Okay, here it is

Subject:

Comments:
: : my email addy is isaac@pcgeek.net : : i would love to discuss further. : ****I don't know how to copy this page over to my email - so I have to respond on here. Okay, here's my thought out response: : : : : basically, you're claiming that it's more useful to believe because there is little risk if yo'ure wrong and believe and a great risk if you don't believe and are wrong. now, i ahve to make this kinda quick cause i'm due at work in half hour, but in short, this is a remarkably stupid and illogical arguement, even if you DO take the pragmatist stance. : : : : why is it wrong? : : : : becasue i can use the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT to say the OPPOSITE THING, and, i bet you could even use the bible to back it up. : : : : here's your argument... : : : : B = believe in god : : : : E = god exists : : : : +,-,0 = outcome : : : : if (B & E), then + : : : : if (B & !E), then 0 : : : : if (!B & E), then - : : : : if (!B & !E), then 0 : : : : now, with B, you have the choice of either + or 0, while with !B, you have the choice of either - or 0, so you say, B is clearly the most logical choice. : : : : however, look at this argument... : : : : there is a god in heaven who does not want anyone to believe in anything they can't back up with sensory data. now, if you believe in this god, since he never gave you any evidence, you will go to hell. if you do'nt believe in this god, you're ok. if this god doesn't exist, and you believe, nothing will happen. if this god doesn't exist and you do believe, then nothing will happen. : : : : in this scenario, the stakes change to this... : : : : if (B & E), then - : : : : if (B & !E), then 0 : : : : if (!B & E), then + : : : : if (!B & !E), then 0 : : : : so, now !B is the preferred choice. : ***I agree with your conclusion that resulted from the statements in the preceeding premises. However, I do not place high value on the same statements that make up your premises. : : : : you see how silly this gets? : ***Yes, it's about making a premises with self-selected statements, then drawing logical conclusions from that. I also see that we both are in agreement to pick "+" conclusion over "0" and especially over "-" conclusions - no matter what the premises. However, it is exactly these exact premise statements precisely that we choose to derive a conclusive belief from that is what differentiates each individual person's personal stance. : : : : : what's more, there could be a god that wants you to believe in him, and ifyou don't, then you'll go to hell, but who ISNT THE GOD YOU BELEIVE IN, so if you believe in THAT god, you're still going to hell. since there have been scores of thousands of god-models thru the course of human civilization, how can you be sure that it's the right one? how can you be sure that ANY of them are the right one? or that there even IS a "right" one?? : ***The above paragraph falls under the probability argument - not the cost-benefit argument - I separate those two. My probability answer is "there is no answer". : : : : : if i have a firm belief with no evidence, then i am lying to myself. : ***How do you get having "no evidence" = "lying"? : If : no evidence = 0 : correct evidence = + : false evidence = - : : it is damaging to my own character to pretend to know that which i don't. as a 5, false knowledge and pretention are my demons, : ***But like the above, how is "false knowledge" = "absence of knowledge" : If a tree falls, and you did not hear or see it, did it not fall? Was the fall a "lie"? Or was it just "absence of knowing (via hearing and seeing)" about it? : and in order to integrate i need to admit where i don't have enough evidence to make a conclusion. i must, to be a virtuous person, doubt both positions. therefor, to firmly believe or disbelieve anything for which i have no substantial evidence would be injurious to me and the people around me here in this life. : ***How would not having seen or heard a tree fall (not having substantial evidence) be "injurious" to you and others in this life? : : and, while we can talk and talk about an afterlife, none of us know anything about that, so i refuse to use the promise of afterlife in my reasoning. : : : : so the stakes change even further... : : : : since i have no EVIDENCE, : : : : (let ~B = neither believe nor disbelieve) : : : : if (B & E), then - : : : : if (B & !E), then - : : : : if (!B & E), then - : : : : if (!B & !E), then - : : : : if (~B & E) then + : : : : if (~B & !E) then + : ***Again, the importance of your conclusions are always dependant upon how much value you place on it's preceding premise statements. If you don't put much stake on the preceeding premise statements in the first place, then regardles how correct or erroneous the conclusion is (or even positive or negative the outcomes are), it's not going to increase : the value you place on the conclusion (or it's outcome). : : : : so, you see, the existence of god doesnt' matter. what matters is being true to myself in order to be strong and virtuous and happy. : ***Being true to yourself can also be another way of evincing that you believe (via action, not words) : : : : now, you may say, "yeah, but what about the afterlife? doesn't that matter?" no, and here's why. : : : : i have found that for me to hold this form of non-belief is the most beneficial to humans on earth (since it adds a happy person to their ranks). any god who does not want humans on earth to have a good life is not deserving of my worship. : ***I agree too. However, other people define "good life" differently. : One man's poison is another man's bliss. : if god DOES care about virtue, then he will respect my decision and i will go to heaven. i'm willing to go to hell in order to help humanity : ***People define "helping humanity" differently. One man's poison is another man's bliss. : in a way that i'm POSITIVE i can actually do something, and belief in god wouldn't help that end. : ***God is what humanity possible in the first place. : : : : you see, if i pretend to beleive in god, then i don't DESERVE heaven. : : : : and if god doesn't respect the wellbeing of humans on earth, : ***He does. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong. : then i would rather goto hell than worship him. : : : : : : : : in truth, there is no way to logically prove the existence of god. : ***Agree. Like I said, I always separate the cost-benefit from the probability. Proving existence (as opposed to cause/deed/cost-effect/consequences/benefit) falls under the probability. : therefor, there is only the pragmatism of believing or not believing. since the EFFECT of belief is different for each person, no pragmatic arguement can be applied to all people generally. : ***Agree. No pragmatic agrument(set of premise statments) can be universally applied in equal force to all people generally - because of the value each individual will individually assign to each statement that would make up any set of premise-conclusion argument will not all be attributed the same value. Each individual person assigns different values for different preise statments - which is why the conclusions cannot even be argued over int he first place with much stake - regardless of whether the logical conclusions of eahc premise was erroneously drawn or correctly concluded. : that is, it may make you better to beleive. so believe. it would make me worse, so i don't. : ***Your choice to do what makes better (or at least not do what makes for the worse) is evidence (according to my beliefs) that you belief - via heart, action - not words, intellect. : if it makes you happy, and is beneficial to persons, then go for it. : : : : (nb... where i said "humans on earth" i shoudl rephrase that. what i meant was more to the effect of "all people" regardless of species or location. my mistake.) : : : : isaac : ***Thanks for the interest. (And patience.) I grew up with an originally strict Roman Catholic background, though my family has since turned into Fundamentalist Born- Again Christians about 10 years ago. I have been agnostic throught my 20s, now I am a 'Deist', someone who definitely believes in (One single Ultimate) God, affiliates with (aka - feels most comfortable with) Christians, but is not die-hard literalist on any one particular belief - Christian or otherwise. : Are you Jewish? (Guessing by the name.) If so, (or if not) have you ever read the book "Those Incredible Christians" by a Jewish author, also "the Book of J", also the Sumerian tales that supposedly preceeded the Jewish writing?

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: