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

“Never” means 100%. I baited you with this question, I have to admit.
Ha ha! Excellent baiting! But where's the hook? Have you exposed a contradiction? Can't mereologist believe, without being 100% sure, that something will never happen?R0b_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

mereologist, ------"Yes. Isn’t that the sensible position to take, given that we can never be absolutely, 100% sure that we haven’t made a mistake in our thinking?" "Never" means 100%. I baited you with this question, I have to admit.Clive Hayden_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Re #196 and #197 Neither of these posts contain the requested proofs. Possibly this is something you are going to supply when you get back from work? As I said I suspect I will never get them. That's because such proofs do not exist. Whether this is a dodge on your part is not for me to judge. Even if you don't believe you will change my mind surely your chances of convincing a "floating voter" are increased if you offer some kind of evidence or support for these two statements. So far all you have done is reiterate them. For completeness I am rewriting the two assertions to be as unambiguously as I can manage: (1) If something comes into existence without a cause then this logically entails that it must have created itself (2) Even if you do not accept (1) then for something to come into existence without a cause is a logical contradiction The more determined reader might want to check through the many comments above to confirm that you have not offered any support for either statement.Mark Frank_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

I noticed Echidna disappeared from the argument. Trying to define objective truth out of existence is an exercise that can only survive the rarified atmosphere of the cocktail party or philosophy department back room. Objective truth: "SpitfireIXA posted in this thread."SpitfireIXA_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

One final thought before I go out the door. I am rather surprised that you are not faimiliar that what you propose 'something from nothing" based on quantum physics is generally recognized by the theories proponets that indeed QM observations involve logical impossibilites. QM prompted Neils Bohrs dictum "A great truth is a truth of which the contrary is also a truth" Based on QM Bohrs embraced the abrogation of the law of non contradiction. The illogic of QM was one of the problems that Einstein could not accept " Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that is not yet the real thing" You might read dbt's post's..this from 163 "I do understand how problematic and paradoxical this notion is. That’s a good reason to be skeptical. It is not a reason to dismiss the possibility out of hand." I suspect dbt is well aware of the problem reconciling logic ( the LNC)and QM. It seems that those who are most involved understand that QM contradicts LNC. Off to work. Vividvividbleau_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

RE 195 "I suspect I am not going to get either …" Interesting ...my desire for clarification in order to respond more cogently is being viewed as a dodge? Of course I already know that there isnt anything that I am going to say that will change your mind for several reasons the principal one being your belief in magic. Only irrational people believe in magic thus I have very low expectations of presenting anything to change your position since I will be presenting rational arguments. I have as much chance of convincing a flat earther that the earth is round as I do you that indeed to say something comes into existence from nothing is illogical. No I a not writing to convince you because from a practical matter the ultimate judges are the onlookers. They will judge for themselves and that is the audience that I am concerned about. Since I do not have access to this blog at my office I do not know when today you can expect my reply. If I can find time to get home midday I will. Rest assured you will be hearing from me. Vividvividbleau_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

This is what I understand you to be saying. Self creation ( causation) is logically impossible because if X does not exist before creating ( causing) X then this would violate LNC. Is this a fair reading? Yes - except I am not quite sure what the "causation" in brackets means. But of course I deny that having no cause entails self-creation. And you have said that self-creation is not required to show the contradiction. I am still waiting for either: 1) Some proof that lack of causation entails self-creation 2) An illustration of why the lack of a cause leads to a contradiction, unless you accept the premise that lack of a cause entails self-creation I suspect I am not going to get either ...Mark Frank_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

MF: "I am not sure why you are asking me this question. You answered it yourself. 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." This is what I understand you to be saying. Self creation ( causation) is logically impossible because if X does not exist before creating ( causing) X then this would violate LNC. Is this a fair reading? Vividvividbleau_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

Please ignore last paragraph of #192 which I accidentally left in after cutting and pasting.Mark Frank_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

#191 That is not the answer I had in mind. But let's not get drawn into a quibble as to whether you already answered it - my answer is as in #190. For something to come from nothing it must, in effect, create itself. This is (2) as discussed above in #184 and #186 above. As I have said many times I disagree and you still have not provided any evidence or reason - you just assert it. Self creation is a logical and therefore rationally impossibility. For something to create itself, it must have the ability to be and not be at the same tmie and in the same relationship. For something to create itself it must be before it is. Something can be self existent without violating logic, but it cannot be self created You have said all this before and I have said I agree with it. Self-creation is impossible. It is simply the initial premise I disagree with. I don't think self-creation is entailed by the lack of a cause. In #188 you said: Then ignore it because 1 does not rely on 2 at all. It stands on its own merits. To say that something that comes into existence from nothing ie without a cause violates the law of non contradiction AND is a form of self creation. It does not rely on self creation for its validity. One could just say it violates the law of non contradiction if they wanted to. Show me the contradiction without referring to self-creation. What is it that is both true and false? Self creation is a logical and therefore rationally impossibility. For something to create itself, it must have the ability to be and not be at the same tmie and in the same relationship. For something to create itself it must be before it is. Something can be self existent without violating logic, but it cannot be self created Mark Frank_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

RE 190 "I am not sure why you are asking me this question. You answered it yourself." Is this the answer you are refering to? Am I to understand you have no problems with my answer? "It is not logically possible for something to come from nothing.To argue that something comes from nothing requires the denial of logic, specifically the law of non contradiction, the bedrock of science. The law states simply that A cannot be A and non A. (A-) at the same time and in the same relationship. Something can be A and B at the same time but not in the same relationship. I can be a father A and a son B at the same time but not in the same relationship. For something to come from nothing it must, in effect, create itself. Self creation is a logical and therefore rationally impossibility. For something to create itself, it must have the ability to be and not be at the same tmie and in the same relationship. For something to create itself it must be before it is. Something can be self existent without violating logic, but it cannot be self created" Vividvividbleau_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

#187 “Yes - self creation is a logical contradiction” I asked you two questions. Tell me why it is a logical contradiction. I am not sure why you are asking me this question. You answered it yourself. 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. But of course I am not challenging this. I just don't think that "X comes into existence without a cause" entails that "X creates itself".Mark Frank_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
01:31 AM
1
01
31
AM
PDT}

Re #188. If (1) is a contradiction then using your definition of a contradiction: "The law states simply that A cannot be A and non A. (A-) at the same time and in the same relationship. " What is A? (remember you are not using self-creation)Mark Frank_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT}

RE 186 "I absolutely understand that this is what you are saying. But I disagree with (2) and (1) relies on (2)." Then ignore it because 1 does not rely on 2 at all. It stands on its own merits. To say that something that comes into existence from nothing ie without a cause violates the law of non contradiction AND is a form of self creation. It does not rely on self creation for its validity. One could just say it violates the law of non contradiction if they wanted to. Vividvividbleau_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT}

RE 186 "Yes - self creation is a logical contradiction" I asked you two questions. Tell me why it is a logical contradiction. Vividvividbleau_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

#184 and #185 1)It is a violation of the law of non contradiction and 2) Is a FORM of self creation, in EFFECT self creation I absolutely understand that this is what you are saying. But I disagree with (2) and (1) relies on (2). Yes - self creation is a logical contradiction - but it does not follow that because something appears without a cause that it created itself. You define what (2) is but you don't give any reason why it must be true. My statement of the law of self-contradiction is the usual way of expressing the law and is just a more concise way of expressing yours (I did study logic at uni). But we can use your long version if you like: It says that P cannot be P and non P (-P)at the SAME TIME and in the SAME RELATIONSHIP. This a bit muddled as to whether P is an object or a predicate - but I get the general idea. Now suppose a quantum particle appears without a cause. What exactly is P?Mark Frank_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

re 183 "Try it this way. The law of contradiction says that P and not-P cannot both be true." No this is not the law of non contradiction. I spelled out the law in 141 "The law states simply that A cannot be A and non A. (A-) at the same time and in the same relationship. Something can be A and B at the same time but not in the same relationship. I can be a father A and a son B at the same time but not in the same relationship." The law is not "The law of contradiction says that P and not-P cannot both be true" It says that P cannot be P and non P (-P)at the SAME TIME and in the SAME RELATIONSHIP. You cant even get the law right and your lecturing me. Here is a suggestion for the future try reading what I write. Vividvividbleau_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT}

RE 183 MF:"But you haven’t. You have just asserted that for a thing to happen without a cause it must have created itself. I have said two things. For something to come into existence from nothing without a cause ( nothing can cause nothing) 1)It is a violation of the law of non contradiction and 2) Is a FORM of self creation, in EFFECT self creation. Got that? "You have made no attempt to show this must be true. You just keep asserting it." From 176 "What does it mean to say something is self created? Basically put, it would mean that at one point there was nothing, and out of that nothing something created itself. But this is absurd,for if there is “nothing” then not even the thing in question existed. But if the thing in question didn’t exist then it would not be able to create itself. Self-creation, therefore, results in a logical contradiction: The thing in question exists and yet non-exists at the same time and in the same relationship, if it is self-created. To say that something exists and does not exist at the same time and in the same relationship violates the law of non contradiction and therfore is a form of self creation." Mark would you care to tell me what about the above you find to be in error or are you just going to cotinue saying I just keep making assertions. I have explained my reasons for stating that for something to come into existence from nothing, without a cause, violates the law of non contradiction and is a form of self creation. So far the only one making bald face assertions is you. Mark I have two questions for you. 1) Is self creation logically impossible? 2)If logically impossible tell me why. Vividvividbleau_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT}

#178 “That is not the same thing as self-creation, because in self-creation, a thing is its own cause.” I have already explained why it is a form of self creation . Saying it isnt doesnt cut it. But you haven't. You have just asserted that for a thing to happen without a cause it must have created itself. You have made no attempt to show this must be true. You just keep asserting it. Try it this way. The law of contradiction says that P and not-P cannot both be true. A quantum particle appears without a cause. What is P?Mark Frank_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

Oh Dave, There is another alternative. A loving God who is not going to punish you if you sincerely do not know what this reality contains. A God whose existence, should that prove to be the case, could never be bad news! And how are you supposed to believe if you don't?avocationist_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT}

jerry: So, jerry, are you going to back your claim up or not? Here is something else you wrote:
Then there is a second type of challenger who does not budge an inch over time. They are easy to identify because of their attitudes and arguments. When rebuffed on one thing they move on to another but concede nothing.
Is that what you are doing now?Hoki_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

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? 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.mereologist_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden asks:
Do you hold all of your beliefs provisionally? Even the belief that you should hold all beliefs provisionally?
Yes. Isn't that the sensible position to take, given that we can never be absolutely, 100% sure that we haven't made a mistake in our thinking?mereologist_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

vividbleau wrote:
I have already explained why it is a form of self creation.
Yes, and I have already shown why your explanation is incorrect. Stated semi-formally, you claim that:
P1. For a thing to be uncaused means that it is self-creating. P2. Self-creating things violate the law of non-contradiction. Conclusion: Therefore, uncaused things violate the law of non-contradiction.
We agree on P2, which implicitly assumes that causality never acts backward in time. That seems eminently reasonable. However, P1 is false because it is self-contradictory. An uncaused thing has no causes by definition. A self-creating thing has a cause by definition -- it is caused by itself. Therefore an uncaused thing cannot be self-creating. Since one of your premises is false, your argument fails.mereologist_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

@mereologist:
Phin: Sez who? Mere: Anyone who thinks it is immoral to punish someone for something he or she didn’t do.
Are you saying that something is immoral because someone thinks it is? Sorry for the confusion regarding my second question. It was intended as a follow-on to whatever answer was given to my first question. As in: Someone thinks a thing is immoral. So?Phinehas_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

A good way to define nothing would be to say; whenever you think there could be a way for a thing to come from nothing, that "way" isn't allowed, logically, empirically or anyway. So just keep trying with that formula and see how far you can go. Whenever you think you have a way, just remind yourself that it isn't allowed. Because nothing's definition means it isn't allowed.lamarck_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

"That is not the same thing as self-creation, because in self-creation, a thing is its own cause." I have already explained why it is a form of self creation . Saying it isnt doesnt cut it. "You may not like the idea of causeless things, but they do not violate the law of non-contradiction." I have demonstrated that it does deal with it. Vividvividbleau_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

mereologist, Do you hold all of your beliefs provisionally? Even the belief that you should hold all beliefs provisionally?Clive Hayden_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

vividbleau, As I already explained, for something to come into existence without a cause means just that. There is no cause. (You didn't see my comment because it was being held in moderation.) That is not the same thing as self-creation, because in self-creation, a thing is its own cause. You may not like the idea of causeless things, but they do not violate the law of non-contradiction.mereologist_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Here is why to posit that something can come into existence from nothing ie without a cause is a form of self creation. What does it mean to say something is self created? Basically put, it would mean that at one point there was nothing, and out of that nothing something created itself. But this is absurd,for if there is “nothing” then not even the thing in question existed. But if the thing in question didn’t exist then it would not be able to create itself. Self-creation, therefore, results in a logical contradiction: The thing in question exists and yet non-exists at the same time and in the same relationship, if it is self-created. To say that something exists and does not exist at the same time and in the same relationship violates the law of non contradiction and therfore is a form of self creation. "you might regard it is effectively magic" Actually I regard it as worse than magic. As I said earlier at least when the magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat at least there is there is something ie a magiciain and a hat!!! Vivid you might regard it is effectively magicvividbleau_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply