DHA's Wager

quote:

---

It really is quite simple.

​

Absent proof that {A} exists, and
Absent proof that {A} does not exist

​

What is the most logical position:
(1) Yes {A} exists
(2) No {A} does not exist
(3) We don't know if {A} exists or not

---

This is disingenuous, becuase it elides contributory factors. Such as for example, whther or not I would have to undertake penance or confession or whatever as a result of my decision. In this regard, it might conceivably be coerced.Further, this "proof" can be applied qually to any imaginable thing. As a means of determing the correct action, its essentially useless. In the absence of evidence of invisible pink unicorns, and without proof that there are NO invisible pink unicorns...I think the EXISTANCE of something has to be shown, and its non-existence can be presumed by default. I know "absence of evidence" etc, but I think that unless there is some other reason to think that A exists, the mere contemplation of the possibility of A is not enough.In the case of god, there is no supporting evidence. I thereby adopt the default "does not exist" position until some reason, however tenuous, can be provided to the contrary.

No RAZD, you only think that because of the Orbital Mind Control Lasers. Of course you don't believe in the OMCL's - its part of the programme.

[quote] In what way is this difficult to understand?[./quote]In this way - it fails to distinguish betweent he plausible and the implausible. It falls foul of Occams razor.If THIS is the only basis for a theological position, then you must adopt the same position in regards Orbital Mind Control Lasers. As you say yourself - we cannot know for sure.Great Cthulhu may be in R'lyeh under the sea right now.
Captain Kirk might be rescuing whales in his time-traveelling enterprise right now.
Father christmas might be sitting down to aturkey dinner right now.And all of these arev LOGICAL positions? Thats illogical.

Is an invisible cosmic goat. The Invisible Sepia Goat, arch-nemesis of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.And of course, we can only be agnostic about the existance of the ISG on RAZD's left shoulder, in competition with the IPU on his right.This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-18-2005 06:30 AM

quote:

---

I must do no such thing. I could, but I must not.

---

Yes, you must, or concede your position is illogical.

quote:

---

Actually, Captain Kirk and I are having a discussion about bending space (LOL). You know for absolutely certain who your examples are and are not.

---

No I don't; I have the same degree of evidence for Greath Cthulhu as for god - someone wrote a book. Can you PROVE that Great Cthulhu doesn;t exist? If not, then you must concede, it is logical to treat Great Cthulhu as existing. Thats your argument.So, how long have you been a worshipper of the Great Old Ones, George?

quote:

---

Then there are those who say there is a god and there will never be proof, for the god and man relationship is based on faith, proof would destroy that base, and that will never happen.

---

Which is only to say "Deep down I know it is a lie, but I am desperately trying not to admit it".

quote:

---

It has always eluded me how a unicorn can be invisible AND pink.

---

When Frodo wears the One Ring, he does not lose all colour, he becomes invisible. So he simultaneously has colour, and cannot be seen. Thus the unicorn is in fact pink, but also invisible.

quote:

---

How is that not the same? Colours are only properties of things because they are visible.

---

Nope. Colours are a selective reflection of light. A thing can still reflect light, and that light not fall on your retina. It will therefore have colour, and also be invisible.Its easier to reconcile than the trinity, at any rate.

quote:

---

It throttles down to ridicule and accusation and the dialogue ends.

---

The dialogue ended when people started rationalising insane excuses regarding the total absence of evidence for god, instead of thinking for themselves.This "wager" is exactly why I would not trust a religious person with anything important. It's apparently far to easy for them to rationalsie whatever is comfortable in the short term to be trustworthy, rather like a habitual alcoholic.

quote:

---

Light that does not fall on a retina has no colour, or better: does not give rise to colour sensations in the observer's mind.

---

Correct. Colour is a frequency - light still has that frequency even if it does not arrive on a retina. The presence or absence of a retinal activity is irrelevant to the pinkness of the IPU.

quote:

---

I wouldn't know, I'm not in the habit of reconciling trinities.
As long as this post is not seen by admins, it is not off-topic for them.

---

The IPU is an oft-used parody of god.

quote:

---

No, I cannot proof that he exists or not, just like I cannot proof that God exists or not. I believe that this is the basis of the discussio

---

Right. So Great Chthulhu is in exactly the same category as god.

quote:

---

What fuels your relationships?

---

Sex, drugs and rock 'n roll.

quote:

---

I'm created in the image of God, the gugelhupf does not describe me

---

Great Cthulhu will eat you anyway. But, if you bow down and worship Him, he might eat you last. Seems fair. So, when do you plan to start propitiating Great Cthulhu? If you do it for one god, why not another?

quote:

---

I'm curious, how would you distinguish a "religous person" from an atheist?

---

Hmm, there are a set of traits, most of them the kinds of arguments we are familiar with... apeals to authoerity, rejection of theory, etc. Smug self-satisfaction is also common, IME.

quote:

---

Consider colour blindness: with the light that falls on their respective retinas having the same frequency, people who are colour blind experience a different colour than people who are not.

---

Granted - but nevertheless, if a fully sighted person looks at the thing, the real colour will be correctly observed. You cannot challenge a phenomenon by conducting a test with faulty apparatus. The frequency reflected by an object is constant, consistent, and independently verifiable. It can be said to have that colour.Anyway, I don't know why you are now playing word-games about colour - we went through all this on sundry topics about qualia previously.

quote:

---

I think "constant" and "consistent" are debatable - though I won't challenge you on that now - but I'll grant you "independently verifiable". However, frequency, as I've made clear before, isn't the same as colour. You realise this, so that's why you say:

---

I also do not care, as a plate of film will respond consistently to the frequency, and thus to the observer.

quote:

---

Colour, like taste, is a subjective experience, not a property of things. Supposing you could talk to an octopus, which has a brain and eyes that have developed along evolutionary paths very different from ours, do you think you would agree on the colour of things?

---

Yes. They and I will consistently be able to separate green from red. We will both agree that the green is green, and thus like grass, and that red is red, like blood.That is why I said the issue of qualia was irrelevant. It does not matter what subjective experience the subject has - only that the respond correctly to the external phenomenon. It makes more sense to see colours for what they are - just frequencies.This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-21-2005 05:34 AM

quote:

---

Based on this, the odds are that you have implicitly trusted religious people your entire life, whether you realize it or not. In fact, if you have ever needed the services of a hospital, or traveled on an airplane, or even ridden in a bus or taxi, then, at some point in time, you have most likely entrusted your very life to someone of the religious persuasion.

---

Undoubtedly true, sad to say.

quote:

---

Your remarks are contrary to your own experiences and cannot be construed as anything but prejudicial.

---

Nonsense. Because religion was and is used to justify apartheid in South Africa. Furthermore, your concern over hospital care is misplaced, because these individuals have agreed to follow medical practice rather than pray for divine assistance - that is, they are obliged to not indulge their religious fantasies on the job.The illogicality of the religious though is easily verified - as we see in so many argments. In fact, every one, whether that be attacking evolution, or abortion, or whatever.

quote:

---

Do you consider yourself a religious bigot?

---

No, becuase I allow the possibility that the person believes honestly, even if they have been misled. But religion still indicates a flaw with the thought process of the person, such that they can only be trusted within certain limits. They have taken the stance that ordinary rationality is not for them - therefore, they cannot be considered safe.

quote:

---

A plate of film just delays the same frequencies hitting your retina. They are still just frequencies and, in my opinion, the colour problem persists: frequencies are only correlated to colours in your brain.

---

I am now losing patience; and am frankly surprised by this silly resort to subjective solipsism.What your brain does with the freqncy is not important - not any more important than what your brain does with the sensation of "chilli". Thats merely human hubris, as if WE make the world real. We do not. The world is real, and we respond to it. The frequency inputs to your eye, my eye, or an octupus eye, are identical. The same object reflects the same frequency. Thats all there is to it.

quote:

---

You are right there, of course.

---

Fucking finally.

quote:

---

Neverteless, I think the question of whether the experiences are different is legitimate.

---

It certainly was not in relation to the question, and no I don't think its important at all - I think of the quesiton as a form of philosophical masturbation.