What if we are wrong?

[Gustaf]

Someone mentioned Pascal's Wager, but it is such an obvious point to make in this thread that I still feel obliged.

The basic point of it is that there are four possible outcomes:

A: You believe in God, God exists
B: You believe in God, God doesn't exist
C: You don't believe in God, God exists
D: You don't believe in God, God doesn't exist

Outcome A is eternal glory in paradise
Outcome B may be a small loss of comfort in life due to following religious rules, but on the other sense of purpose and all that may provide you with a boost as well.
Outcome C is eternel torture in hell or something along those lines.
Outcome D is the opposite of outcome B.

Pascal then argues that given the infinite good of outcome A and the infinite bad of outcome C, even assigning a very small probability to God existing speaks in favour of believing in Him.

The standard counter is of course that the choice might not be between God and atheism but between a multitude of religions. Even so it would seem that one would be better off picking a religion at random than going with atheism.

[Gustaf]

Someone mentioned Pascal's Wager, but it is such an obvious point to make in this thread that I still feel obliged.

The basic point of it is that there are four possible outcomes:

A: You believe in God, God exists
B: You believe in God, God doesn't exist
C: You don't believe in God, God exists
D: You don't believe in God, God doesn't exist

Outcome A is eternal glory in paradise
Outcome B may be a small loss of comfort in life due to following religious rules, but on the other sense of purpose and all that may provide you with a boost as well.
Outcome C is eternel torture in hell or something along those lines.
Outcome D is the opposite of outcome B.

Pascal then argues that given the infinite good of outcome A and the infinite bad of outcome C, even assigning a very small probability to God existing speaks in favour of believing in Him.

The standard counter is of course that the choice might not be between God and atheism but between a multitude of religions. Even so it would seem that one would be better off picking a religion at random than going with atheism.

That is once again a fallacy because it presupposes that if a god exists it wouldn't prefer atheists. But what if it does? What if there is a god but it prefers the skeptics, atheists, and agnostics, rewarding them for whatever reason and giving nothing to or outright condemning the believers?

I suppose, but it seems to be a bit of a stretch.

[Gustaf]

Someone mentioned Pascal's Wager, but it is such an obvious point to make in this thread that I still feel obliged.

The basic point of it is that there are four possible outcomes:

A: You believe in God, God exists
B: You believe in God, God doesn't exist
C: You don't believe in God, God exists
D: You don't believe in God, God doesn't exist

Outcome A is eternal glory in paradise
Outcome B may be a small loss of comfort in life due to following religious rules, but on the other sense of purpose and all that may provide you with a boost as well.
Outcome C is eternel torture in hell or something along those lines.
Outcome D is the opposite of outcome B.

Pascal then argues that given the infinite good of outcome A and the infinite bad of outcome C, even assigning a very small probability to God existing speaks in favour of believing in Him.

The standard counter is of course that the choice might not be between God and atheism but between a multitude of religions. Even so it would seem that one would be better off picking a religion at random than going with atheism.

That is once again a fallacy because it presupposes that if a god exists it wouldn't prefer atheists. But what if it does? What if there is a god but it prefers the skeptics, atheists, and agnostics, rewarding them for whatever reason and giving nothing to or outright condemning the believers?

I suppose, but it seems to be a bit of a stretch.

How is it any more of a stretch to think that god exists and prefers anyone in particular?

Well...no one believes in this atheist-loving God. He is completely pulled out of thin air. I understand that to an atheist or agnostic the concept of, say, the Christian God might seem ridiculous, but still...there is at least something in the way of evidence however circumstantial for the existence of the Christian God (like people claiming to have had contact with him, all testimonials in the Bible, etc).

The hypothetical God you posted has no basis at all, no one even believes that. So I'd say it is more of a stretch.

One way of looking at it is that it seems extremely odd to suppose that there is a God who has given no sign at all of his intentions or ideas. The Gods of mainstream religions supposedly tell us stuff about how to get to heaven, etc.

Tuck, I'm not sure what you mean. What does getting it wrong or not answering mean here?

[Gustaf]

Well...no one believes in this atheist-loving God.

Isn't that how an atheist-loving god would want it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can we really say that other gods people worship aren't the same?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

None of which can actually be considered evidence by itself. It's all contradicted by other religions, and the people in those religions who claim to have had experiences with their own God. If I have to consider that evidence for one religion, I have to consider it evidence for all religions, and since that means it's pretty much all contradictory it has no value in determining truth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The existence or non-existence of things does not change just because nobody believes in them. Nobody believed in black holes 1000 years ago, and nobody had any reason to. Does that mean black holes didn't exist until someone thought them up? No, of course not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is that odd? Maybe the universe is some grand experiment to such a god, and interfering in any way would ruin the experiment. I could think of any number of other reasons why a god might not interfere. It seems to me that you are thinking it's odd because you are humanizing this god thing - you seem to expect it to behave something like a human might behave, but that's entirely baseless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which does not tell us anything about whether or not those claims are true.

I understand what you're saying, but I still think you're being a bit ridiculous here. Do you actually believe what you're saying here? Black holes isn't really much of an analogy, for instance, since God isn't a scientific discovery.

And I didn't say it was solid evidence but it's something which is at least better than nothing. The fact that there are several religions with this sort of circumstantial evidence doesn't weaken my case, it just illustrates how extremely out there your atheist-god-idea is. If at least one person claims that something is true I'm more inclined to believe that than something that no one believes in. Of course I know just as well as you or any other rational person that something can be true even though no one believes in it, but it seems pretty far-fetched.

You don't even believe in this atheist-God yourself, so why would anyone else believe in it? I'm not saying that Pascal's Wager shows that you should be a Christian, there is a decent case for belonging to other religions.

Let me put it this way - you may not see any reason for believing in the Christian God. But clearly millions and millions of people do. You may disregard all of those people as idiots but I personally find that unconvincing. The atheist-God you propose is a concept that no one believes in so I can't really put them on the same level.

[Gustaf]

I don't really see this debate going anywhere, since we seem to have different perspectives.

I don't know if you're serious when you lecture me on the fact that something can be true even if no one thinks so, but in case you are I've made that point myself more times than I can count. I'm well aware of it and it's not my point.

I'll try to think of an analogy here. If someone were to run into the room I'm sitting in right now and yell that there is a fire and I need to jump out of the window to save myself I'd consider it. I might not do it, because there might not be any evidence of a fire in the building or that fire blocking other exits, etc.

But if someone were to come in and suggest to me "why don't you jump out the window, since there might be a fire?" I'd ask if he thought there was a fire. If he then replied by saying "no, but you can never know for sure" I'd consider him to be a pretty odd person.

Obviously there can be a fire without anyone being aware of it, that's not really the point. You'r e arguing that there is no basis at all to believe any religion to the point where you can just as well believe any random thing of whatever. That's bizarre to me since you're putting the vast majority of the world on the same level as deranged madmen.

Another example would be the debate over what to eat. There are lots of different opinions out there, some more scientific than others, but I'd take any of them over a suggestion to, say, eat broken lightbulbs because it is theoretically possible that it is the way to go, even though no one believes it.

Part of what bothers me is you're taking Pascal's Wager, a pragmatic argument, into a theoretical sphere in an absurd way.

[Gustaf]

Dibble,

I don't think either one of us can prove that we're right on this. We seem to value certain pieces of information differently. I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding here though, because we're reinterpreting Pascal's Wager in different ways. I agree the original PW is fallacious. Precisely because of that, I'm not viewing my version as bringing God into the picture in a completely random fashion.

I think your atheist-God is more far-fetched than the deities of mainstream religions and you think they are equally ludicrous. I don't think there is anything we can say to change each others' minds there, since we seem to simply interpret information differently there.

[Gustaf]

Dibble,

I don't think either one of us can prove that we're right on this. We seem to value certain pieces of information differently. I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding here though, because we're reinterpreting Pascal's Wager in different ways. I agree the original PW is fallacious. Precisely because of that, I'm not viewing my version as bringing God into the picture in a completely random fashion.

I think your atheist-God is more far-fetched than the deities of mainstream religions and you think they are equally ludicrous. I don't think there is anything we can say to change each others' minds there, since we seem to simply interpret information differently there.

While I do agree that atheist-God is unlikely (reminds me of TV Tropes' "Flat Earth Atheist" trope, atheists in fantasy settings that interface with gods on a daily basis), certainly "God that doesn't care what we think" is a fairly likely scenario out of the scenarios that involve a God.  Or maybe a God that can't stand suckups in the same fashion as the rock-star that hates the "I'm your biggest fan" crowd.

Sure, but that's not really my angle on this. My angle is more that the Christian God, under most interpretations, explicitly says, more or less, what you need to do to go to heaven. Likewise for other major religions. And the concept of Christianity (or Islam, buddhism, etc) is independent of me, having existed before I was born. That's different than making up my own hypothetical God, imo. Dibble disagrees to this and I can respect that though.

[Gustaf]

The case that PW is dishonest and that God would see through it is of course another point altogether.

I should perhaps have made this clear from the outset but I don't personally believe in PW to any great extent. The dishonesty argument is obviously rather strong (unless one can manipulate oneself into actual belief, but that opens up another complex discussion.

I was more interested in discussing the multiple Gods aspect.

Earth, I don't see a point in replying to your reply to my earlier post since you're largely making the same argument Dibble was making and I've already replied to that (except for the dishonesty point, of course).

Besides, I'm yet to be convinced of the fruitfulness of debating with you, especially since you seem a bit unhinged lately. On this particular topic, I recall you don't even think God's existence is a question of fact, so we can't really be right or wrong anyway, can we?

[Gustaf]

Earth, I don't see a point in replying to your reply to my earlier post since you're largely making the same argument Dibble was making and I've already replied to that (except for the dishonesty point, of course).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see a response to your idea that belief is circumstantial evidence.

Besides, I'm yet to be convinced of the fruitfulness of debating with you, especially since you seem a bit unhinged lately.

Stick to the subject. If you have a problem, pm me.

On this particular topic, I recall you don't even think God's existence is a question of fact, so we can't really be right or wrong anyway, can we?

We can be wrong in this, particularly if an argument is made up of non sequiturs, or doesn't logically follow. God's existence is irrelevant; the argument unfolds on the assumption that if God were to exist, what would his view be on believers, both honest or dishonest, and atheists. This argument even bigger implications for theology, and how thread bear it can get.

An implication must consist of propositions with truth values in order to have a truth value itself, so it is actually highly relevant. Again, debating with someone prepared to take self-contradictory positions is meaningless, it can never get anywhere.

And I didn't say that belief is circumstantial evidence, but rather that testimonials are. It is actually, legally speaking, a rather typical form of circumstantial evidence.

Anyway, I feel this thread is getting a bit derailed. To be clear, I'm not a big fan of PW myself. I simply figured that a thread on this topic should have it mentioned given its historical fame and all. I think I understand Dibble's view even if I disagree with it.