Russian Roulette and Pascal’s Wager

_{Mark

July 2, 2009

Atheism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

According to Allen McNeil the Gallup poll results for American scientists are:

Young-Earth Creationist = 5%

Guided Evolution = 40%

“Naturalistic” Evolution = 55%

For members of the National Academy of Sciences*, the results are:

Young-Earth Creationist = 3%

Guided Evolution = 14%

“Naturalistic” Evolution = 83%

*data from the Cornell Evolution Project, http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org

So here’s how I read it. One in six of the most accomplished living scientists believe in a living God responsible for the creation of mankind.

Pascal compares the risks of belief and disbelief:

1) If I disbelieve in God and I’m wrong, I lose everything.
2) If I disbelieve in God and I’m right, I gain nothing.
3) If I believe in God and I’m wrong, I lose nothing.
4) If I believe in God and I’m right, I gain everything.

The only rational position to take is #4 where you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. That is Pascal’s Wager.

Now if we take our odds of God being real from the greatest living scientists we find the odds of God being real are 1 in 6 (17%). So this is essentially like playing Russian Roulette with a 6-shot revolver with one bullet in it. If you pull the trigger and nothing happens you gain nothing but if you pull the trigger and the gun fires you lose your life. Why play that game? Even if the odds were a thousand or a million to one against getting a bullet in the head why play?

Dave Scott

Comments

The blatant way in which Quantum mechanics defies our concepts of time and space, even though this is in itself a falsification of primary predictions of materialism, has been used by materialists to justify all sorts of quackery trying to get around the overwhelming implications of design being brought forth in science. Such as Barrow and Tipplers "weird" postulation of a "evolved human" creating the universe, Dr. Strauss illustrates in this following video: Anthropic Principle - God Created The Universe - Michael Strauss PhD. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjn8poWD7tM Yet the individual quantum events operate well within the overriding transcendent laws and principles of this universe. i.e. though the individual events defy time and space, these events are rigorously subjected to finely tuned transcendent laws which prevent expression of the unlimited probabilistic resource witnessed in quantum mechanics. (Koonins "Many Worlds" explanation for the Cambrian Explosion completely ignores this obvious fact) It seems the materialists is trying to have his cake and eat it too, all the while completely ignoring the necessity of a transcendent Creator to explain the universe in the first place. In this following video, Dr. Strauss brings some much needed clarity to the role of the "observer" in Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics - The Limited Role Of The Observer - Michael Strauss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elg83xUZZBsbornagain77_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

#233 Quantum mechanics cannot be used as an analogy to support the notion that something can exist and not exist at the same time. I agree. Luckily I have never suggested that something can exist and not exist at the same time.Mark Frank_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank, Quantum mechanics cannot be used as an analogy to support the notion that something can exist and not exist at the same time. We can only observe quantum particles being 'seen' and then 'not being seen'. This in no way suggests QPs are existing and then not existing. Rather it suggests they are moving from one dimension to another and back again. It is curious you would exclude such a likely scenario from consideration. 'Out of sight is not out of Mind'.Oramus_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT}

RE 225 Rob , thanks thats very gracious of you. Vividvividbleau_{July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT}

RE 227 Hi Vj, Interesting post. I disagree with Mark, I don’t think you were trying to make a valiant effort to shore up my case rather you just offered up a different perspective. VJ: “Thus for Vivid, a self-caused entity would actually be less absurd than an uncaused entity. For at least a self-caused entity would have a generator: itself. That’s absurd, but not as absurd for Vivid as the idea of an entity beginning in time, but having no generator at all. “ Correct, at least there is a magician and a hat. VJ: “The profound metaphysical insight that Vivid is appealing to here is that the notion of actuality is a more fundamental notion than that of possibility. Actuality precedes possibility, in the order of things, and the possible is constrained by the actual.” I may be wrong about this but I really do not think that those who accept the possibility of something coming from nothing reflect deeply on what nothing is. Now the perceptive observer should see that the term “ what nothing is” attributes a something to nothing an “is ness” if you will. However that is the only way one can make a statement about nothing, we have to treat it as something to even talk about the concept of nothing. This is why that to try to even conceive of nothing we must think of something. Because nothing at its core is unintelligible we are always making efforts to make it intelligible. The only way to do that is to treat it as something. Regarding your comments about possibility’s, it is important to always keep in mind that nothing has no possibilities. Vividvividbleau_{July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT}

#226 Vivid I am sorry. I am bored with this. I will let others judge the merits of your argument.Mark Frank_{July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

#227 Vjtorley This is a valiant effort to shore up vivid's case. To do so, you have to put a lot of words into his mouth. I will restrict myself to saying that I was only talking about logical possibility. As you say there are many grades of possibility. If we are talking about something as mind-bogglingly inconceivable as the beginning of the universe then I would not feel confident about making any pronouncements about possibility except logical possibility. In earlier comments there are many examples of things that at one time would have been considered fundamentally impossible at some deep metaphysical level but now turn to be possible (e.g. triangles, the sum of whose angles are less than or more than 180 degrees)Mark Frank_{July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

vjtorley,
It has been pointed out above that the appearance of large objects (e.g. a man, or a horse) without a cause does not violate LNC either. Neither does the existence of a winged horse. So I would ask the skeptics: do you think these events are possible?
I'm not sure if I'm a skeptic in this context or not, but let me try. Suppose we are considering the event of a horse suddenly materializing without cause. I think everyone would agree that this event is either a) incredibly unlikely but possible, or b) impossible. My own answer is "I don't know", so I guess I haven't ruled out position a). How would one prove that b) is correct (if "prove" is the correct word here)?herb_{July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

I have been following the online debate here about the possibility of something appearing without a cause, and I'd like to make a few comments. Several contributors have argued that the sudden appearance of a virtual particle without a cause does not violate the law of non-contradiction (hereafter LNC). Even if this were correct, it would not establish that the event in question is possible. As philosophers are well aware, there are many kinds of possibility: logical possibility is the "thinnest" kind there is. Other kinds of possibility include ontological possibility and nomological possibility. Any kind of possibility which makes no attempt to mirror the deep structure of reality is incapable of telling us what can and cannot happen; all it tells us is what we can and cannot imagine. It has been pointed out above that the appearance of large objects (e.g. a man, or a horse) without a cause does not violate LNC either. Neither does the existence of a winged horse. So I would ask the skeptics: do you think these events are possible? We also need to keep in mind the limitations of the logical notation we use, when discussing logical possibility. For instance, how do we logical represent the statement "a precedes b," or for that matter "a causes b"? Sure, we can use relational operators to express these statements mathematically (e.g. Pab or Cab), but unless we know how time and causality actually work, we are just playing with letters. What kind of logic should we use, when talking about time, or causality? We don't know yet. What does that tell us? It tells us that we don't yet have a general theory telling us how to think about these subjects. Until we do, the fancy logical notation(s) that philosophers use is a mere fig-leaf covering their embarrassing ignorance. Some contributors have berated Vivid for stubbornly insisting that an entity which appears without a cause would have to be a self-created entity. Not so, they vehemently protest: an uncaused entity is not the same thing as a self-caused entity. I've been thinking long and hard about the point Vivid is making, and I think I've got it. The underlying principle that Vivid is appealing to is this: If an entity (call it E) begins to exist at time t, then necessarily, there exists some entity at or prior to t which is capable of generating E. (I wrote "at or prior to" because I don't want the discussion to get sidetracked around the metaphysical question of whether causes temporally precede their effects or are simultaneous with them.) In other words, an entity having a beginning in time must be actualizable, or realizable if you will; otherwise it will never be actual. Thus for Vivid, a self-caused entity would actually be less absurd than an uncaused entity. For at least a self-caused entity would have a generator: itself. That's absurd, but not as absurd for Vivid as the idea of an entity beginning in time, but having no generator at all. Why? The reason is that Vivid envisages possibility as something active, not passive. Things don't just happen because there is nothing to prevent them from happening. They happen because there is something that is able to make them happen (i.e. actualize them). Without that something, it is meaningless to describe an event as possible. All we can say is that there is no impediment to the event's occurring. The profound metaphysical insight that Vivid is appealing to here is that the notion of actuality is a more fundamental notion than that of possibility. Actuality precedes possibility, in the order of things, and the possible is constrained by the actual.vjtorley_{July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

“You weren’t by any chance using illegal substances when you wrote it?” Well Mark I did promise you I would try real hard to imagine six impossible things before breakfast so I have been spending some time with the Queen in Wonderland. MF: The remainder of your first argument rests on this fallacy. To say X does not exist is the same as saying X has no existence. If X has non existence it is nothing and the X stands for nothing. Since a non existence is no thing i.e. nothing and X stands for nothing, to say nothing exists is no different than saying X does not exist. This is fairly priceless. So to say nothing exists is no different from saying the King of France does not exist? As it happens there is no King of France – so nothing exists! I am glad you brought up the King of France because a really weird thing happened to me when I got home from work. I was on my computer and then all of a sudden Napoleon and his horse popped into existence right there in my living room. What a mess the horse made but I mean it ,WOW, poof, Napoleon and his horse “just happening” in my living room. Can you believe it? Mark this is fairly priceless. If you are correct that for me to say nothing exists is no different than saying the King of France exists, etc, then to say “does not exist” is no different from saying the King of France does not exist, no different than saying the King of France violates LNC. I am demonstrating that for the purposes of the subject matter we are talking about the words are interchangeable. That it is valid for one to use either “does not exist” if that is what they prefer or “nothing” if that is there preference. MF: “I don’t agree with this step at all. If you change X to refer to “nothing” rather than the particle then the sentence is no longer true.” Actually I did not change anything. If you follow the progress I started by asking a question about what X was. Vivid from 215: “What does it mean to say “if X does not exist” ? What is this X that does not exist? X stands for something. What does it stand for? YOU WOULD THINK IT STANDS FOR THE same X that this X is or is not creating. What is this X that exists that the other X is or is not creating? The X stands for the quantum particle you refer to in 187 . “A quantum particle appears without a cause.”” “Now IF the X is a quantum particle it is valid to insert “quantum particle” where we see X.” End 215. Please note the terms “you would think” and the word if” But I conclude that X is not the quantum particle based on what you claim the X is Vivid from 215: “So it is not the quantum particle that is the X in “if X does not exist” According to you the X is nothing.” End 215 In order to correctly define what X stands for one needs to accurately represent what the person says X is. And in # 157 you say MF: “Nothing creates it (not even itself). It just happens.” So I did not change anything. If I would have changed what X is it would have been to represent it as the quantum particle. Since it would be improper to say X stands for the quantum particle, since that would be a misrepresentation of what you said we need to insert what you said X stands for Vivid from 215:“So now we need to insert nothing where before we inserted “quantum particle”” MK: “Does not exist when? It does not exist at one moment and then exists at another. This isn’t a problem.”It is exactly what I have been claiming is possible. I did not say this would violate the LNC” And I addressed this in #174 MF: It might just not be there one second and there the next second.” Vivid: Then it is not simultaneous which does not violate the law of non contradiction. Vividvividbleau_{July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

Vivid, absolutely no offense taken. Losing with a great hand and a big pot can get anyone's goat.R0b_{July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Re 222: Vj, This "vexing theological conundrum" is explained by Paul in the ninth chapter of Romans.riddick_{July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

RE 220: Rob, "Yes, it would be nice to have time to keep up on all of the threads on this site. If latecomers aren’t welcome in this discussion, just let me know and I’ll bow out." Rob I am a poker player. I play for fun and of course I want to win. About 15 mintes before seeing your post I was in a hand with two other players. I had pocket fives. The player in seat two raises, seat three calls and I call. The flop comes AJ5 giving me a set. Seat two makes a big bet, seat three doubles it, I push all in with my set. Seat two goes all in and so does seat three.Huge pot!! The turn is a Jack giving me a full house. The river is another JACK!! Seat two shows pocket queens, seat thre beats me with 4 of a kind with runner runner jacks. Im steaming although I know thats just poker and if you play enough you are eventually going to see your sets beat by full houses, your full houses beat by four of a kind, and your quads beaten by straight flushes. Still I was internally steaming. Right after that I saw your post and took out my anger on you. You did nothing wrong I was a jerk in my reply to you. I apologize. Vividvividbleau_{July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

On the subject of Pharaoh's hardness of heart, it occurred to me that the Jews, who have meditated on the book of Exodus for thousands of years, should be able to provide an interesting perspective on this vexing theological conundrum. And I was right. While browsing the Web, I came across an interesting response by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg to the question, Did Pharaoh have the ability to release the Israelites? The answer given is so thought-provoking that it deserves to be quoted in full: Did Pharaoh have the ability to release the Israelites? by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg Free Choice is the essential component which justifies the notion of reward and punishment. It would be inappropriate to punish a robot for performing an immoral act which it was programmed to do. Nor would one reward a stove for cooking a sumptuous meal, or a bee for producing delicious honey. Humans, on the other hand, are rewarded and punished for their actions because they choose to do good or evil. This is why the story of Moses and Pharaoh has always puzzled Jewish philosophers: How could Pharaoh be punished for refusing to comply with G-d's demands, if G-d Himself "hardened his heart"? To borrow a line from our Patriarch Abraham: "Will the Judge of the entire earth not perform justice?!" Many interesting answers are given to explain this seeming injustice. Nachmanides offers an answer which is as profound as it is astoundingly simple. Nachmanides argues that had G-d refrained from hardening Pharaoh's heart, he would have then been deprived of the ability to make a coherent and true choice. Indeed, the plagues would have compelled him to let the Israelites go — an option he most certainly would not have chosen in the absence of G-d's strong hand.
G-d steeled Pharaoh's resolve, causing that the plagues shouldn’t interfere with his decision-making process, and allowing him to continue expressing his true desire.
Pharaoh's freeing the Israelites after their G-d had ravaged his land with frogs, lice, wild beasts, pestilence, etc., can be compared to handing over one's wallet to an armed mugger — neither is an act of free "choice." Since the scale was so heavily weighted towards Pharaoh’s sending the Jews out – after all, what would any normal sovereign choose to do when his country is slowly and systematically being destroyed – G-d steeled Pharaoh’s resolve, causing that the plagues shouldn’t interfere with his decision-making process, and allowing him to continue expressing his true desire. G-d hardened his heart so that he would have the strength and ability to freely choose his course of action – and he freely chose to retain the Israelites as slaves. Thus Pharaoh rightfully earned divine retribution for his shameful behavior. The extent to which G-d went to ensure the integrity of Pharaoh’s free choice is nothing short of incredible. And the intended moral is equally compelling and uplifting. If the benevolent and all-merciful Creator manipulated Pharaoh’s psyche and cognitive abilities to guarantee his ability to choose evil, certainly He does anything necessary to ensure our ability to choose good! It is very popular to blame a plethora of external factors for one's shortcomings. But the Torah teaches us that even the most awesome and devastating circumstances don't affect a person's G-d-given of freedom of choice. We must never become discouraged. No matter what is written in the pages of our private history books, no matter our current personal situation, we always have the moral strength to choose the proper path. (End of the Rabbi's response.) ---------------------------------- So there you have it. You may agree or disagree with what the Rabbi wrote, but if you still find it implausible, then ask yourself this: if the Jews (to whom the Bible was originally given) originally believed in a God who predestined people to commit evil acts, then how did they later come to believe so strongly in free will? And why is there no surviving Jewish tradition of a theological controversy concerning the question of whether God predestined people to sin, as we would expect if the Jews changed their mind on the issue? And why are there no surviving Jewish predestinationists? The notion of predestination is wholly alien to the Jewish faith. Historically speaking, I think it is much more plausible to assume that the verses in Exodus about God hardening Pharaoh's heart originally meant something other than what they appear to mean (on a naive reading), than to assume that Exodus was written by a predestinationist. If you're going to try to interpret a difficult Biblical text, it makes sense to ask how Jewish and Christian believers have interpreted it in times past. Think about it.vjtorley_{July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

Did somebody mention God hardening Pharaoh’s heart? It does say that—at least 19 times just in the book of Exodus—it’s as though the king of Egypt didn’t have it in him to carry through on what he determined to do. The opposite seems to be true of the king of Assyria (Isaiah 10:7),
Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few.
No mention of God hardening his heart—just (verse 12),
Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks.
It’s as though even then there was tyranny in the East—as when it says of the final fall of Babylon (Isaiah 14:16-17),
They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
In the West, however, there was technological advancement, vast trade and wealth, and so the word to the prince of Tyre was (Ezekiel 28:2-5),
Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: Behold, … there is no secret that they can hide from thee: With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures: By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches …
Rude_{July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Vivid:
But I see you are anyway.
No, I'm not.
I find it curious that after 216 posts without a peep from you, you all of a sudden have something to say. It would have been nice to have heard from you earlier.
Yes, it would be nice to have time to keep up on all of the threads on this site. If latecomers aren't welcome in this discussion, just let me know and I'll bow out.
One of the things one must do in order to equivocate is have the intent to decieve.
I didn't mean equivocation in the sense of a deliberate trickery. There was no charge of deceit -- sorry for the ambiguity.
You refer me to 166, one of multiple back and forth posts between Mark and I, which I guess is to show me where I equivocated.
No. It was to remind you of Mark's usage of the word "nothing" so you could avoid unintentional equivocation if you express the alleged contradiction in the form "A and NOT A". The proof I referred to in #217 is as follows: - Nothing is better than eternal happiness. - A ham sandwich is better than nothing. - Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness. I trust you see the equivocation in that syllogism. So the question is: Can you state your contradiction in the form "A and NOT A" without committing a similar fallacy (unintentionally, of course)?R0b_{July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

Vivid Thank you for at least attempting to come up with arguments to support your proposition, although I doubt you are going to persuade many floating voters with this lot. I really tried hard to take your comment seriously and understand the thinking behind it. But I am afraid there were so many fallacies and gobbledygook that I gave up. You weren’t by any chance using illegal substances when you wrote it? I will give a few examples – then perhaps we should leave this topic. When you put it like this you have some real problems because you admit that the quantum particle does not exist! You have an existence of a quantum particle from a quantum particle that does not exist. Yet you say that if this is the case this would violate LNC and thus is logically impossible. Does not exist when? It does not exist at one moment and then exists at another. This isn’t a problem. It is exactly what I have been claiming is possible. I did not say this would violate the LNC. It is of course a problem if it exists and does not exist at the same time, and self-creation entails this, which is exactly why I dismiss self-creation. So it is not the quantum particle that is the X in “if X does not exist” According to you the X is nothing. So now we need to insert nothing where before we inserted “quantum particle” Self creation ( causation) is logically impossible because if nothing does not exist before creating ( causing) the quantum particle then this would violate LNC. I don’t agree with this step at all. If you change X to refer to “nothing” rather than the particle then the sentence is no longer true. Your argument is a bit like this: “All swans are white. A swan is black.” is a contradiction. You claim nothing is black. Therefore we can substitute “nothing” instead of “swan” above and get “All swans are white. Nothing is black.” is a contradiction. The remainder of your first argument rests on this fallacy. To say X does not exist is the same as saying X has no existence. If X has non existence it is nothing and the X stands for nothing. Since a non existence is no thing i.e. nothing and X stands for nothing, to say nothing exists is no different than saying X does not exist. This is fairly priceless. So to say nothing exists is no different from saying the King of France does not exist? As it happens there is no King of France – so nothing exists! There is no difference between saying “Self creation (causation) is logically impossible because if X does not exist before creating (causing) X then this would violate LNC” Or saying the following. 2)Self creation ( causation) is logically impossible because if nothing exists before creating ( causing) something this would violate LNC. This repeats the argument and therefore the fallacy from above. Now its important to point out why you say self creation is logically impossible. You did not say it was logically impossible because the same thing that exists caused its own existence. According to you it is logically impossible because “if nothing exists before creating (causing) something this would violate LNC. But I didn’t say that. I said it was impossible because X (the object being created) does not exist before X is created. It was you who wrongly substituted the word “nothing” instead. And so on ….Mark Frank_{July 7, 2009
July
07
Jul
7
07
2009
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT}

"I won’t presume to speak for Mark," But I see you are anyway. I find it curious that after 216 posts without a peep from you, you all of a sudden have something to say. It would have been nice to have heard from you earlier. "And if your definition includes the term “nothing”, it should match Mark’s explicit usage so as to not equivocate See #166," One of the things one must do in order to equivocate is have the intent to decieve. So now I am a deciever. Let the character assasination begin from one who has not said anything in 216 posts. You refer me to 166, one of multiple back and forth posts between Mark and I, which I guess is to show me where I equivocated. This is part of what Mark said "PS I think there was a misunderstanding in #158. When I say Nothing creates it I mean there is no thing which does the creating." No thing is nothing. "When I say Nothing creates it I mean there is no thing (nothing) which does the creating" Now thats helpfull.Is this the part where I equivocate? In this part Mark says "I don’t mean that the absence of things does the creating. I mean it in the same sense of “nothing” as in “nothing phases him”. That doesn’t mean that the absence of things phases him - it means there is no thing capable of phasing him." Here Mark is saying that when he says nothing he means something. To say that nothing phases someonse is not to say that there are no things (nothings)that a person is dealing with rather there are things that a person is dealing with but they do not phase him. If this is what Mark means when he says “Nothing creates it.” then the "nothing" is actually "something". One is left to wonder why Mark calls something nothing? Why not call it what it is which is "something" To call what is actually something nothing is quite bizzare. Furthermore if it is the case that when Mark says "Nothing creates it" he means "Something creates it" all this back and forth would have been avoided. Vividvividbleau_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT}

I won't presume to speak for Mark, who speaks very well for himself, but I'll hazard a response to Vivid. All contradictions can be expressed as "A and NOT A". Here's how we do it with self-creation: (1) For X to cause an event, X must exist before the event occurs. (2) For X to be created, X must not exist before the creation event. (3) Define A as "X existed before the creation event". (4) From (1) and (2), self-creation implies A and NOT A. How do you define A for something that comes into existence without a cause? And if your definition includes the term "nothing", it should match Mark's explicit usage so as to not equivocate. See #166, as well as the proof that a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness. To say "nothing interested him" means that he wasn't interested in anything. Likewise, when we say "nothing caused it", it means that it wasn't caused, not that it was caused by a non-existent entity.R0b_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT}

@mereologist:
Phinehas asks: Are you saying that something is immoral because someone thinks it is? Yes, because subjective morality is the only kind that we have access to. I personally don’t believe that objective morality exists, but even if it did, we don’t have reliable access to it, so it might as well not exist. Before you embark on an argument for objective morality, let me stop you and ask you a couple of questions. Do you believe that it is immoral to punish someone for something that she did not do?
According to your admission above, if I think that it is moral to punish someone for something that she did not do, then it is. Is that correct? As it happens, I do think it is moral to punish someone for something that she did not do. Thus, following your statement above, it is in fact moral to punish someone for something that she did not do.Phinehas_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

Mark before I start I think it would be beneficial to summarize our respective positions. My position: That something can come into existence from nothing violates LNC and is a form of self creation (causation) Your position: Something can come from nothing. That something can be created without a cause by nothing. "Nothing creates it." # 157. That something from nothing is logically possible. "Well there is a difference between an uncaused event and something coming from nothing. But both are logically possible" # 140. If "something is logically impossible then it is no amount of empirical evidence can even begin to suggest it is true" #166. Self creation (causation) is logically impossible because self creation (causation) violates LNC. What we both agree on is that a violation of LNC is a logical impossibility. Now to the matters at hand. Mark when I asked you why self creation was illogical you said. "For X to create X it must exist shortly before it creates X. Therefore, there must be a time when the proposition "X exists" must be both true and false." When asked if it was a fair reading of the above to understand what you said as "Self creation (causation) is logically impossible because if X does not exist before creating (causing) X then this would violate LNC" You said "Yes - except I am not quite sure what the “causation” in brackets means” BTW the causation in brackets means create. To create something is to be the cause of something doncha think? So the following. 1) Self creation (causation) is logically impossible because if X does not exist before creating (causing) X this violates LNC. What does it mean to say “if X does not exist” ? What is this X that does not exist? X stands for something. What does it stand for? You would think it stands for the same X that this X is or is not creating. What is this X that exists that the other X is or is not creating? The X stands for the quantum particle you refer to in 187 . “A quantum particle appears without a cause.” Lets revisit what you agree is a correct understanding of what it means to violate LNC. Also remember that you also agree that it is logically impossible to posit anything that would result in the violation of LNC. Self creation (causation) is logically impossible because if X does not exist before creating (causing) X then this would violate LNC. Now if the X is a quantum particle it is valid to insert “quantum particle” where we see X. Self creation ( causation) is logically impossible if the quantum particle does not exist before creating ( causing) the quantum particle then this would violate LNC. When you put it like this you have some real problems because you admit that the quantum particle does not exist! You have an existence of a quantum particle from a quantum particle that does not exist. Yet you say that if this is the case this would violate LNC and thus is logically impossible. Now when pressed on this you say in so many words “I am talking about self creation here and since I am not positing that the quantum particle that doesn’t exist is creating the quantum particle that does exist there is no self creation going on. The cause of the quantum particle that does exist is caused by nothing so there is no self creation at all. Furthermore a quantum particle caused by nothing is not logically impossible. Since there is no self creation there is no logical problem” So it is not the quantum particle that is the X in “if X does not exist” According to you the X is nothing. So now we need to insert nothing where before we inserted “quantum particle” Self creation ( causation) is logically impossible if nothing does not exist before creating ( causing) the quantum particle then this would violate LNC. This is very interesting. Lets parse this some more. It is redundant to say nothing does not exist since one of the definitions of nothing according to my Oxford Dictionary is “what does not exist” !!! Self creation ( causation) is logically impossible if nothing exists if nothing exists before creating ( causing) the quantum particle then this would violate LNC. There is no need to say the same thing twice when once will do. Self creation ( causation) is logically impossible if nothing exists before creating ( causing) the quantum particle then this would violate LNC. Mark I agree with you!!! This what I understood you to say and you agreed it is a correcting understanding of what you mean. The problem is that I have been saying this for days and you have been telling me that my reasoning is faulty for days!! Pick your poison Mark. X is either the quantum particle in which case even you would agree that this is self creation ( causation) thus logically impossible. Or X is as you say is “nothing” which one of its definitions is “what does not exist” Either way you go you have a violation of LNC which you admit is logically impossible. BTW you might have an interest in the other definitions of nothing according to Oxford University Dictionary. They are “not anything“, “no thing“, “non existence” We can also analyze things in a different way. To say X does not exist is the same as saying X has no existence. If X has non existence it is nothing and the X stands for nothing. Since a non existence is no thing i.e. nothing and X stands for nothing, to say nothing exists is no different than saying X does not exist. To say X exists is to say X has existence. Existence is something; To say X exists is no different than saying something exists. This being the case 1) There is no difference between saying X does not exist or saying nothing exists. There is no difference between saying X exists or saying something exists. There is no difference between saying "Self creation (causation) is logically impossible because if X does not exist before creating (causing) X then this would violate LNC" Or saying the following. 2)Self creation ( causation) is logically impossible because if nothing exists before creating ( causing) something this would violate LNC. Now its important to point out why you say self creation is logically impossible. You did not say it was logically impossible because the same thing that exists caused its own existence. According to you it is logically impossible because "if nothing exists before creating ( causing) something this would violate LNC. Once again this is of course what I have been saying all along. Let me direct my attention to my position that to say something can come into existence is also "in effect self creation" and in another post "a form of self creation". Mark I try to be precise thus when I use a terms like "in effect" or a form of" I do so for a reason. I am well aware that self creation in its purest sense is when like creates its exact replica. For instance an elephant creates itself. Here we have the claim that the same elephant that exists is the same elephant that created its existence. It is for this reason that I invoked the terms "in effect" or "a form of". However it is not the exact replica that supposedly causes its own existence that makes self creation illogical. It is that there is NO existence, (i.e. nothing, what does not exist) causing the existence, (i.e. the something) that triggers the violation of LNC. The same reason why self creation is illogical is the same reason why proposing that something can come into existence from nothing is illogical, they both violate LNC. Thus my statement "It is not logically possible for something to come from nothing....requires the denial of logic, specifically the law of non contradiction"" and my statement "For something to come from nothing it must, in effect, create itself" stands!!! Vividvividbleau_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Mereologist: “Why did God harden Pharaoh’s heart if it was unnecessary, as you claim? Isn’t God supposed to be omniscient?” I didn’t say it was unnecessary. “You don’t see the difference between those scenarios and the Exodus account, where God himself directly and personally punishes the Egyptians for the actions of Pharaoh — actions that God himself causes by hardening Pharaoh’s heart? Give me a break.” You keep misconstruing this account and I can’t fathom why. “Yes. Are you?” Absolutely, once someone has given me good reason to think otherwise. “What context are you referring to? What context makes it moral for God to punish innocent people for the actions of their ruler, actions that God himself causes by hardening the ruler’s heart? How can anyone consider that behavior to be moral?” Why do atheists like yourself refuse to examine the context of the Bible verses they misquote? I have explained this already. Read my post. “I don’t use the Bible to prove my worldview. The Bible’s not reliable, after all.” Then why did you quote Exodus to begin with? “What I’m doing is showing that if you take the Bible to be inerrant, then the only rational conclusion is that God is immoral.” Not if you examine the context of the verses. Not if you read the Bible with the goal of understanding not only what happened but why it happened. Not if you read the Bible with an open mind. “It should be obvious by now that it is a huge mistake to regard the Bible as inerrant.” It’s a huge mistake to debate with atheists who refuse to examine anything that might disagree with their worldview. “Yes, because subjective morality is the only kind that we have access to. I personally don’t believe that objective morality exists, but even if it did, we don’t have reliable access to it, so it might as well not exist.” There is no objective morality? So raping a child is sometimes okay, or is it always a horrible, despicable act? “Before you embark on an argument for objective morality, let me stop you and ask you a couple of questions. Do you believe that it is immoral to punish someone for something that she did not do? Do you believe that it is immoral to punish someone for something you forced him to do against his will? Those are the moral issues at stake in the story of the ten plagues.” Asked and answered. Try again.Barb_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

As Dave’s post suggests (I think), the reason for the poll numbers is that science is a religion. Beginning with the holy trinity of Galileo, Bacon & Descartes, science crossed over from the pursuit of objective fact to faith in the power of science to redeem human existence and provide knowledge of truth. This explains why so many self-identified scientists are willing to wager unwisely on Pascal. They are looking at the question through the eyes of faith, not reason. It also explains the white-hot rhetoric of Dawkins, Provine, Myers, Harris, and their acolytes on this blog. True believers are willing to take chances and look foolish. (Al Gore, call home.) ID is on the rise precisely because faith in science is waning. No one outside the cradle of the academy takes Marx or Freud seriously as “scientists” anymore. Even Darwin has lost his fearsomeness. In the past, his theory was sacrosanct. Laughing was not permitted. Now microbiology and genetics are making iconoclasm hip. Science is losing its cachet, just as philosophy did five hundred years ago, because it failed on its promise to make men happy. It reached its pinnacle with Einstein, the “person of the century,” and now looks on in dread as the weaknesses in its narrative are exposed. Resistance and rear-guard actions are futile. Science had its day in the sun. Now the ritual invocation of the word “scientist” in the media produces the opposite effect from what is intended: not awe, but a yawn.allanius_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

R0b, ------"Clive, thank you. It’s helpful to know how you interpret what you read. It’s also useful to know that all of the positions you express are non-provisional (with the exception of those that you express with a hint of provisionality). Now we know not to waste our time providing logic or evidence against your immutable beliefs." Thank you. It's helpful to know that you cannot tell the difference between logic and belief.Clive Hayden_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Pascal’s wager is reality---we make it whether we want to or not---and Dave adds the interesting twist of taking our odds from the greatest living scientists (the odds are of course much better if taken from the greatest scientists who have ever lived). But some pooh-pooh Pascal’s wager as a talking point for atheists. They absolutely know that their religion is true and should be presented as such apart from any assessment of risk and reward. Ditto for the atheist. But life is full of risks and there are many things that might be fun, chic or otherwise ego titillating but which ultimately yield to hurt and despair, and therefore the wise assess those risks in order to avoid the hurt and reap as much of life’s rewards as possible. Is there a God? Is there justice beyond the grave? And if so is it according to some mechanistic computation of karma? Or is there a Personality whom we could anger? Is the risk of ridiculing the God of our fathers worth the reward of the applause or our peers? One doesn’t want to die, as Qoheleth observes, “For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.” This, as the exegetes tell us, is from the perspective of our experience. No one really knows for absolute sure what lies beyond the grave. Anyone who truly believes that heaven beckons at the death of the righteous—and that it is so much more wonderful than the mundane existence we endure here now—might be tempted to value death over life (perhaps even proclaim himself “pro-choice”?). The problem here is that said doctrine is not biblical, as N. T. Wright argues in Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (HarperOne, 2008). Many disgruntled with established religion find it hard to swallow that a good God would consign anyone to eternal life in absolute anguish and torment, for none of us asked to be born. If God really wanted us to believe in him, then why this “hiding of the face” (hester panim) of Scripture? The point here is that we do not know everything, confusion reigns in religion as much as in “science”, and each of us must assess the potential risks and rewards of our actions as we chart our course in this world and for the one beyond. Sheldon Lee Glashow, strangely not ashamed to be listed among The Enthusiastic Brights, says repeatedly in The Charm of Physics (Touchstone Books, 1991), that no scientist ever discovers anything significant unless he somehow knows deep in his bones, all evidence to the contrary, that things are good. It’s the old notion that beauty is the best guide to the truth. And so whereas hope springs eternal in the human breast, those who love life will hope that life is not just a cruel tease—that the purposefulness that permeates the cosmos bespeaks a larger purpose wherein beauty and good triumph. And so we make Pascal's wager on way or another whether we like it or not.Rude_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

P.S. Mereologist has said that he holds all beliefs provisionally. Why would you think that this global declaration doesn't apply to individual statements that don't include their own hint of provisionality?R0b_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

Clive, thank you. It's helpful to know how you interpret what you read. It's also useful to know that all of the positions you express are non-provisional (with the exception of those that you express with a hint of provisionality). Now we know not to waste our time providing logic or evidence against your immutable beliefs.R0b_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

R0b, Yes. It is, because it has no hint of contingency or provisionality in it.Clive Hayden_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Clive:
Sure, but drop the phrase, “we can never”.
Why? Is "we can never" synonymous with "I'm 100% sure that we can never"?R0b_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

R0b, ------"But where’s the hook? Have you exposed a contradiction? Can’t mereologist believe, without being 100% sure, that something will never happen?" Sure, but drop the phrase, "we can never".Clive Hayden_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply