|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,817 Year: 4,074/9,624 Month: 945/974 Week: 272/286 Day: 33/46 Hour: 5/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5942 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Pascal's Wager - Any Way to Live a Life | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iceage writes:
quote: Um, I'm a bit confused: How can one conclude if the Wager is "authentic and intellectually honest" if one does not examine if the Wager is fallacious? You've touched on just one of the many problems with the Wager: The assumption that we understand god's intentions. There are others. For example, let's assume that we do understand god's intentions and belief is what gets you into heaven: Which god are you going to believe in? There are plenty of gods out there and they have mutually contradictory restrictions on how you're supposed to believe. It is logically impossible to be a good believer across all conceptualizations of god. This turns your shot at being a good believer into nothing more than the lottery, which we all know is a fool's game. Too, and connected, isn't it interesting that the god you will typically believe in is the one your community believes in? It isn't like you're treating all the various conceptualizations of god equally. Your sincerity is not in doubt, but the fault is that you were raised in the wrong one. This is especially important when understanding the history of the Wager...Pascal was arguing not just for the belief in god but specifically in the belief in the Catholic god. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Archer Opterix writes:
quote: As has been referenced elsewhere, yes. If you put someone in a room with other people, all of whom are insisting that a certain event happened, he'll start to convince himself it actually did, creating "memories" of the event. Now, is this "will"? I'd say yes. Our will to be one of the crowd and not stand out is what does it. And let's not forget, this entire concept is what "the Secret" is all about: You will yourself to believe that things will happen to you...and they do! (yeah...right...and pay me another $35.99 for the next book that shows you how you failed at the plan put forward in the first book.) People actually do this: They will themselves into a state of belief. Are you saying you've never talked yourself into something? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Archer Opterix responds to me:
quote: I'm not sure what you mean. Are you asking how the researchers determined that the subjects weren't lying about having experienced the non-event? You'd have to read the writeups for the full details. Unless you're suggesting the researchers were fools, do you have any particular reason that they would be unable to make such a determination? For example, interrogation techniques can determine when people are making things up. One example is to have them repeat the story multiple times to ensure that it maintains consistency. When you make the incident up, it is difficult to stick to the same story. Now, I don't know how they made the determination...again, you'd have to read the study. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Jon responds to me:
quote:quote: And which one is that? Be specific. Be aware that there are others who are just as sure that your choice is wrong and their evidence is just as strong as yours.
quote:quote: The Hindus might have something to say about that, as will the Shinto.
quote:quote: Yes.
quote:quote: Actually, it is. You cannot possibly know all conceptualizations. Therefore, there is at least one you are at the very least ignoring completely.
quote:quote: And thus, you fall for the very fallacy you were responding to: Thinking you understand god's intentions. Who died and made you god? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Chiroptera writes:
quote: Oh, yes, they do! They do it all the time. You've never talked yourself into or out of something? What on earth do you think the concept of hierarchical social systems are doing? It's one of the myriad ways you eliminate doubt in yourself.
quote: You're making it simplistic, but that's exactly what people do. "He doesn't mean it when he hits me. He really loves me."
quote: Didn't you read your own post? For a while, you did. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
AnswersInGenitals responds to me:
quote: And I do. It just isn't regarding the question people might assume. That is, they are freely choosing that they do not wish to be the odd ball out; to insist that everybody else is wrong. They choose to reject their own experience to substitute someone else's. You're assuming that "free will" is some sort of slow, deliberate, methodical thought process.
quote: Why does that obviate free will? They freely chose not to do so. They could just as easily have said, "Now, wait a minute! Are you all insane?"
quote: Yes, but there is also the reaction not to lie and the reaction of revulsion from those who lie right to your face. And yet, they don't go in that direction. It's a choice. Is that not free will? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote: What makes you think it isn't? Since when did you become the chosen one who knows the mind of the god that truly exists? You didn't really think it was the Christian one, did you?
quote: Oh, such faith you have that the god that truly exists is the Christian one. How surprised you will be when you find out that you've been a very bad boy. But don't worry, you'll have an afterlifetime supply of Rice-a-Roni®, the San Francisco Treat. Keep digging that hole, NJ.
quote: Unless, of course, god rewards those who think for themselves. Isn't that one of those catchphrases in your book? "God helps those who help themselves"? Perhaps that was a hint to put the book down. Keep digging that hole, NJ.
quote: Oh, it's more than just that. You've fallen for the same fallacy that Pascal did: Thinking that it's your god that truly exists.
quote: Indeed...so what makes you think that you've managed to find the right ones? Since when did you become the chosen one who knows the mind of the god that truly exists?
quote: But that's irrelevant. Even if you do everything that a "good Christian" must do, you're still nowhere near being in a good position for by being a "good Christian," it is just as likely that you have made yourself abomination in the eyes of the god that truly exists. You didn't think the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you? Keep digging that hole, NJ.
quote: Says who? You? Why should we believe you? Who died and made you god? How is it that you know god's intentions?
quote: But then again, it might not. That you find the idea of a capricious and cruel god to be anathema is irrelevant. You may not believe in such a god. But said god may very much believe in you. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Archer Opterix:
quote: That's because the experimental references have already been made in another thread. I'm sorry I didn't go look it up, but I assumed you were just as capable of using PubMed as I am.
quote: Yeah. PubMed. You do know of PubMed, don't you? And if not, try Google. And if that doesn't work, search here since they've already been referenced here. I'm not going to do your homework for you.
quote: No, you have more than that. You've been told that the studies were previously referenced here. Did you bother searching here?
quote: Indeed, it is. Go look it up. Why are you trying to make me do your homework? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phat responds to me:
quote: True, that was Ben Franklin. What if he was right.... Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Jon responds to me:
quote:quote: Says who? You? Why should we believe you? It would seem the Celestial Bureaucracy would beg to differ with you.
quote:quote: But you're the one insisting. Therefore, you just justify your claims.
quote:quote: Says who? You? Why should we believe you? The vast majority of the world thinks you're wrong. Why should we choose your minority opinion?
quote:quote: But that's precisely the fallacy: What on earth makes you think you understand god's nature? Who died and made you god?
quote: Why? When was it shown that god was rational, sane, and logical? You're assuming you understand god. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iceage writes:
quote: And yet, all of psychology says the exact opposite. It is very easy to get people to genuinely believe.
quote: Why? Have you completely forgotten about the "false memory syndrome"? You can convince people that they were horrendously raped and participated on terrifying murders of people and yet, when you show them that it could never, ever have happened, they adamantly point out that you're wrong. What do you think the McMartin case was predicated upon?
quote: But what if god doesn't? That's one of the many fallacies of the wager: Assuming you understand god. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote:quote: I don't recall you being there.
quote:quote: But who said that was the god that really existed? You? Why should we believe you?
quote: BZZZZT! I'm so sorry, Nemesis Juggernaut. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has! Well, Bob, Nemesis Juggernaut has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, Nemesis Juggernaut gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations. But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni®, the San Francisco Treat. You didn't really think that the god that truly exists is the Christian one, did you?
quote: Indeed. "Trying to win a bet" is a reason. Why do you think you understand god's intentions such that that reason isn't good enough?
quote: Who says? You? Why should we believe you? We're talking about the god that truly exists, not your fantasy one.
quote: Very good, NJ. You're getting close. So since at least two-thirds of the planet feel that you're barking up the wrong tree and have just as much evidence to support their claim as yours, why should you think that you're anywhere close to being right?
quote: But the whole point of the fallacy of the wager is that the above is irrelevant: What made you think Christianity was the way to go? We're talking about the god that truly exists, not this fantasy you've created.
quote: I'm sorry...but your call cannot be connected. We're talking about the god that truly exists, not your fantasy one.
quote: (*chuckle*) I love being psychoanalyzed over the internet. I always learn such fascinating things? When was it determined that I was an atheist? I know I haven't said anything on the subject and I should think that I would be the final authority on what I do or do not believe with regard to god. Do not confuse my lack of belief in your god with a lack of belief in any god. This is exactly the same fallacy as the wager: Confusing your god with the real god.
quote: You mean god doesn't have free will? God can't bestow grace on someone just because he likes him, even though it was never asked for? Simply because he thought it would be a nice thing to do? I thought we were talking about the god that truly exists and not your fantasy one. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
mike the wiz writes:
quote: And once again, you fall for the fallacy of the wager: Thinking you understand god's motivations, intentions, and characteristics. Besides, your own book contradicts you: God gets out-thought all the time. How do you think Lot managed to survive the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? Because Abraham out-thought him. How do you think the Hebrews managed to survive the 40 years in the desert? Because Moses out-thought god and continually calmed him down from his temper tantrums. Jacob out-thinks god all the time. He steals Esau's birthright and god can do nothing to restore it. So since there is no reason to think you've managed to get god's intentions right and your own holy book contradicts you regarding god's characteristics, what makes you think you really understand god's motivations? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
mike the wiz responds to me:
quote: BZZZT! Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, mike. You didn't think the god that truly exists was the one your fantasies dreamed up, did you?
quote: Strawman. Show me a single freethinker who thinks he understands everything. Names, dates, places. Otherwise, you just pulled that claim out of your ass.
quote: It has everything to do with the Wager: You think you picked the right god. You think you understand god. Given the infinite number of conceptualizations of god that are out there, the chances of you having stumbled upon the right one are not very good.
quote: Huh? Where's the logic in that? That's wishful thinking. Why does god have to know better than you? Be specific. Hint: Being capable of doing Spielbergian special effects is not an indication of being "better than us." It just means he's good with the CGI.
quote: Bingo, mike: Pascal made the mistake. You are continuing the fallacy. Physican, heal thyself!
quote: What makes you think you've chosen the right one? The problem isn't the trust. The problem isn't god. The problem is that you think your trust is pointed toward the god that truly exists when in all likelihood, you're not even close.
quote: And yet, here you are claiming to trust in the god that truly exists when you don't have anything other than assertion to back it up.
quote: Hint: That bouncing sensation you're feeling is from your own bipedal exertion. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
rstrats writes:
quote: You've never talked yourself into or out of something? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024