And it goes the other way too: Those who accept that rendition of Pascal's wager are heading in the direction of madness as well.
"If I am right, I go to heaven, if you are right, you die anyway."
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
And it goes the other way too: Those who accept that rendition of Pascal's wager are heading in the direction of madness as well.
K
keith1
Guest
Was it?
If one is suckered into wasting a full life on B.S.--that's a loss of say, average 70 years approx.-- then we calculate with some certainty that, disregarding the B.S. deity theory that has lately failed us, we can still count on what we have for certain:that it is possible to live once.
This "living once" proposition is good odds for living more than once. I mean, it would be bad odds if we never were alive to have evidence for the odds for living.
Now we can add the evidence that the universe will last forever, and punch this all in, to get a result that:
That wasting 70 years on B.S. is acceptable, since we may live many innumerable times, so what's one wasted lifetime.
But, you wouldn't want to make a habit of wasting lifetimes.
This is what I meant of the first as not being discussed in the wager.
K
keith1
Guest
The second part is not clear, as you remarked--and I'll go with you on that.
It is not clear how much time a deity gives for last moment forgiveness.
--10^-43 seconds?
--Space-time dilation effects in the bardo?
--Maybe everybody escapes the deitie(s) wrath? The deity says April fools.
When I said the wager was lame, I meant it just wasn't complete.
It is not clear how much time a deity gives for last moment forgiveness.
--10^-43 seconds?
--Space-time dilation effects in the bardo?
--Maybe everybody escapes the deitie(s) wrath? The deity says April fools.
When I said the wager was lame, I meant it just wasn't complete.
Last edited by a moderator:
K
keith1
Guest
Yeah, second that.
Unless you were addressing me, then I would say,
to debunk an archaic primitive notion in my own mind.
Last edited by a moderator:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Agreed. I don't abide by the idea, I am just providing clarification.
I'm still hoping for clarification per post 34.
if death is non-different from non-existence all retrospective quibbling amounts to zilch
K
keith1
Guest
I would not argue that, but to make certain I give the tangibleness of existence some advantage of "being an available element", for use in explanation--while unsubstantiated myths like non-existence and deities are less likely to be used as elements of an explanation, because of their intangible nature.
If you are arguing that existence sans god is the level playing ground for everyone you can't really argue an advantage (since even gloating about how you were right that we don't exist after we die will not be a victory available to you)
What is that notion?
I think that Pascal's Wager triggers primitve notions of what it means to be "religious" and to "convert," what "God" means.
The more upset someone is over Pascal's Wager, the more primitve their ideas of religion, God and conversion are.
"Primitive" as in 'substandard', 'uneducated', 'ill-willed', 'victimizing self and others.'
I don't have any specific views concerning the possibility of life after death, but given how little we understand about ourselves and the true scope of the reality that we live in, I don't see how it is possible to definitively conclude that there is death, and then nothing, for all eternity.
In fact once one gains an appreciation for just how physically and temporally vast the universe is, it almost seems absurd to reach such a definitive conclusion.
About the only thing that would force me to adjust my stance (which is to leave room for such possibilities) would be if it was somehow proven beyond any reasonable doubt that whatever it is that makes you 'you' (where 'you' refers to the entity that is having your particular experiences, rather than those of someone else) can only exist in a certain spatiotemporal location, and only as the collection of matter that you're made up of right now (this last part being absurd of course since you're not the same collection of matter now that you were 10 years ago, yet you've still experienced a continuity of self throughout that time).
In a nutshell, I've never understood why atheism should automatically lead to nihilism.
Because in the face of aging, illness and death, in their various effects and forms, it is eventually impossible to remain optimistic about life and enjoying life.
A state of wonder and curiosity, as well as a state of indecision and indetermination, is not a stable state, and it eventually collapses under aging, illness and death.
Which is why atheists who nominally consider themselves to be below 7 on the Dawkins scale, effectively are on 7.
You still don't understand what it's about. Not proof, not betting or wagers - hence 'gambit', as in a chess game - not religion, not atheism: just statistics.
It doesn't apply to faith, which needs no reinforcement and is irrelevant to critical thought, which can't be changed at will.
All I can tell you is that I am an atheist of sorts, yet my own personal philosophy does not render death as my greatest fear, even if I, as I know myself, do in fact cease to exist.
As for how my philosophy achieves this, well, that's for a different thread at a different time. Most likely a different forum, to be perfectly honest.
K
keith1
Guest
It was late so I will forgive us both, and allow you the benefit of rephrase, to fashion me escape by remembering, I negated both non-existence and deities in my discussion above. One is free to think whatever of the after-life (or lack thereof) as long as one attaches it to existence, as would be the evidential courtesy, given the current data.
Since non-existence does not attach to existence (does not =), and deities do not attach to existence (myth does not = existence), then it is easy to see how this conclusion is reached.
I will let you set your own bounds on where the end of the primitive age should be placed.
Some would say after Plato or after the age of Plato's teachers.
Some might say after Newton.
Some might say after Einstein.
--After 1945 (Atomic Age)?
--Still in primitive age?
I'm going to say we may still be considered primitive, because this philosophic issue we are discussing here, is still unresolved. Then the notion I was referring to was that Pascal's thoughts should be considered primitive.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, it's about your interest in Pascal's Wager.
If you take them out of context, then they would appear so, yes ...