The God-Dog Paradox
In general, the epistemic default is falsehood. That is, propositions are assumed false until proven true. Of course some withold judgment and are neutral but that's just a theoretical position. When it comes down to acting on your beliefs, the neutral person can't be differentiated from the person who has assumed falsehood. For example, there's no difference in behavior between someone who doesn't believe in fairies and a person who thinks fairies might exist.
Dogs are known for their loyalty, often described as man's faithful friend. Like all general claims, this belief has exceptions. See Dog Attacks.
Of course, people do caution "don't trust animals". But that does little to damage the reputation of our furry companions, some of them becoming beloved family.
That said, when people, for instance, visit other people in their homes, they keep an eye out for dangerous pets, especially big dogs with big teeth. In this case discretion is the better part of valor. So, here it's considered wise to assume the proposition there's a big nasty dog to be true. This epistemic stance of assuming truth can mean the difference between life and death. This runs contrary to the scientific stance of assuming falsehood by default (which I described in the first paragraph).
So, it's wise to assume there's a big nasty dog round the corner because otherwise, the consequences are bad.
Now, turn the page to God. Atheists believe God doesn't exist. Agnostics don't know. Actually, even theists themselves don't know whether God truly exists or not
However, the consequences of not believing in God are horrific - eternal suffering in hell. Yet, there are people, atheists, who outright reject God. Compare this situation to the one about dogs I described above. While it was wise to assume the existence of a big nasty dog, it is considered unwise to assume there's a God. This despite the close similarity between a Dog and God.
My argument looks like Pascal's wager but it's slightly different in being a non-mathematical argument from analogy.
Isn't this a paradox? Two similar situations are handled contradictorily.
Dogs are known for their loyalty, often described as man's faithful friend. Like all general claims, this belief has exceptions. See Dog Attacks.
Of course, people do caution "don't trust animals". But that does little to damage the reputation of our furry companions, some of them becoming beloved family.
That said, when people, for instance, visit other people in their homes, they keep an eye out for dangerous pets, especially big dogs with big teeth. In this case discretion is the better part of valor. So, here it's considered wise to assume the proposition there's a big nasty dog to be true. This epistemic stance of assuming truth can mean the difference between life and death. This runs contrary to the scientific stance of assuming falsehood by default (which I described in the first paragraph).
So, it's wise to assume there's a big nasty dog round the corner because otherwise, the consequences are bad.
Now, turn the page to God. Atheists believe God doesn't exist. Agnostics don't know. Actually, even theists themselves don't know whether God truly exists or not
However, the consequences of not believing in God are horrific - eternal suffering in hell. Yet, there are people, atheists, who outright reject God. Compare this situation to the one about dogs I described above. While it was wise to assume the existence of a big nasty dog, it is considered unwise to assume there's a God. This despite the close similarity between a Dog and God.
My argument looks like Pascal's wager but it's slightly different in being a non-mathematical argument from analogy.
Isn't this a paradox? Two similar situations are handled contradictorily.
Comments (166)
I don't agree with this right off the bat. It depends on the claim, really. And it depends on things like where the claim is coming from--is it a source that one considers trustworthy, for example?--as well as one's assessment of the plausibility of the claim--is it the sort of thing that one feels is likely to be the case? Most claims that we encounter on a daily basis are claims that we assess in that manner. So I wouldn't say that the epistemic default is to not believe something.
Also, empirical claims are not provable, though they are supportable--the two are not the same idea. But most people do not require support beyond things like plausibility and an assessment of past trustworthyness for most claims that we believe in our daily lives.
Quoting TheMadFool
So, it turns out that you're writing this long, rambling thing simply to present Pascal's Wager yet again.
The problem with Pascal's wager is that there's no reason to believe that if there is a God, anyone knows what the consequences of not believing in the God in question are.
With the dog situation, we do know the consequences of there being particular sorts of dogs. We have empirical evidence of that.
With God, there's only hearsay, but no good reason to believe any of the hearsay.
If there is a God with something like mentality, it could very well turn out that it's the sort of being who would punish those who believe in the God without good reasons to believe in the God, such as empirical evidence of the God. And that God could be executing a test that you're failing. Thus, when you pass away, your soul will be eternally punished for inadequate epistemic rigor.
What determines plausibility? For example, miracles are plausible to me, but they must obviously be quite rare, otherwise they wouldn't be miracles in the first place, but common occurrences.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Sure, but you don't know what Pascal takes "believing in God" to mean. What does it mean to believe in God according to you?
Quoting Terrapin Station
You do have empirical evidence for God within your own conscience - in the Eastern countries, non-belief in God is taken to be a form of psychosis, since people are expected to be aware of a spiritual reality in which they partake. So this consciousness that "there is no good reason to believe" is by all means not common to all of mankind - I'd go as far as saying it's not common to MOST of mankind.
So I have to assume both that "TheMadFool is an only child" and "TheMadFool has at least one sibling" are false? That would be a contradiction.
What if I posit that God punishes those who believe in him with eternal suffering in hell? Therefore it's wise to assume the non-existence of God.
Your argument suffers the same problem as Pascal's wager. It's a false dichotomy. There are more options than just "no God, and so no reward or punishment" and "God, and reward for belief and punishment for disbelief".
The individual in question's beliefs, which at least partially hinge on their experience base, as well as the sorts of things they require as support for claims, etc.
Quoting Agustino
I'm clearly referring to believing that a God exists, and that's it.
Quoting Agustino
No, that would be evidence of things that my mind is doing only.
What does that mean though?
Quoting Terrapin Station
How do you delimit what is your mind? Do you just assume that all thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc. are the product of your mind, probably in isolation from the rest of reality?
That there's some sort of being with at least some more or less "supernatural" control over events and entities in the world, etc.
Quoting Agustino
Yes. Because there's no evidence that thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc. per se are anything else. To believe something else I'd need to observe external-to-me thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc. But there appear to be none.
Quoting Agustino
I wouldn't use the word "isolation." They simply occur in a different location than other things. That's no different than the fact that bowling, say, occurs in a different location (like bowling alleys) than other things (like beaches) (which isn't to say that it would be impossible to bowl on a beach, but then we could just pick some other location as the example). Does that mean that bowling alleys are "in isolation" from the rest of the world? I wouldn't use that word, but maybe you would, if you'd use "isolation" for anything that has a physical location that's not "everywhere"?
But don't you already know my views on this stuff? I mean, how many times do I have to type the same thing before one remembers?
That's not what Theism, including Pascal would hold.
Quoting Terrapin Station
How could there be such evidence? :s It's a matter of interpretation, not a matter of evidence here it seems to me.
Quoting Terrapin Station
There appear to be none because all thoughts by default are perceived within your mind, but that doesn't tell us that your mind is their source. It's just like your eyes - just because trees are perceived with your eyes doesn't tell us that there are no trees outside your eyes.
Quoting Terrapin Station
What location? Thoughts have a spatial location? :s
Quoting Terrapin Station
It is very different because bowling can be perceived by the five senses, whereas thoughts can't.
Quoting Terrapin Station
No, because I have rarely and not in much depth discussed metaphysics with you - and I don't usually read your posts, since we generally participate in different kind of threads, so how would I be expected to know that? :s
Quoting Agustino
Which part would "Theism" or Pascal disagree with? That we're talking about a being?
Yes. God is not a being the way you and me are beings. Theism makes a distinction between the created - beings - and the Uncreated - God. If you look around you, you will see that everything in this Universe is created - there was a time when it was not. So what we know as beings are all created things. A certain rearrangement of atoms, with certain properties, etc. etc. but fundamentally created things.
If you were to ask me if "being" implies "created," I would say, "No." So that doesn't amount to disagreeing with me.
Then how do you get your notion of being if not from the things which you see around you, which are all impermanent and created? :s
Say that that's how I acquire my concept of "being." That does not imply that my concept of "being" includes an implication that beings are created. To assume that it would have to would be to not understand the act of abstraction in general.
For example, we could say that we acquire our concept of "triangle" by observing shapes and angles and relations etc. that are around us. That doesn't imply that our concept of "triangle" necessarily involves non-straight lines, lines that are not one-dimensional, angles that do not add up to exactly 180 degrees, etc.--even though we don't actually observe those things.
I thought you were an empiricist but okay. How would you define a "being" then? And does your concept of being apply to God in-so-far as it pertains to real things, or in-so-far as it pertains to abstract matters of the intellect - or both?
I'm primarily just using "being" to indicate that I'm not referring to, say, "everything," or "my consciousness" or something else like that. It's some sort of "independent entity" . . . it's unfortunate that when we do philosophy, we often have to pretend that we're talking to robots or retards or something like that. I'm simply trying to guard against that. Though of course, on the idea that we need to pretend that we're retards or robots or whatever, it's hard to guard against it, because it's difficult to anticipate all of the "misunderstandings" that a robot etc. would have.
Quoting Agustino
Re that, I don't really understand what you're asking.
I will take independent to mean separate from you. Well granted that theism generally holds that God sustains everything in existence at all moments, it seems to me that it would be wrong to think of God entirely as an "independent entity" - rather God is both within and without - both dependent and independent relative to you.
If it's simply a synonym for "everything," then I'd say that a lot of the talk about it is nonsensical.
No, it's absolutely not, because theism isn't pantheism. But the fact that God is both external and internal is true. For example, St. Augustine writes:
"In my heart of hearts God is closer to me than I am to myself"
So you would be wrong to think of God as external, you'd be wrong to think of God as internal, and you'd be wrong to think that everything is God.
In general I have almost zero interest in playing a word game where I have to guess what words are kosher to you to talk about this. And of course, almost zero interest in playing the "Let's pretend we're robots or retards" game.
Right. So all that I'm saying is that I was simply not using it as a synonym for "everything."
You agree. So let's move on.
Okay, we will move on if that's all you were saying. So you agree that your terms don't imply that God is purely external of you, correct?
Yes. And I don't think that laboriously going through any of this is important for anything.
Good. Next I have to ask you:
Quoting Terrapin Station
What does "supernatural" mean? Is the fact of the mere existence of the natural world a supernatural fact? And what does control over events & entities in the world mean?
Quoting Terrapin Station
It takes your eye to perceive an external tree. Does it take your mind to perceive an external thought?
First, "supernatural" was in quotation marks for a reason. Similarly here, the idea was simply to distinguish between a God and, say, Joe down the street, because Joe has some natural control over things in the world. For example, Joe can pick up a pen and write something on a piece of paper. Of course, I wouldn't have to guard against such misinterpretations if this (in general) didn't amount to playing the robot/retard game, because only robots or retards would think that maybe I'm referring to someone like Joe instead.
So Joe has the limited ability to alter some existing matter, by for example spilling ink on the paper. That's natural control to you. So then altering the chemical composition of water to form wine is a natural or supernatural control then, and why?
Do we have to play the robot/retard game? Philosophy shouldn't be about pretending that we're idiots. (That wasn't a rhetorical question. I don't mind having a conversation, but seriously, why do we have to have a conversation via pretending to be morons?)
The reason I'm asking you these questions is because it appears that the distinctions you draw are somewhat arbitrary. For example, you define natural control to be what Joe can do. But why would more powerful ways of affecting matter than those accessible to Joe count as supernatural? Is it just because they're not accessible to average people or what?
No I don't. Again, it's my experience that people engage in philosophcial discussion--especially on message boards and the like--by basically pretending that they're robots or retards (at least I'm hoping they're pretending). So that gets one into the habit of trying to anticipate the retard-like responses you'll receive. My "supernatural" in quotation marks was only meant to guard against an interpretation that I might be talking about Joe instead.
I don't know why I bother, because then we just have to go through this protracted nonsense instead then.
Quoting Terrapin Station
They're not retard-like answers/questions at all, but if you want to be thorough in one's discussion, one needs to elucidate all such matters, even though they may be boring. Without such engagement it is impossible to reach any conclusions, and our discussions won't be productive because we'll misunderstand each other. I remember you said in a different thread you're easily entertained, but that doesn't appear to be so now.
I wouldn't use the word perceive. You don't perceive thoughts, you have thoughts--in other words, it's something your brain does.
For them to be external, and not simply something someone else's brain is doing, and to perceive them, they'd have to obtain outside of brains somehow and you'd need to perceive them, at least indirectly, via your normal perceptual senses--vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch. Those senses are the means by which you perceive anything external, again, at least indirectly.
Can you have thoughts that you don't perceive?
And if thoughts are something that my brain does, will I see them if I open up my brain with my perceptual senses? My brain is physical correct? So presumably if thoughts are what my brain does, then I should be capable to perceive them by looking at the brain no?
Okay right - so external is anything perceived by the five senses, and presumably internal is everything that is perceived via other means than the five senses. If that's the case, you just defined internal and external in a very ad hoc manner. As if perceiving a tree is a very different experience than perceiving (read - being conscious) of a thought! It seems that both the tree and the thought are things I can be conscious of. So why separate some as external and others as internal? As far as I see it, the criteria for that separation would have to be based on what you can control, and what you can't control.
You can only have thoughts you don't perceive, per the definition I use of "perceive." Perception necessarily implies that you're receiving information external to you.
Quoting Agustino
You don't have to open up your head, you can use an fMRI, for example. You see them from a third-person perspective, of course, not a first-person perspective. Anything that you observe that's not you is the same. You observe it from a third-person perspective only. You don't observe it from the perspective of being it.
LOL. So have you just defined thoughts to be internal and the five senses to be external in that ad hoc manner out of your own fiat? Because my dictionary tells me that to perceive = "become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand"
Quoting Terrapin Station
Why not?! Why do I have this mysterious first-person access to my brain, and not to your brain for example?
Now hopefully you're playing retard here and not actually being a retard. I just told you that I define perceive in a particular way, and then I defined it. I explained that that's why I'd not say that you perceive thoughts.
How can that be hard to understand, and how would it turn into whether thoughts and senses etc. are internal or not?
Why did you define it that way? Do you want me to start defining common words in uncommon ways?! :s
Quoting Terrapin Station
Your definition is fucking ad hoc, that's a problem. You're using a word in a way that no one else is using it, and then if I start asking you what you mean by perceive, you say that those are petty details and I'm being a retard - so it seems that either way you're not willing to give an account of your beliefs!
Because of the way it fits with how "perception" tends to be used in my experience.
Quoting Agustino
I don't expect you to not do this. I just appreciate one being explicit about it when it's the case. I was explicit about why I wouldn't use the word "perceive."
Quoting Agustino
I spelled out why I wouldn't use the word "perceive." It wasn't hard to understand.
So perception is used in your experience in a different way than it is used in the dictionary?! Submit a request to amend the dictionary definition then, but until that time, I'd like you to explain your silly distinctions to me in common language. Are you capable to do that? I want you - in common language - not in goal post moving ad hoc Terrapin Station definitions are whatever the hell I want them to be language - to explain to me why you draw a distinction between the five senses and thoughts (with regards to perception) granted that they're both things that you are conscious of - and please don't redefine being conscious at the moment again - look at the dictionary.
Yes. I don't personally see dictionary authors as Gods by the way. It's simply someone else, someone just like me in many ways, attempting to report common usage per their experience. I wouldn't expect every definition in a dictionary to agree with my opinion of what common usage is, or to be philosophical coherent, or any manner of criteria. Of course, I'm not only reporting common usage in the definitions I use, but attempting to functionally analyze usage in a way that makes philosophical sense to me.
I made it clear that I reserve "perceive" for external information gained via the senses. There's nothing difficult to understand about that. It's fine if you use "perceive" a different way. I was just explaining why I wouldn't use that word. If you have some deep-seated need for us to use words the same way, then you'd have to conform to my usage, because I'm not going to change my usage.
That's an ad hoc definition. What the hell is external information, and why isn't your minds capacity to perceive thoughts another sense, just like your eye's ability to perceive sights is a sense?!
Are you claiming here that you're a representationalist or epistemological idealist?
Didn't you learn about your senses in elementary school? Why do I have to pretend that you're a toddler who hasn't even gone to kindergarten yet?
I've asked you to explain to me how you draw those distinctions - I don't see what my own position has to do with your explanation.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Yes, in my school I learned that I do perceive my thoughts, as well as objects in the external world. I have no clue what school you went to, maybe it was one for the kind of people you accuse me of being, but if you go out for a bit and ask 10 people if they perceive their thoughts, you'll see that more than 50% answer yes.
Because I'm not going to play a game where we pretend that we're robots.
Quoting Agustino
Did you learn about your senses?
Yes, I did learn about the five senses. What about them are you inquiring?
You asked why your thoughts aren't another sense.
Quote me where I asked this. As far as I remember I asked this:
Quoting Agustino
So that above is a strawman. I was told in my school that I perceive thoughts using my mind, and I perceive objects via my five senses. They're both perceived via something (which is part of me - my mind, or my eyes, etc.), so in this regard there is no distinction between them, and yet you're trying to draw a distinction.
"and why isn't your minds capacity to perceive thoughts another sense"
Ahh I see - well that's the commonality I was pointing to by that:
Quoting Agustino
Why does it matter to you if I use the word "perceive" in a particular way versus a different way that I'm specifying?
What word shall I then use to point to the commonality I have specified above? Should I invent a new word?
Well, we could simply say something like "Both thoughts and perceptions are mental phenomena"
That's still problematic because I wouldn't say trees are mental phenomena, and yet they are perceived via the 5 senses.
It's a toddler mistake to conflate perceptions and what's perceived.
I'd say that we become aware of objects via our senses of them, but our senses aren't mental. Our awareness/consciousness of them is mental, and the mind reaches out, as it were, to the objects via the senses.
"Perceptions" aren't the same as various senses either.
The definition of perception has absolutely nothing to do with any ontological stance. It's about word usage only. I simply wouldn't use that word in that context. There's nothing more to it than that. It's not as if any ontological stance I have is determined by what I'm naming anything.
Sure, but by rendering the word unavailable, you literarily force me to invent a new word :s - which is quite strange if you ask me. We should be speaking with the way language is commonly used, not re-defining it, etc.
I can't make any sense out of "thought is external" though.
You've said that you perceive external objects via your senses correct? At the same time you can also perceive internal aspects via your senses, true? I take it that thought has the same structure as the senses. You can also perceive internal aspects via thought, as well as external aspects - such as abstract properties of things, etc.
Correct.
Quoting Agustino
No. That's just nonsensical and would show zero understanding of our senses and how they work.
Quoting Agustino
That would suggest zero understanding of material you were supposed to learn in elementary school.
How do you then perceive a stomach ache? Via your thoughts? :s
Quoting Terrapin Station
:-}
You don't think that you touch, taste, smell, hear or see a stomach ache, do you?
You become aware of it via your nervous system.
Your nervous system is your sense of touch.
You must have really been confused in school.
If you have a hand or foot paralysed, you cannot feel with it. Why not?
The answer certainly isn't that your tactile sense is identical to your nervous system. C'mon man. This is boring, because you're just playing stupid. (Again, hopefully it's playing.)
Could you stop playing stupid so that we could have a conversation?
I'm playing stupid? You're the one who denies that the sense of touch is part and parcel of the nervous system.
Again, hopefully you're playing and it's not just that you're stupid.
Yes, but fundamentally they are one and the same, and it's important to realise this. The distinction is otherwise arbitrary. The five senses distinction is a bit arbitrary too, since we actually have a few more senses apart from the five mentioned usually - it's a pretty old distinction and not very up to date.
But for the purposes of the conversation, what's important to realise is that both the senses and thought can be directed towards both internal and external "objects".
Arguing that the distinctions should be other than they are is different than pretending that you can't even comprehend the standard view as such. So stop the games, the pretending to be a retard, and be straightforward with the argument for a different view (via an argument that would demonstrate that you understand elementary school material).
Right - did you have a look at the Wiki article I posted? What is popularly known as the "sense of touch" is part of the nervous system of the body.
No dispute here. However, traditionally the five senses are all our senses - so when I speak of the five senses, I speak with this connotation.
Quoting Agustino
Terrapin disagrees with this. Do you agree, or disagree with this statement, and why?
A: They'd never be able to change it, no matter how many you have, because they'd pretend that they can't figure out what a bulb is, what light is, etc.
You might have finally said something true ;) But funnily enough you yourself pretend you can't understand what I'm trying to say, and hiding behind little distinctions.
I want you to have a conversation where you don't have to pretend to not understand the idea of the five senses as you were taught that in elementary school. You can have an interesting conversation without having to play those sorts of games.
But the five senses do not include all our senses, since they don't include inner feeling.
I would agree that thought and our nervous system can be directed towards both internal and external objects. However, the five senses do not include inner feeling through the nervous system. So, the five senses cannot be directed towards internal objects like the nervous system can.
Sure - but you have to agree that the five senses are an old distinction which doesn't actually have much practical value today, since we have a lot more senses than just those. That's why I take the expression "five senses" to be a reference to all our senses, because in the past they were certainly thought to be all of our senses (although I agree this was wrong).
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Right, that's good. It may awaken Terrapin from the games he likes to play with himself...
? He's agreeing with me, moron.
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Are you stupid Terrapin? You're again pretending you don't understand the point. You were wrong that senses cannot be directed towards internal objects, they can. Just like thought can be.
I agree--and so should you if you were able to get through elementary school.
No. What I agree with is this:
"thought and our nervous system can be directed towards both internal and external objects. However, the five senses do not include inner feeling through the nervous system. So, the five senses cannot be directed towards internal objects like the nervous system can."
Do you also agree with this? :-}
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Thanatos Sand
The sense of touch is part of the nervous system.
Yes, but the stomachache is not part of that part of the nervous system. I've said that twice now. If you don't grasp it by now, that's on you.
The nervous system is one entire thing with multiple functions - so yes, it's not part of that part because you've just classified it into two parts because that's what you want to do, so of course it's not :s
No we weren't, because the five senses are outdated and definitely not "present definitions".
Noun
1.
sense of touch - the faculty by which external objects or forces are perceived through contact with the body (especially the hands); "only sight and touch enable us to locate objects in the space around us"
You said we weren't talking about present definitions. I showed we clearly were. So, your complement clearly fits...;)
This is useless..... You clearly are committed to reading everything I say uncharitably. That's not a nice thing what I just said about you, by the way. It's very closely tied with intellectual dishonesty. Here:
Quoting Agustino
So do you think I fucking meant that a stomach ache is NOT a perception, since it's not awareness/consciousness of thought or the five senses?! Clearly "five senses" and "thought" include much more than the basic understandings of the words. For example "thought" includes "emotions" in this context, CLEARLY.
But again, you don't read charitably, and both you and Terrapin should be ashamed of yourselves for hiding behind semantics and definitions, and shying away from discussing the substantive underlying matters.
Either way, back on topic. I've had enough of this bullshit. Back to philosophy of religion.
I don't think the argument as presented in the OP can be rescued from its problems. Its basic deficiency is that it treats our behaviour with regards to the Uncreated God similarly to our behaviour towards other fellow creatures in the world. Namely it tries to reason by analogy from the latter to the former and that doesn't quite work.
That's one of the reasons why I wanted to discuss what God means and how God is different from other things in the world (and hence there is no "paradox" as the OP claims), but it seems the point is lost on Terrapin as well - or rather he doesn't even want to be aware of it.
Why are you cowering from answering this question:
Quoting Agustino
Since Thanatos and Terrapin are impossible to have a conversation with - or at least so it seems to me - I will address your point directly rather than indirectly as I initially was looking to do. There is no paradox, since the two situations are different - they are not at all similar. Our behaviour with regards to God isn't the same as our behaviour with regards to potentially dangerous dogs in the world. That's because God is totally different from a creature - any creature - including dogs.
In theism there is a gap between created things, and the Uncreated - or God. As such, to apply the categories one applies to creatures in discussing and judging about God is a category error. Now someone who does not believe in God, and who denies God in their hearts, also denies themselves, for their own existence is predicated on the existence of God. I think atheism is by no means the starting position of human beings, but quite the contrary it is something that is only achieved by effort.
*Sees a fight*
*whispers* Stomach pain is perceived via senses -
*Terrapin throws a chair at me*
*continues* ... but it's an external feeling
*Agustino slips on the table shocked and gets thrown out of the window*
I don't see the point in making the distinction between perceiving a thought internally or externally as the perception is internal and thought is the same thing as perception of thought. Whose thought it is is defined by in whose mind its origin is in. By external thought I refer to a thought of someone else but the thought itself is of course internal.
As for the stomach pain, human body is external to the human and imo there's no difference as to how it's perceived and how the world outside human is perceived.
You many not see the point in making that distinction, but many people do and have. It's a key distinction in phenomenology from Hume to Kant to Husserl. And you may personally define external thought any way you like, but you can't expect others to use or accept that definition.
And the human body is not external to the human; it is the human itself. And again, you may see no difference in how it is perceived, but you cannot force that view on others, as both science and phenomenology consider another human being as externally perceived as an external object.
Then explain how does one perceive anything externally. I see the point in making the distinction between internal and external thought, not between perceiving anything internally or externally.
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Human body is external to human mind. Human body perceives nothing, human mind is always the one to do perceptions. Thus human body is external to the perceiving entity.
And the human body is not external to the human mind as the human mind is not separate from the human brain/human body. If you want to talk religion and ghosts and spirits, go talk to someone else. And of course the human body perceives; the human eye sees, the human ear hears and so on. If you don't get that, I can't help you.
"perceiving something" + adverb refers to how you perceive the information, not to the source of information, so by "perceiving externally" do you refer to perceiving external information, or are you making the assumption that the human mind is capable of with certainty to know the source of information by the perception, assuming there was a hypothetical difference?
Quoting Thanatos Sand
You could as well say that when you use binoculars, they're the ones perceiving the light. No, they're only transmitting the information, and similarly the eyes then transmit the information to your brain etc. Human body does not perceive information, human mind does.
The human body perceives information; the human mind/brain is the part of the human body that evaluates and records it. As you keep forgetting, the human brain/mind is part of the human body.
So, you see a difference between God and a dog. I should've been clearer in my post. Got carried away by the thought. Anyway...
I don't want to get into a debate about God's nature. I only want to point out:
1. The similarity, so far as potential harm is an issue, between God and a dog.
2. The apparent disparity in the way God and a dog are treated (despite 1)
Your comment though is relevant as you don't see God and a dog to be sufficiently similar. However, the key similarity on which argument hangs is potential threat. Nothing else about a dog matters and it is considered a wise decision to assume as true the equivalence dog = danger.
Flip page to God. From the reasoning presented in the above paragraph, all that matters is the potential threat issuing from God's person viz. hell. If it's wise to isolate the threat that a dog represents, it should also be wise to fix your attention on the threat from God.
The only way I can make sense of that is you a difference between an agnostic and an atheist. Yes, this is true. However, the similarity, which my argument depends on, is that both don't assign the truth value ''true'' to the proposition: God exists.
What's the difference between someone who thinks fairies may exist (person A) and another who thinks fairies don't exist (person B)?
The difference is purely abstract and when someone asserts that fairies exist, both persons, A and B, will demand for evidence. I mean that agnosticism and atheism are more closely related than, agnosticism and theism. So, it becomes reasonable to state the default truth value of any proposition is false.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I did say that my argument is like Pascal's wager. It involves analysis of the potential for gain or loss. However, my argument is analogical and reveals a paradox in human behavior - two similar situations being handled in contradictory ways.
Good point. That is a contradiction IF you hold that both are false at the same time. However, the normal process is to evaluate one proposition at a time. For instance we don't think God exists is false and God doesn't exists is false at one and the same time. We take the proposition God exists and then begin our investigation. Depending on the evidence we either affirm or deny the proposition.
Also, negative propositions don't get the same treatment as positive propositions. I've never seen anyone starting from negative propositions, e.g., God doesn't exist. Arguments begin from positive propositions. So, the issue of a contradiction doesn't arise.
Quoting Michael
What are these options?
Pascal's Wager is a gamble, depending, at its core, on win-loss analysis. Yes, my argument also involves win-loss evaluation BUT...it exposes a paradox in human behavior viz. we think it wise to assume that a dog is dangerous while we, paradoxically, don't think it's wise to assume god's existence. That despite both being threats.
I've given one: God punishes those who believe in him with eternal suffering in hell.
Quoting TheMadFool
"Negative" propositions can be re-phrased into "positive" propositions, as with my example of "TheMadFool has at least one sibling", which is a positive phrasing of "TheMadFool isn't an only child".
In this case, a "positive" phrasing of "God doesn't exist" could be something like "only the natural world exists".
God, by definition, doesn't do that. If you're going to change the definitions then it's pointless to argue.
Quoting Michael
But, that doesn't solve the problem. Rephrasing a proposition doesn't change the logical connection it has with other propositions, in this case the contradiction still holds.
How do you define God? God could be defined by his/her/its actions as well for example. We call the being whose son Jesus is God.
This is just pedantic.
The crux is that there may exist a psychopomp who punishes those who believe in him – or any other God or gods – with eternal hell.
This is ridiculously poor reasoning. You're concluding that the default epistemic stance for any claim is that it is false based on a supposed behavioral similarity between two types of people when it comes to a single claim?
Wait. Now you're deciding which empirical option is the case by definition??
So far as this thread is concerned, God is a being who promises heaven if you believe in him and hell if you don't. Nothing else matters. In fact, I think we can leave out even heaven in this discussion. I'm mainly concerned with the threat of hell.
Quoting Michael
Yes, but that's just being very imaginative. Please read my definition of God in my response to BlueBanana (above). I think my definition is true to the general conception of the term ''God''.
Quoting Terrapin Station
There are 3 options when it comes to dealing with propositions at the beginning - when you first encounter it:
1. Assume it's true
2. Assume it's false
3. Suspend decision
You can't choose 1 because you need good reasons for believing something to be true. There's an important step between a proposition and its truth viz. looking for good justification.
You can choose 2 or 3. I agree there's a difference between the two for 2 is a knowledge claim and 3 is a claim of ignorance. However, the similarities between the two, which I'm hoping you'll see, are
A) both demand evidence to switch to 1
B) There's no difference between 2 and 3 in terms of causal consequences. You can't distiguish someone who's never heard of Santa Claus from someone who doesn't believe in him.
So, it's reasonable to think that the default truth value of a proposition is false.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Please read my response to BlueBanana above. Thanks.
So? That doesn't address the problem at all. You're saying that it's rational to believe in God because if he exists then he'll punish you if you don't. I'm countering by saying that it's rational to not believe in God because if an evil psychopomp exists then he'll punish you if you do.
Responding with "I've defined God as being something that wouldn't punish believers" is a non sequitur.
Again, irrelevant. Your wager is a false dichotomy, as I've shown. As a rationale for believing in God, it fails.
Well your definition isn't how people generally define God either. It's what people generally think but not what is generally used as a definition.
Either God exists or he doesn't. Either you believe or you don't. Dichotomy is unavoidable except, of course, in trivial or irrelevant ways.
Quoting BlueBanana
Believe God = heaven and Not believe God = hell are not essential features of religion???!!!
That's not the dichotomy I'm addressing. The problematic dichotomy is "either God (a supreme being who punishes those who don't believe in him with eternal hell) exists or there is no afterlife". There are other options. There may be some other deity or supreme being or psychopomp who doesn't punish those who don't believe in them, or who punishes those that do, or who determines someone's afterlife by tossing a coin or by judging their earthly actions.
Perhaps the Greek pantheon exists, and Hades dislikes the religious and so banishes those who believe in God to Tartarus. Or perhaps everything written in the Bible is true, except the part where non-believers are punished. Perhaps God really is merciful and loving and rewards everyone with heaven.
I'll provide the SEP article's account of this:
God may exist or he doesn't, but he certainly doesn't have to exist as you personally define him.
That's not what I said at all. I said that's not the definition.
As I pointed out above, and as would be clear to you if you had any experience with real people in the real world (which obviously you must have), people do 1 all the time. That includes philosophers, by the way.
Or you could quote the part where you so clearly point that out. Not only that, you could even give a one word reply that'd clarify everything. But nah, I'm the one who needs to analyze your comments to show you haven't unequivocally made it clear. Fine.
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Neither option is incompatible with that statement so no.
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Same as the other one.
The rest of the comments are outside the timeframe where you've claimed to have made the question clear or are not directly related. If you disagree, reply with the quotation where you state your view. Your comments also include general disagreement with me, which I think you think implies either option, but it doesn't.
Either you by perceiving externally refer to perceiving external information regardless of whether it is perceived internally or externally, or you're claiming that there's no difference in how internal and external pieces of information are experienced by the human mind. You've made it clear that you think external things are always perceived externally and internal ones internally, but that doesn't imply either one.
So there you go, can I now get the one word answer: former or latter?
Quoting Thanatos Sand
If you don't want to discuss with people you disagree with, why use internet forums?
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Similarly to how consciousness (strong AI) can't be created by algorithms, it can't be created by matter and energy.
Quoting Thanatos Sand
You didn't respond to my binocular argument. Information is either brought to brain from outside it, so that the information is external to the brain, and there's no difference between it being brought via the nerves or a binocular or wires in your head, or it's created within your mind/brain so it's internal.
So, you can't show my statement was unclear. Thanks for confirming what we already know. Only clueless people think people making statements have a responsibility to prove their clarity. Smart people know it is on the onus of the critic to show how the statement is not unclear.
That nothing comment you made didn't counter my correct statement in any way. So, "yes."
This is incoherent nonsense made even moreso by its lack of sufficient syntax. Your run-on sentences are particularly painful. Nobody can rationally respond to that blather. After this, and your irrationality above, I won't be responding to any more of your posts after the one following this one.
I never said I didnt' want to discuss with people I disagree with. I said I didn't want to talk religion, ghosts, and spirits in this discussion. Again, you need to improve your reading.
Sorry, your irrelevant comment doesn't counter in any way my true statement about the human body not being external to the human mind. The human mind is not the same as A.I.s. It's cute you think they are.
I didn't respond because it was goofy nonsense like the goofy nonsense you repeated about it. Eyes are part of the body, binoculars are not. It's very odd you don't get that.
So, Ciao, as I said above, I have no interest in addressing your nonsense any further, so I won't be reading or responding to your posts on this thread.
I just did in that comment.
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Ok, somewhere in this thread I have flawlessly proved that the bread you ate was actually God in the form of dinosaur. Is it now your responsibility to go through all my comments word by word, and then quote them and your thoughts to prove I didn't prove that? Of course not.
Quoting Thanatos Sand
That comment was not a counter, it was an analyzing of your comment to prove it's not the one comment explaining which one of my options is your opinion, because you didn't even explain which one of your comments was supposed to contain your opinion on the question.
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Ok, it's complex because of long sentences and formatting but you earlier said it's the critic's responsibility to prove the flaws.
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Funny, considering they're essential to the subject.
Quoting Thanatos Sand
I don't, and that was the key point of my comment. And then you claim I'm the one who should improve my reading :D
Quoting Thanatos Sand
They're both merely means of delivering information to your brain, which then interprets the information ignoring its source. One is created biologically by your body while other is not which is irrelevant. It's very odd you don't get that.
Quoting Thanatos Sand
We'll see about that, if you really were as tired of arguing with people you disagree with so strongly you consider their opinions to be nonsense as you sound, you'd have finished this discussion much earlier.
We have no reason to believe in a god, so i dont see any fallacy at all, saying we might go to hell if we are wrong is a non starter. There's an infinite number of propositions that have terrible consequences if they are true and we dont believe them, how absurd it would be to consider them all.
Lastly, the whole atheist/agnostic thing is annoying, you seem to think there exist some large portion of 'atheists' who 'believe there is no god'... ive never met a single one of these people, im sure they exist, but they are simply irrational atheists who dont understand how evidence and proof work. Everyone is agnostic about God, because knowledge about such a transcendent thing that defies the laws of reality is categorically unknowable.
You seem to stand out from the rest. An essential element of planning requires factoring in the unforseen, the bolt from the blue that could burn the most meticulous of plans. In this case, God, we already know what it means not to believe in Him - eternal torment. So, your plan, anyone's, should include God. Quoting PeterPants
Late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, etc.
The very quote f mine you gave, the first one, is my main response to your comment. Please apply that to your assertion about the supposed 'afterlife'.
"Late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, etc."
and whats that about?
[Quote=King James Bible]He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.[/quote]
LOL, oh well, paint me convinced.
You had to ask.
I'd still like you to demonstrate your assertion... which you clearly have not done.
Scripture clearly states that not to believe in God is to be damned in hell.
Not to be wary of a dog is to open yourself to harm.
What i asked for however, was for you to demonstrate that non-believers, go to hell.
This would require the demonstration that hell is a real place as well of course...
And even your assertion, 'Scripture clearly states that not to believe in God is to be damned in hell." Who's scripture? Yours? The Prasthanatrayi says nothing of the sort for example.
So no, you didn't answer my question at all. my 'acceptance' is obviously quite irreverent.
But, to your proposition..
Indeed there are practical reasons to assume certain things as being true, even when they may well not be. Effectively, pascals wager in this area.
BUT, that does not mean that they actually ARE true, at all. Just because its practical to assume a big nasty dog, does not mean, at all, that there actually IS a big nasty dog.
And the idea of believing anything that could potentially be important to believe, is clearly completely ridiculous, you would have to believe, and act upon, an infinite number of propositions, its impossible.
It might be practical to believe in a God, so what? whats your point?
A dog can be friendly but, more importantly, it can be dangerous, even life-threatening.
Assuming a dog as a threat is pragmatic because animals are unpredictable and dangerous.
Not believing in God is dangerous because if you don't you're at risk of going to hell (Pascal's wager is precisely about that).
So, assuming God exists is also pragmatic.
Yes, there are infinite possibilities that can be dangerous. What's the point though? When we plan, as we routinely do, we always include the contingent. It's not necessary to think of ALL possible events. Only those relevant, as determined by the context, need be considered.
In our case, hell is relevant because we're talking about eternal pain.
Eternal pain? Need I make up ten different hypothetical's that result in 'eternal pain' if you don't do weird things?
Regardless of your bold assertions, you still have to demonstrate some validity to your concern.. The dog example is simple. Dogs can be unpredictable, there is a lot of data showing that even beloved family pets can act very unpredictable in rare cases.
We simply cant understand what a dog is thinking like we can with humans, we cant talk with them.
Thus, its perfectly logical to be concerned about a dog nearby.
So, why be concerned about hell exactly?
I'll venture to say that I'm about as concerned with your hell, as you are about man eating aliens hiding under your bed.
Strawman.
When we evaluate threats two factors are important:
1. The likelihood of the threat
2. The magnitude of the threat
Your alien example is neither likely nor poses a grave a threat.
A dog meets both criteria as you kindly explained in your post.
In the case of God, His existence isn't impossible and the magnitude of the threat is immense. So, it's best to assume He exists.
heres two.
The alien before mentioned, but now he has the technology to keep you alive indefinitely and is going to capture and torture you forever, if you get off your bed. not impossible, has to be assumed as true.
There is a God, named Plunkto, and he will torture you forever in the afterlife if you spend a single second of your life believing in the Christian God. Yeah, now your stuffed..
At the end of the day, the magnitude of a threat is irrelevant if the likelihood is entirely dissmissable. I see no reason whatsoever to think hell is real, and thus no reason to even consider the magnitude of its badness. Simply saying something is really really bad, is not a reason to think its true.
I would certainly argue that my alien example is more likely then your hell example. At least it does not require the addition of completely new physical laws and systems.. Its actually possible given just the 'known' order of reality.
Don't even get me started on the absurdity of appealing to something as 'not impossible' on a philosophy forum.
Just to demonstrate. Take the 9/11 attacks
It was thought
1. Highly improbable
2. The threat assessment was low
Look what happened. Nearly a decade on and we're still in its shadow.
The Tsunami that stuck Japan in 2011, claimed 15,000 lives.. But they didn't start a decade long war costing trillions of dollars.
Please dont get me wrong, im not arguing against the retaliation, just explaining that there was a real world cost to the reaction itself.
Obviously an intentional terrorism act must be treated differently then an unintentional natural event, but still.
Anyway, I still think your argument is not logical, terrorism is a real thing that happens everyday, there are people who go out of their way to explain in detail what they want to do to us.. We have every reason in the world to react accordingly.
If you want to spend your whole life huddled atop your bed in fear of the infinitely evil aliens that might be hiding under your bed, you are free to it. but then you cant ever drink water again either, or you might catch any of the large number of unbelievably horrible water transmitted virus' or diseases, dont walk down a street either, a car might hit you.
Arguing that people didnt predict 9/11 is not evidence for your God, nor is it reason to fear baseless propositions.
Let's revisit the argument (I hope it doesn't bore you):
Threat assessment:
1. Probability of threat
2. Severity of threat
With a dog, which is real, the probability of threat has a undetermined non-zero value. Also, the severity of the threat is high (many cases of fatal dog attacks). So, it is rational to assume the existence of a dangerous dog in a park, in a house, etc.
With God, probability of threat is not zero but it is close to zero. However, the severity of threat is almost unimaginable (hell for eternity). So, on balance, it becomes rational to believe in God.
According to some.
The idea of Hell derives from the following reasonable argument
1. God is good
2. If God is good then God is just
3. If God is just then the bad must be punished
4. If the bad must be punished then hell must exist
So,
5. Hell must exist.
I don't think so. If God is good he forgives.
Quoting TheMadFool
Doesn't mean you go there for not believing. Even if the reasoning was correct, only bad people would go to Hell, not non-believers.
You're right. Forgiveness is essential to God's nature. However, if everything can be forgiven then there's no difference between good and bad. But the distinction good and bad is also an essential nature of God. A paradox. One of the following has to be discarded:
1. Forgiveness
2. Good-bad distinction
Since 2 can't be discarded because that is a foundation on which God rests, 1 has to be the one that's wrong. Perhaps you can do better.
Quoting BlueBanana
If you don't believe then you're bad.
There is difference between good and bad. Just not in their treatment or consequences. There is no contradiction betwden 1 and 2.
Quoting TheMadFool
What? How? Why? Is this the "atheists are evil" argument? Or is not believing in itself bad? ??? ?
Perhaps we have to draw a distinction on the matter of consequences. The first type of consequence would be that which concerns people involved in a certain act. For example, A assaults B and B gets hurt. B getting hurt, a consequence, is relevant to the moral status of A's act. However, the other consequence, that of A being punished for the act, isn't relevant because that would be fear tactics and that, I think, undermines the whole concept of what morality is. Morality is an end in itself, having intrinsic worth. It doesn't, or rather shouldn't, need any further incentive/disincentive to behave morally.
However, what is the logic of heaven and hell then? Why do all prophets preach it? Is it because we haven't matured enough to understand the true value of morality, thereby requiring a carrot-stick paradigm to encourage us to be moral?
Quoting BlueBanana
I mean not believing in God would be tantamount to not believing in Good, in morality.
That's a possibility, or then hell is a state of mind, ie/eg the conscience and feeling quilty.
Quoting TheMadFool
Morality might have a value that is independent from God's existence, but I guess I can see a point in that as well, the God being the (abstract) concept of goodness or love itself so that (most) atheists believe in God, just not in what they call God.