This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Reverse Pascal's Wager
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Monday
So you're saying that you can't live a happy life while being devoted to religion?
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
So you're saying that you can't live a happy life while being devoted to religion?
Some people can't. Presumably, Pascal's Wager is aimed at those people. If you can live a happy life devoted to religion, then the decision problem isn't a problem for you.
Post by
73830
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
one thing that i would like to point out, is that all these religions claim that if you arent a follower, you suffer some horrible fate at death, ex: hell, tormented for all eternity, etc.
Also, since religions are the "your only this one and nothing else" you cant get more than one.
But there is the possibility that said religion is wrong. The idea that you can't get more than one religion means that you're choosing between 'following this religion' and 'not following this religion', or the left-hand side of the decision matrix only.
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
amagaim - if you please, would you counter the argument,
cogito ergo sum
?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Missing the point of my question. amagaim made the claim that it's wrong to remove all assumptions, because we have to start from somewhere.
Cogito ergo sum
is the natural conclusion of removing all assumptions while attempting to determine what is real.
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
amagaim - if you please, would you counter the argument,
cogito ergo sum
?
“I dreamed I was a butterfly, flitting around in the sky; then I awoke. Now I wonder: Am I a man who dreamt of being a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a man?”
Descartes: "I think, therefore I am."
No conclusion about whether you're a butterfly or a man. Only that you are, because that's all that you can possibly conclude from it.
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
This was initially part of an edit made to the post above. I've decided to split it into a separate post to make sure it is noticed.
Not sure which post that was? I'm pretty sure that I've addressed all your posts, looking back.
I was merely stating that setting aside an argument because it MAKES assumptions is wrong. Whether you agree with the assumptions made or disagree with the assumptions made, an initial assumption is fair and logical place to begin an argument.
Yes and no. Yes, generally speaking, an initial assumption is a fair and logical place to begin an argument.
In this case, however, the answer is 'no', because the goal of Pascal's Wager, similar to Descartes' second Discourse, is to determine whether there is an optimal (or any, in fact) strategy to be employed on how to live one's life by removing as many assumptions about the existence or nature of God as possible. That's why there are all these unknowns in three of the cells in the decision matrix, and only the single +infinite in the 'live religiously and God exists' cell, because the only assumption that he's made is that God will reward those who live religiously.
This decision matrix is supposed to identify a universally optimal strategy on how to live one's life. To be a true analysis, it has to remove as many objective limiting assumptions as possible. Otherwise, it's neither universal, nor likely to be optimal. In that respect, and I haven't changed my view on this throughout the thread, Mediator's assumption of an omni-benevolent god is equally as flawed as Pascal's assumption of a "just" god (in Hyper's terms). The only way to remove this assumption, by definition, is to include all possible traits of all possible gods that could exist.
Although compiling said list would be infinitely long, you can approach the question by noting, mathematically, that all positive results would be equally and identically offset by the equivalent negative results, thus providing you with a net-zero position for the probability that 'a god exists'. And an unknown position for the probability that 'a god does not exist'.
Anyway, to reiterate what I said before on a slightly different note:
I prefer a vastly more simple approach. First, determine whether or not (g)od exists. Then and only then should you determine the malevolence and/or benevolence of the (g)od in question.
That defeats the entire purpose of the question. The purpose of Pascal's Wager is to determine an optimal strategy without that information.
Note - I will set aside the follow-on to Descartes' second Discourse, whereupon he assumes that an omnibenevolent god would not deceive him. I set aside his argument because it makes an assumption, when the entire purpose of his thought process was to remove all assumptions. In that respect, I believe that setting aside the argument because it makes an assumption is fair. Do you disagree?
Edit:
I would say something about performing a compare-and-contrast of known geniuses and their levels of reading comprehension, but that would be rather confrontational of me. After all, your levels of reading comprehension are obviously not that high...
Descartes' second Discourse is a masterstroke of self-evident logic, and one which will not soon be eclipsed. I do not hold anyone to the ideal that they should be equivalent to his capability, for that would be immediately setting them up for miserable failure. And I, unlike others who will remain nameless, do not set people up for miserable failure due to fits of pique.
There's no need for petty, holier-than-thou statements. If you, for some strange reason, thought that I wanted you to come up with something greater than
cogito ergo sum
, or, in fact, that I was suggesting that Descartes is a better philosopher than Chuang Tzu, then you are sorely mistaken (with no further comment on your reading comprehension ability). I wanted you to respond to my reply to you on the second page that you ignored:
Simply stating that an argument is flawed because it has initial assumptions is a poor critique of an argument.
It is in this case. The objective of the argument is to make a conclusion about how to live your life in the absence of knowledge. Making an assumption about god makes your argument flawed, by definition.
Descartes concluded his famous "cogito ergo sum" by the absence of assumptions. He then assumed the presence of an omnibenevolent God which wouldn't deceive him, and concluded that everything he perceived was real. Was his first conclusion without assumption great? Yes. Was his second conclusion a complete letdown? Absolutely.
Have I made myself clear enough yet? Or are you going to misinterpret and insult me again?
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
When Descartes wrote the words "Je pense donc je suis"/"I think, therefore I am"/cogito ergo sum, this was not his conclusion. Instead, it was his initial argument in order to prove the remaining points regarding the existence of God and of the soul. All points of logic before this were in order to prove the existence of the self, the sum, the "I Am".
That it's an initial argument in a broader context doesn't refute its validity that it's a conclusion made with no assumptions.
So yes. I can disprove your theory that cogito ergo sum is an argument without an initial assumption, as I can show that cogito ergo sum is the initial assumption in which the argument is dependent upon.
Again, just because
cogito ergo sum
is an argument in a broader context doesn't mean that it itself is not an argument without an initial assumption. What you're doing is making the claim that just because the broader argument has an assumption, each of the assumptions must also have an assumption, which is flawed.
Look at the one that was edited twice. That's the one I separated because I noticed that you had responded before I had finished the edit. First edit to write those words. Second edit to cut them out and repost them individually. That's the great thing about these boards; you can always find your own words.
Ah, I misinterpreted you - I thought that you had posted this before, and so when I searched for your earlier post on it, I couldn't find it.
Therefore, in order to limit the possibilities, you must first determine (as I said earlier) whether there is a (g)od in the first place. If no, then your theological logic tree is vastly simplified and you may go directly into your logic regarding the socially and personally beneficial aspects of living a just and moral life.
..
The point I was making was to simplify your logic in order to improve it.
That's if your intention is to limit the possibilities. But in doing so, for the sake of simplification, you're substituting an unsolvable problem for a solvable problem. To me, that's not improving logic, because you're moving further away from a solution to your initial problem. Why would you want to do that?
You miss the points of everything, much like other users on this board, when those points will diverge from your own thinking and logic, regardless of whether they are designed to improve the argument-thread or provide a counterargument to it, and do so in as condescending a tone as possible.
Give me an example of where in this thread I've used condescension as an attack on an argument
without being in response to condescension
.
I haven't missed the point of anything you've said. If you could demonstrate that god exists or doesn't exist, sure, it makes Pascal's Wager a much simpler design. But if Pascal could demonstrate that god existed or didn't exist, then his original proposition would just be a 2x1 matrix and completely defeat the purpose of his argument.
The purpose of the question is to determine the optimal strategy for living without knowledge of whether god exists. Knowledge about the existence of a god or lack thereof is an assumption (because you can't demonstrate the existence of a god or lack thereof) that defeats the said purpose of the question. That's not being condescending, that's my counterargument to your counterargument, and for you to reject that out of hand is you 'missing the points of everything, much like other users on this board'.
Edit:
I've just spent the last 2 days reviewing my copy of The Discourse on the Method so that I can make certain as to the point I'm going to make. (As well as securing a new apartment, cleaning, packing, and helping a friend with some distinct personal and family issues. And these are supposed to be my days off... Ugh.)
Real life ought to come first... We can continue when you're less busy sometime.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I'm going to leave this here
.
Interesting video, but I don't think anyone's actually challenging our argument that the different possibilities all offset each other.
On a side note, it's worth pointing out that the argument being proposed suggests that there isn't simply a 50/50 chance that god exists / doesn't exist, and that in fact, it's more plausible to believe that some supernatural being exists, if only on the balance of possibilities. But this discussion belonged in another thread, I believe :)
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.