NationStates Jolt Archive

It recently occurred to me that, while Pascal's wager fails in it's original usage as an argument for worshiping God with no proof of his existence, I think it can be applied to other things.

For the purpose of this discussion, I'll be referring to Nihilism as the belief in the meaninglessness of all actions in life. It's also used for the belief that nothing exists, but that has it's own problems.

in any situation, you will either choose to act as if your life has some meaning, or you will choose to act as if your life has no meaning.

If your life has no meaning, then it doesn't matter how you act, as becoming a great writer, volunteering at a soup kitchen, starting a political revolution, and committing suicide all have equal moral worth (as in, none.) So a belief that life has no meaning still gives you no guidelines or consequences for any action. you gain nothing by any action.

If you choose to act as if your life has meaning, however, then at worst it will turn out your life had no meaning, and you would have gained nothing, which is equal to the result of a belief in Nihilism. And if it turns out that life does, in fact, have meaning, you will have an actual shot at fulfilling said meaning.

The only possible argument I can come up with to defeat this would be the idea of life having meaning, but it being the exact opposite of what you believe it is, and so you are doing the wrong things where a belief in Nihilism would have you, theoretically, acting in a neutral manner.

Still, I think the wager largely holds together in this.

Pascal's wager isn't meant to prove the existence of God, it is meant to demonstrate a rationale for worshipping God, in a "just in case" scenario.

I can see that it might be applied to nihilism, but would a nihilist even care? If your acheivements didn't matter, and you didn't do anything, you gain... nothing? If your acheivements still don't matter, but you did do something, you acheive nothing.

If they do matter, but you do nothing, you acheive nothing. If they do matter, and you acheive something, then it matters. The only way anything can matter is if...
The universe is existential, and so is the subject.

Pascal's wager is based on that if God does exist, but isn't followed, there isn't just a nothing or a negative integer, it's an immeasurable loss.
Unless an existentialist universe would choose to punish or ignore the nihilist...

The only possible argument I can come up with to defeat this would be the idea of life having meaning, but it being the exact opposite of what you believe it is, and so you are doing the wrong things where a belief in Nihilism would have you, theoretically, acting in a neutral manner.

Still, I think the wager largely holds together in this.If you can't tell what meaning is 'real', what choice can you make? It's arbitrary, choose one or the other or neither; each choice is equally valid.

You've been breathing in that new chemical weapon (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new_chemical_weapon_ennui_gas) haven't you?

:p

If you can't tell what meaning is 'real', what choice can you make? It's arbitrary, choose one or the other or neither; each choice is equally valid.

Just because you cannot tell if something is real nor not doesn't mean it is or it isn't. It's not arbitrary, because if it is real there are going to be outcomes.

That, and nihilism isn't valid anyway; even if our lives didn't matter, there's no point obsessing about it. If anything, pascal's wager applied to Nihilism lends credit to not being a nihilist.

Just because you cannot tell if something is real nor not doesn't mean it is or it isn't.I'm not claiming that; I'm claiming that if you can't tell, you can't base a decision on it.

It's not arbitrary, because if it is real there are going to be outcomes.Yes, but you don't know which, because you don't know what the real situation is. You're as likely to do the opposite you're meant to as what you're meant to.

That, and nihilism isn't valid anyway; even if our lives didn't matter, there's no point obsessing about it.But if it doesn't matter, then nihilism is true; that's what you claimed just a minute ago. There is no point obsessing about any meaning, because you can't tell one way or another if, nor what, it is. Which lends credence to nihilism, the ultimate non-obsessing.

If anything, pascal's wager applied to Nihilism lends credit to not being a nihilist.I don't see it.

I think you might just have invented Existentialism.

It recently occurred to me that, while Pascal's wager fails in it's original usage as an argument for worshiping God with no proof of his existence, I think it can be applied to other things.

For the purpose of this discussion, I'll be referring to Nihilism as the belief in the meaninglessness of all actions in life. It's also used for the belief that nothing exists, but that has it's own problems.

in any situation, you will either choose to act as if your life has some meaning, or you will choose to act as if your life has no meaning.

If your life has no meaning, then it doesn't matter how you act, as becoming a great writer, volunteering at a soup kitchen, starting a political revolution, and committing suicide all have equal moral worth (as in, none.) So a belief that life has no meaning still gives you no guidelines or consequences for any action. you gain nothing by any action.

If you choose to act as if your life has meaning, however, then at worst it will turn out your life had no meaning, and you would have gained nothing, which is equal to the result of a belief in Nihilism. And if it turns out that life does, in fact, have meaning, you will have an actual shot at fulfilling said meaning.

The only possible argument I can come up with to defeat this would be the idea of life having meaning, but it being the exact opposite of what you believe it is, and so you are doing the wrong things where a belief in Nihilism would have you, theoretically, acting in a neutral manner.

Still, I think the wager largely holds together in this.

Atheist Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Atheist.27s_Wager)

If you can't tell, you pick the one you would want to be true. The option you do not want to be true is less valid than the one you want. If it doesn't matter, what is the harm?

Same applies to it being arbitrary; it's only arbitrary if you're totally indifferent, which is only likely if the subject is already a nihilist, and so has already made up their mind. A subject who is not a nihilst is not likely to want to pick a nihilist philosophy.

If nothing matters, then no matter what, nothing matters.
If something matters, it's best to care about it than waste it with nihlism.

Because Pascal's wager is dependent on Infinite loss versus infinite Infinite gain, and the +1, -1 in the event of God's non-existance, the point is that nomatter the odds of God existing, you're still better off believing in God just in case.

So, if there's nothing to be gained out of being a Nihilist in either case, and there's nothing to be gained out of being an almost anything else if the universe is nihilist, but...

There's a chance that Non-Nihilism in a non-nihilist universe pays off. Given that no other options pay off, and the only negative is if you work hard to no gain (which in a nihilist universe would be -1), nihilism in either case is 0 or maybe -1 in a positive universe, but Working in a positive universe is +Infinity.

Pascal's wager is the same outcome for Atheist and Nihlism; you're better off choosing the alternative.
As for proving it either way, it doesn't say. All Pascal's wager determines is that you're probably better off not being a nihilst.

Atheist Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Atheist.27s_Wager)

Ignoring the obvious flaws to that arguement, cheifly presuming that Non-Believers are better people, let's assume it's correct. Assuming both theists and atheists are equally good people and bad people, and there's no point being religious, and that a God would reward enlightened thinkers, and punish the -"morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy" (Dawkins) - then again, Nihilism is going to fail.

So we're better off being Morally decent people, just in case.
I'm with Plato, we're better off being Good people just because it's good.

The real problem with Pascal's wager is that people do not choose to believe, but are more or less forced to believe by evidence, reason, desires, etc. I cannot choose to believe that there is some greater purpose to my life or moral code I must follow anymore than I can just choose to believe in God without any evidence.

Now, with that said, you are correct that this is a good argument against falling into fatalistic inactivity, but you will be hard pressed to find a nihilist who advocates the "just let yourself die" approach to life.

If you can't tell, you pick the one you would want to be true. The option you do not want to be true is less valid than the one you want. If it doesn't matter, what is the harm?Ever considered nihilists might prefer nihilism? What is the harm?

Same applies to it being arbitrary; it's only arbitrary if you're totally indifferentThe choice is arbitrary with regards to (objective) facts; which I'll grant you, does not imply it's arbitrary with regards to preference.

which is only likely if the subject is already a nihilist, and so has already made up their mind. A subject who is not a nihilst is not likely to want to pick a nihilist philosophy.Because they have already made up their mind about their value system themselves. So what we've arrived at is that people are unlikely to change their value system.

If nothing matters, then no matter what, nothing matters.
If something matters, it's best to care about it than waste it with nihlism.Why? You're just as likely to be wrong as right. It's like saying, along the lines of Pascal's wager, that it is better to belief in the Christian God than be an athiest; ignoring Zeus, Wodan, etc. You're likely to be wrong whatever you choose.

Because Pascal's wager is dependent on Infinite loss versus infinite Infinite gain, and the +1, -1 in the event of God's non-existance, the point is that nomatter the odds of God existing, you're still better off believing in God just in case.Only if you have factual information on which religions hell is worst and which heaven is best. Otherwise there is no way to weigh the risk and come to a best bet.

There's a chance that Non-Nihilism in a non-nihilist universe pays off.And a chance it costs, if the meaning you think the universe has is contrary to the actual meaning. Not choosing may cost less than choosing wrongly. There's no way to tell, now is there?
You're betting on unknowns (with no statistical information).

Given that no other options pay off, and the only negative is if you work hard to no gain (which in a nihilist universe would be -1), nihilism in either case is 0 or maybe -1 in a positive universe, but Working in a positive universe is +Infinity.Why +infinity? It may be only +100, and being wrong might be -1000.

Pascal's wager is the same outcome for Atheist and Nihlism; you're better off choosing the alternative.Only if you pick the right alternative and don't, say, end up in buddhist hell because you picked Christ as your saviour.

As for proving it either way, it doesn't say. All Pascal's wager determines is that you're probably better off not being a nihilst.It does no such thing.

Nihilism isn't about wanting to die though, it's just an outlook. I mean, it's a rational arguement, it's just not very practical and goes against human nature.

I am not a nihilist, but I think it makes sense. I'm a Catholic, but only recently, and I don't put my optimism for life down to faith. I've always thought that if we die and we die, then we're still better off making the most of it while we're here.

Existentialism on the other hand, is general similar to nihilsm except it seems existentialists suck it up and hop to it. Except the theist ones, but there's an exception to everything.
Nihilism is also effectively disproved by existentialism in that if nothing matters, I'll make it matter by thinking it matters.

I'm going to list the rebuttals in the order in which you have placed them, as I do not know how to selectively quote and don't really want to learn.

-Of course nihists prefer nihilsm. The harm is that they're bound to lose out eitherway.

-Objective/Subjective, where do you draw the line. Exactly how objective a fact is (especially in a religious context) is subjective. What it boils down to is all subjective anyway. Preference is a strong motivating factor in either case and shouldn't be dismissed just because it's subjective.

-I don't understand why you felt it necessary to point that out... My point was that nihilists are nihilists because they are nihilists. I don't know someone who is a hedonist or existentialist becomes a nihilst in the first place, but according to the logic there's no getting out of it. Of course that isn't true, but the logic dictates it should be.
Sort of like someone with an open mind should be open minded about being closed minded, but a close minded person wouldn't be open minded.

-Well, firstly I don't think you're as likely to be right as to be wrong. Just because there's two options doesn't mean those two options are viable. That, and there's a heap of reasons, objective and subjective, to believe that Nihilism is stupid. I don't consider the idea of nihilism as being viable anyway, but for the sake of the arguement it is.
My point, which was Pascal's, is that if the universe is nihilist, and does not care, why would the universe punish you? It is indifferent and wouldn't care if you are also a nihilist or christian or pagan or whatever.
The garunteed chances of benefitting under Nihilism is 0, unless there's an existentialist God who supports Nihilism... Which is absurd,
The chances of following the "right" path and getting the benefit, no matter how small, are better than being a Nihilist.

-I do not understand your meaning... You are changing the variables laid down in the arguement here. It's like saying "What if there's a God but he hates Good and loves evil, and so you're bound to suffer anyway". If there's no evidence either way, then it's a fair enough and a probable assumption. It would corrupt Pascal's wager too much and render the arguement ineffective altogether.
Introducing "What if..." is just going to complicate matters. Let's stick to the parsimony here as laid down in the initial post; If your acheivements matter to something (anything other than nihilism), then that's the alternate to nihilism. Otherwise we're just going to go on and on about the varieties of religions and their fors and againsts and so on.

-I may be betting on unknowns, but so are you, no matter who you pick, right. That, and I don't consider there to be unknowns. I think the evidence points to a creator and against the nihilist point of view. Call me biased, but nihilism isn't just much chop.

-Pascal's wager is +1, -1, +Infinity and -Infinity. The integers ARE arbitrary figues, and we're talking about whether Pascal's wager applies to nihilism or not. If you're questioning Pascal's wager, fair enough, but that's not the topic at hand.
We're assuming for the sake of the arguement that Pascal's wager is just Nihilism or Not.

And, you're better off being a non-nihilist anyway, because being a Nihilst cannot pay off, whereas almost anything else can.

Pascal's Wager is the intellectual equivalent of 'come into my used car yard, come on what you got to loose?.... I PROMISE NONE OF THEM ARE RUSTY'....

Anyone would fall such snake oil sales pitch deserves to get deceived.

Pascal's Wager is the intellectual equivalent of 'come into my used car yard, come on what you got to loose?.... I PROMISE NONE OF THEM ARE RUSTY'....

Anyone would fall such snake oil sales pitch deserves to get deceived.

Er, no it isn't. You just cannot accept the outcome.

If the guy was selling magical spacecars capable of travelling through time and other God-like features built in for the cost of 50cents.

The point of Pascal's wager is that any negatives or positive integers are irrelevant because of the potential for infinite outcomes. They simply cannot be compared. If you want to refute the actual arguement itself, fair enough. But the way you just did it is erroneous.

Er, no it isn't. You just cannot accept the outcome.

If the guy was selling magical spacecars capable of travelling through time and other God-like features built in for the cost of 50cents.

The point of Pascal's wager is that any negatives or positive integers are irrelevant because of the potential for infinite outcomes. They simply cannot be compared. If you want to refute the actual arguement itself, fair enough. But the way you just did it is erroneous.
The possibly of infinite possibility is not a valid argument, and given the human imagination our lack of knowledge will ALWAYS be played on by religious charlatans and snake oil salesmen.

Pascal's wager is religious hucksterism of the most cheapest, vulgarest, nastiest kind. I think 'come on baby just lie a little' would be more appropriate...

Here's a question for you, if God really is the great all-knowing, all-fatherly, all-understanding figure you make him out to be, then why doesn't this God have enough room in his obviously capacious heart for someone who really honestly couldn't bring themselves to believe?

This is opposed to someone who would have spend half their lives on their knees, fawning professions of faith because Pascal told them it was a good bet. Which of us is the more moral? Which of us is the more honest? Which of us is the more courageous?

No, don't come at me with that crap, and don't call it faith, or prepare to have faith despised.

:headbang:
Anyone who tries to believe ans fails does exactly that, fails.
The solution? Try harder.

Get over your bitterness.

Atheists love to think they're so moral and better because they do good things because things should be good. So what? So would most religious people. I know I would and did.
I used to be an atheist, but it leaves you barren Atheism in a lie.

Your generalisation is as stupid as saying "Atheists are always amoral".
Religion is not just about morality. Stop trying to push your atheist views, because all you're doing is showing how shallow atheists are.

:headbang:
Anyone who tries to believe ans fails does exactly that, fails.
The solution? Try harder.

Get over your bitterness.

Atheists love to think they're so moral and better because they do good things because things should be good. So what? So would most religious people. I know I would and did.
I used to be an atheist, but it leaves you barren Atheism in a lie.

Your generalisation is as stupid as saying "Atheists are always amoral".
Religion is not just about morality. Stop trying to push your atheist views, because all you're doing is showing how shallow atheists are.

I think we both know who is the bitter one here, 'I do not have religious belief' is a strange thing to say anyways. I do not have faith because faith is believing something without evidence, and in that I don't think believing without evidence is something to be proud of. Religion simply put is claiming you know the mind of God, which in itself is an impossibly grandiose claim.

You remind me of the 'well religious scripture is symbolic' people, it reminds me of Monty Python actually with the sermon the the mount.... 'blessed are the cheese makers'.... (someone else says) 'no its not meant to be taken literally, it's a symbolic reference to everyone in the dairy industry'...;)

Simply put, you either believe what in your religious texts or you do not. If you do you believe in a celestial dictatorship where every human being is completely supervised and invigilated without letup every instant of your life from conception until death - and at death is where the real fun begins - because you either go to a paradise which according to every description I have read would be hellish, consisting of eternal praise and perfect servitude, unending and benign - worst of all a benign dictatorship. Or you go to Hell for eternal torture for an offense which you probably couldn't have failed to commit, because as is well said about religion once: 'it postulates that we are created diseased and then ordered to be well'. I don't know about you but I find religion a disgusting idea.

I believe the evidence points towards the existence of God. Stop assuming that religious people believe without reason or rationale. I believe because of what I see in the evidence. You don't because you don't see the evidence in the same way.

I do not consider my belief in God to be faith. My belief in a God is absolute. To me, the notion of there not being a God contradicts the evidence.
To you, the notion of there being a God contradicts the evidence.

Who mentioned religious text? What are you even talking about? Stop talking about me as though you know me. I have made 8 or so posts on these forums, that is hardly enough for you to judge my views or presume to my beliefs.

I believe the evidence points towards the existence of God. Stop assuming that religious people believe without reason or rationale. I believe because of what I see in the evidence. You don't because you don't see the evidence in the same way.

I do not consider my belief in God to be faith. My belief in a God is absolute. To me, the notion of there not being a God contradicts the evidence.
To you, the notion of there being a God contradicts the evidence.

Who mentioned religious text? What are you even talking about? Stop talking about me as though you know me. I have made 8 or so posts on these forums, that is hardly enough for you to judge my views or presume to my beliefs.
What evidence do you have for God existing? If you believe based on evidence rather than faith then you must have overwhelming scientific evidence.

If you are looking for hard and fast answers on God, I do not have them.

Firstly, I'd like to outline my position and who I am. I'm midway through a Bachelor of Applied Science/Bachelor of Education degree. I consider myself to have an empirical view of the world, and agree that some theists believe for stupid reasons. I do not doubt evolution, I do not doubt any recognised science really. I think doubting evolution and cell theory and all that is pointless and ignorant. Ignoring evidence is dishonest with one's self.

The origin of cellular life, put simply, could not have occured with the current model. It could not have occured by itself. In order for cellular life to have arisen under pre-biotic conditions, something must have happened. It obviously did happen, because here we are.
I'm not saying I know what happened, just that no theory to date is considered authoritive or even plausible in most scientific circles. Whatever did happen must have been pretty astounding.

Again, the begginings of the universe; The idea that something came from nothing (big bang, which has also been proven to be true) goes against the current understanding of physics. It goes against scientific laws. There are a few theories about what caused the origin of the universe, such as membranes hitting, but that's just as unlikely as God at best.
So again, whatever happened was pretty astounding.

Whatever those two astounding events were, I'm impressed. Life is anti-enthalpic and goes against thermodynamics to even exist. There is no chance that life formed by itself. Even the most simple of life forms are complex to a degree unlike anything else.

Put simply, I do not believe that anything other than a higher, conscious being could have created life. I'm not so sure that God's been helping out with evolution like some intelligent design people think, but the begginings are a different ball park.

That, and a variety of personal religious experience and other minor here's and there's.

If you are looking for hard and fast answers on God, I do not have them.

Firstly, I'd like to outline my position and who I am. I'm midway through a Bachelor of Applied Science/Bachelor of Education degree. I consider myself to have an empirical view of the world, and agree that some theists believe for stupid reasons. I do not doubt evolution, I do not doubt any recognised science really. I think doubting evolution and cell theory and all that is pointless and ignorant. Ignoring evidence is dishonest with one's self.

The origin of cellular life, put simply, could not have occured with the current model. It could not have occured by itself. In order for cellular life to have arisen under pre-biotic conditions, something must have happened. It obviously did happen, because here we are.
I'm not saying I know what happened, just that no theory to date is considered authoritive or even plausible in most scientific circles. Whatever did happen must have been pretty astounding.

Again, the begginings of the universe; The idea that something came from nothing (big bang, which has also been proven to be true) goes against the current understanding of physics. It goes against scientific laws. There are a few theories about what caused the origin of the universe, such as membranes hitting, but that's just as unlikely as God at best.
So again, whatever happened was pretty astounding.

Whatever those two astounding events were, I'm impressed. Life is anti-enthalpic and goes against thermodynamics to even exist. There is no chance that life formed by itself. Even the most simple of life forms are complex to a degree unlike anything else.

Put simply, I do not believe that anything other than a higher, conscious being could have created life. I'm not so sure that God's been helping out with evolution like some intelligent design people think, but the begginings are a different ball park.

That, and a variety of personal religious experience and other minor here's and there's.
You've got a scientific mindset you say? You sure as hell don't proove it then, because the things you sum up as evidence aren't evidence at all; the things you sum up have nothing to do with emperical data but everything with emotions and personal opinions, the only thing you say is "I'm amazed and I don't understand, thus it's evidence for the existance of "God." Fact is: that's not scientific, at áll. For someone doing a Bachelor in Applied Science, it's odd you don't realise that. The fact that you beleive that there is no other option then a super-being you call God isn't scientific as well, since it shows a closed mind. You seem to ignore the vast amount of logical problems that beleif means, that's also not really scientific. What's really scientific, is to acknowledge the possibility that a super-being caused all this, but that there is 0 emperical data pointing that way, nor is there any emperical data pointing to the option the universe came into existance from the fart of a leprichaun. You dó know Occam's Razor, don't you?
What is that "God" then anyway? A race of inter-dimensional space aliens?

Cuxil actually makes the error of mistaking our current level of scientific knowledge as a valid opening to insert XYZ religious belief in. If he was really scientific in his method he would use self-criticism on his own beliefs and come to the conclusion that he only believes in a God because he wants to, he is scared of death and the complexity of the world and the universe. Simply put, because scientific belief hasn't advanced to the point of 'completely' disproving belief in God, doesn't mean it won't, it just may mean that it will accumulate so much evidence that religious belief becomes just ridiculous in the future. For example hundreds of years ago we didn't know the earth was spherical, we didn't know what the sun was, we thought sickness was evil magic etc, but look what we have proven in those hundreds of years!

Just because science hasn't explained everything yet, that doesn't mean being superstitious is a valid position, on the contrary it's a grave error because you are filling in the blanks that science will inevitably fill just to give yourself a simplistic world view.

Yes, I've heard that arguement before. Like I said, it was subjective in the way I choose to see the evidence. I see it as empirical evidence of something miraculous.

Parsimony suggests God. It is more probably that some greater being made it, than a leprechaun's fart. I'm not talking necessarily that the Christian God made it, that would be presumptuous.
Whatever caused it to happen however, is my God. I worship whatever created the universe, and whatever created life.

That is my God.

I believe in the sanctity of human life and in universal morals.
I know that something exists. I don't know what, but I believe it's God.
In so far as me being a Catholic, I'm a Catholic because of what I believe. I don't believe what I believe on account of being a Catholic. To me, it's sort of like a political party; I've gone out and chosen the institution that I liked best.

I'm Catholic, but I'll admit alot of my Catholic faith is because I hope for it to be true. I would like for it to be true, and believe it could be. That's enough for me.

Yes, I've heard that arguement before. Like I said, it was subjective in the way I choose to see the evidence. I see it as empirical evidence of something miraculous.

That's not how science works, nor how emperical evidence works. The whole definition of empirical evidence, is that it has nothing to do with what you think. It is not evidence what you are talking about, it's opinion and emotion. You're amazed, thus you find a supreme being the best option and that's fár from scientific, or even logical and rational. I'm beginning to doubt you're having science education, because those things are fundamental to science.
Parsimony suggests God. It is more probably that some greater being made it, than a leprechaun's fart. I'm not talking necessarily that the Christian God made it, that would be presumptuous.
No, parsimony does not suggest God, because God needs LOADS of other hypotheses and assumptions, wich you commonly ignore, to be a good explanation. That's how Occam's Razor works, it cuts away the explanation who makes the most assumptions and in this case, that's a supreme being in this case. There is 0 evidence that makes some kind of supreme space alien more probable then a leprichauns fart. Again, this is 1 of the fundamental principles in science, yet you do not know what it is. And you're attending a scientific education? I doubt you'll pass this year then.
I'm Catholic, but I'll admit alot of my Catholic faith is because I hope for it to be true. I would like for it to be true, and believe it could be. That's enough for me.
Ofcourse it could be true, but it also could not. But I don't understand why you want it to be true, again that has nothing to do with a scientific mindset. If you really have one, don't you just want to know the truth, even if that means your beleives would be wrong? Isn't that way more interesting, captivating and usefull then sticking in your own fantasy world? (not that there is anything wrong with hope) What's wrong with learning? What use do dogma's have? You dó realise, that your own beleives have nothing to do with reality? You may cling on to them, but that does not mean they're true in any kind of way. To quote Robert Heinlein:
'The universe has a way of not caring about what you believe.'
Whatever caused it to happen however, is my God. I worship whatever created the universe, and whatever created life.
Why would you worship gravity? Why worship at all? I don't understand why, what if indeed a being created all this, but this being also is a sadistic, powerhungry dictator who destroyed many other species and pushed lots of species into eternal slavery (note: no, I am not refering to the Christian "God" here, I'm really not). Would you stíll worship it? Isn't it really presumptious to say you would worship it, why on earth worship it anyway?

Cuxil actually makes the error of mistaking our current level of scientific knowledge as a valid opening to insert XYZ religious belief in. If he was really scientific in his method he would use self-criticism on his own beliefs and come to the conclusion that he only believes in a God because he wants to, he is scared of death and the complexity of the world and the universe. Simply put, because scientific belief hasn't advanced to the point of 'completely' disproving belief in God, doesn't mean it won't, it just may mean that it will accumulate so much evidence that religious belief becomes just ridiculous in the future. For example hundreds of years ago we didn't know the earth was spherical, we didn't know what the sun was, we thought sickness was evil magic etc, but look what we have proven in those hundreds of years!

Just because science hasn't explained everything yet, that doesn't mean being superstitious is a valid position, on the contrary it's a grave error because you are filling in the blanks that science will inevitably fill just to give yourself a simplistic world view.

And how, pray tell, would Science go about testing the existence of something supernatural? The Scientific Method isn't equipped for non-empirical testing. Science shall always be silent on the existence or non-existence of God but will continue to operate and reason as if there was not.

Anyway, your statements of faith and belief in fact are somewhat ironic, given your warped views of Soviet history. But I'm digressing.

In any case, Pascal's Wager tends to suffer from poor context.

Quoth the Wiki, "Nevermore".
It is important to recognize that the wager was meant only as the conclusion to Pascal's arguments against certainty. It relies on the notion that reason is untrustworthy and that discerning God's actual existence appears to be "a coin toss." Critiques like Voltaire's, that reject the wager because "the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists" [12] misunderstand that Pascal didn't offer it as a proof, but rather submitted it as the inexorable consequence of his analysis that we can have no certainty either way about God's existence. If reason can be trusted on the question of God's existence, then the wager simply does not apply.

And how, pray tell, would Science go about testing the existence of something supernatural? The Scientific Method isn't equipped for non-empirical testing. Science shall always be silent on the existence or non-existence of God but will continue to operate and reason as if there was not.
If it's not testable, it's not science. Science does not include "God" because science did not need or meet "God" in anything, if you know what I mean. And if we would, that would mean "God" isn't supernatural, but natural. Science tries to explain the workings of nature, like the birth of the universe. By the way, what would non-emperical testing be then? What is non-emperical evidence anyway, and how usefull would it be.

Ignoring the obvious flaws to that arguement, cheifly presuming that Non-Believers are better people, let's assume it's correct. Assuming both theists and atheists are equally good people and bad people, and there's no point being religious, and that a God would reward enlightened thinkers, and punish the -"morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy" (Dawkins) - then again, Nihilism is going to fail.

So we're better off being Morally decent people, just in case.
I'm with Plato, we're better off being Good people just because it's good.

Oh i was just reminded of it when reading the op. not a believer in ether

:headbang:
Anyone who tries to believe ans fails does exactly that, fails.
The solution? Try harder.

It not as easy as that, talking as an ex-believer, I just saw more and more
evidence that suggested that the creator was unlikely. I now claim to be an agnostic atheist, did i fail in belief no, my belief merely changed


Atheists love to think they're so moral and better because they do good things because things should be good. So what? So would most religious people. I know I would and did.

A generalizations here surely


I used to be an atheist, but it leaves you barren Atheism in a lie.

I disagree it as valid a veiwpoint as any. I felt less empty since i gave up on the idea of god as unlikely.

Your generalisation is as stupid as saying "Atheists are always amoral".
Religion is not just about morality. Stop trying to push your atheist views, because all you're doing is showing how shallow atheists are.

But you made a generalization? dang hypocrite, railing against them and making so many of your own. not all atheist are shallow, or think they are more moral then thou, in the same way that all follower of religion are not sheep nor are they stupid.

Ok, so this has been sidetracked somewhat. I didn't want to get off into discussions about the existence of God, as that's really irrelevant to the original conversation.

Really, this works if you can make judgments about certain possibilities, such as Nihilism somehow leading to a greater enlightenment, as being absurd. If one can accomplish negative moral value, then I suppose nihilism would be the stance of "betting nothing" and while it cannot render a good result, it will never render a bad result.

Then I guess the question is whether to gamble or not.

Ok, so this has been sidetracked somewhat. I didn't want to get off into discussions about the existence of God, as that's really irrelevant to the original conversation.

Really, this works if you can make judgments about certain possibilities, such as Nihilism somehow leading to a greater enlightenment, as being absurd. If one can accomplish negative moral value, then I suppose nihilism would be the stance of "betting nothing" and while it cannot render a good result, it will never render a bad result.

Then I guess the question is whether to gamble or not.

Hello. My name is Ad Nihilo... and I am a nihilist:(

The only problem with challanging a nihilist to employ Pascal's wager is that he doesn't care - at all. He doesn't care if he wins or loses in this life or in the next, so even IF the Universe was non-nihilistic it would not change his position, thus he will not wager.

Now I will grant that my definition of nihilism might be a bit too exclusive, for what has been argued so far, but strictly speaking this is nihilism. And I also challange Cuxil on the matter of the viability of nihilism - nihilism as a belief does not expose itself to contradiction by any kind of means (empirical/logical) and thus is a tautology/truism of logic: it is necessarily true as defined. I'm guessing this is what you are basing your dismissal on - it offends the habit of western thinking (particularly empiricism) i.e. that something posited needs to be verifiable/refutable. However this is not a primary principle of logic (or a principle of logic at all - it is an arbitrary rule devised exclusively for empirical thinking as opposed to metaphysical), and thus it does not have any authority to dismiss nihilism.

You could say that my religion is logic and my nihilism is the consequence of that, though, frankly, I don't care:p

The only possible argument I can come up with to defeat this would be the idea of life having meaning, but it being the exact opposite of what you believe it is, and so you are doing the wrong things where a belief in Nihilism would have you, theoretically, acting in a neutral manner.
This is exactly the same argument that defeat's Pascal's Wager in its original form, and it works just as well here.

Since you're operating from a position of complete uncertainty (you have no idea whether your life has meaning, or what that meaning might be), you must consider all possible states of the universe (all possible meanings and degrees of meaninglessness) as equally likely.

And if meaning opposite to what you think it is is equally likely as meaning exactly as you think it is, this reduces the expected outcome to equivalent to meaninglessness.

What you've done here is successfully argued that belief in meaninglessness produces exactly the same expected outcomes as a rational investigation of the likelihood of meaning.

Congratulations. Yet again, Pascal's Wager fails.

If it's not testable, it's not science. Science does not include "God" because science did not need or meet "God" in anything, if you know what I mean. And if we would, that would mean "God" isn't supernatural, but natural. Science tries to explain the workings of nature, like the birth of the universe. By the way, what would non-emperical testing be then? What is non-emperical evidence anyway, and how usefull would it be.

This is exactly my point. Andaras stated that "Simply put, because scientific belief hasn't advanced to the point of 'completely' disproving belief in God, doesn't mean it won't..." whereas my point is that it never will, nor will it prove the opposite for the very reasons you've stated above.

Atheists cannot accept religion or religious people's views, because atheists are stupid. I know that sounds like a generalisation, but it isn't, really.
Atheists, all atheists, without exception, believe that their opinion invalidates all others.

Earlier, someone told me that my idea of science was wrong... Because of my beliefs?

They are atheist, and atheists are stupid.

God is not disproved by science, period. Anyone who tells me otherwise simply has to either stop reading the bible literally, or learn some science. Atheists have a habit of not being scientists.

Back to Pascals/Nihilism.

Nihilism would mean it does not matter, and that Pascal's wager proves nihilism is silly.

Nihilism just wrong, because the idea that nothing means anything is innately stupid.

Atheists cannot accept religion or religious people's views, because atheists are stupid. I know that sounds like a generalisation, but it isn't, really.
Atheists, all atheists, without exception, believe that their opinion invalidates all others.

Earlier, someone told me that my idea of science was wrong... Because of my beliefs?

They are atheist, and atheists are stupid.

God is not disproved by science, period. Anyone who tells me otherwise simply has to either stop reading the bible literally, or learn some science. Atheists have a habit of not being scientists.

Back to Pascals/Nihilism.

Nihilism would mean it does not matter, and that Pascal's wager proves nihilism is silly.

Nihilism just wrong, because the idea that nothing means anything is innately stupid.

Are you trying to get a forum ban?

Atheists cannot accept religion or religious people's views, because atheists are stupid. I know that sounds like a generalisation, but it isn't, really.


Hahaha, how the fuck isn't that a generalisation? "All black people are stupid, I know that SOUNDS like a generalisation, but aha, actually it isn't you fools!"

The problem here lies in terms of benefits.

Where one can agree with Cuxil that if the question is reduced to 'there's a creator' or 'there's no creator', disregarding any definition of that creator, the fact remains that there's no seeming benefit to taking either position.

Having said that, there's no benefit at all in believing in a creator, simply a loss of benefit in dismissing it outright, which closes the mind to being open to new information.

There's benefit in believing there is no creator until new evidence appears, because, generally, any belief tends to leads to pointless speculation on the form of that creator and, where there's no evidence, that is pointless.

Ultimately, it's better to believe in 0 over the possibility of 1, while remaining open to that possibility. There's little point in believing in a possible 1 where 0 evidence exists.

Now, in individual cases, there can be some benefit to belief, where a lack leads to guilt due to upbringing, or emptiness due to lack of self-belief. Yet for those who had no real religious influence in childhood, who are in awe of the universe and inquisitive of their place in this quite awesome universe, there is simply no benefit.

Overall, I cannot see a benefit, I believe that if religion was banned from being introduced to children until the age of, say, 13, then few children would make that choice.

Could be wrong, who knows, who can prove, la la la.

http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/ch/1987/ch871223.gif

http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/ch/1987/ch871223.gif

Ah, Calvin & Hobbes, my own personal bible :)

-Snip-
Nice bit of necromancy there. Any particular reason?

Nice bit of necromancy there. Any particular reason?

I just realized this is over a month old. It still doesn't beat one of the two-year gravedigs I saw a while back, however.

I suspect the answer to this is C: None of the above. Humans probably cant even conceptualize the right question to ask to answer this in the same way a spider cant conceptualize the rules of chess or even think of to wonder if there are rules.