificant”, per se, but rather, that the ‘cost’ is dwarfed by the expected value of the potential reward. That’s a significant, yet subtle, difference!

 

[rossum]

God kills people ?!!

Yes. He sent a big flood which killed people. He sent plagues to Egypt, which killed people. Or is the Abrahamic God not the God described in the Tanakh/Old Testament?

When did Buddhists become fundamentalist Christians?

You may have forgotten that the same Abrahamic God is also worshipped by Jews and Muslims. Buddhists find the same fault with all His versions.

 

[Elf01]

In Buddhist morality, the Bible God is bad. He kills far too many people, unborn babies included.

Are Buddhists pro life?

 

[goout]

So you read the Scriptures like Christian fundamentalists then.
Do you believe there is a hammered metal dome in the sky? It says so in the Old Testament.
Please provide evidence of a hammered metal dome in the sky!