What if we are wrong?

[Derek]

All we can know is what God is not because all that we know is imperfect as part of the material world. We cannot know what God is because we are not of the spiritual world.

[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.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's perfectly rational, but doesn't really apply to the God argument. We have evidence that fire exists, that can and does burn down buildings, and that one can avoid being hurt by the fire by getting out of a burning building. Jumping out the window might be an option for that. Unless I have a reason to believe the person is lying about there being a fire, I would be inclined to believe him since his claim is grounded in verifiable reality.

On the other hand the god argument has no evidence. No god has even been shown to exist, much less be inclined to favor some over others and punish those it dislikes. Until evidence for those exist I have no reason to take action.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's exactly what Pascal's Wager is! "You should believe in God because there might be a God who will punish you if you don't, even though I can't give you any evidence that it might be true aside from my completely unverified beliefs."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There isn't a basis for belief, but I wouldn't go so far as to call people mad for believing it. Humans are not perfectly rational creatures and will often believe things that aren't true for a variety of reasons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except I have evidence that suggests that lightbulbs, broken or not, aren't edible. I have no evidence for the existence of a god, much less its nature. I accept the possibility of such a thing's existence, but I can't discount possibilities for it as absurd since I don't have any reason to do so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I've demonstrated Pascal's Wager isn't a pragmatic argument, it's a fallacious one.

But really this isn't that absurd of a possibility. Let me argue a logical way that this atheist-favoring deity might be a possible consideration:

Premise 1: The universe exists and was designed and created by God.
Premise 2: The universe behaves by what appear to be consistent rules that don't change.
Premise 3: Through rational thinking and empirical analysis one can determine what these rules are.
Premise 4: Through determining these rules people can develop technology and whatnot that increase their lifespan and overall quality of life.
Premise 5: Because the universe was designed in such a way that rational thinking reaps benefits, God as the designer may prefer rational thinkers over non-rational thinkers.

So why would the benefits suddenly cease in the afterlife? Why would God suddenly change to prefer faith, a definitively non-rational way of thinking that favors belief in the absence of evidence, over determining beliefs through evidence gathering by rational thinking and empirical analysis? If anything this makes the faith preferring God seem more absurd.

[Mechaman]

     If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. It would be unpleasant, but life is too short to spend my time worrying that I might be wrong.

Epic.

A life of constant fear is a life not worth living.

[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.

[The Mikado]

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.

[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.

[Earth]

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.

Argumentum ad populum

What makes "being pulled out of thin air" any different than the popular conception of God that favors believers?

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).

That's in no way evidence. Belief is belief, it is not circumstantial evidence.

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.

You're basing likelihood on amount of believers now? It's less of a stretch so long as the belief is established?

[Earth]

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.

Assuming this reductionist look at the Christian God could sum up the dilemma, it's a dishonest insurance policy. It devalues actual faith by hedging your bet. Deciding to believe in God, and act accordingly because the alternative is hellfire and brimstone; God would already know your motivation. It's not based in authentic faith, but dishonesty. Pascal's wager is a silly argument with bad implications.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The Mikado]

Atheists have nothing on Blaise Pascal.  They just get pissed because they no longer have a monopoly on rationality.

I'd think the logical case against Pascal's Wager is pretty clear: an omniscient being would be able to easily tell if you were faking religious belief out of a hope for personal gain.

[Bo]

If you're afraid of being wrong, just freeze your body after you die so that they could hopefully revive you in the future. Also, I just pray to any God/divide being/other power to please forgive me if I'm wrong, so that I don't get punished in any case and to avoid risk.

[Derek]

that doesn't work I already tried it

[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?

[Earth]

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.

[John Dibble]

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.

Just to clarify, I don't think they are all equally ludicrous, just equally without evidence. As a general rule the more specific you get into describing a god, what it wants, what it acts like, what it looks like, etc. the more ludicrous I find the belief. For instance deists believe in a god, but generally speaking their deity exists but they wouldn't claim to know a whole lot about it other than perhaps a few vague things. It's still a claim without evidence, but it's a claim that makes far fewer leaps of faith due to lack of evidence.

[Derek]

It's not a big deal if you're wrong. God is above religion.

[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.