"The Atheist's Wager", A turn on Pascal

[Yasa]

Quote by: MplsBison Correct. Basically, there is always a greater than zero possibility that you will go to some sort of hell when you die. But simply pretending that the possibility isn't there, which atheists do, is false.

I think you're missing my point. If, according to you, we are allowed to imagine anything as a possibility, imagine a God who would send to hell anyone who believes in any god, and would send to heaven the atheist.

Using your logic, there would be just as much reason to be and atheist as a theist, and thus, it refutes your wager's viability.

ie. "You can't disprove the God who sends atheists to heaven! So I'm going to be an atheist because there's always a small probability a God hails atheists and condemns theists!"

Your insistance on not being able to disprove the wildest imagination is not a very convincing argument to believe in anything--except in superstition. Ever heard of Russell's Teapot?

[jrcbailey]

Quote by: ItsDarts I would disagree with you here because if one doesn't "agree" with the premise, then burden is on them to show the premise false. Agreement has nothing to do with it. I agree the specific arguments above are faulty, because I can physically show how a block of wood can exist in the same space as a rabbit, however the rabbit would be pretty uncomfortable with a wooden block up its butt. :) I would add that definition of terms may need to be agreed upon in deductive arguments.

I agree with you that the burden is on the thiest to prove that science and religion can sit side by side. But because they have (I believe hypocritically) "adapted" their argument to say; 'God started the Big Bang, and then controlled and directed the Evolutionary process to the present day - now explain why they're not compatible?', where do we stand but to speculate.

I believe that both time and space is infinite (until science discovers otherwise) and that Evolution is, as theorized by Darwin, by means of Natural Selection (which obviously explains alot more about our behaviour and physical traits than the thiest version would).

Also, I entirely agree that ambiguity in the premeses of a deductive argument should be minimized, for obvious reasons.

[jrcbailey]

Quote by: Zhavric Do you agree that the hypothesis "God exists and created the universe" is a scientific hypothesis? Yes or no?

Absolutely not! Unfortunately though, there are some that (falsely) do. But I can't see how anyone could suggest that it would be a "scientific hypothesis" - on what basis?

Nevertheless, science can't (yet) explained what occurred before the Big Bang - so we move into the metaphysical. But as I said above, I personally believe that space and time are infinite, so that the Universe contracted and is now in an expanding stage. Anyway, this isn't a science debate, so moving on...

[MplsBison]

Quote by: ItsDarts You're placing burden of proof of impossibility when you can't show possibility

There mere fact that I can think it up means that it's possible.



The only time something isn't possible is when it's shown to be impossible, which is possible to show (such as Ish's example about gravity).



So it rests on you to show that hell is impossible.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Isherwood Since the only proof theists offer to support their contention that it's true is their word, then all I have to do to disprove their contention is to refute their claim, and I do. There, using the same standards of proof you've offered to support the notion of hell and gods, I've dis-proven them.

You have not shown that hell is impossible.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Yasa I think you're missing my point. If, according to you, we are allowed to imagine anything as a possibility, imagine a God who would send to hell anyone who believes in any god, and would send to heaven the atheist. Using your logic, there would be just as much reason to be and atheist as a theist, and thus, it refutes your wager's viability. ie. "You can't disprove the God who sends atheists to heaven! So I'm going to be an atheist because there's always a small probability a God hails atheists and condemns theists!" Your insistance on not being able to disprove the wildest imagination is not a very convincing argument to believe in anything--except in superstition. Ever heard of Russell's Teapot?

You misplace my intentions.


I'm not trying to show anyone why they shouldn't be atheists. I'm practically an atheist myself. Certainly not religious.



I'm just showing simple logic.


IE, if you haven't shown that something is impossible, then it is possible.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: MplsBison I'm just showing simple logic. IE, if you haven't shown that something is impossible, then it is possible.

Given a binary set of choices, X and Y (or X and ~X), that "something" has not been shown to be X does not mean it is Y (or ~X).

"Something" could still be X even if it has not been proven to be so.

An example:
RedGuy proposes Claim A: The ball is red.
NotRedGuy prefers Claim B: The ball is not red.

RedGuy reveals pictures that show that the ball is red. He has no other evidence.
NotRedGuy points out that those pictures were edited with a computer program. The ball in the picture could have been made red via Photoshop. Alternatively, NotRedGuy might demonstrate that the pictures are all fakes.
RedGuy is then unable to prove that the ball is red. Claim A remains unproven. This does not mean that the ball isn't red, however. It could still be red even though RedGuy couldn't prove it. If NotRedGuy wants to prove that the ball isn't red, he'll need to provide evidence of his own and prove Claim B.


That Isherwood and other do not prove to be impossible whatever it is that you're debating about (since I lack interest, sorry) is irrelevant to your own burden of proof. If you wish to conclude that "something" is possible, you're going to have to do better than point out that it hasn't been proven impossible, since it could very well be despite the fact that it isn't proven.

[MplsBison]

I'm not asking for a positive confirmation or a negative confirmation of hell.


I'm simply asking that he shows that the possibility of hell is impossible.

[Yasa]

Quote by: MplsBison I'm not asking for a positive confirmation or a negative confirmation of hell. I'm simply asking that he shows that the possibility of hell is impossible.

Unicorns are possible too. What's your point?

Such speculation and superstition serves little purpose in debate or elsewhere.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Yasa Unicorns are possible too.

So then, if hell is possible then the Atheist's Wager is invalid.

[Yasa]

Quote by: MplsBison So then, if hell is possible then the Atheist's Wager is invalid.

How so? There is room for the possibility of hell in the wager in the OP.

[MplsBison]

The wager hinges on calling god's bluff.


IE, you saying that if god won't put you in heaven by default, then you accept whatever alternative there is.



However, if that alternative is hell...well, lets just say that I've been told hell is a very uncomfortable place.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: MplsBison I'm not asking for a positive confirmation or a negative confirmation of hell. I'm simply asking that he shows that the possibility of hell is impossible. [read: zero]

Sure, go ahead and ask all you want.

But simply because he doesn't show hell is impossible, this does not mean it is possible.

[MplsBison]

Yes it does. That's the definition of possible.



Like I implied before, your logic rules won't work here because I'm not talking about positive or negative confirmations.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: MplsBison Yes it does. That's the definition of possible.

Guess what the definition of impossible is, then.

Listen, it doesn't matter that it's binary (it's either possible or impossible). The point is even if they give you no confirmation or indication that it is impossible, that does not confirm it to be possible.

It simply means it's unconfirmed. Not indicated to be either possible or impossible.

View this as a conversation:
"Hey, is it impossible for me to fly?"
"I have no opinion on the matter."
"Really, no evidence?"
"None."
"It must be possible for me to fly then!"

That's basically what you're trying to do, and it doesn't work.


EDIT: Hrmm...reading the thread, I can see that you're not actually giving a claim, you're just analyzing another poster's alternatives in a general manner of personal game theory, and not trying to create a principle for everyone.
Apologies.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: MplsBison So then, if hell is possible then the Atheist's Wager is invalid.

However, since you can't believe in everyone's religion, you're therefore comdemned to Hell by someone else's religion, which, since no one else's religion is impossible, means it's possible that everyone is condemned to Hell with absolutely no way to avoid it, so who gives a rat's titty.

And I still like Daniel's Wager better.

.

[MplsBison]

I was just pointing out that if you're going to call god's bluff you better be prepared for the possibility that you're going to hell.

[jrcbailey]

Quote by: Sonart . It's my personal belief that human beings are hardwired by evolution with an instinct towards religious experience that functions as a survival mechanism. A 'Religion Gene', as it were. Not that "religious experience" is the same thing as "The Existence of God", but unfortunately, "The Existence of God" has been the only thing most humans could come up with to describe what they thought they were experiencing. .

Apologies for the late reply to your post - just thought I'd let you know my thoughts on your comment above. Thanks for the link by the way - interesting.

It's first worth explaining why (as I believe) people came to believe in God. I think that there is a psychological explanation, which goes like this. During biblical times (as it happens!) they wanted some sort of compensatory comfort, at the detachment of there parents, that they were being looked after. This discomfort of apparent isolation lead to the notion of a God.

Once the notion that there is some higher power looking over them had been established, and with the lack of an alternative (scientific) explanation of their existence, people tended to become receptive to (what they believed to be) religious revelations. In order to sustain this belief in God, our evolutionary developed mechanisms came in to play.

The continuation of religious beliefs can be explained from an evolutionary perspective, not by a specific religious gene, but by by-products of a mixture of other evolutionary mechanisms, developed for survival.

These evolutionary mechanisms may include;
- Conformity (if we don't conform, we may become outcast and our chances of survival will lessen),
- Parental trust (if our parents tell us something, such as; 'you will go to hell if you disobey god', we usually abide),
- Fear of the unknown (a certain degree of cautiousness after parental detachment is vital for survival, and ensuring that you've covered every base to secure your place in "heaven" is important), and
- The need for an optimistic outcome (the idea of "a better place" at the end of our prosperous lives may make us happier and improve our ability to reproduce).

In terms of religious revelations, what may feel to be one can occur due to food, drink, sleep or sensory deprivation. Deprivation of any of these necessities may result in hallucinations, and if you are a strong believer in an all powerful deity, you would have no problem convincing yourself that this is the explanation.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: jrcbailey Absolutely not! Unfortunately though, there are some that (falsely) do. But I can't see how anyone could suggest that it would be a "scientific hypothesis" - on what basis?

Ah. You're assuming that something has to be a good hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis. It doesn't.

The earth is flat.
Nothing man-made will ever travel faster than sound.
The earth is 6000 years old.

All of these are scientific hyptheses. It's to science that we turn to measure them and it was science that found each one of them to be lacking. The fact that all three are resoundingly false doesn't make them any less scientific. It just makes them wrong.

So, the hypothesis "God exists and created the universe" is a scientific hypthesis.

Also, imagine for a moment that through some strange and unlikely set of events, scientists did find some evidence of god's existence. Maybe they unearth a burning bush in the middle east and use science to verify that the flames aren't consuming it. Maybe they find geological evidence the Red Sea magically parted. That part's not important. The point is that if theists and agnostics were really serious about god not being a scientific issue they should dismiss this outright. "God isn't a scientific question so science's findings don't interest me. Not in the slightest. Don't care."

Do you honestly think any theist would make such a reply? You can bet they'd be touting it over any media available.

The god hypothesis is most certainly a scientific hypothesis. It just happens to be horribly flawed.

Nevertheless, science can't (yet) explained what occurred before the Big Bang - so we move into the metaphysical.

What? Stop and consider what you stated there for a moment. When do we ever "move into the metaphysical" when science can't explain something?

Consider the sun.

For millenia, we had no idea what it was and no real way to find out. We've only recently left our own planet and it's not like we can scoop up a bit of sun and put it into a test tube to experiment on it. Hell, we can barely even look at it. Up until recently, we had no way of knowing what the sun is or what's going on inside it.

Then, along comes an invention that allows us to know exactly what's in the sun (or any visible star) just by measuring the energy it emits.

So, what would you say if you heard a scientist state, "Well, we can't figure out what's in the sun, so let's make sh** up about it." That's effectively what you're doing with the origin of the universe. Effectively what you're doing is making up folklore that you know has almost no chance of being true while you wait for science to give you an answer... at which point you'll likely discard the folklore. So why embrace it in the first place? Why make someting up? Why not be honest about it?

"We don't know how the universe began. We know it wasn't created 6000 years ago by a proto-cosmic jewish zombie. Science is hard at work on the answer."

But as I said above, I personally believe that space and time are infinite, so that the Universe contracted and is now in an expanding stage. Anyway, this isn't a science debate, so moving on...

It absolutely is a scientific debate. Remember the sun example and do not mistake a limitation of technology with a limitation of science. A scientific question we do not have the answer to due to limited technology is still a scientific question.

[Jack]

During biblical times (as it happens!) they wanted some sort of compensatory comfort, at the detachment of there parents, that they were being looked after. This discomfort of apparent isolation lead to the notion of a God.

The idea that gods existed who were responsible for everything humans couldn't understand pre-dates the Judeo-Christian concept of god by centuries.

Just as we see by the posts from theists in this forum when discussing science, humans are uncomfortable with unknowns. We feel much more confident if we can imagine a superbeing who knows everything and is in control. We fill in the gaps in our knowledge with the supernatural god concept.

People who do not accept religious mythology, at some point, have to face the fact that our knowledge is limited and we don't know many things yet, or may never know some things in our lifetime. It's called "facing reality". It isn't necessarily easy or pleasant, but it is honest and realistic.